Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2022

Vol.21, No.
5, 2022
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The International Journal of the Scientia Socialis Ltd., & SMC “Scientia Educologica”
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2022
Editorial Board
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
Editor-in-Chief ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Prof., Dr. Vincentas Lamanauskas Vilnius University, Lithuania
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Andris Broks University of Latvia, Latvia
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Prof., Dr. Miia Rannikmäe University of Tartu, Estonia
Executive Secretary
Dr. Laima Railienė SMC “Scientia Educologica”, Lithuania
Editors:
Prof., Dr. Boris Aberšek University of Maribor, Slovenia
Prof., Dr. Agnaldo Arroio University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Prof., Dr. Martin Bilek Charles University, Czech Republic
Dr. Paolo Bussotti University of Udine, Italy
Prof., Dr. Bulent Cavas Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey
Prof., Dr. Salih Cepni Uludag University, Turkey
Dr. Peter Demkanin Comenius University, Slovakia
Dr. André du Plessis Nelson Mandela University, South Africa
Dr. Markus Sebastian Feser University of Hamburg, Germany
Prof., Dr. Jack Holbrook University of Tartu, Estonia
Prof., Dr. Ryszard M. Janiuk Maria Curie Sklodowska University, Poland
Dr. Milan Kubiatko Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
Dr. Todar Lakhvich Belarusian State Medical University, Republic of Belarus
Prof., Dr. Jari Lavonen University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Rita Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė Vilnius University, Lithuania
Prof., Dr. Paul Pace Malta University, Malta
Prof., Dr. Valfrids Paškevičs Daugavpils University, Latvia
Prof., Dr. Jongwon Park Chonnam National University, Korea
Prof., Dr. Raffaele Pisano University of Lille, France
Prof., Dr. Pavol Prokop Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
Prof., Dr. Konstantinos Ravanis University of Patras, Greece
Dr. Alona Rauckienė-Michaelsson Klaipėda University, Lithuania
Dr. Dušica Rodić University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Prof., Dr. Heimo Saarikko Helsinki University, Finland
Prof., Dr. Hae-Ae Seo Pusan National University, Korea
Dr. Uladzimir K. Slabin Lane Community College, USA
Prof., Dr. Andrej Šorgo University of Maribor, Slovenia
Prof., Dr. Borislav V. Toshev Sofia University, Bulgaria
Prof., Dr. Georgios Tsaparlis University of Ioannina, Greece
Dr. Muhammet Usak Kazan Federal University, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation
A scientific journal JBSE issued by the Scientia Socialis Ltd., in cooperation with SMC Scientia Educologica, Lithuania,
emphasizes theoretical, experimental and methodical studies in the field of science education. JBSE is an international
academic journal. In order to maintain the high standards appropriate to such a journal, all contributions received are
submitted for anonymous review by two experts, additionally to review by the Editor. The decision of the Editor on
the acceptance of articles is final and no correspondence can be entered into on reasons for rejection of a submitted
contribution.
Published since 2002 Address:

The journal is published bimonthly. Scientia Socialis, Ltd.
IF: 1.182 (2021) Donelaičio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
H Index: 20 (2021) E-mail: jbse@scientiasocialis.lt
SJR: 0.48 (2021) Phone: +370 687 95668
ICDS: 8.8 (2020) Home page: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/
ICV: 163.07 (2021) Skype: scientia12
ISSN 1648–3898 (Print) © Scientia Socialis Ltd., a member of the Lithuanian

Publishers Association, Lithuania, 2022
ISSN 2538–7138 (Online)
The articles appearing in this journal are indexed/abstracted in Copernicus Index, EBSCO:
742 Academic Search Premier, Web of Science Core Collection (Social Sciences Citation Index ),
SCOPUS, ProQuest, Road, Crossref, ERIC and DOI.
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Editorial
CRISES OF THE WORLD, CRISES OF THE SCIENCE EDUCATION? LET´S TAKE A CRISIS AS AN
OPPORTUNITY!
Svatava Janoušková, Martin Bílek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744
Articles
A FOUR-TIER DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO DETERMINE PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
Ayşe Ceren Atmaca Aksoy, Sinan Erten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747
DIFFERENCES IN CHEMISTRY TEACHERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE
ACCORDING TO THEIR USER TYPE: AN APPLICATION OF EXTENDED UTAUT MODEL
Kateřina Chroustová, Andrej Šorgo, Martin Bílek, Martin Rusek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
MULTILEVEL LATENT PROFILE ANALYSIS OF ESTONIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’
CAREER EXPECTATIONS WITH SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND GENDER AS COVARIATES
Tao Jiang, Ji-gen Chen, Ping-chuan Xu, Ping-fei Zeng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788
TEACHING OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS BY SCIENCE TEACHERS IN JAPANESE PRIMARY
SCHOOLS
Hiroyoshi Kinoshita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
RASCH MODELLING TO EVALUATE REASONING DIFFICULTIES, CHANGES OF RESPONSES,
AND ITEM MISCONCEPTION PATTERN OF HYDROLYSIS
Lukman A. R. Laliyo, Akram La Kilo, Mardjan Paputungan, Wiwin Rewini Kunusa,
Lilan Dama, Citra Panigoro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
DEVELOPING COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE IN DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR
PRIMARY SCIENCE STUDENTS
Polonca Legvart, Metka Kordigel Aberšek, Maja Kerneža . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
EFFECTS OF INQUIRY LEARNING WITH DIFFERENT TASK ORDERS ON FIFTH GRADERS’
INDIVIDUAL AND SITUATIONAL INTEREST AND CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE
EDUCATION
Yinsheng Liu, Wei He, Li Zhao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
EFFECT OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING ON STUDENTS’ ATTITUDE TOWARDS LEARNING
BIOLOGY AT UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN RWANDA
Henriette Manishimwe, William Aino Shivoga, Venuste Nsengimana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
RSEARCH TRENDS AND ISSUES INCLUDING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN SCIENCE
EDUCATION AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Woongbin Park, Hyuksoo Kwon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
EFFECTS OF SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES BASED ON THINKING MAPS APPROACH ON FUTURE
THINKING OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
Nyet Moi Siew, Mohammad Syafiq Abd Rahman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Information
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
PROBLEMS OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
NATURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
743
This is an open access article under the Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2022
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/
CRISES OF THE WORLD, CRISES OF THE SCIENCE EDUCATION? LET´S TAKE A

CRISIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY!
Svatava Janoušková, Martin Bílek

Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic
The world faces several crises in the last years. There have been more active conflicts presently than at any
time since 1945. More than 82 million refugees must live away from their homes. The Covid-19 pandemic has led to
a dramatic loss of human life worldwide and caused economic and social disruption, whose further consequences
related to human health and further aspects of well-being can be only estimated so far. Many countries are fighting
climate change for a long time and this “fight” has been disrupted by unprecedented energy crises that changes
our energy goals from day to day. We are surrounded by uncertainty and worries about the future which rises of
populist forces even in the democratic part of the world. So, there is no doubt that we are living through chal-
lenging times. There are many strategies for coping with these challenges, one of them is acceptance. It allows us
to see reality in the present moment and to move forward. But still, there will likely be many options to choose.
We believe that science education is (can become) a means for explaining possibilities and our chances. At least in
some of the above crises. And sustainable development indicators with good narratives can be effective educational
and information tools bringing evidence about changes in the society and environment (Janoušková et al., 2022).
Let´s start with the uncertainty regarding decrease in well-being due to an energy crisis followed by an eco-
nomic crisis. We live in a culture of consumption where success is measured by prosperity - the key component
is the amount of money spent for goods and services, but also other contributing factors like health and happi-
ness. Regardless of the pretended omnipotence of humans our prosperity depends to a large extent on natural
resources and the planet’s ability to cope with human interventions. The indicator Ecological Footprint shows
that developed countries have already overused our finite planet -resources supporting our lives and sinks for
our wastes are both damaged. Global Footprint Network, an international research organization even calculates a
day when demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that
year. This Earth Overshoot Day can be easily found for each country (Earth Overshoot day, n.d.). The “overshootday”
website provides quickly accessible and very understandable information for students – they may discover and
interact with data, learn about statistical trends etc. Ecological Footprint reminds students by data and facts that
endless growth on a finite planet is a fiction. The coming crisis may be some limitation for humanity but also an
opportunity (exploring new potentials) and very likely a positive change for the planet, including climate change
(energy savings, new sources etc.).
However, this positive framework for the narrative may not be sufficient for all students. “What about my hap-
piness?” they may ask. Of course, healthy food, appropriate cloth, nice homes, and leisure activities bring well-being
up to the point. However, it has its limits - at a certain point diminishing returns set in (see e.g., Inglehart et al.,
744
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.744
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ CRISES OF THE WORLD, CRISES OF THE SCIENCE EDUCATION? LET´S TAKE A CRISIS AS AN
OPPORTUNITY!
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 744-746)
2008; Inglehart, 2010). Happiness is a vector linked also with other aspects like maximizing free choices, democracy,
tolerance, social relationships, job satisfaction, etc. In order to show students how well or poorly are nations doing
at achieving long, happy, sustainable lives, the indicator Happy Planet Index can be used.
Happy Planet Index combines three elements – a country well-being multiplied by its life expectancy and
divided by country’s Ecological Footprint (for further information see e.g., WEAll, 2022). When we analyze the
countries´ ranking, we find out that none of the European countries are among the first ten countries. Another
interesting finding is that the life expectancy and level of happiness in Germany (29th place) in 2019 was almost at
the same level as in Costa Rica (1st place), but at the cost of far greater environmental impacts. Isn’t this evidence
that a happy and long life depends not only on economic prosperity but also on other aspects, such as a clean
environment and Pura Vida – life with simplicity, optimism, and positivity?
From the point of view of science education, there is one more interesting aspect. The Happy Planet Index
combines data of a subjective nature (how residents of each country rate the quality of their lives on a scale from
zero to ten) with objective data (the number of years that an average person is expected to live in each country and
the average impact of each resident of particular country on the environment, based on Ecological Footprint). In
(natural) science we are used to work with objective data and findings, and we teach and emphasize it to students.
However, to foster a broader concept of scientific thinking in students, it is desirable to point out that the social
sciences work differently.
It is possible – and likely – that for some students the narratives using Ecological Footprint and Happy Planet
Index data will not be sufficient arguments and they will still think of prosperity in terms of money and possessions.
Hence, there can be used other – monetary – indicators. The statistical data show that one third of all the food that
is produced for human consumption is wasted. Again, it may say little or nothing to some student so let´s convert
it to the monetary units. We may easily calculate the price of food in three shopping bags we regularly buy and
imagine that we throw away one of them. Even rich people will think of such squandering, don´t they?
However, the money is not the only wastage, food waste represents another cost. Food waste alone generates
about 8-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021) and adaptation
to the climate impacts will cost money. In this regard, the World Bank´s estimate suggests the necessary global
infrastructure investments of $90 trillion by 2030 and we will pay this money. This can be a strong argument for
framing also other climate measures such as saving energy, water, responsible waste management, etc. For all
these measures we easily find environmental and economic (monetary) indicators.
A number of requirements are placed on science education. There is a call for relating science education to
everyday life; i.e., giving examples from everyday life, making computations on everyday phenomena or asking
questions on how to cope with everyday problems in our personal lives or society at large (Andrée, 2005). Further,
the STEAM – Science, Technology, Engineering, Technology, Arts approach in the curricula is enforced: Students
should gain “hard” scientific, technological, engineering or mathematical skills and knowledge; they should find
leverage both in hard and soft skills to solve problems. Some experts argue that there is appropriate teaching
socio-scientific issues in science education in order to show students the whole picture of the world (Bílek, 2018).
Without such an approach to science education, students – the future experts and decision-makers – can hardly
understand the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. Meeting all these requirements is not
straightforward and there should be more platforms like this journal for sharing good practice examples of deal-
ing with these requirements.
Our approach is finding the ways and means for applying the sustainability concept in science education,
including appropriate teacher preparation (Bílek, 2020, Janoušková & Urválková, 2022). A coherent part of it are
attractive narratives to raise sentiment of various types of students. The above examples are just drops in an
ocean. Nearly each producer of sustainability indicators provides us with vast amount of data in different formats
and visualizations that may be used in lessons and lectures. Finding appealing and relevant narratives is a role of
experts from pedagogy, didactics, psychology, and communication (besides the experts for the particular topic).
Such narratives may motivate students for the pro-sustainability behavior and at the time of crises they may sup-
port positive, future-oriented thinking.
Declaration of Interest
The authors declare no competing interest.
745
CRISES OF THE WORLD, CRISES OF THE SCIENCE EDUCATION? LET´S TAKE A CRISIS AS AN
OPPORTUNITY!
(pp. 744-746) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
References
Andrée, M. (2005). Ways of using ‘everyday life’ in the science classroom. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof
(Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 107-116). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_9
Bílek, M. (2018). Intercultural learning: Challenges for current science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(4), 532-
534. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.532
Bílek, M. (2020). Who is and should be a Science teacher. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 520-522.
Earth Overshoot Day (n.d.). Country Overshoot days. https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/
Inglehar t, R. F. (2010). Faith and freedom: Traditional and modern ways to happiness. In E. Diener, J.
F. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 351-397). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732739.003.0012
Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008). Development, freedom, and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981–
2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 264-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00078.x
Janoušková, S., & Urválková, E. S. (2022). Using sustainability indicators in university teacher training course. In Pixel (Ed.), The
future of education 2022 (pp. 262-265). Filodiritto Publisher. https://doi.org/10.26352/G630_2384-9509
Janoušková, S., Hák, T., Moldan, B., & Nečas, V. (2022). Indikátory udržitelného rozvoje jako prostředek vzdělávání veřejnosti a
komunikace [Indicators of sustainable development as a means of public education and communication]. In T. Cajthaml,
J. Frouz, & B. Moldan (Eds.), Environmentální výzkum a hrozby 21. století [Environmental research and threats of the 21st
century] (pp. 129-148). Karolinum.
United Nations Environment Programme (2021, March 04). UNEP Food waste index report 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/
report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021
WEAll (2022). What is the Happy Planet Index? https://happyplanetindex.org/learn-about-the-happy-planet-index
Received: October 04, 2022 Revised: October 12, 2022 Accepted: October 20, 2022
Cite as: Janoušková, S., Bílek, M. (2022). Crises of the world, crises of the science education? Let´s take a crisis as an opportunity!
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 744-746. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.744
Svatava Janoušková PhD in Pedagogy with orientation to Chemistry and Environmental

Education, Associate Professor of Chemistry Didactics, Department of
Chemistry Education, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Hlavova 8, 128
43 Prague, Czech Republic.
E-mail: svatava.janouskova@natur.cuni.cz
Website: http://www.natur.cuni.cz
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3803-7055
Martin Bílek PhD in Pedagogy with orientation to Chemistry Didactics, Professor of
(Corresponding author) Chemistry Didactics, Department of Chemistry and Chemistry, Education,
Faculty of Education, Charles University, M. D. Rettigové 4, 11639 Prague,
Czech Republic.
E-mail: bilek.martin@post.cz
Website: http://www.pedf.cuni.cz
746
This is an open access article under the
International License
A FOUR-TIER DIAGNOSTIC
TEST TO DETERMINE PRE-
SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
GLOBAL WARMING
Abstract. Global warming is the most

Ayşe Ceren Atmaca Aksoy, serious problem of our age. The most
Sinan Erten permanent measure to be taken against
this problem is to ensure that individuals
receive an effective and well-equipped
education, free from misconceptions,
which are obstacles to the efficiency of
Introduction education. In this study, it is aimed to
develop a four-stage diagnostic test that
Although the factories established with industrialization, the develop- can reveal the misconceptions of pre-
ments in the transportation and automobile sector aimed to facilitate the service science teachers about global
lives of individuals, they brought many problems with them. Such develop- warming. The sample of the study, in which
ments have not only caused the use of huge amounts of natural resources the survey approach was used, consists
throughout the world, but also greatly increased the use of fossil fuels, which of 401 pre-service teachers studying
is very harmful (Duran, 2021; Kurtuluş & Tatar, 2021). The damage caused in the science teaching department at
by this situation has exceeded the capacity of nature to renew itself. In this different universities in Turkey. The results
context, many environmental problems have emerged. Especially in recent show that the test is a valid and reliable
years, information about extreme weather events has been coming from measurement tool that can be used to
many parts of the world. These are not natural weather phenomena. These determine the misconceptions, scientific
natural disasters are the effects of the problems caused by the negative ef- knowledge, and lack of knowledge about
fects of humans on the environment, and perhaps the most serious of these global warming. In the study, the factor
problems, global warming, has been put on the agenda (Erten, 2012; Erten, with the highest percentage of pre-service
2015; Joireman et al., 2010; Pinto & Totti, 2020). science teachers’ scientific knowledge and
Global warming is the most negative result of human activities on nature misconceptions was the consequences of
(Al-Ghussain, 2019). It is the anthropogenic greenhouse effect that causes global warming, while the factor with the
global warming. In other words, the amount of gases called greenhouse gases highest percentage of lack of knowledge
in the atmosphere as a result of human activities reaches a dangerous level. was calculated as the greenhouse effect
It is possible for our world to have a livable temperature with the gases in the factor. It is recommended to use the
atmosphere. However, the negative results of human activities increase the test to determine the current situation
concentration of these gases in the atmosphere to abnormal levels, which regarding the level and areas where
causes global warming. Global warming has very serious effects that will the misconceptions of individuals are
have bad consequences for the planet and humanity. Melting of glaciers, concentrated to improve the missing or
difficulty in accessing potable water, global climate change are among the faulty areas in the science curriculum.
consequences of global warming that negatively affect the planet and all Keywords: conceptual learning,
living things (Gürer & Sakız, 2018; Herndon, 2018; Spence, 2014). environmental misconceptions, four-tier
It has been realized that global warming, which is on the world agenda, diagnostic test, global warming
is caused by human beings and will pose a danger to the entire environment
today and in the future. In this case, it has emerged that measures should
be taken to solve this serious problem. There are many things to be done to Ayşe Ceren Atmaca Aksoy
reduce global warming. Renewable energy sources, green energy are some Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey
of the applications that will prevent the concentration of the gases we call Sinan Erten
Hacettepe University, Turkey
greenhouse gases from increasing excessively (Shepardson et al., 2011).
However, global warming is a global problem, so the measures to be taken
747
(pp. 747-761) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
must be taken on a global scale as well as individually. With the understanding of the need for individual and social
action to stop global warming, measures have been taken and action has been taken. Education in terms of the
causes and consequences of global warming plays a key role in the fight against global warming (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2003; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009; United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2014).
Research Problem
Environmental problems are not only the common problem of a region, but also of all living things. Even if
environmental problems start in a certain region, their effects will be felt in other parts of the world over time, and
they are the common problem of all living things, especially humanity. In this context, individuals play a key role in
minimizing environmental problems. The only way to get rid of environmental problems is to enhance awareness
of individuals about the environment (Hedefalk et al., 2014).
One of the biggest obstacles to the realization of effective learning is the misconceptions that occur in in-
dividuals. Misconceptions may arise from the personal experiences of individuals or from environmental factors
such as course material and teaching environment. Misconceptions are obstacles that negatively affect individuals’
current and future learning and prevent learning from taking place in a correct and holistic way (Haydari & Coştu,
2021; Kıray at al., 2015; Yin et al., 2014).
In this study, the issue of global warming was emphasized. When the literature is examined, there are many
studies that detect misconceptions about global warming. The results of these studies show that individuals
have misconceptions about global warming and these misconceptions make it difficult for them to reach cor-
rect information and behaviours. In this context, consciousness and awareness about global warming cannot
be formed. Global warming is one of the most serious and urgent problems of our age. The most permanent
measure to be taken regarding this problem is to ensure that individuals receive an effective and productive
education on this issue. Only in this way can it be ensured that the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviours
of individuals about global warming are correct and environmentally friendly. However, thanks to individuals
who grow up with this awareness, the negative effects of global warming on our planet can be minimized. In
this context, teachers have a great responsibility. For this reason, it is important for teachers to graduate with the
right information and to convey this information to their students and raise them with environmental awareness
(Aksay et al., 2005; Prabha, 2020).
Research Focus
One of the biggest problems encountered in all fields of education, and therefore in science education, is
misconceptions. Misconceptions occur as a result of misuse of concepts and incorrect learning resulting from lack
of knowledge. Incorrect learning of basic concepts causes students not to be able to establish relations between
concepts correctly and to understand laws and theories correctly. In this context, individuals cannot gain correct
knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours by establishing wrong cause-effect relationships with regard to the
cases (Alkış-Küçükaydın, 2019, Mataka ve Taibu, 2020, Taban & Kıray, 2021; Yıldırım, 2020).
Education faculties are kind of teacher schools. It has the vision and mission of graduating today’s pre-service
teachers to be well-equipped teachers of tomorrow. In order to raise individuals as individuals with environmentally
friendly behaviours, educators in the field should be trained as individuals with environmentally friendly behaviours.
An educator who does not have sensitivity towards environmental problems cannot be successful in conveying the
sensitivity he does not have to his students. Pre-service teachers who receive undergraduate education in educa-
tion faculties are individuals who will teach our children in the future. The students of today’s education faculties
are the teachers who will raise our generations. The more equipped and effective the education that pre-service
teachers receive in education faculties, the more beneficial they will be to their students in their professional lives.
With the quality of the education they receive, they will graduate as teachers who are equipped with awareness,
knowledge, skills, values, and
behaviours (Deniş & Genç, 2007; Maulana, 2016; Öztürk et al., 2015).
Science education, one of the departments within the faculties of education, has a great importance in envi-
ronmental education as it trains science teachers (Derman & Gürbüz, 2018; Onbaşılı, 2020). When the curricula of
the Ministry of National Education are examined, one of the courses aimed at providing environmental education
to individuals from an early age is science courses. When the science curriculum is examined, it is seen that many
748
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ A FOUR-TIER DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO DETERMINE PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 747-761)
concepts and acquisitions related to the cause, effect and solution of environmental problems are transferred to
the students in line with the readiness of individuals at all grade levels (Gericke et al., 2020).
If we want to raise individuals who are competent and equipped on the subject of global warming, we must
first make sure that the pre-service science teachers studying in education faculties have awareness and sensitivity
about global warming. It should be absolutely sure that the information about the causes and consequences of
global warming is correct and sufficient. When the literature is examined, there are many studies that determine
the detection of misconceptions about the cause, effect and effect relationship of global warming. When these
studies are examined, it is revealed that pre-service teachers have serious misconceptions (Aksan & Çeliker, 2015;
Arsal, 2010; Arslan et al., 2012; Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1992; Boyes et al., 1995; Boyes et al., 1998; Khalid, 1999; Khalid,
2000; Khalid, 2003).
In this context, it is of great importance that science teachers graduate with correct information free from
misconceptions. However, teachers who have the right, sufficient and well-equipped knowledge can raise students
with the desired behaviours and attitudes. Fort this reason, it is very important to determine the misconceptions
of pre-service science teachers about global warming. If misconceptions are identified, necessary measures can be
taken to prevent such mislearning, and existing misconceptions can be compensated for (Koray Cansüngü & Bal,
2002). In this way, teachers who graduate with correct and sufficient knowledge can contribute to the growth of
future generations as environmentally friendly generations by transferring the skills they have to their students. And
also the negative effects of many environmental problems, especially global warming, on the planet can be reduced.
When the literature is examined, studies aiming to determine the misconceptions about global warming are
encountered. Some of these studies used a diagnostic test as a measurement tool. However, no four-tier diagnostic
test developed to determine misconceptions about global warming has been found in the literature. This study
is important in this respect.
Research Aim and Research Questions
In this study, it was aimed to develop a reliable and valid measurement tool to detect the misconceptions of
pre-service science teachers about global warming. In this study, it was aimed to develop a four- tier misconception
diagnostic test to detect misconceptions. With the developed diagnostic test, it is thought that the misconcep-
tions of pre-service teachers about global warming and the reasons for these misconceptions can be determined.
This study is important in terms of developing a measurement tool to be used to determine the misconceptions
of pre-service science teachers.
The research is of great importance in terms of its role as guiding research for studies aimed at eliminating these
misconceptions in the future. In line with this information, the following two questions were explored in this study.
1. Is the test developed to identify pre-service science teachers’ misconceptions about global warming a
valid and reliable measurement tool?
2. What are the factor-based values of pre-service science teachers’ misconceptions, scientific knowledge,
and lack of knowledge about global warming?
Research Methodology
General Background
In this study, it was aimed to develop a test to be used to determine the misconceptions of pre-service science
teachers about global warming and determine the percentages of pre-service science teachers’ misconceptions,
scientific knowledge, and lack of knowledge about global warming on the basis of sub-dimensions. The study in-
cludes the development processes of the “Global Warming Misconception Diagnostic Test”, which was developed
to determine the misconceptions of pre-service science teachers about global warming. The study, which was car-
ried out in the spring term of 2021-2022, covers the misconceptions, lack of knowledge and scientific knowledge
of pre-service science teachers about global warming. In this study, the survey approach from the quantitative
research strategy was used. The survey approach is one of the scientific research strategies used to determine the
current situation. In this study, the survey approach was used because it was desired to reveal the current situation
of pre-service science teachers.
749
(pp. 747-761) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Study Group
The “Four-Tier Misconception Diagnosis Test”, which was developed to determine the current misconcep-
tions of pre-service teachers about global warming, was applied to 401 pre-service science teachers studying at
13 state universities located in different geographical regions of the Republic of Turkey for validity and reliability
studies. Sekeran (1992), on the other hand, stated that a sample of 384 individuals could represent approximately
10,000,000 data. When the literature is examined, there are many studies that consider it appropriate to determine
the sample size in relation to the number of items in the measurement tool. According to this view, the number of
samples should be at least 5 times the number of items. Samples with 10 or more items are called perfect samples
(Bryman & Cramer, 2001; Nunually, 1978). In this study, it was decided that the sample size should be at least 400
by considering all these opinions. 401 pre-service teachers participating in the study were found sufficient for the
sample. The data of the study were collected in the spring semester of 2021-2022. The study group was determined
by the convenience sampling method. All of the pre-service teachers who made up the study group voluntarily
participated in the study. Of the pre-service teachers constituting the study group of the research, 302 (75.3 %) of
them were female and 99 (24.7 %) of them were male pre-service teachers.
Instrument and Procedures
When the literature is examined, it is seen that misconceptions are mostly determined through multi-tier
diagnostic tests. Although there are several different versions of these tests, mostly two-tier tests were used be-
fore (Caleon ve Subramaniam, 2010). However, over time, it became important for researchers to determine the
cause of these misconceptions as much as to identify the misconceptions. It was wondered whether the reason
for wrong learning was misconception or lack of knowledge. In this context, three-tier and four-tier tests were
started to be used to distinguish misconceptions from lack of knowledge. With the use of three-tier tests, it has
become possible to determine whether the main reason for the student’s wrong learning is misconception or lack
of knowledge. However, in the three-tier tests, the confidence level presented to the student was asked both for the
answer and for the reason step in which the reason for this answer was questioned. In these tests, the participant
has two options: to be sure of the answer and the reason, or not. In the four-tier tests, this situation was resolved,
and the confidence level was added after both the answer and the reason steps. With four-tier tests, it is possible
to determine whether the student is sure of the first stage or the third stage, which the reason for the answer is
questioned, with two confidence levels (Kaltakçı et al., 2015).
The first step of the four-tier test is called the content step. In this step, the information of the respondents is
questioned. In the second step, it is questioned whether the respondent is sure of his answer to the content step.
This step is the confidence step. The third step is called the reason step and it is the step in which the reason for the
answer given by the respondent to the content step is questioned. The fourth step is the confidence level, which
is similar to the second step. In this step, it is questioned whether the respondent is sure of the answer given in
the reason step. Thanks to the four-tier tests created in this way, scientific knowledge, misconceptions, false posi-
tive, false negative and lack of knowledge can be determined by scoring the answers given by the respondents to
these four steps. Possible decisions that can be determined as a result of the four-tier misconception diagnostic
test analysis are presented in Table 1. (Kiray & Simsek, 2021).
Table 1
Finalization of Four-Tier Test Decisions
Decision
1. Tier 2. Tier 3. Tier 4. Tier
of four-tier test
True Confident True Confident SK
True Confident False Confident FP
False Confident True Confident FN
False Confident False Confident M
750
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 747-761)
True Confident True Not Confident LK 1
True Not Confident True Confident LK 2
True Not Confident True Not Confident LK 3
True Confident False Not Confident LK 4
True Not Confident False Confident LK 5
True Not Confident False Not Confident LK 6
False Confident True Not Confident LK 7
False Not Confident True Confident LK 8
False Not Confident True Not Confident LK 9
False Confident False Not Confident LK 10
False Not Confident False Confident LK 11
False Not Confident False Not Confident LK 12
SK scientific knowledge, LK lack of knowledge, M misconception, FP false positive, FN false negative.
In this study, firstly, possible misconceptions in pre-service teachers were tried to be determined. It is thought
that these possible misconceptions guide the questions and optional items in the test. For this purpose, 5 open-
ended questions were prepared by the researchers, including the topics that are thought to cause misconceptions
about global warming. What is meant by the subjects is; the greenhouse effect, ozone layer destruction, acid rain
and climate change, which are determined to be confused with each other in terms of cause and effect relationship.
In the process of determining 5 open-ended questions prepared by the researchers, literature review, interviews
with pre-service teachers and observations of lecturers were used. Expert opinion was obtained from 2 science
educators about 5 open-ended questions. Before applying the prepared open-ended questions to the pre-service
teacher, 3 pre-service teachers, who will not be included in the study group, were given feedback about language
use and whether there was any part that was not understood. Prepared open-ended questions were applied to
60 pre-service science teachers by the researcher without time limit.
Student responses to 5 open-ended questions were examined and analysed by the researchers. As a result
of the analysis, the misconceptions identified in line with the answers given by the pre-service teachers to the
questions were determined. After this process, the misconceptions determined as a result of the domestic and
foreign literature review study, the misconceptions determined by analysing the open-ended questions, the
misconceptions obtained from the interviews with the pre-service teachers and the observations of the lecturers
were blended. And an item pool was created.
The questions created from the prepared item pool were converted into a multiple choice test with 3 options.
In the multiple-choice test prepared, after each question, there is a section that asks them to choose the reason for
choosing the above option from among the given options, and if the reason is not among the options, it allows
them to present it in writing. This justification section was used in the formation of the reason step when the test
was converted into four tiers. The test turned into a four-tier form by adding the confidence steps after both the
content and reason steps. The questions in the prepared item pool were examined by the researchers. With the
studies conducted, 14 questions were decided within the scope of the greenhouse effect, causes of global warming
and consequences of global warming sub-dimensions. As a result of the examinations, a decision was made on
14 questions. These 14 questions, which were deemed appropriate by the researchers to remain in the test, were
sent to three science educators working as faculty members at different universities for expert opinion. With the
feedback received, the test was given its final form. Before proceeding to the data collection stage, the developed
test was read to three pre-service science teachers who would not be included in the study group, and feedback
was received about fluency and whether there was an incomprehensible expression in the test.
751
(pp. 747-761) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Data Analysis

During the analysis of the data, the data were calculated with separate scores according to the possible
consequences of scientific knowledge, misconception, false positive and false negative. During the calculations, the
correct answer was coded as ‘1’ and the incorrect answer was coded as ‘0’ as valid for all questions. In the confidence
steps where the state of being sure is questioned, the ‘I am absolutely sure’ and ‘I am sure’ options are coded as ‘1’,
and the ‘I am not sure’ and ‘I am absolutely not sure’ options are coded as ‘0’.
While calculating the scientific knowledge score, the calculation is made on the data coded as 1-1-1-1, that
is, that the pre-service teachers answered the question correctly in all stages. When calculating the misconcep-
tion score, the calculation is made on the data coded as 0-1-0-1, when the pre-service teachers gave the wrong
answer to the first and third steps of the question and were sure of both confidence levels. While calculating the
false positive that is the correct with wrong reasons scores, the calculation is made on the data coded as 1-1-0-1,
in cases where the pre-service teachers gave the correct answer to the first step of the question and incorrectly
to the third step of the question and were sure of both confidence levels. While calculating the negative mistakes,
that is, the incorrect with correct reason scores the calculation is made on the data coded as 0-1-1-1, when the
pre-service teachers answered the first step of the question incorrectly and the third step of the question correctly
and were sure of both confidence levels.
The validity and reliability studies of the test aimed to be developed were carried out with Excel, AMOS and
SPSS package programs.
Research Results
Test Reliability
Reliability analysis of misconception diagnostic tests is performed by calculating two different reliability coef-
ficients. These coefficients are the reliability coefficient calculated for scientific knowledge scores and the reliability
coefficient calculated for misconception scores.
Reliability 1: Reliability of Scientific Knowledge
The first type reliability coefficient of the global warming misconception diagnosis test is the coefficient
calculated according to the scientific knowledge score determined according to the situation where the pre-
service teachers answered the questions in the test correctly and were sure of their answers. This coefficient is the
reliability coefficient to be taken as a basis when the test is used for to calculate the scientific knowledge scores
of the participants. The first type reliability coefficient of the global warming misconception diagnostic test was
calculated as .896 as a result of KR-20 analysis.
Reliability 2: Reliability of Misconceptions
The second type of reliability coefficient of the global warming misconception test is the coefficient calculated
according to the misconception score determined according to the situation where the pre-service teachers gave
wrong answers to the questions in the test and were sure of their answers. This coefficient is the reliability coef-
ficient to be taken as a basis when the test is used for to calculate the misconception scores of the participants.
The second type reliability coefficient of the global warming misconception diagnostic test was calculated as .705
as a result of KR-20 analysis.
Test Validity
The validity of the misconception diagnostic tests is determined by the data obtained as a result of 4 different
methods (Taban & Kiray, 2021).
752
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 747-761)
Validity 1: Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was conducted to determine the construct validity of the test. In cases where the theoretical
structure is certain, confirmatory factor analysis can be preferred among factor analyses to decide on construct
validity (De Vellis, 2012).
In this study when the data obtained as a result of the literature review, open-ended question answers and
the observations of the lecturers are examined, it is seen that the misconceptions emerge within the scope of
three sub-dimensions; the nature of the greenhouse effect, the causes of global warming and the consequences
of global warming. In this context, the items in the question pool prepared during the test development process
were prepared within the framework of these three sub-dimensions.
The construct validity of the study was ensured by confirmatory factor analysis. AMOS package program was
preferred for confirmatory factor analysis. Since the multivariate normality assumption was met, the Maximum
Likelihood (MLR) estimation method was used for the models. For confirmatory factor analysis in the study, χ²/df
(the value obtained by dividing the Chi-square fit statistic by the degrees of freedom), RMSEA (Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation), S-RMR (Standardized Mean Square Residual), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index), GFI
(Goodness of Fit Index), IFI (Incremental Fit Index) and TLI (Trucker Lewis Index) were examined. The fit indices
used to determine whether the theoretical framework supports the data in confirmatory factor analysis are given
in Table 2 (Hebebci ve Shelley, 2018; Kline, 2005; Tabachnick ve Fidell, 2007).
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Model Fit Indices of the Four-Tier Global Warming Misconception Diagnostic Test
Fit Indices Observed in Test

Fit Indices Perfect Fit Acceptable Fit
Model
χ²/df χ²/df ≤ 3 3< χ²/df <5 1.440
RMSA 0< RMSA ≤ 0.05 0.06 <RMSA < 0.08 0.033
S-RMR 0≤ S-RMR ≤ 0.05 0.05< S-RMR< 0.01 0.041
GFI GFI ≥ 0.90 0.85 < GFI < 0.90 0.965
AGFI AGFI ≥ 0.90 0.85 < AGFI < 0.90 0.950
IFI IFI ≥ 0.95 0.90 < IFI < 0.95 0.933
TLI TLI ≥ 0.95 0.90 < TLI < 0.94 0.915
When the analysis results are examined, it is seen that all of the fit index coefficients calculated for the model
are in the fit range. Therefore, no modification was needed in the model. The results obtained as a result of the
confirmatory factor analysis show that the data support the theoretical framework. The construct validity of the
scale was ensured. The path diagram for the confirmatory factor model of the four-tier global warming misconcep-
tion diagnostic test is shown in Figure 1.
753
(pp. 747-761) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 1
Path Diagram for the Confirmatory Factor Model of the Global Warming Misconception Diagnostic Test
Validity 2: Correlation between Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Correct Answer Scores and Confidence Scores
In the study, three different correlation coefficients were calculated in order to examine the correlation be-
tween the correct answer and confidence scores of the pre-service teachers. These are:
1. Correlation between the first and second tiers (first confidence score)
2. Correlation between the third and fourth tiers (second confidence score)
3. Correlation between the first and third tiers and the second and fourth tiers (both confidence score)
The values obtained as a result of the analysis are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Correlation Coefficient of Global Warming Misconception Diagnostic Test
Tier Scores r p
First Confidence Score .440 < .001
Second Confidence Score .492 < .001
Both Confidence Score .488 < .001
754
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 747-761)
As given in the table, the Pearson correlation coefficient calculated according to the answers given by the pre-
service teachers to the first and second levels is .440. This coefficient indicates that there is a midlevel significant
positive correlation between the answers given by the pre-service teachers to the first and second step. Another
calculated correlation coefficient was calculated according to the answers given by the pre-service teachers to the
third and fourth levels. This value was calculated as .492. This coefficient shows that there is a midlevel significant
positive correlation between the answers given by the pre-service teachers to the third and fourth steps. The
final correlation coefficient calculated is the correlation coefficient calculated according to the answers given by
the pre-service teachers to the first and third step, and the second and fourth step. In other words, it is the cor-
relation coefficient between the question steps and the confidence steps. The correlation coefficient calculated
between the two confidence scores of the pre-service teachers was found to be .488. This value shows that there
is a positive and significant midlevel relationship between the two confidence scores of the prospective teachers.
Taban and Kiray (2021) stated that since the misconception tests are difficult tests, there should be a positive and
significant relationship between the steps above, even if it is weak. Considering this criterion, it is seen that the
validity criterion is met.
Validity 3: False Positive and False Negative
As a result of the misconception diagnostic tests, besides the misconceptions, scientific knowledge, and lack of
knowledge of the participants, false positive and false negative averages of the participants can also be obtained.
In the misconception diagnostic tests, false positive occurs when the correct answer is given to the content step,
which we call the first step, while the wrong answer is given to the reason step, that is the third step, and both
answers are sure. False negative occurs when the correct answer is given to the reason step which we call the third
step while the wrong answer is given to the content step that is the first step and both answers are sure. In order to
ensure the validity of misconception diagnostic tests, false positive and false negative averages should be below
10% (Hestenes & Halloun, 1995).
While the false positive averages calculated in the analyses made with the data obtained from the pre-service
teachers within the scope of the study were 4.66%, the false negative averages were calculated as 1.65%. Both
values are below 10%.
Validity 4: Expert Opinions
Expert opinion was obtained from 2 science educators for open-ended questions asked to pre-service teach-
ers, in order to prepare questions and create an item pool.
When the question preparation and test development phase was completed, the draft test developed was
sent to 3 science educators working as faculty members in different universities and expert opinion on the ques-
tions was obtained.
The results obtained from the analyses show that the four-tier misconception diagnostic test developed within
the scope of the study is a valid and reliable measurement tool. One sample question in the test, whose validity
and reliability studies were completed, is presented in Figure 2.
755
(pp. 747-761) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 2
A Sample Question Regarding the Global Warming Misconception Diagnostic Test
Percentages of Scientific Knowledge, Misconceptions and Lack of Knowledge Based on

Test Items and Sub-Dimensions of Pre-Service Science Teachers
After the validity and reliability analyses were completed, it was seen that the test was a suitable measurement
tool to determine the misconceptions of pre-service science teachers about global warming. With the developed
four-tier misconception diagnosis test, the percentages of scientific knowledge, misconceptions, and lack of knowl-
edge of pre-service teachers were calculated on the basis of questions and factors. The data are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Percentages of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Scientific Knowledge, Misconceptions and Lack of Knowledge (%)
Content Area Test Items Scientific Knowledge Misconception Lack of Knowledge
1 37.9 26.1 26.6

Category 1
2 23.9 20.9 45.6
3 27.1 21.1 48.3
Mean (%) Factor 1 29.6 22.7 40.1
4 36.4 18.7 31.9
5 32.1 37.9 27.1
7 26.1 38.9 31.4
Category 2 8 31.9 27.6 32.4
9 45.8 24.1 24.6
13 69.0 9.97 15.7
14 57.6 11.7 21.1
Mean (%) Factor 2 42.7 24.1 26.3
756
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 747-761)
Content Area Test Items Scientific Knowledge Misconception Lack of Knowledge
6 49.1 21.6 21.4

10 29.9 41.3 23.6
Category 3
11 41.8 27.1 28.4
12 67.0 12.7 15.9
Mean (%) Factor 3 46.9 25.6 22.3
When the table is examined, it is seen that the average percentage of scientific knowledge of the pre-service
teachers for the questions in the first factor is 29.6%, the percentage of misconceptions is 22.7% and the percentage
of lack of knowledge is 40.1%. When the questions in the first factor are examined, it is seen that these questions
are related to the nature and mechanism of the greenhouse effect. When the averages for the second factor are
considered, the percentage of scientific knowledge is 42.7%, the percentage of misconceptions is 24.1% and the
percentage of lack of knowledge is 26.3%. When the questions within the scope of the second factor are examined,
it is seen that this factor includes questions about the relationship between the causes of global warming and
various variables. When the third factor is examined, it is seen that the percentage of pre-service teachers’ scien-
tific knowledge is 46.9%, the percentage of misconceptions is 25.6% and the percentage of lack of knowledge is
22.3%. When the questions within the scope of the third factor are examined, it is seen that these questions are
about the relationship between the consequences of global warming and various variables. When the average
percentages given on the basis of factors are examined, it is seen that the highest scientific knowledge average of
the pre-service teachers is in the third factor. The highest misconception average was calculated in the third factor,
while the highest lack of knowledge average was calculated in the first factor.
Discussion
Global warming is a serious problem in today’s world where industrialization continues to increase day by
day. The way to minimize the effects of this problem is to raise educated individuals. Individuals will continue their
lives as effective and well-equipped individuals in line with the education they receive. In this respect, it is very
important for the effectiveness of the education that the education they receive includes the right information.
Misconceptions are one of the biggest obstacles encountered in education. When the literature is examined, it
is seen that there are many different methods to detect misconceptions. Methods such as multiple choice tests,
two-tier tests, three-tier tests, open-ended questions, interviews, concept maps, word association are some of
them (Hestenes et al., 1992). With this research, it is aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool that
can be used to detect the misconceptions of pre-service science teachers about global warming. At the end of
the study, the “Four- Tier Global Warming Misconception Diagnostic Test”, which was analysed, was presented to
the literature. With the developed test, pre-service teachers’ misconceptions, lack of knowledge and scientific
knowledge percentages were calculated on the basis of questions and factors.
It is seen that the average percentage of misconceptions calculated for the questions in the first factor of
the pre-service teachers is 22.7%. When the questions in the first factor are examined, it is seen that these ques-
tions aim to measure the misconceptions of pre-service teachers about the nature of the greenhouse effect and
the characteristics of greenhouse gases. When the literature is examined, similar to our study, there are studies in
which misconceptions about these features are detected. The first of these misconceptions is the perception that
the greenhouse effect is a purely anthropogenic phenomenon (Daniel et al., 2004; Karpudewan et al., 2014; Khalid,
2003). Another misconception is the perception that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas or is the primary cause
of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (McCuin, 2011; McCuin et al., 2014). Another misconception found in the
literature within the scope of this factor is the perception that greenhouse gases exist as a thin or thick layer in the
atmosphere (Ekborg & Areskoug, 2006; Wachholz et al., 2014).
When the results of the analysis are examined, it is seen that the average of the misconception percentages of
the pre-service teachers for the second factor is 24.1%. The questions in this factor are those that aim to measure the
misconceptions about the causes of global warming. When the literature is examined, similar to our study, there are
studies in which misconceptions about these features are detected. The most common of these misconceptions is
the perception that ozone layer destruction or acid rain is the primary cause of global warming (Andersson & Wallin,
757
(pp. 747-761) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
2000; Arslan et al., 2012; Khalid, 2001; Kılınç et al., 2008; Satriadi, 2019; Yazdanparast et al., 2013). Other misconcep-
tions in the literature within the scope of this factor are the perceptions that forest fires, rotten garbage, fertilizer
use, fossil fuel use do not contribute to global warming, while nuclear power plants increase global warming (Boyes
& Stanisstreet, 2001; Chang & Pascua, 2015; Eroğlu & Aydoğdu, 2016; Etobro, 2020; Jafer, 2020; Mohapatra, 2009).
The average of the misconception percentages of the pre-service teachers calculated for the third factor
was calculated as 25.6%. The questions in this factor are those that aim to measure the misconceptions about
the consequences of global warming. When the literature is examined, similar to our study, there are studies in
which misconceptions about these features are detected. One of the most common misconceptions identified in
the literature regarding this issue is the perception that acid rain or ozone layer destruction is the result of global
warming (Boyes et al., 1995; Daniel et al., 2004; Hebe, 2020; Khalid, 1999; Khalid, 2003; Öcal et al., 2011; Yalçın &
Yalçın, 2017). Other misconceptions in the literature within the scope of this factor are that skin cancer cases and
cataract cases occur as a result of global warming. Another misconception within the scope of this factor is the
perception that the global average precipitation amount and the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere decrease as
a result of global warming (Boyes & Stanissteet, 2001; Darçın et al., 2006; Dikmenli, 2010; Eroğlu et al., 2016; Kılınç
et al., 2008; Koulaidis & Christidou, 1993; Khalid, 1999; Khalid, 2003; Lin, 2016; Yazdanparast et al., 2013).
Conclusions and Implications
The primary purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool for detecting pre-
service science teachers’ misconceptions about global warming. Within the scope of the study, a four-tier miscon-
ception diagnosis test was developed as a measurement tool. The developed four-tier misconception diagnostic
test has three sub-dimensions: greenhouse effect, causes of global warming and consequences of global warm-
ing. The sub-dimensions of the four-tier misconception diagnosis test consisting of 14 items were supported by
confirmatory factor analysis. With factor analysis results, it was supported that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd items were
compatible with the greenhouse effect sub-dimension. It was supported that the 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, and
14th items in the test were compatible with the global warming causes sub-dimension and the 6th, 10th, 11th, and
12th items were compatible with the global warming consequences sub-dimension.
The results obtained from the analyses show that the developed misconception diagnosis test is a valid and
reliable measurement tool for measuring the misconceptions of pre-service science teachers about global warming.
With the test developed in the study, the percentages of pre-service teachers’ misconception, scientific knowledge and
lack of knowledge scores were calculated on the basis of sub-dimensions. According to this calculation, it is seen that
the highest scientific knowledge average of pre-service teachers belongs to the sub-dimension of the consequences
of global warming. While the highest misconception average was calculated in the consequences of global warming
sub-dimension, the highest lack of information average was calculated in the greenhouse effect sub-dimension.
This scale was developed in order to detect the misconceptions of pre-service science teachers about global
warming. However, similar results are expected when working with science teachers. It may be recommended to
repeat validity and reliability studies in studies to be conducted with a study group other than science teachers.
Acknowledgements
This study was produced from the first author’s doctoral thesis.
References
Alkis Kucukaydin, M. (2019). Concept teaching in science classrooms: A critical discourse analysis of teachers` talk. Journal of
Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 5(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.568813
Al-Ghussain, L. (2019). Global warming: review on driving forces and mitigation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1),
13-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13041
Aksan, Z., & Çelikler, D. (2015). Evaluation of the knowledge and misconceptions of science teacher candidates in turkey
regarding the greenhouse effect through the use of drawings. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13), 112-120.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1080511
758
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 747-761)
Aksay, C. S., Ketenoğlu, O., & Kurt, L. (2005). Global warming and climatic change. Selcuk University Science Faculty Science
Journal, 1(25), 29-42. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/214946
Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect, the societal consequences
of reducing CO2 emissions and the problem of ozone layer depletion. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1096-1111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1096::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-8
Arsal, Z. (2010). The greenhouse effect misconceptions of the elementary school teacher candidates. Elementary Education
Online, 9(1), 229-240. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=7507ba1a-8540-486d-a2df-
6330c29e3f22%40redis
Arslan, H. O., Cigdemoglu, C., & Moseley, C. (2012). A three-tier diagnostic test to assess pre-service teachers’ misconceptions
about global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. International Journal of Science Education,
34(11), 1667-1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.680618
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1992). Students’ perceptions of global warming. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 42(4),
287-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207239208710804
Boyes, E., Chambers, W., & Stanisstreet, M. (1995). Trainee primary teachers’ ideas about the ozone layer. Environmental Education
Research, 1(2), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462950010201
Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., & Papantoniou, V. S. (1999). The ideas of Greek high school students about the “ozone layer”. Science
Education, 83(6), 724-737. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462950010201
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2001). Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose? School students’ ideas about the “greenhouse effect”
a decade on. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 6(1), 77-101. https://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/article/view/289/196
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientists (1st ed.).
Routledge.
Caleon, I. & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’
understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939-961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130
Chang, C. H., & Pascua, L. (2015). ‘The hole in the sky causes global warming’: A case study of secondary school students’
climate change alternative conceptions. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 5(3), 316-331.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1158061
Daniel, B., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2004). How can we best reduce global warming? School students’ ideas and misconceptions.
International Journal of Environmental Studies, 61(2), 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020723032000087907
Darcın, E. S., Bozkurt, O., Hamalosmanoğlu, M., & Köse, S. (2016). Determination of elementary students’ level of knowledge
and misconceptions about greenhouse effect. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 1(2), 104-115.
http://www.ijese.net/makale_indir/IJESE_1259_article_581e0fb410d73.pdf
Denis, H. & Genc, H. (2007). A comparison of attitudes towards environment and achievement in environmental science course
of primary school teachers who take and didn’t take environmental science course. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
Faculty of Education, 13, 20-26.
Derman, M. & Gurbuz, H. (2018). Environmental education in the science curriculum in different countries: Turkey,
Australia, Singapore, Ireland, and Canada. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 4(2), 129-141.
https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.409495
De Vellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications.(5th ed.) Sage publications.
Dikmenli, M. (2010). Biology students’ conceptual structures regarding global warming. Energy Education Science and Technology
Part B: Social and Educational Studies 2(1), 21-38.
Duran, M. (2021). Perception of preschool children about environmental pollution. Journal of Education in Science Environment
and Health, 7(3), 200-219. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.733800
Eroğlu, B., & Aydoğdu, M. (2016). Determination of pre-service science teachers’ knowledge level about global warming. Journal
of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 29(2), 345-374.
Eroglu, S., Bektas, O., & Tarkin, A. (2016). High school students’ perceptions toward environmental issues: a phenomological study.
The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 6(4), 117-131.
Etobro, B. A. (2020). Pre-service biology teachers’ perception of global warming, greenhouse effect and ozone layer depletion in
Lagos state university. Global Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v19i1.3
Ekborg, M., & Areskoug, M. (2006). How student teachers’ understanding of the greenhouse effect develops during a teacher
education programme. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 2(3), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.411
Erten, S. (2012), Environmental consciousness among Turkish and Azeri candidate teachers. Education and Science, 37(166), 88-100.
Erten, S. (2015), University Students’ interests towards environmental issues and their origins. Pamukkale University Journal of
Education, 38(38), 157- 167.
Gericke, N., Huang, L., Knippels, M. C., Christodoulou, A., Dam, F. V., & Gasparovic, S. (2020). Environmental citizenship in secondary
formal education: The importance of curriculum and subject teachers. In Mueller, M., P. & Tippins D., J. (Eds.) In Conceptualizing
environmental citizenship for 21st century education (pp. 193-212). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20249-1
Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’
misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
Gurer, A., & Sakız, G. (2018). Global warming knowledge levels and recycling awareness in adults. Itobiad: Journal of the Human
& Social Science Researches, 7(2), 1364-1391.
759
(pp. 747-761) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Haydari, V., & Costu, B. (2021). The effect of common knowledge construction model-based instruction on 5th grade students’
conceptual understanding of biodiversity. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(3), 182-199.
https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.840798
Hebe, H. (2020). In–service teachers’ knowledge and misconceptions of global warming and ozone layer depletion: A case study.
Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.618491
Hebebci, M. T., & Shelley, M. (2018). Analysis of the relationship between university students’ problematic ınternet use and
loneliness. International Journal Assessment Tools in Education, 5(2), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.402690
Hedefalk, M., Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2014). Education for sustainable development in early childhood education: A review of
the research literature. Environmental Education Research, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.971716
Herndon, J. M. (2018). Air pollution, not greenhouse gases: The principal cause of global warming. Journal of Geography,
Environment and Earth Science International, 17(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.9734/JGEESI/2018/44290
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and
Heller. The Physics Teacher, 33(8), 502-506. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2344278
Jafer, Y. J. (2020). Assessing Kuwaiti pre-service science teachers’ greenhouse effect perceptions and misconceptions. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 657-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09992-1
Joireman, J., Truelove, H. B., & Duell, B. (2010). Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global
warming. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.004
Karpudewan, M., Roth, W. M., & Chandrakesan, K. (2015). Remediating misconception on climate change among secondary school
students in Malaysia. Environmental Education Research, 21(4), 631-648. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.891004
Khalid, T. (1999). The study of pre-service teachers’ alternative conceptions regarding three ecological issues. 5-21.
http://www.sadil.ws/bitstream/handle/123456789/1434/ED444845.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Khalid, T. (2000). Pre-service elementary teachers’ misconceptions with respect to three environmental issues. [Doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304624493?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Khalid, T. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ misconceptions regarding three environmental issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental
Education (CJEE), 6(1), 102-120.
Khalid, T. (2003). Pre-service high school teachers’ perceptions of three environmental phenomena. Environmental Education
Research, 9(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620303466
Kilinc, A., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2008). Turkish students’ ideas about global warming. International Journal of Environmental
and Science Education, 3(2), 89-98. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ894851
Kiray, S. A., & Simsek, S. (2021). Determination and evaluation of the science teacher candidates’ misconceptions about
density by using four-tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(5), 935-955.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10087-5
Kiray, S. A., Aktan, F., Kaynar, H., Kilinc, S., & Gorkemli, T. (2015, December). A descriptive study of pre-service science teachers’
misconceptions about sinking–floating. In Asia-Pacific forum on science learning and teaching, 16(2), 1-28. The Education
University of Hong Kong, Department of Science and Environmental Studies.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.). Guilford, 3.
Koray C., Ö., & Bal, Ş. (2002). Misconceptions in science teaching and conceptual change strategy. Gazi University Kastamonu
Education Journal, 10(1), 83-90.
Koulaidis, V., & Christidou, I. (1993, August). Children’s misconceptions and cognitive strategies regarding the understanding of
the ozone layer depletion. In Proceedings of the third international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in
science and mathematics. Cornell University (distributed electronically).
Kurtuluş, M. A., & Tatar, N. (2021). A bibliometrical analysis of the articles on environmental education published between 1973
and 2019. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(3), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.960169
Lin, J. (2016). Chinese grade eight students’ understanding about the concept of global warming. Eurasıa Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1313-1330. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00672a
Mataka, L., & Taibu, R. (2020). Conceptual change inquiry curriculum and traditional lecture approach: Preservice teacher’s perceptions
of learning. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 6(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.669108
Maulana, H. (2016). Implementation of character education in nature schools. Jurnal Khasanah Ilmu, 7(1), 21–31.
https://doi.org/2087-0086
Mccuin, J. L. (2011). Measuring the effect of misconceptions instruction on the acquisition of fundamental physics
c o n c e p t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e g r e e n h o u s e e f f e c t [ D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Te x a s Te c h U n i v e r s i t y ] .
https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/ETD-TTU-2011-05-1483/MCCUIN-DISSERTATION.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
McCuin, J. L., Hayhoe, K., & Hayhoe, D. (2014). Comparing the effects of traditional vs. misconceptions-based instruction on student
understanding of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-068.1
Mohapatra, A. K. (2009). Students’ perception of the global warming. Journal of Indian Education, 35(1), 35-44.
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development
Co-Operation. OECD Publishing: Paris. https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/44887764.pdf
Ocal, A., Kisoglu, M., Alas, A., & Gurbuz, H. (2011). Turkish prospective teachers’ understanding and misunderstanding
on global warming. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 20(3), 215-226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2011.588504
760
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 747-761)
Onbaşılı, Ü. İ. (2020). Investigation of the effects of out-of-school learning environments on the attitudes and opinions of
prospective classroom teachers about renewable energy sources. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health,
6(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.670049
Ozturk, T., Ozturk, F. Z., & Sahin, A. (2015). The investigation of primary school teacher candidates’ efficacy perception of
environmental education. Journal of Amasya University Faculty of Education, 4(2), 293-311.
Prabha, S. (2020). Students’ views on difficulties in conceptual understanding of science at secondary stage. The Eurasia Proceedings
of Educational and Social Sciences, 16, 1-10. http://www.epess.net/en/download/article-file/1161555
Pinto, V., & Totti, M. E. F. (2020). Environmental education and perception about the environment by high school students and
teachers. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 6(3), 169-176. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.705437
Satriadi, S., Liliawati, W., Hasanah, L., & Samsudin, A. (2019). K-12 students’ misconception ability on global warming: a case study.
In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/5/052056
Sekaran, U. (1992). Research methods for managers: A skill-building approach (2nd Ed.). John Wiley.
Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2011). Students’ conceptions about the greenhouse effect, global
warming, and climate change. Climatic Change, 104(3), 481-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9786-9
Spence, C. (2014). Global warming: Personal solutions for a healthy planet. St. Martin’s Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
Taban, T., & Kiray, S. A. (2021). Determination of science teacher candidates’ misconceptions on liquid pressure with four-tier
diagnostic test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10224-8
United Nations Environment Programme (2003). How Will Global Warming Affect My World: A Simplified Guide to the IPCC’s
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2014). The Lima Ministerial Declaration on education and awareness-
raising. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Wachholz, S., Artz, N., & Chene, D. (2014). Warming to the idea: University students’ knowledge and attitudes about climate
change. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(2), 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2012-0025
Yalcin, F. A., & Yalcin, M. (2017). Turkish primary science teacher candidates’ understandings of global warming and ozone layer
depletion. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(10), 218-230. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i10.2225
Yazdanparast, T., Salehpour, S., Masjedi, M. R., Seyedmehdi, S. M., Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., & Attarchi,
M. (2013). Global warming: Knowledge and views of Iranian students. Acta Medica Iranica, 5(1), 178-184.
https://acta.tums.ac.ir/index.php/acta/article/view/4467
Yıldırım, F. S. (2020). Examination of studies on concept teaching in the field of science education. The Eurasia Proceedings of
Educational and Social Sciences, 18, 132-142. http://www.epess.net/en/download/article-file/1427533
Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2014). Using formal embedded formative assessments aligned with a short-term learning
progression to promote conceptual change and achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4),
531-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.787556
Received: July 06, 2022 Revised: September 05, 2022 Accepted: October 02, 2022
Cite as: Atmaca Aksoy, A. C., & Erten, S. (2022). A four-tier diagnostic test to determine pre-service science teachers’ misconception
about global warming. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 747-761. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.747
Ayşe Ceren Atmaca Aksoy Master, Research Assistant, Ahmet Kelesoglu Faculty of Education,
(Corresponding author) Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090 Konya, Turkey.
E-mail: ceren_eylul24@hotmail.com
Website: https://www.erbakan.edu.tr/personel/8032/ayse-ceren-atmaca
Sinan Erten PhD, Professor, Department of Science Education, Hacettepe University,
Ankara, Turkey.
E-mail: serten@hacettepe.edu.tr
Website: https://avesis.hacettepe.edu.tr/serten
761
DIFFERENCES IN CHEMISTRY
TEACHERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE
ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
ACCORDING TO THEIR USER
TYPE: AN APPLICATION OF
EXTENDED UTAUT MODEL
Abstract. In this research, a model to
determine chemistry teachers’ acceptance
of educational software in secondary
education is proposed. The model extends
the unified theory of acceptance and Kateřina Chroustová,
use of technology (UTAUT) model. Data
Andrej Šorgo,
were collected from 556 Czech chemistry
teachers and analysed using structural
Martin Bílek,
equation modelling. With respect to the Martin Rusek
significant differences among technology
users and various types of nonusers, the
research model for each user group was
tested too. The results showed significant
differences in the individual models for
each group of technology user. In the model
for ‘current users’ of educational software,
the influence of facilitating conditions on
current users’ use of educational software Introduction
behavioural intention is stressed. In
addition, non-planning users’ behavioural Educational software (EduSW) is probably the most appropriate answer
intention seems to be influenced by their to the question of how to introduce information and communication technol-
personal innovativeness in IT, social ogy (ICT) for educational purposes, rather than a modern ‘toy’ that parents,
influence, and performance expectancy. learners, and teachers simply think it is. As chemistry is a complex subject
Behavioural intention and attitude towards at the macro, (sub)micro, and symbolic (Johnstone, 1991) levels, combining
using educational software affect each theoretical content with practical work, EduSW for chemistry education is
of the tested models, with attitudes being mostly designed to support display of these levels (e.g., Marson & Torres,
an even stronger predictor of educational 2011) and supplement experimental activities (e.g., Alkan & Koçak, 2015;
software usage than behavioural Ramadhan & Irwanto, 2017).
intention. The models contribute to the However, the introduction of educational technology into the classroom
understanding of teachers’ acceptance can come with hesitancy, resulting in suboptimal technology use for produc-
of educational software, which can be tive teaching and learning. The first step for any technology to be used in the
utilized in both pre- and in-service teacher classroom is the intention to use it, which precedes its acceptance, testing,
training, considering technology mastery a and based on teachers’ experiences, its continued or abandoned use.
necessary teacher competence. Technology acceptance is defined as the demonstrable willingness
Keywords: chemistry teachers’ motivation, within a user group to use technology for the tasks for which it was created
educational software use, secondary (Dillon & Morris, 1996). The concept of acceptance is understood to be at the
education, technology acceptance end of the process (and an output variable in the explanatory models) that
users go through when deciding whether to accept technology. According
Kateřina Chroustová to information technology acceptance theories (e.g., Dillon & Morris, 1996;
Charles University, Czech Republic Venkatesh et al., 2003), the process can be modelled and predicted by the
Andrej Šorgo user for its intended purposes. Some of the most often used theories and
University of Maribor, Slovenia
Martin Bílek, Martin Rusek models are introduced in the theoretical section.
Charles University, Czech Republic Although there are several studies investigating the effectiveness of
EduSW (see e.g., Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Yang et al., 2004), research focusing on
762
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ DIFFERENCES IN CHEMISTRY TEACHERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
teachers’ acceptance of EduSW is still limited. If the factors that influence the acceptance and use of EduSW were
known, resistance or rejection of the use of the technology could be minimized by influencing them, and subse-
quently teachers could integrate the technology effectively into chemistry education.
Research Problem
EduSW is intended to be used in chemistry education as the actual agent of change, but its potential cannot
be fully developed if teachers do not accept it and do not use it (Chroustová et al., 2015). Although a range of
high-quality EduSW is available for chemistry education focused on various thematic areas (e.g., atom structure,
chemical bonding, chemical nomenclature, electrochemistry, etc.), it is relatively rarely used in chemistry in practice
(Chroustová, 2018). The decision to integrate EduSW into chemistry education and its acceptance by the chemistry
teacher can be influenced by a number of factors. The purpose of the research was to identify these factors and
to determine their degree of influence with respect to differences between teachers according to their user type
through an application of extended model of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)
which was also modified for different types of users. The results explain the acceptance of EduSW by chemistry
teachers as a unified group, and also for different types of users. Such knowledge can contribute to pre-service
teachers’ training in terms of technological and pedagogical content knowledge – TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
development as well as to support in-service teachers in their further development.
Research Questions
The research was guided by the research questions which follow.

RQ1: What factors influence the acceptance and use of EduSW by teachers in chemistry education?
RQ2: How do the factors found in RQ1 affect each other?
RQ3: Which factors affect certain groups of teachers – technology users and how can they be used in
EduSW’s promotion?
Theoretical Framework
ICT in Chemistry Education
Despite its quite long tradition, educational technology research is the least frequently addressed in science
education research (Lin et al., 2018) and, more specifically, in chemistry education research (Teo et al., 2014),
which became one rationale for this research. This fact needs to be regarded with respect to the cited reviews’
relatively older (in this respect) date, as this rapidly emerging field has been penetrating science education
research as much as any other field. Nevertheless, the number of studies focusing on concrete examples of
technology’s use exceeds the number of more abstract, generally focused studies, which would provide com-
prehensive evidence of technology’s effect in education. The latest or highly cited studies focusing on concrete
educational technology in science education deal e.g., with augmented reality (Arici et al., 2019; Chang et al.,
2018; Lai et al., 2019; Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020), mobile learning (Crompton et al., 2016; Tavares et al., 2021; Zydney
& Warner, 2016), online/web-based/internet-based learning (Al Mamun et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2011; Yang et al.,
2015) and computer simulations (Develaki, 2019; Repenning et al., 2015; Smetana & Bell, 2012). Chemistry edu-
cation researchers (Alkan & Koçak, 2015; Corradi et al., 2012; Correia et al., 2019) deal mostly with multimedia
and engaging technology in teaching and teacher training. This is more concrete than the focus of this research,
which sought for a more unified view of the phenomena. According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), technology
must be accepted and used, because without it productivity cannot be improved. This naturally also applies to
education. There have been several attempts to describe (science) secondary school teachers’ behaviour with
respect to technology use in general (Badia & Iglesias, 2019; Higgins & Spitulnik, 2008; Rusek et al., 2017; Walan,
2020) and specific technology, e.g., mobile devices (Ates & Garzon, 2021; Chiu & Churchill, 2016; Leem & Sung,
2019; Mutambara & Bayaga, 2021), interactive whiteboards (Stroud et al., 2014; Šumak et al., 2017; Tosuntas et
al., 2021) or virtual laboratories (Achuthan et al., 2020; Spernjak & Sorgo, 2009), and simulations (Bo et al., 2018;
Kriek & Stols, 2010; Lee et al., 2021), however they focused on this process from a more general perspective.
763
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Educational Software (EduSW)
For this research’s purpose, EduSW was defined as a learning tool predetermined for teaching and self-
learning by using educational technology with learning as the end product (Januszewski & Molenda, 2013, p. 15).
EduSW is a computer application developed for the purpose of teaching and learning. Chemistry EduSW includes
experiment simulations, virtual or mobile labs, various applets showing scientific/chemical phenomena, etc. (see
da Silva Júnior et al., 2014; Kupatadze, 2013; Marson & Torres, 2011; Romero et al., 2020). EduSW has the potential
to promote scientific conceptions (Bell & Trundle, 2008) as well as their learning gains (Scalise et al., 2011). Some
authors (Marson & Torres, 2011; Solomonidou & Stavridou, 2001) argued EduSW can demonstrate more levels in
a chemistry experiment at once, which facilitate learners’ understanding of the chemical process and scientific
concepts and in the case of virtual labs, it can also improve learners’ laboratory work (Ramadhan & Irwanto, 2017).
Using EduSW in teaching also has other advantages, such as the promotion of teaching clarity, individualization of
teaching, management of a learner’s step-by-step learning, higher stimulation of learners and increased teaching
interactivity (Fialho & Matos, 2010; Stoica et al., 2010). EduSW was also found to reduce a prior-knowledge achieve-
ment gap in a guided learning chemistry class (Lou & Jaeggi, 2020).
Theories of Innovation/Technology/Software Acceptance
This research was focused on teachers’ use of EduSW. It is, logically, used on electronic devices, therefore,
technology use is automatic. From the history of pedagogy’s point of view, technology still represents an innova-
tion in a general sense. For this reason, there are two models/theories which backed this research.
Rogers’ theory of Diffusion of innovations from 1962 can be applied as there is still a parallel between innovation
and technology (Rogers, 2003). It was designed to explain how, when, why, and how quickly new ideas and technol-
ogy spread. Rogers (2003, p. 27) dealt with „the degree to which an individual is able to influence other individuals’
attitudes or overt behaviour informally in a desired way with relative frequency” using the term opinion leaders. Rogers
(2003) further specified the characteristics of such agents in society, defining both opinion leaders and leaders who
oppose change, and proposed a model to introduce innovation into a system once its elements are known.
More than four decades later, Venkatesh et al. (2003) put forward Unified theory of acceptance and use of tech-
nology (UTAUT), building on several theories and using Rogers’ original idea of technology being an innovation. It
was built on a combination of eight previous theories on the acceptance and motivation to use technology: theory
of reasoned action, technology acceptance model, motivational model, theory of planned behaviour, combined
theory of planned behaviour/technology acceptance model, model of personal computer use, diffusion of innova-
tions theory and social cognitive theory. To create a unified theory, UTAUT defines four fundamental determinants
of behavioural intention (BI) for the use of a given technology (USE). The following concepts are included:
•• Performance Expectancy (PE) – the belief that using technology (innovation/software/system) will help
the user to achieve improved performance (Chroustová et al., 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016; Venkatesh
et al., 2003),
•• Effort Expectancy (EE) – the degree of simplicity associated with the use of technology (Chroustová et
al., 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2003),
•• Social Influence (SI) – the degree of conviction that people who are important to users (family, friends
or colleagues, learners, their parents, management, etc.) believe that they should use this technology
(Chroustová et al., 2017; Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and
•• Facilitating Conditions (FC) – the degree users believe there is an organizational and technical infrastruc-
ture to support the use of technology (Chroustová et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
In the original UTAUT model, the effects of moderators: gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use was
stressed (Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to Dwivedi et al. (2019), moderators may not be universally applicable
to all contexts. Gil-Flores et al.’s (2017) research showed that gender, age, and teaching experience are irrelevant
to ICT use. Consistent with these results and with respect to the contemporarily growing notion that gender is not
a binary variable (understandably omitted in all the cited studies), gender, age, and experience’s influence on the
use of EduSW in teaching was not considered. Based on this and the fact that the use of EduSW is not obligatory
in Czechia, moderators from the original UTAUT were omitted.
Both cited models (Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003) originally deal with technology in general, yet are
further being applied more concretely in specific fields (Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Khechine et al., 2020; Ogrezeanu
764
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
& Ogrezeanu, 2014; Rusek et al., 2017; Seymour, 2002; Zounek & Sebera, 2005). Venkatesh’s original model was
recently revisited by Šumak and Šorgo (2016), who extended the model by adding several constructs (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Extended UTAUT Model for Acceptance and Use of Interactive Whiteboards among Teachers (Šumak & Šorgo, 2016)
Note. PE = Performance Expectancy; EE = Effort Expectancy; SI = Social Influence; FC = Facilitating Conditions; ATU = Attitude
Towards Using; BI = Behavioural Intention; USE = Use
The first, called Attitude towards Using Technology (ATU) as a user’s overall affective reaction to using technol-
ogy, in this research to using EduSW in chemistry education includes favourable or unavoidable feelings towards
this behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Chroustová et al., 2017). In an attempt to evaluate as complex a model as possible,
the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977) and technology acceptance model (Davis et al., 1989) were
also revisited in this research. They were considered in the original UTAUT, however, the ATU’s influence on BI was
not evaluated. For this reason, this hypothesized path was also added to our proposed model.
Another two added constructs were considered to affect BI: Motivation (M), according to the motivational
model (Wilson & Lankton, 2004) and Personal Innovativeness in IT (PIIT), seen as a teacher’s willingness to try out
and implement new forms of ICT in their lessons (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Lu et al., 2005). This was also a strong
predictor of BI to use EduSW and the current use of ICT applications in chemistry education (see Ertmer, 2005).
As the extended version of the UTAUT model is supposed to cover the acceptance and use of EduSW in
education specifically, the Perceived Pedagogical Impact (PPI) represents a decisive factor that affects teachers’ ATU
regarding EduSW use in education, as well as BI and USE constructs (Šumak et al., 2017). PPI is seen as teacher’s
belief that using EduSW in chemistry education will have an impact on chemistry education. In research regard-
ing the adoption of interactive whiteboards (Šumak et al., 2017) were proved both PE and EE influence ATU, and
ATU influences USE.
General Background
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was chosen to test the proposed model of acceptance and use of EduSW
by chemistry teachers (see Figure 2), as well as to verify the formulated hypotheses (cf. Byrne, 2016). SEM integrates
factor analysis, multiple regression, and sectional analysis into one method and is a more appropriate method for
the confirmatory access and exploration of complex dependencies between variables (Kline, 2015).
Additionally, there are different groups of teachers who approach technology (innovations) differently and
can be worked with accordingly (Rusek et al., 2017). In this research, models for each user type group separately
were also tested.
765
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Research Model and Hypotheses
The original models (Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al, 2003) assessing the use of technology were updated and
modified to evaluate the use of interactive whiteboards (Šumak & Šorgo, 2016). By focusing on EduSW, the research
model, naturally, needs to be modified to serve its purpose too (statements for measuring the model construct
are in Appendix 1). Bold continuous lines in Figure 2 emphasize the original UTAUT constructs (Venkatesh et al.,
2003) and hypothesized paths (H1, H3, H5, H7, H15). Standard continuous lines frame the newly added constructs
and hypothesized paths (H2, H4, H10) implemented according to the research concerning interactive whiteboard
adoption (Šumak & Šorgo, 2016). The dashed lines represent hypothesized paths between the newly added (and
tested) constructs, including those used in previous models:
•• H6 was added according to Agarwal and Prasad (1998) and Ertmer (2005),
•• H8 was added according to Sultana (2020),
•• H9 was added according to Fishbein and Ajzen (1977) and Davis et al. (1989),
•• H11 was added according to Wilson and Lankton (2004) and
•• H12, H13, H14 were added according to Šumak et al. (2017).
The hypotheses shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 were set to parts of the tested model as follows: “the construct
at the beginning of the arrow has a significant effect on the construct at the end of the arrow in chemistry education”.
Therefore, for example:
H1: Performance Expectancy has a significant effect on Behavioural Intention to use EduSW in chemistry educa-
tion.
Figure 2
Research Model of EduSW’s Acceptance and Use in Chemistry Education
With respect to Rogers’ (2003) theory, as well as known differences between EduSW users and nonusers
considered in the previous research (Chroustová et al., 2017), the following teacher groups were distinguished
based on their answer to the question if they use(d) EduSW. The teachers identified as current users answered “Yes”,
former users had used EduSW and abandoned it, non-planning nonusers do not use EduSW and have no intention
to do so in the future and planning nonusers do not use EduSW but are planning to do so in the future (Šumak et
al., 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016).
Chroustová et al.’s (2017) results confirmed not only differences between current users and groups of nonusers,
but also showed differences within the nonusers. Based on these results, a new approach to the model’s application
was chosen. The model for the acceptance and use of EduSW in chemistry education was therefore examined for
each group separately. An analysis of independent models for each user type group would enable determination
of the factors which affect teachers’ acceptance and use of EduSW in chemistry education based on their user type.
This would help identify ways to encourage teachers to use EduSW in education. By focusing on individual groups
of teachers / technology users, the intervention is more likely to be effective (cf. e.g., Rogers, 2003).
766
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
After data collection, the proposed research model (see Figure 2) was examined by principal component analy-
sis. Its results (see Appendix 2) showed social influence disintegration: the social influence of school management
and climate (SI-s) was separated from the overall social influence (further SI-o, see Figure 3). The corresponding
hypothesis was therefore divided into two.
Figure 3
Modified Research Model of EduSW’s Acceptance and Use in Chemistry Education
Sample
The appropriate sample size in this type of research is more than 200 participants, according to the rule of
thumb (Kline, 2011). A purposive sample (Teddlie & Yu, 2007) was used because random sampling was infeasible
as it was impossible to address a selected teacher directly. Teachers from schools included in the research were
selected using the Register of Schools from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT, 2019). If possible,
teachers were addressed directly (2,549 teachers) or through the school headmasters or deputies from 2,266
lower-secondary and 423 upper-secondary schools (including grammar and vocational /technical/ school). First,
each addressee received an e-mail with a request to complete the questionnaire via an online 1KA application. If
no response came, a request reminder was sent after ten days. The completion of the questionnaire was voluntary
and anonymous, no data were collected that would allow the identification of the respondents. The data collec-
tion was stopped after receiving more than 550 complete responses (approximately 8.5% of the chemistry teacher
population in the Czech Republic). The questionnaire was completed in its entirety by 564 teachers, however, 8
non-valid responses had to be excluded. Overall, 556 complete questionnaires were analysed.
The sample represents teachers (N = 556) from mostly lower-secondary (65.8%) and general upper second-
ary (grammar) schools (23.6%). Teachers are also divided by user type into current users – UT1 (N = 183), former
user – UT2 (N = 23), non-planning nonusers – UT3 (N = 138) and planning nonusers – UT4 (N = 212).
A typical respondent in the research is a female teacher (83.2%) aged between 35 and 44 years (31.0%) or
older (51.2%), with teaching qualifications (95.7%) and between 6 and 25 years of teaching experience (59.2%),
who usually did not have the opportunity to become familiar with EduSW (38.8%) during their studies and has
not used EduSW recently (62.9%).
With respect to previous research in this field (e.g., Davis et al., 1989; Rusek et al., 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016), a
questionnaire was used. The questionnaire’s development and validation were described by Chroustová et al. (2017)
in more detail, it is therefore introduced only briefly. The questionnaire items were divided into three categories:
Demographic statements such as gender, age, working status, length of teaching experience, workplace,
qualifications, and experience with EduSW,
767
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Statement to measure the model construct (see Appendix 1), adjusted for acceptance and use of EduSW, i.e., items
taken mainly from the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and other studies focused on technology acceptance (see Table 1),
Additional questions which more precisely described teachers’ experience with EduSW and its use or reasons
why it was abandoned.
The number of questions was dependent on respondents’ answers about their experience with the use of
EduSW. To measure the statements, a 7-point Likert scale with defined extremes from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (7) was used (see Finstad’s (2010) recommendation). For this reason, the data were treated as
ordinal (see Chytrý & Kroufek, 2017).
Cronbach’s alpha for each of the constructs in the model for all teachers was calculated to range from .74 to
.98 (see Appendix 3), which points to the tool’s satisfactory reliability (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). For individual user
types (current users – UT1, former user – UT2, non-planning nonusers – UT3 and planning nonusers – UT4), it was
a little lower, i.e., from .64 to .95, which is still acceptable (Field, 2013).
Table 1
Constructs Used in the Models
Construct Abbreviation Items References
(Chroustová et al., 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016;

Performance Expectancy PE PE1, PE2, PE3
Venkatesh et al., 2003)
Effort Expectancy EE EE1, EE2, EE3(R)
Facilitating Conditions FC FC1, FC2, FC3
(Chroustová et al., 2017; Šumak et al., 2017;
Social Influence SI-o SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC7, SC8
Šumak & Šorgo, 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003)
(Chroustová et al., 2017) – originally part of the
Social Influence of School SI-s SC5, SC6,
construct above
ATU1(R), ATU2, ATU3, ATU4, (Chroustová et al., 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016;
Attitude Towards Using ATU
ATU5(R), ATU6(R) Venkatesh et al., 2003)
Behavioural Intention BI BI1, BI2, BI3
Use USE USE1, USE2, USE3 (Chroustová et al., 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016)
(Chroustová et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2005; Šumak
Personal Innovativeness in IT PIIT PIIT1, PIIT2, PIIT3, PIIT4 (R)
et al., 2017)
Motivation M M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 (Guay et al., 2000; Chroustová et al., 2017)
PPI1, PPI2, PPI3, PPI4, PPI5,
Perceived Pedagogical Impact PPI (Chroustová et al., 2017; Šumak et al., 2017)
PPI6, PPI7, PPI8
Data Analysis
First, the data were transferred to an MS Excel file and checked. Next, they were transferred to the IBM SPSS
24 for descriptive analyses (Field, 2013). Due to the non‑normal distribution of some answers, nonparametric sta-
tistics (Mann‑Whitney U test asymptotic Z‑score) was chosen to assess the differences in answers between types
of users (see Chroustová et al., 2017). AMOS 24.0 was used to statistically process the models. Before applying SEM,
principal component analysis with direct Oblimin rotation was accomplished (see Appendix 2) as a tool to explore
the unidimensionality of the constructs (Field, 2013; Kline, 2015).
Considering the differences between user types (see Chroustová et al., 2017), the model for the acceptance
and use of EduSW in chemistry education for each group was examined (current users, former user, non-planning
nonusers and planning nonusers) separately.
The model development process was similar to a single model for all teachers. The initial measurement
models were constructed in AMOS with respect to the results from the principal component analysis for all users
768
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
together, and for each of the four user types separately. The predicted factors were modelled as latent variables
and co-variances were drawn among them.
The goodness-of-fit indices are indicators of a valid model (Schreiber et al., 2006). In this research, chi-square
(χ2), degrees of freedom (df), normed chi-square (χ2/df), comparative fix index (CFI), root mean square error ap-
proximation (RMSEA), normed fix index (NFI) and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) are reported. The model
has been further evaluated for validity and reliability using metrics for internal consistency, composite reliability
(CR, Cronbach’s alpha), convergent validity (average variance extracted – AVE), and discriminant validity (AVE,
Maximum Shared Variance – MSV and average shared Variance – ASV). Convergent validity monitors whether
a given item actually measures one construct, while discriminant validity verifies the mutual distinction of indi-
vidual constructs (Kline, 2015). To confirm convergent validity, CR should reach values greater than .7 and Aver-
age Variance Extracted (AVE) higher than .5 (Šumak et al., 2017). We validate discriminant validity if AVE is greater
than MSV or ASV and if the root AVE is larger than the correlation r with other constructs (Šumak et al., 2017):
In the model, the hypothesized effects among variables are shown as standardized regression ß along with
their p-value (with standard α = .05) based on Suhr’s recommendations (2006). According to Cohen (1988), the
influence rate is evaluated in the same way as effect size. It was evaluated as follows: small effect .10 – < .30, me-
dium effect .30 – < .50, large effect ≥ .50 (Cohen, 1988). Furthermore, in the model, coefficients of determination
R2 are depicted, representing part of the overall variance possible to explain through the model (Kline, 2011). This
implies the accuracy of the newly proposed model’s prediction.
Research Results
Analysis Results of Measurement Models
Given the complexity of the research models, some shortcomings in discriminatory validity and the goodness-
of-fit indices (see Table 2) were expected. It was therefore necessary to modify the models further according to
recommendations from AMOS. Several items were removed from the constructs based on the Cronbach’s alpha
value, “if removed” or based on a low factor load. The final list of items used, together with factor loadings, is pro-
vided in Appendix 4. Some of the final models show a slightly lower convergent validity (see Appendix 5). This
concerns the construct FC in the model for all users (.49), UT3 (.45), UT4 (.43) and M in the model for UT4 (.49).
Nevertheless, in these cases the AVE is higher than .4 and composite reliability is higher than .6, so according to
Fornell and Larcker (1981), the convergent validity of the construct is still considered adequate. A similar situation
concerns the discriminant validity: FC (in the model for all users, UT3 and UT4), PPI (in the model for UT1) and M
(in the model for UT1, UT4) lack discriminant validity (AVE values are greater to ASV but less than MSV), which can
show possible non-independence of those factors.
Table 2
The Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Models with Recommended Level
All user Type User type 1 User type 3 User type 4
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final

model model model model model model model model
χ2 3807 2740 2058 1283 2069 1683 2127 1155
df 952 696 952 621 952 893 952 558
χ /df < 3.00
2
4.00 3.94 2.16 2.07 2.17 1.89 2.23 2.07
CFI > .90 .87 .90 .83 .88 .78 .84 .83 .89
RMSEA < .08 .07 .07 .08 .08 .09 .08 .08 .07
NFI > .80 .84 .87 .72 .79 .66 .72 .73 .81
PNFI > .60 .77 .77 .66 .70 .61 .65 .67 .72
Note. χ2 chi-square, df degrees of freedom, χ2/df normed chi-square, CFI comparative fix index, RMSEA root mean square error
approximation, NFI normed fix index, PNFI parsimony normed fit index
769
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Factors Influencing the Acceptance and Use of EduSW (RQ1, RQ2)
After the modification, we focused on testing the hypotheses. The models are presented by figures followed
by comments. In Figure 4, the model for all user types is presented, followed by the model for UT1 (current users)
in Figure 5. The model for UT2 (former users) was not provided because of an insufficient number of responses.
Figure 6 shows the model for UT3 (non-planning nonusers) and Figure 7 the model for UT4 (planning nonusers).
Figure 4
The Results of Hypothesis Testing for All Teachers (With Standardized Beta Coefficients)
Note. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, ns non-significant; R2 Coefficient of determination R2
When chemistry teachers were considered a united group, the results showed that BI was influenced by all the
expected constructs (albeit in a modified form) in accordance with the original UTAUT theory. FC (ß = .29, p < .001),
PE (ß = .22, p < .05), SIa (ß = .20, p < .001), ATU (ß = .17, p < .05), and PIIT (ß = .14, p < .01) positively affect teachers’
BI regarding the USE of EduSW, whereas EE (ß = -.18, p < .01) was found to affect BI negatively. From the mentioned
factors, FC has the strongest positive effect on BI. There was no significant relationship between SI-s and BI and
PPI and BI. ATU is significantly affected by PE (ß = .52, p < .001), M (ß = .24, p < .001) and PPI (ß = .16, p < .01). The
use of ES can be directly and positively influenced by expected BI (ß = .29, p < .001), PPI (ß = .14, p < .01) and FC
(ß = .11, p < .01), but ATU (ß = .48, p < .001) has the strongest influence.
Features of Particular EduSW User Groups (RQ3)
The results also showed several strong relations within particular EduSW user groups. These results have the
potential to influence the design of “made to measure” courses for particular EduSW users (teachers).
770
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
Figure 5
The Results of Hypothesis Testing for Current Users (With Standardized Beta Coefficients)
In the case of current users, the final model, showed PE’s influence on ATU (ß = .36, p < .001) in a similar way to
the entire teacher group, although to a lower degree, and also ATU’s strong, direct influence on USE (ß = .63, p < .001).
On the contrary, ATU was found to have a stronger effect on this group of teachers than the model for all teachers.
Another similarity with the tested model for all teachers was in the medium effect of FC on BI (ß = .37, p < .05)
and the small effect on USE (ß = .19, p < .05). Also, BI’s effect size on USE (ß = .26, p < .01) was approximately equal
in both models. The effects of EE, SI-o, Si-s, and PIIT on BI are non-significant.
Figure 6
The Results of Hypothesis Testing for Non-Planning Nonusers (With Standardized Beta Coefficients)
The model for non-planning nonusers showed PE has a very strong and significant influence on ATU (ß = .61,
p < .001), which also directly affects USE. In this model, there are several factors significantly influencing BI: PIIT
(ß = .50, p < .001), followed by PE (ß = .33, p < .05) and SI-o (ß = .32, p < .001).
771
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
In addition, ATU (ß = .44, p < .001) and BI’s (ß = .41, p < .001) influence on USE is on a comparable level in this
model. PPI’s impact on USE (ß = .20, p < 0.01) is also similar to the single model for all teachers. The ATUb construct
(created based on principal component analysis by separating two items focusing on whether it is a good idea to
use the software or whether it has added value) has a lesser impact on USE than ATU (i.e., ß = .21, p < .05), which
shows areas that can be targeted centrally to all teachers and, vice versa, shows which factors are treated more
effectively if a certain group is addressed.
Figure 7
The Results of Hypothesis Testing for Planning Nonusers (With Standardized Beta Coefficients)
In the model for planning nonusers, ATU (ß = .34, p < .001) and PPI (ß = .33, p < .001) were proven to have an
influence on the USE of EduSW. The extent was almost the same as in the previous model. PPI’s significant influ-
ence on ATU (ß = .35, p < .01) is consistent with the current users’ model. Interestingly, in this model, ATU is also
significantly influenced by teachers’ motivation (M; ß = .29, p < .05), unlike in previous models where this role was
held by PE. The BI’s influence on USE is the smallest from all tested models (ß = .14, p < .05), showing BI was not
significantly influenced by any construct.
Comparing the Models for Particular Groups
By comparing the above presented models for particular groups of EduSW (non)users, ATU’s medium to large
effect sizes on USE in all models was found. Also, PPI’s influence on USE was of a similar size, albeit to varying de-
grees, as was BI’s influence on USE. ATU’s influence on USE was found even stronger than BI’s (i.e., ATU plays a more
important role than BI in models of acceptance and EduSW use). For this reason, encouraging chemistry teachers
to use EduSW by strengthening a positive attitude towards using EduSW in chemistry education (i.e., the teacher’s
belief that chemistry education is more interesting, fun, and enjoyable with EduSW) needs to be focused on. The
findings suggest it can be done by focusing either on:
•• PE (i.e., the belief that EduSW is useful for teaching, which makes it possible to achieve learning objec-
tives faster or increases teaching effectiveness) for current users and non-planning nonusers,
•• M (i.e., personal reasons for including EduSW, perceiving EduSW use as an interesting activity) for
planning nonusers or
•• PPI (i.e., influence of EduSW’s inclusion on students’ curiosity, concentration, creativity, motivation,
learning outcomes, etc.) for current users and planning nonusers.
Although BI is not as strong a factor as ATU, its influence on the use of EduSW by teachers was also proven, so
BI support can lead to more frequent use of EduSW. However, each group (with the exception of planning nonus-
ers – no factor effect was found on BI) requires a different type of intervention, or in other words, teachers from
772
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
different groups are more likely to want to use EduSW under different treatment:
•• FC (includes the knowledge and resources necessary to use EduSW or the possibility of support in case
of difficulties with EduSW) for current users,
•• SI-o (i.e., the belief that people important to them, influencing their behaviour, the public, other teach-
ers, or parents of learners think they should use EduSW) and PIIT (i.e., the degree of willingness to test
and integrate new information technology) for non-planning nonusers.
Discussion
The results of the research are showing strength and consequently a role of factors affecting teachers’ ac-
ceptance and use of EduSW in chemistry teaching following the use of SEM analysis. As no other research focused
on teachers’ use of EduSW has been published, other educational technologies are used to discuss the results.
To compare, in the case of teachers’ SmartBoard acceptance, Raman et al. (2014) reached almost the same
values for FC’s positive significant effect on BI. The strongest influence was, nevertheless, reported for PE in Raman
et al’s (2014) research. On the other hand, in the model for teachers as united group tested in this research, EE’s
effect on BI was found to be negative, which suggests that the easier it is for teachers to acquire skills and work
with EduSW, the less they tend to use it. Here, the difference between using any software and using an interac-
tive board as hardware may differ, despite interactive boards’ major contribution being in the programs/applets
they use. These results can then be caused by, e.g., an unsatisfactory level in the used software’s interactivity, or a
preference for their own interactive educational materials. The explanation for this trend may lie in the teachers’
perception of EduSW – typically of an official nature, designed for educational purposes. Nevertheless, as pointed
out by Ertmer et al. (2012), thanks to low-cost Internet access devices and easy-to-use digital authoring tools (e.g.,
Lectora, Elucidat, LearningApps, Wizer.me, etc.), teachers no longer need to purchase (expensive) EduSW to provide
their students with digital content. Also, there are many teachers’ groups online who share their materials on daily
basis. Adopting these seems far easier than creating their own in the software.
In contrast to the original UTAUT, ATU, not BI, was found to be the most important and strongest factor directly
affecting the USE of EduSW in model for all teachers. The results showed ATU is most strongly influenced by PE. The
addition of this factor was proven to fit, similar to Šumak and Šorgo’s (2016) results on teachers’ use of interactive
whiteboards, where ATU was proven to be strongly influenced (not only) by PE (with a greater effect size for pre-
adopters) and had a direct effect on USE. In addition, ATU’s significant role in ICT usage in teaching was confirmed
in other research (Ertmer et al., 2012; Gil-Flores et al., 2017; González-Sanmamed et al., 2017). Moreover, Chatterjee
and Bhattacharjee (2020), who placed ATU between PE, EE, PR (perceived risk) and BI without a direct influence on
USE in their model, also confirmed its great influence. The effect of PE on ATU was, however, insignificant.
PE is also considered a primary attitude factor for secondary school teachers’ acceptance of a digital learning
environment (Pynoo et al., 2011). It seems that in order to support the use of EduSW in teaching, it is necessary
to improve teachers’ attitudes to this technology, which can be achieved by providing evidence of a real positive
effect on teaching performance, such as software efficiency research (e.g., Kunduz & Secken, 2013; Tatli & Ayas,
2013), seminars with examples of good practice, success stories, etc. (González-Sanmamed et al., 2017).
In the case of current users’ final model, the difference in the role of PPI as the strongest effector on ATU in
comparison to entire teacher group model was found. This finding corresponds with Šumak et al. (2017), who
considered PPI a factor influencing EE and PE and confirmed its positive effects on PE. The results also indicate that
teachers who already use EduSW do not need encouragement by social influence or support for their skills in IT (cf.
Rusek et al., 2017). To prevent their transition to the former user group, it seems access to EduSW (and necessary
technology for using) with a real impact on teaching and students (e.g., their curiosity, creativity, concentration,
motivation, and achievement) needs to be provided.
The model for non-planning nonusers showed PIIT as the strongest factor affecting BI. As far as PIIT is con-
cerned, Nov and Ye (2008) reported it is negatively influenced by Resistance to Change and positively by Openness
(a person’s receptivity to new ideas and experiences). Teachers characterized with lesser PIIT can be supported by
early EduSW adopters (cf. Rogers, 2003) who share their experiences and opinions with other teachers and help
them to use the technology, which facilitates its subsequent diffusion into teaching (Jackson et al., 2013; Rusek et
al., 2017). Those results showed PIIT and SI-o’s joint role in teachers´ EduSW use intentions.
It is logical that promoting the use of EduSW is more demanding among non-using teachers than EduSW
users. The findings showed that to promote use of EduSW by non-using teachers, an environment where users
773
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
share their knowledge, skills and experience among nonusers needs to be created. Also, a platform for learning
materials’ distribution or promotion seems to support the process. Moreover, teachers’ attitudes to EduSW can be
improved by providing examples of good practice and evidence of its influence on both teaching performance
and pedagogical impact. Last but not least, this effect is amplified when these examples are shown by colleagues
(early adopters) or experienced technology users (Rogers, 2003; Rusek et al., 2017).
In the model for planning nonusers, the results showed that BI’s influence on USE was the smallest from all
tested models. This is probably because the teachers in this group already intend to use EduSW, so no other reason
to increase their intention is needed. However, BI’s small effect on USE can be explained by them staying in the
intention phase without ever using EduSW after all. When the role of intrinsic motivation while taking their feelings
about using EduSW into consideration, another way to interpret these results can be the teachers’ anxiety to use
EduSW or technology in general (Celik & Yesilyurt, 2013). Agyei and Voogt’s (2011) results of Ghanaian teachers
support this conclusion – their attitudes, competency in handling technology and access to it were proven to be
essential factors of integrating technology in teaching practice. Naturally, the goal is to move teachers who plan
to use technology (i.e., are not opposed to it) from the mere intention towards its use.
Research Limitations
The limitations of this research lie in the inability to guarantee the same opportunity for every teacher to
participate in the research. In spite of the effort put into sample selection, not every chemistry teacher in Czechia’s
contact addresses were available. Also, teachers participated voluntarily, which naturally leads to generally pas-
sive teachers – probably IT-objectors – being eliminated from the research sample. Moreover, the data need to be
evaluated with discretion as the results represent teachers’ standpoints expressed towards statements in a ques-
tionnaire. Triangulation by observing their lessons would provide more information. Naturally, this was impossible
to perform within one research period.
The aim of the research was to analyse the factors influencing chemistry teachers’ acceptance and use of
EduSW in chemistry education with respect to differences between teachers according to their user type, as well
as to illustrate the factors which intervene in this process in each user type group. For this purpose, a new – ex-
tended – UTAUT model was used. The original UTAUT model was completed based on the theories and results of
several studies focused on the acceptance and use of educational technology (software).
From the many factors influencing teachers’ acceptance and use of EduSW, attitudes towards use, performance
expectancy (teachers’ belief that the use of EduSW will contribute to their teaching performance), facilitating condi-
tions (teachers’ belief that they have sufficient conditions for the use of EduSW in chemistry education) and perceived
pedagogical impact (teachers’ belief that the use of EduSW will have a pedagogical impact on chemistry education as
far as the effect is concerned) proved to be the strongest factors. In case of the individual groups’ models, the behav-
ioural intention of current EduSW users is most influenced by facilitating conditions. Teachers need background and
support not only on a material level, but also the possibilities of sharing good practice in EduSW use. The non-planning
users’ behavioural intention is the most strongly affected by their personal innovativeness in IT. For this reason, train-
ing these teachers in digital literacy focusing on EduSW and inspiration could help change their intention not to use
EduSW. Teachers already planning to use EduSW’s behavioural intention seem not to be influenced by any of the
proposed factors. For all models, attitudes towards the use of EduSW play a key role because they influence the use
of EduSW more strongly than even behavioural intention and this is therefore potentially the area to focus on first.
This research provided a vital rationale for both pre- and in-service teacher training courses focused on this
area. It seems reasonable to offer IT-related (EduSW-focused) courses to preselected groups of teachers according
to their user type, with the above-mentioned characteristics included and carefully crafted so the course brings
as much effect to the participants as possible. In-service training courses, typically taught by university teachers
could benefit from including lectors from school practice as they were shown to gain teachers’ trust by affecting
their intention to use EduSW “because what is working well for them could work well for me”.
Further research should focus on identifying a larger group of former EduSW users and creating a model of
EduSW’s acceptance and use for this group, as well as examining the reasons why this group rejected EduSW in
more detail. This can later be linked with the reasons identified in this research through other groups of nonusers to
774
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
check whether new unexpected motives appear. The research could be extended by observing teachers and their
work with EduSW in chemistry lessons. Also, extending the sample to teachers in other countries would provide
results with more international validity. One of the next steps in the research could also focus on the learners’ views
on the acceptance and use of EduSW.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding
No. P2-0057), Charles University Research Centre program No. UNCE/HUM/024 and Charles University research
program Cooperatio.
References
Achuthan, K., Nedungadi, P., Kolil, V., Diwakar, S., & Raman, R. (2020). Innovation adoption and diffusion of virtual laboratories.
International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 16(9), 4-25. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i09.11685
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information
technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.204
Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and
practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.017
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Al Mamun, M. A., Lawrie, G., & Wright, T. (2020). Instructional design of scaffolded online learning modules for self-directed and inquiry-
based learning environments. Computers & Education, 144, Article 103695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103695
Alkan, F., & Koçak, C. (2015). Chemistry laboratory applications supported with simulation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
176, 970-976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.566
Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112(4), 545–557.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545
Arici, F., Yildirim, P., Caliklar, S., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and
bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education, 142, Article 103647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647
Ates, H., & Garzon, J. (2021). Drivers of teachers’ intentions to use mobile applications to teach science. Education and Information
Technologies, 27, 2521–2542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10671-4
Badia, A., & Iglesias, S. (2019). The science teacher identity and the use of technology in the classroom. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 28(5), 532-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09784-w
Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20227
Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training
program. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00161-6
Bo, W. V., Fulmer, G. W., Lee, C. K. E., & Chen, V. D. T. (2018). How do secondary science teachers perceive the use of interactive
simulations? The affordance in Singapore context. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(6), 550-565.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9744-2
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of
computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.008
Chang, H. Y., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Students’ development of socio-scientific reasoning in a
mobile augmented reality learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 40(12), 1410-1431.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1480075
Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharjee, K. K. (2020). Adoption of artificial intelligence in higher education: A quantitative
analysis using structural equation modelling. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3443-3463.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10159-7
Chiu, T. K. F., & Churchill, D. (2016). Adoption of mobile devices in teaching: Changes in teacher beliefs, attitudes and anxiety.
Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1113709
Chroustová, K. (2018). Akceptace a používání didaktického softwaru učiteli vzhledem k metodám a organizačním formám výuky
chemie. [Acceptance and usage of educational software by teachers with regards to methods and organisational forms of
chemistry teaching] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hradec Králové]. Theses.cz. https://theses.cz/id/xd6slc/24556780
Chroustová, K., Bílek, M., & Šorgo, A. (2015). Development of the research tool to identify factors affecting the use of chemistry
educational software. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 68, 6-21. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/15.68.06
775
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Chroustová, K., Bílek, M., & Šorgo, A. (2017). Validation of theoretical constructs toward suitability of educational software
for chemistry education: Differences between users and nonusers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(6), 873.
Chytrý, V., & Kroufek, R. (2017). Možnosti využití Likertovy škály – základní principy aplikace v pedagogickém výzkumu a
demonstrace na příkladu zjišťování vztahu člověka k přírodě. [Possibilities of using the Likert’s scale – basic principles
of application in pedagogical research and demonstration on the example of human relationship to nature]. Scientia in
Educatione, 8(1), 2-17. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.591
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corradi, D., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Understanding and enhancing the use of multiple external representations in chemistry
education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 780-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9366-z
Correia, A.-P., Koehler, N., Thompson, A., & Phye, G. (2019). The application of PhET simulation to teach gas behavior on the
submicroscopic level: Secondary school students’ perceptions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(2), 193-
217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1487834
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Grabe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9597-x
da Silva Júnior, J. N., Sousa Lima, M. A., Sousa, E. H. S., Oliveira Alexandre, F. S., & Leite Júnior, A. J. M. (2014). KinChem: A
computational resource for teaching and learning chemical kinetics. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(12), 2203–2205.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500433c
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical
models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Develaki, M. (2019). Methodology and epistemology of computer simulations and implications for science education. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 28(4), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09772-0
Dillon, A. & Morris, M. (1996) User acceptance of new information technology: Theories and models. In M. Williams (Ed.) Annual
review of information science and technology (pp 3-32). 31. Information Today. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105584
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the Unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21, 719–734.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology
Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration
practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Fialho, N. N., & Matos, E. L. M. (2010). The art of involving students in sciences’ learning using educational software programs.
Educar em Revista (SPE2), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-40602010000500007
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th Ed.). Sage Publications.
Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3),
104-110. http://www.uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/JUS_Finstad_May_2010.pdf
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and
statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J.-J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education
classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057
González-Sanmamed, M., Sangrà, A., & Muñoz-Carril, P.-C. (2017). We can, we know how. But do we want to? Teaching attitudes
towards ICT based on the level of technology integration in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(5), 633-647.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1313775
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational
motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175-213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250
Higgins, T. E., & Spitulnik, M. W. (2008). Supporting teachers’ use of technology in science instruction through
professional development: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 511-521.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9118-2
Jackson, J. D., Yi, M. Y., & Park, J. S. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between
personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50(4), 154-161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.02.006
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2013). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Routledge.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
7(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
Khechine, H., Raymond, B., & Augier, M. (2020). The adoption of a social learning system: Intrinsic value in the UTAUT model.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2306-2325. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12905
Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams & W. P.
Vogt (Eds.), Handbook of methodological innovation in social research methods (pp. 562-589). Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268261.n31
776
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford press.
Kriek, J., & Stols, G. (2010). Teachers’ beliefs and their intention to use interactive simulations in their classrooms. South African
Journal of Education, 30(3), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v30n3a284
Kunduz, N., & Secken, N. (2013). Development and application of 7E learning model-based computer-assisted teaching materials
on precipitation titrations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(6), 784-792. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/13.12.784
Kupatadze, K. (2013). How to make lessons of chemistry more understanding and easy (on an example of concrete program).
Periódico Tchê Química, 10(19), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.52571/PTQ.v10.n19.2013.24_Periodico19_pgs_24_29.pdf
Lai, A. F., Chen, C. H., & Lee, G. Y. (2019). An augmented reality-based learning approach to enhancing students’ science reading
performances from the perspective of the cognitive load theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 232-247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12716
Lee, S. W. Y., Tsai, C. C., Wu, Y. T., Tsai, M. J., Liu, T. C., Hwang, F. K., Lai, C. H., Liang, J. C., Wu, H. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2011). Internet‐
based science learning: A review of journal publications. International Journal of Science Education, 33(14), 1893-1925.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.536998
Lee, W. C., Neo, W. L., Chen, D. T., & Lin, T. B. (2021). Fostering changes in teacher attitudes toward the use of computer
simulations: Flexibility, pedagogy, usability and needs. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4905-4923.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10506-2
Leem, J., & Sung, E. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs and technology acceptance concerning smart mobile devices for SMART education
in South Korea. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 601-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12612
Lin, T.-J., Lin, T.-C., Potvin, P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: A systematic
content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 367-387.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1550274
Lou, A. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2020). Reducing the prior-knowledge achievement gap by using technology-assisted guided learning in
an undergraduate chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(3), 368-392. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21596
Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yu, C.-S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile
technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.003
Marson, G. A., & Torres, B. B. (2011). Fostering multirepresentational levels of chemical concepts: A framework to develop
educational software. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(12), 1616-1622. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100819u
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
MŠMT (2019). Výběr z adresáře škol a školských zařízení [Selection from the school address book]. http://stistko.uiv.cz/registr/vybskolrn.asp
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2021). Learners’ and teachers’ acceptance of mobile learning: An exploratory study in a developing
country. International Journal of Learning Technology, 16(2), 90-108. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2021.117763
Nov, O., & Ye, C. Q. (2008). Personality and technology acceptance: Personal innovativeness in IT, openness and resistance to
change. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2008)
(pp. 448-448). IEEE Computer society. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2008.348
Ogrezeanu, A., & Ogrezeanu, A. (2014). ICT use and attitudes among secondary education teachers in Romania. In I. Roceanu (Ed.) Let’s
build the future through learning innovation: Proceedings of the 10th International scientific conference “eLearning and software
for education” (pp. 458-465). 4, Editura Universitatii Nationale de Aparare “Carol I”. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-14-302
Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance
and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 568-575.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.005
Ramadhan, M. F., & Irwanto. (2017). Using virtual labs to enhance students’ thinking abilities, skills, and scientific attitudes. In
Irene, S. Lismadiana, M. H., Fauziah, P. Y., Atun, S., Siswantoyo, R. H., Munadi, S., Suryo, D. R., Sugesti, N., Nuryanto, A. &
Surono (Eds.), Conference proceedings: The 5th International conference on educational research and innovation (ICERI) 2017
(pp. 494-499). Yogyakarta State University. https://doi.org/10.31227/osf.io/vqnkz
Raman, A., Don, Y., Khalid, R., Hussin, F., Omar, M. S., & Ghani, M. (2014). Technology acceptance on Smart Board among teachers
in Terengganu using UTAUT model. Asian Social Science, 10(11), 84-91. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n11p84
Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., Koh, K. H., Nickerson, H., Miller, S. B., Brand, C., Horses, I. H. M., Basawapatna, A., Gluck, F., Grover, R.,
Gutierrez, K., & Repenning, N. (2015). Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education
to schools through game design and simulation creation. Acm Transactions on Computing Education, 15(2), Article 11.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon and Schuster.
Romero, R. M., Bolger, M. B., Morningstar-Kywi, N., & Haworth, I. S. (2020). Teaching of biopharmaceutics in a drug
design course: Use of GastroPlus as educational software. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(8), 2212-2220.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00401
Rusek, M., Stárková, D., Chytrý, V., & Bílek, M. (2017). Adoption of ICT innovations by secondary school teachers and pre-service
teachers within education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 510-523. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/17.16.510
Sahin, D., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). The effect of Augmented Reality Technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes
towards science education. Computers & Education, 144, Article 103710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103710
Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features
that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050-1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20437
777
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory
factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.99.6.323-338
Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology. Science Education, 86(1), 79-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1044
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the
literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
Solomonidou, C., & Stavridou, H. (2001). Design and development of a computer learning environment on the basis of students’
initial conceptions and learning difficulties about chemical equilibrium. Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 5-27.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011359010331
Spernjak, A., & Sorgo, A. (2009). Perspectives on the introduction of computer-supported real laboratory exercises into biology
teaching in secondary schools: Teachers as part of the problem. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 14, 135-143.
https://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1393669123.pdf
Stoica, I., Moraru, S., & Miron, C. (2010). An argument for a paradigm shift in the science teaching process by means of educational
software. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4407-4411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.702
Stroud, R., Drayton, B., Hobbs, K., & Falk, J. (2014). Interactive whiteboard use in high-tech science classrooms: Patterns of
integration. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(9), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i9.4141
S u h r, D. ( 2 0 0 6 ) . Th e b a s i c s o f s t r u c t u ra l e q ua t i o n m o d e l i n g . U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h C o l o r a d o.
https://www.lexjansen.com/wuss/2006/tutorials/TUT-Suhr.pdf
Sultana, J. (2020). Determining the factors that affect the uses of Mobile Cloud Learning (MCL) platform Blackboard- a modification
of the UTAUT model. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09969-1
Šumak, B., & Šorgo, A. (2016). The acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards among teachers: Differences in UTAUT determinants
between pre- and post-adopters. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 602-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037
Šumak, B., Pušnik, M., Heričko, M., & Šorgo, A. (2017). Differences between prospective, existing, and former users of interactive
whiteboards on external factors affecting their adoption, usage and abandonment. Computers in Human Behavior, 72,
733-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.006
Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students’ achievement. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 16(1), 159-170. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.16.1.159
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.
https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Tavares, R., Vieira, R. M., & Pedro, L. (2021). Mobile app for science education: Designing the learning approach. Education Sciences,
11(2), Article 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020079
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430
Teo, T. W., Goh, M. T., & Yeo, L. W. (2014). Chemistry education research trends: 2004-2013. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 15(4), 470-487. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp00104d
Tosuntas, S. B., Cubukcu, Z., & Beauchamp, G. (2021). A new model for the factors that affect interactive whiteboard
usage of teachers and its effect on performance. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3575-3592.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10428-z
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view.
MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Walan, S. (2020). Embracing digital technology in science classrooms-secondary school teachers’ enacted teaching and reflections
on practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09828-6
Wilson, E. V., & Lankton, N. K. (2004). Modeling patients’ acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association, 11(4), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1475
Yang, E. M., Greenbowe, T. J., & Andre, T. (2004). The effective use of an interactive software program to reduce students’
misconceptions about batteries. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(4), 587. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p587
Yang, W. T., Lin, Y. R., She, H. C., & Huang, K. Y. (2015). The effects of prior-knowledge and online learning approaches
on students’ inquiry and argumentation abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1564-1589.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045957
Zounek, J., & Sebera, M. (2005). Budoucí učitelé a inovace v blasti informačních a komunikačních technologií
[Teacher trainees and innovation in information and communication technologies]. Sborník Prací Filosofické
Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity [Proceedings of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Brno], 53(10), 95-108.
https://journals.phil.muni.cz/studia-paedagogica/article/view/18862/14918
Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001
778
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
Appendix 1
Table A1.1
Measurement Items and Scales for Current Users (UT1) and Former Users (UT2) (Chroustová et al., 2017)
Item Statement
PE Performance Expectancy
PE1 I find educational software useful in chemistry teaching.
PE2 Using educational software enables me to accomplish tasks related to chemistry teaching more quickly.
PE3 Using educational software increases the effect of my teaching.
EE Effort Expectancy
EE1 It is easy for me to become skilful at using educational software.
EE2 I find educational software easy to use.
EE3a Learning to operate educational software is difficult for me.
FC Facilitating Conditions
FC1 I have the resources necessary to use educational software.
FC2 I have the knowledge necessary to use educational software.
FC3 A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with educational software difficulties.
SI Social Influence
SI1 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI2 People who are important to me think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI3 Other teachers of chemistry think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI4 General public think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI5 The senior management of the school has been helpful in the use of educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI6 In general, the school climate is supportive towards the use of educational software.
SI7 Students expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI8 Students’ parents expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.
ATU Attitude Towards Using
ATU1a Using educational software is a bad idea in chemistry teaching.
ATU2 Educational software makes chemistry teaching more interesting.
ATU3 Chemistry teaching with educational software is fun.
ATU4 I like chemistry teaching using educational software.
ATU5a Educational software should by only supplement of chemistry teaching.
ATU6a Using educational software has no added value.
BI Behavioural Intention
BI1 I intend to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI2 I predict that I will use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI3 I plan to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
USE Use
USE1 I use educational software frequently.
USE2 I use educational software in chemistry teaching.
USE3 If available, I use educational software in chemistry teaching.
PIIT Personal Innovativeness in IT
PIIT1 If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it.
PIIT2 Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new information technology.
779
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Item Statement
PIIT3 I like to experiment with new information technology.

PIIT4a In general, I am hesitant to try out new information technology
M Motivation
I use educational software in chemistry teaching because…
M1 I believe that this is an interesting activity.
M2 Of personal reasons.
M3 I feel good when I do it.
M4 I believe that this activity is important for me.
M5 I feel that I must do it.
PPI Perceived Pedagogical Impact
Educational software use in teaching has an impact on …
PPI1 The education process.
PPI2 Students’ curiosity.
PPI3 Students’ concentration.
PPI4 Students’ creativity.
PPI5 Students’ motivation.
PPI6 Students’ achievement.
PPI7 Students’ higher order thinking skills (critical thinking, analysis, problem solving).
PPI8 Student’s competence in transversal skills (learning to learn, social competences, etc.).
Note. a. Statement were worded with negation.
Table A1.2
Measurement Items and Scales for Non-Planning Nonusers (UT3) and Planning Nonusers (UT4) (Chroustová et al., 2017)
Item Statement
PE1 I find educational software useful in chemistry teaching.
PE2 Using educational software would enable me to accomplish tasks related to chemistry teaching more quickly.
PE3 Using educational software would increase the effect of my teaching.
EE1 It would be easy for me to become skilful at using educational software.
EE2 I find educational software easy to use.
EE3a Learning to operate educational software would be difficult for me.
FC1 I would have the resources necessary to use educational software.
FC2 I would have the knowledge necessary to use educational software.
FC3 A specific person (or group) would be available for assistance with educational software difficulties.
SI Social Influence
SI1 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI2 People who are important to me think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI3 Other teachers of chemistry think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI4 General public think that I should use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI5 The senior management of the school would be helpful in the use of educational software in chemistry teaching.
780
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
Item Statement
SI6 In general, the school climate would be supportive towards the use of educational software.
SI7 Students would expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.
SI8 Students’ parents would expect me to use educational software in chemistry teaching.
ATU Attitude Towards Using
ATU1a Using educational software would be a bad idea in chemistry teaching.
ATU2 Educational software would make chemistry teaching more interesting.
ATU3 Chemistry teaching with educational software would be fun.
ATU4 I would like chemistry teaching using educational software.
ATU5a Educational software should by only supplement of chemistry teaching.
ATU6a Using educational software would have no added value.
BI1 I intend to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI2 I predict that I will use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
BI3 I plan to use educational software in chemistry teaching in the next 12 months.
USE Use
USE1 I would use educational software frequently.
USE2 I would use educational software in chemistry teaching.
USE3 If available, I would use educational software in chemistry teaching.
PIIT1 If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it.
PIIT2 Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new information technology.
PIIT3 I like to experiment with new information technology.
PIIT4a In general, I am hesitant to try out new information technology
M Motivation
I would use educational software in chemistry teaching because…
M1 I believe that this is an interesting activity.
M2 Of personal reasons.
M3 I would feel good when I do it.
M4 I believe that this activity is important for me.
M5 I feel that I must do it.
Educational software use in teaching would have an impact on …
PPI1 The education process.
PPI2 Students’ curiosity.
PPI3 Students’ concentration.
PPI4 Students’ creativity.
PPI5 Students’ motivation.
PPI6 Students’ achievement.
PPI7 Students’ higher order thinking skills (critical thinking, analysis, problem solving).
PPI8 Student’s competence in transversal skills (learning to learn, social competences, etc.).
Note. a. Statements were worded with negation.
781
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Appendix 2
Table A2.1
Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
user user user user

Code All user Types
type 1 type 2 type 3 type 4
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach. alpha .91 .92 .85 .86 .86
Explained variance 85.09 86.25 77.05 78.21 78.47
Eigenvalue 2.55 2.59 2.31 2.35 2.35
PE1 .89 .90 .93 .79 .85
PE2 .94 .95 .86 .91 .90
PE3 .94 .94 .84 .94 .91
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach. alpha .87 .84 .91 .85 .87
Eigenvalue 2.39 2.30 2.54 2.31 2.40
EE1 .91 .87 .93 .93 .91
EE2 .92 .93 .92 .92 .91
EE3 (R) .84 .82 .92 .78 .87
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach. alpha .74 .69 .74 .68 .70
Eigenvalue 1.98 1.61 1.97 1.83 1.89
FC1 .84 .89 .91 .76 .77
FC2 .82 .80 .80 .82 .79
FC3 .78 .70 .71 .76 .82
SI Social Influence
Factor 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3
Cronbach. alpha .90 .90 .87 .65 .90 .84 .68 .89 .91 .90 .88 .85
Explained variance 57.77 16.20 55.17 17.45 39.62 24.41 17.69 53.34 20.00 51.75 17.07 14.62
Eigenvalue 4.62 1.30 4.41 1.40 3.17 1.95 1.42 4.27 1.60 4.14 1.37 1.17
SI1 .88 .78 .97 .85 .94
SI2 .88 .87 .93 .84 .91
SI3 .92 .81 .82 .82 .91
SI4 .87 -.42 .49 .79 .66
SI5 .95 .64 .91 .82 .95
SI6 .93 .67 .88 .80 .91
SI7 .55 .76 .80 .69 .92
SI8 .65 .68 .93 .77 .90
ATU Attitudes Towards Using
Factor 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Cronbach. alpha .82 .86 .82 .93 .71 .84 .74
Explained variance 57.94 66.58 54.19 30.05 53.32 24.24 50.37
Eigenvalue 3.48 3.33 2.71 1.50 2.67 1.21 3.02
ATU1 (R) .71 .56 -.96 .71 .59
ATU2 .86 .89 .89 .78 .84
ATU3 .86 .87 .95 .84 .86
ATU4 .90 .91 .68 .83 .88
ATU6 (R) .79 .81 -.97 .61 .67
782
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
user user user user

Code All user Types
type 1 type 2 type 3 type 4
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach. alpha .98 .95 .95 .95 .94
Eigenvalue 2.88 2.77 2.72 2.71 2.69
BI1 .97 .92 .92 .93 .91
BI2 .99 .98 .95 .97 .97
BI3 .99 .98 .98 .95 .96
USE Use
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach.alpha .89 .81 .64 .87 .79
Eigenvalue 2.46 2.21 1.77 2.40 2.14
USE1 .87 .82 .72 .88 .72
USE2 .94 .90 .84 .93 .91
USE3 .90 .86 .74 .87 .89
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach. alpha .89 .88 .93 .84 .88
Eigenvalue 3.01 2.95 3.32 2.80 2.96
PIIT1 .89 .88 .89 .90 .86
PIIT2 .90 .87 .93 .90 .89
PIIT3 .93 .92 .96 .93 .93
PIIT4 (R) .74 .77 .85 .58 .74
M Motivation
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach. alpha .88 .81 .87 .84 .84
Eigenvalue 3.39 2.91 3.38 3.08 3.11
M1 .76 .61 .86 .67 .71
M2 .77 .73 .61 .72 .76
M3 .88 .86 .93 .83 .85
M4 .91 .87 .92 .91 .86
M5 .80 .71 .76 .77 .77
Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Cronbach. alpha .93 .89 .90 .94 .92
Eigenvalue 5.33 4.51 4.79 5.54 5.08
PPI1 .76 .60 .83 .75 .77
PPI2 .85 .83 .73 .85 .82
PPI3 .80 .77 .71 .76 .80
PPI4 .83 .80 .80 .83 .83
PPI5 .82 .74 .68 .83 .80
PPI6 .82 .68 .73 .87 .82
PPI7 .84 .81 .87 .87 .80
PPI8 .81 .76 .83 .89 .72
783
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Appendix 3
Table A3.1
Differences in Scale Reliabilities of Constructs Reported as Cronbach’s Alpha. (Chroustová et al., 2017)
Code Item All users UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4
PE1, PE2, PE3 .91 .92 .85 .86 .86
EE1, EE2, EE3(R) .87 .84 .91 .85 .87
FC1, FC2, FC3 .74 .69 .74 .68 .70
SI Social Influence
SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, SC6, SC7, SC8 .89 .88 .73 .86 .86
ATU Attitude Towards Using*
ATU1(R), ATU2, ATU3, ATU4, ATU5(R), ATU6(R) .82 .78 .75 .65 .73
BI1, BI2, BI3 .98 .95 .95 .95 .94
USE Use
USE1, USE2, USE3 .89 .81 .64 .87 .79
PIIT1, PIIT2, PIIT3, PIIT4 (R) .89 .88 .93 .84 .88
M Motivation
M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 .88 .81 .87 .84 .84
PPI1, PPI2, PPI3, PPI4, PPI5, PPI6, PPI7, PPI8 .93 .89 .90 .94 .92
Note. *ATU: with deletion of ATU5(R), alphas raise to .88; .86; .79; .77 and .83; respectively.
784
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
Appendix 4
Table A4.1
Factor Loadings (Measurement Model)
All user
Construct Item User type 1 User type 3 User type 4
Type
PE1 .85 — .63 —

Performance Expectancy (PE) PE2 .85 .96 .88 .87
PE3 — .91 .97 .87
EE1 .92 .86 .91 .90
Effort Expectancy (EE) EE2 .88 .88 .92 .85
EE3 — — .61 .75
FC1 .63 .68 .48 .55
Facilitating Conditions (FC) FC2 .86 .89 .94 .81
FC3 — — .49 .58
SI1 .92 .87 .96 .95
SI2 .95 .96 .92 .94
SI3 .85 .78 .88 .77
Social Influence (SI-o)
SI4 .67 .61 .65 —
SI7 — .65 — —
SI8 — .51 — —
SI5 .86 .84 .85 —
Social Influence of School (SI-s)
SI6 .96 .94 1.00 —
ATU1 — — .76 —
ATU2 .86 .87 .80 .81
ATU3 .88 .84 .90 .87
Attitude Towards Using (ATU)
ATU4 .90 .91 .74 .88
ATU5 — — — —
ATU6 — .72 .72 —
BI1 .93 .83 .88 .82
Behavioural Intention (BI) BI2 .99 .99 .96 .99
BI3 .99 1.00 .94 .95
USE1 .81 .71 .84 .57
Use (USE) USE2 .93 .85 .90 .88
USE3 .85 .77 .80 .86
PIIT1 .84 .81 .87 .81
PIIT2 .86 .83 .85 .87
Personal Innovativeness in IT (PIIT)
PIIT3 .94 .93 .92 .93
PIIT4 — — — —
M1 .74 — .60 .69
M2 .67 .58 .61 .66
Motivation (M) M3 .85 .87 .77 .81
M4 .90 .88 .93 .82
M5 .71 .53 .71 .65
PPI1 .73 — .71 .77
PPI2 .84 .84 .84 .81
PPI3 .76 .70 .71 .79
PPI4 .79 .78 .79 .79
Perceived Pedagogical Impact (PPI)
PPI5 .80 .73 .82 .77
PPI6 .78 .57 .86 .76
PPI7 .81 .74 .83 .74
PPI8 .78 .65 .85 .66
785
(pp. 762-787) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Appendix 5
Table A5.1
Measurement Model Validation (Convergent and Discriminant Validity With Correlations) for All Users
Correlations (discriminant validity)

CR AVE MSV ASV
PE EE FC SI-s SI-o PIIT M PPI ATU BI USE
PE .84 .72 .67 .37 .85
EE .89 .81 .53 .18 .45 .90
FC .74 .49 .53 .24 .48 .73 .70
SI-s .91 .83 .30 .16 .45 .32 .55 .91
SI-o .90 .60 .32 .22 .57 .28 .40 .49 .77
PIIT .91 .78 .31 .18 .42 .51 .49 .17 .28 .88
M .88 .61 .58 .35 .76 .37 .41 .35 .54 .56 .78
PPI .93 .62 .58 .29 .69 .31 .31 .34 .47 .39 .76 .79
ATU .91 .77 .67 .36 .82 .39 .41 .38 .50 .42 .76 .71 .88
BI .98 .939 .46 .27 .60 .34 .51 .43 .53 .41 .54 .46 .57 .97
USE .90 .744 .62 .35 .72 .41 .50 .41 .51 .43 .67 .65 .79 .68 .86
Table A5.2
Measurement Model Validation (Convergent and Discriminant Validity With Correlations) for User Type 1

CR AVE MSV ASV
PE EE FC SI-s SI-o PIIT M PPI ATU BI USE
PE .93 .87 .38 .19 .93
EE .86 .76 .54 .17 .41 .87
FC .76 .62 .54 .16 .33 .73 .79
SI-s .86 .67 .24 .13 .42 .35 .47 .82
SI-o .88 .60 .24 .14 .42 .39 .22 .49 .78
PIIT .89 .73 .24 .11 .22 .43 .49 .07 .21 .86
M .82 .54 .64 .19 .45 .19 .16 .28 .43 .45 .74
PPI .89 .54 .64 .22 .49 .30 .17 .39 .44 .38 .80 .73
ATU .90 .70 .48 .25 .62 .34 .24 .36 .39 .29 .58 .67 .84
BI .96 .89 .35 .16 .43 .35 .42 .34 .28 .26 .32 .34 .53 .94
USE .82 .61 .48 .19 .48 .39 .41 .33 .28 .28 .35 .38 .69 .59 .78
Table A5.3

CR AVE MSV ASV
PE EE FC SI-s SI-o PIIT M PPI ATU ATUb BI USE
PE .88 .71 .53 .19 .84
EE .86 .68 .48 .06 .03 .82
FC .69 .45 .48 .07 -.03 .69 .67
SI-s .92 .86 .08 .03 .14 .22 .29 .93
SI-o .88 .57 .23 .08 .35 -.17 .01 .29 .76
PIIT .86 .63 .22 .08 .09 .34 .39 .09 .13 .79
M .85 .54 .43 .17 .66 .05 .05 -.01 .35 .41 .79
PPI .93 .64 .31 .11 .56 -.05 -.11 -.01 .19 .11 .49 .73
ATU .85 .66 .53 .16 .73 .06 .01 .09 .27 .14 .58 .44 .80
ATUb .70 .54 .21 .06 .37 .08 .03 .05 .13 .10 .32 .34 .29 .81
BI .95 .86 .33 .11 .35 -.06 .03 .17 .48 .47 .40 .21 .21 .12 .74
USE .88 .72 .46 .22 .65 .16 .21 .18 .38 .38 .59 .53 .68 .46 .57 .93
786
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 762-787)
Table A5.4

CR AVE MSV ASV
PE EE FC SI-o PIIT M PPI ATU BI USE
PE .87 .76 .47 .21 .87
EE .87 .70 .54 .17 .31 .84
FC .69 .43 .54 .17 .32 .74 .66
SI-o .92 .80 .13 .08 .36 .22 .29 .89
PIIT .91 .76 .29 .14 .31 .54 .41 .09 .87
M .85 .49 .54 .28 .68 .30 .35 .35 .35 .70
PPI .92 .58 .54 .26 .63 .42 .44 .34 .53 .74 .76
ATU .89 .73 .43 .23 .55 .35 .35 .27 .36 .65 .66 .85
BI .95 .86 .09 .05 .20 .26 .23 .23 .18 .22 .20 .20 .92
USE .82 .61 .39 .21 .48 .35 .39 .27 .31 .55 .63 .63 .30 .78
Cite as: Chroustova, K., Šorgo, A., Bilek, M., & Rusek, M. (2022). Differences in chemistry teachers’ acceptance of educational
software according to their user type: An application of extended UTAUT model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5),
762-787. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.762
Kateřina Chroustová PhD, Charles University, Faculty of Education, Department of Chemistry

and Chemistry Education, Magdalény Rettigové 4, 116 39 Prague 1, Czech
Republic.
E-mail: katerina.chroustova@pedf.cuni.cz
Andrej Šorgo PhD, Professor, University of Maribor, Faculty of Natural Sciences and
Mathematics, Department of Biology, Koroška cesta 160, Maribor,
Slovenia.
E-mail: andrej.sorgo@um.si
Martin Bílek PhD, Professor, Charles University, Faculty of Education, Department of
(Corresponding author) Chemistry and Chemistry Education, Magdalény Rettigové 4, 116 39
Prague 1, Czech Republic.
E-mail: martin.bilek@pedf.cuni.cz
Martin Rusek PhD, Charles University, Faculty of Education, Department of Chemistry
and Chemistry Education, Magdalény Rettigové 4, 116 39 Prague 1, Czech
Republic.
E-mail: martin.rusek@pedf.cuni.cz
787
MULTILEVEL LATENT
PROFILE ANALYSIS OF
ESTONIAN SECONDARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS’ CAREER
EXPECTATIONS WITH SCIENCE
ACHIEVEMENT AND GENDER AS
Abstract. Although much research has COVARIATES
explored the personal, family, school, and
social influences on adolescents’ career
expectations, little is known about the types
of family-related career expectations of
students and career expectation contexts in Tao Jiang,
school. Using PISA 2018 test data, a multi- Ji-gen Chen,
level latent profile analysis was conducted Ping-chuan Xu,
with indicators of parents’ occupational Ping-fei Zeng
status and children’s career expectations.
This research found that family-related
career expectations of Estonian secondary
school students can be divided into Introduction
three types: enterprising, resilient, and
disengaged. At the organizational level, Children develop career aspirations through family upbringing and
contexts for career expectations in school education. Failure to form career expectations based on their interests
schools can be classified as enterprising, and specialties in school can harm personal development. There is a high
enterprising and resilient composite, and probability that the lack of clear career expectations in adolescence will lead
disengaged and resilient composite types. to a long period of unemployment or short-time, low-paid jobs after leaving
The research also found that science school (Schmitt-Wilson & Faas, 2016; Sikora, 2018). In the past two decades,
achievement and gender predicted latent the rapid development of electronics, computers, and artificial intelligence
profile memberships at the individual level. has caused profound changes in the structure of human resources. Machines
It is proposed that to value the science are increasingly replacing people in some traditional occupational fields,
curriculum and its teaching is to invest in such as vending machines replacing supermarket clerks and numerically-
future human resources. It is suggested that controlled machine tools replacing industrial workers. However, it is hard to
families and schools should pay attention imagine some highly skilled jobs being replaced by machines. Machines, for
to stimulating male students’ career example, teach human children instead of teachers or treat human diseases
aspirations. The career expectation types instead of doctors. Society, therefore, wants the younger generation now
of secondary school students within and to have career aspirations for high-skilled jobs. It makes them more likely
between schools are of great significance to have access to jobs when they reach adulthood. Furthermore, the labor
to the construction of national human market does not want to see a difference in the career aspirations of young
resources, the development of schools, and men and women for high-skilled jobs; low career aspirations on either side
the research of families. will result in a loss of human resources.
Keywords: career expectation types,
multilevel latent profile analysis, PISA 2018 Literature Review
datasets, variations between schools,
science achievement There are several theoretical frameworks for career expectation research,
such as pipeline theory, social cognitive theory, social learning theory, and so-
Tao Jiang, Ji-gen Chen cial cognitive career theory (Bandura et al., 2001; Blickenstaff, 2005; Krumboltz,
Taizhou University, China
Ping-chuan Xu
1994; Lent et al., 1994). Based on different theoretical frameworks, predictors
China West Normal University, China of adolescents’ career expectations are examined using techniques such as
Ping-fei Zeng single- or multilevel regression or structural equation modeling (Schoon &
Zhejiang Normal University, China
Parsons, 2002; Tsukahara, 2007).
788
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ MULTILEVEL LATENT PROFILE ANALYSIS OF ESTONIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 788-800)
Gender has been widely studied as an influential factor in career expectations. The first is the study of gender
differences in career orientation. Fathers’ occupations have a significant impact on their sons’ career aspirations,
while mothers’ occupations have a strong influence on their daughters’ career aspirations (Korupp et al., 2002; Tsu-
kahara, 2007). Boys tend to enter enterprising professional fields such as computers, engineering, and mathematics,
while girls prefer careers related to art, nursing, agronomy, and biology (Holland, 1997; Korupp et al., 2002; Sikora
& Pokropek, 2012). With the rapid development of society, this gender difference in career orientations is diminish-
ing but not disappearing (Sikora & Saha, 2009). The second is a study of gender differences in the level of career
ambition. A survey of more than 3,000 adolescents in 42 American states has shown that half want low-specialized
jobs, but only one-sixth of them are available in the labor market (Hoff et al., 2022). Social development has led
to an increasing specialization of jobs. Therefore, a highly skilled occupation is consistent with the well-being of
individuals, families, and society. Using data from the PISA 2000 test, Marks (2010) found that female students’ career
expectations are higher when compared with male students. The same pattern has been replicated in several studies
(Al-Bahrani et al., 2020; McDaniel, 2010). However, girls’ higher career expectations may not always translate into
future advantages in the job market. Existing research has found that some ambitious secondary school students
do not attend college or do not study hard once there, leaving them unemployed or in low-paying jobs that do
not meet their expectations at the age of 26 (Kim et al., 2019; Schmitt-Wilson & Faas, 2016).
Another factor that has attracted much attention is academic achievement. Students who do well in science
and mathematics tend to have higher career aspirations (Al-Bahrani et al., 2020). Science and mathematics achieve-
ments in secondary school significantly influence youngsters’ choice of major in STEM when they enter college
(Sikora & Pokropek, 2012; Tai et al., 2006). However, some research has indicated that some college students who
major in STEM did not do well in mathematics or did not take pre-college courses like calculus during their second-
ary school period (Cannady et al., 2014). Furthermore, recent research has also found that career aspirations are
unstable and vary with academic performance (Carolan, 2017). Changes in academic achievement significantly
impact students from low-income families and boys to change career expectations (Carolan, 2017; Karlson, 2019).
Parents enlighten children’s recognition of occupations. Their educational levels and occupational status
influence their children’s occupational expectations (Al-Bahrani et al., 2020; Lee & Byun, 2019). Some studies have
suggested that mothers’ employment status affects their children’s occupational expectations strongly, and it is
necessary to provide low-educated mothers with the opportunity to receive additional vocational education (Au-
gustine, 2017; Kalmijn, 1994; Korupp et al., 2002). Nevertheless, some studies argue that the father’s occupational
status has a more powerful guiding effect on offspring (Tsukahara, 2007). Other studies suggest that the father’s
and mother’s occupational status together is integral in shaping their children’s career expectations (Hout, 2018;
Kleinjans, 2010). In recent years, a few studies have examined the reasons parents influence children’s career ex-
pectations. The most mentioned reasons include parental values, material provision for their children’s schooling,
evaluation of their children’s academic abilities, and parental attitudes towards particular academic fields, such as
science (DeWitt et al., 2011; Jodl et al., 2001; Schoon & Parsons, 2002).
In addition to the family, school is another important place where children are socialized to form career
expectations (Bozick et al., 2010). First, the type of school has an enormous influence on career expectations. Few
would oppose that academic secondary school students’ career aspirations are higher when compared with vo-
cational secondary school students (Lee & Byun, 2019; Wicht & Ludwig-Mayerhofer, 2014). Second, experiences in
school have a significant impact on career aspirations. Students more attuned to their schools have higher career
expectations (McDaniel, 2010). Less discriminatory experiences at school help disadvantaged students develop
positive career expectations (Wicht, 2016). Third, human resources in schools have a significant impact on career
expectations. Teacher shortages can result in low career aspirations for students (Jiang et al., 2021). Teachers’ un-
familiarity with the college application process can lower secondary school student’s career aspirations (Roderick
et al., 2011). The career planning that teachers make for students affects their career aspirations, and adolescents
from low socioeconomic status families especially suffer from a lack of such career planning guidance (Holland &
DeLuca, 2016; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011).
In exploring the factors influencing children’s career expectations, existing studies have used variable-centered
methods such as questionnaires, interviews, hierarchical linear models, multilevel regression, and structural equa-
tion modeling (Andersen & van de Werfhorst, 2010; Bandura et al., 2001; Bigler et al., 2003; Jodl et al., 2001; Korupp
et al., 2002). There are no studies on secondary school students’ career expectations based on a person-centered
methodology. The variable-centered method finds predictors of career expectations, whereas the person-centered
approach aims to find the types of career expectations among students and schools.
789
(pp. 788-800) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Research Focus
This research focused on the types of career expectations of Estonian secondary school students. The Esto-
nian secondary school was used as an example because its sampling error was well controlled (see the following
sub-chapter “samples” for details). Parents have an irreplaceable role in guiding the formation of their children’s
career expectations. The occupations of mothers and fathers influence the career choices of their children (Hout,
2018; Korupp et al., 2002; Tsukahara, 2007). Therefore, this research constructed the career expectation types of
secondary school students related to their parents’ career status. In this way, the intergenerational transmission of
careers can be more clearly examined, and a more accurate picture can be obtained of the proportion of students
who aspire to be more ambitious beyond the constraints of their family of origin.
This research also looked at the context of career expectations in Estonian schools. Parents interfere with
their children’s educational outcomes by choosing schools for them, while the government intervenes in families’
school choice behavior through educational policies to avoid severe isolation. In an idealized, non-divided school
system, the proportion of students of various career expectation types is approximately equal. In heavily isolated
school systems, secondary school students of different career expectation types attend disparate schools. The
present research constructed types of career expectations in Estonian schools, which can examine the integration
of students of different vocational expectation types in schools.
Individual- and school-level covariates were also included in the multilevel latent profile modeling in this
research to examine the impact of these variables on latent profile membership. Given that studies have shown
that children who do well in science and girls have higher career aspirations, two covariates-gender and science
achievement-were set at level 1. Therefore, whether they influenced individuals’ latent profile affiliation can be
examined. Studies have shown that the greater the shortage of human resources in schools, the lower the career
expectations of Estonian secondary school students (Jiang et al., 2021). Therefore, teacher shortage was set as a
covariate at level 2 to examine whether it affected the schools’ latent profile membership.
Research Aim and Research Questions
Figure 1 presents the research aims: to establish the types of family-related career expectations of secondary
school students and to understand the impact of gender, science achievement, and school human resources on
latent profile membership.
Figure 1
Multilevel Regression Mixture Model with Individual- and School-level Covariates
Figure 1 presents the three latent profile indicators of BMMJ1, BFMJ2, and BSMJ. They were the mother’s
occupation, the father’s occupation, and the son’s (or daughter’s) occupational expectations, respectively (OECD,
2020a; OECD, 2020b). The data for these three latent profiles and the two covariates of science achievement and
gender were recorded in the PISA 2018 student dataset (OECD, 2020b). Data for the level 2 covariate, human re-
790
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 788-800)
source shortage (STAFFSHORT), can be found in the PISA 2018 school dataset (OECD, 2020b). If secondary school
students’ career expectations are divided into three types at the within-school level, there are two random means,
C#1 and C#2. BC is the latent profile defined by C#1 and C#2 at the school level, and C#1 and C#2 are continuous
latent variables that vary between schools (Flunger et al., 2021; Henry & Muthén, 2010; Mäkikangas et al., 2018).
The research questions were:
1. At the individual level, what career expectation types were there for secondary school students?
2. At the organizational level, was there an aggregation of identical career expectations?
3. Were science achievement, gender, and school staff resources predictors of membership in latent
profiles of career expectations?
Understanding the distribution of career expectations among students and schools is a central aspect of a coun-
try’s human resources development and has important implications for school development and family research.
General Background
For a long time, on the research topic of career expectations, people’s research interest has focused on find-
ing its predictors, thus adopting various variable-centered analysis techniques. Latent class/profile analysis is a
person-centered analysis technique (Marsh et al., 2009). It aims not to discover associations between variables
but to group people according to their different characteristics of variables. If the indicators used for grouping are
categorical variables, the technique is called latent class analysis (Marsh et al., 2009; Nylund et al., 2007). Latent
profile analysis is required if the indicators are continuous variables (Chung et al., 2020). Since people are often in
communities or organizations, and given the nested structural nature of the data, multi-level latent class/profile
analyses (MLCA/MLPA) have been developed in the last decade (Henry & Muthén, 2010; Mäkikangas et al., 2018).
Henry and Muthén (2010) used the MLPA to classify female students into heavy, moderate, and light smokers
and examined how the proportion of the three smoking types varied across communities. Mäkikangas et al. (2018)
grouped college staff by their level of work stress and explored how the percentage of different groups varies by
the college sector. Flunger et al. (2021) categorized students according to their homework behavior and examined
the differences in homework behaviors in class situations. The multilevel latent profile analysis was divided into
two types of parametric and non-parametric models. In all three of the above studies, grouping was done at levels
1 and 2, distinguishing between different organizational contexts, and was a non-parametric model. Based on the
non-parametric MLPA model, this research included level 1 and level 2 covariates, which was a multilevel regression
mixture model (Flunger et al., 2021; Henry & Muthén, 2010; Mäkikangas et al., 2018).
Several indexes are used to select the best latent profile solutions (Collins et al., 1993; Loken & Molenaar, 2008;
Marsh et al., 2009; Nylund et al., 2007). Among these indexes, Henry and Muthén (2010) highlighted the Bayesian
Information Criterion (BIC), entropy, and posterior probabilities as the basis for the selection. Generally, as profiles
become smaller, the information criterion decreases, and the classification accuracy increases. However, if it is ac-
companied by a profile share of less than 2% and similar profiles, the increase in classification accuracy is due to
over-extraction (Chung et al., 2020; Marsh et al., 2009). As a result, Mäkikangas et al. (2018) emphasized change
speed rather than BIC size as the primary criterion for selection. If both latent profile solutions have good good-
ness of fit, scholars recommend choosing the one with fewer profiles (Loken & Molenaar, 2008; Marsh et al., 2009).
Sample
5316 Estonian students aged 15 in 230 schools took the PISA 2018 test (Jiang et al., 2021; data missing for
two schools numbered 82 and 208). A value of 17 was assigned to BMMJ1 and BFMJ2 if the parent was currently in
educational training, retired, or doing housework (OECD, 2020b). Missing value records for BMMJ1, BFMJ2, and BSMJ
were 774, 1095, and 1170, respectively. Missing data on BMMJ1 and BFMJ2 were due to the child not knowing, being
unwilling to report, being from a single-parent household, etc. (OECD, 2020b). Some reasons led to BSMJ data being
missing. They were the absence of career expectations, inconsistency between interest-based and survival-need-
based career expectations, instability of career expectations, and reluctance to report their career expectations.
Including missing data in the modeling can leave the results uninterpreted due to uncertainty about the reasons
for the missing data. Therefore, missing data were excluded from the MLPA. There is no accepted standard for the
791
(pp. 788-800) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
minimum sample size required for MLPA (Mäkikangas et al., 2018). The multilevel analysis empirical standard is
adopted, which is not fewer than 100 communities and not fewer than ten people per community (Hox, 2010, p.
235; Silva et al., 2020, p. 38). After removing records containing missing data, then removing schools with fewer
than ten records, the final dataset consisted of 2,816 students in 145 schools. It was approximately 19.4 students
per school. According to the PISA project team, in 2018, there were 12,257 people aged 15 in Estonia, 12,120 of
them attending secondary schools, and 5,316 taking the PISA test (OECD 2019, p. 228). Therefore, 2,816 people
account for 23.2% of the total 15-year-old people enrolled in secondary schools, which was a good representation
of the overall population.
Data Analysis
The 2816 students had no missing values for the variables of science achievement and STAFFSHORT. The
descriptive statistics for BMMJ1, BFMJ2, and BSMJ are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Latent Profile Indicators
Analytic samplea Original sampleb

Statistics
BMMJ1 BFMJ2 BSMJ BMMJ1 BFMJ2 BSMJ
Mean 49.81 45.86 66.41 48.44 44.38 64.72

Minimum 11.56 11.56 11.56 11.56 11.01 11.56
Maximum 88.96 88.70 88.96 88.96 88.96 88.96
Percentiles 25 28.48 28.52 51.92 26.80 26.85 50.90
50 54.55 37.83 74.66 51.56 35.34 73.38
75 68.75 65.12 80.46 68.55 65.01 79.74
Note. a. n = 2816 students. b. n = 5316 students.
According to the analytic sample on the left-hand side of Table 1, the occupational status of fathers and
mothers of Estonian students does not differ significantly in the lower quartile. Nevertheless, the upper quartile,
the median, and the mean values for BMMJ1 were more than the corresponding values for BFMJ2. It suggested
that for parents whose occupational status was above 25%, mothers had some advantage over fathers in terms
of occupational status. The lower quartile of students’ career expectations was already 51.92, and the median was
74.66, indicating that students generally had high career aspirations. According to the original sample column on
the right-hand side of Table 1, the total data set shows the same pattern.
The gender differences in BMMJ1, BFMJ2, and BSMJ are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
The Gender Difference t-test of Latent Profile Indicators
Indicators n M Equal variance t p (2-tailed)
Female 1478 50.00

BMMJ1 Assumed .49 .627
Male 1338 49.60
Analytic Female 1478 45.21

BFMJ2 Not assumed -1.79* .074
sample Male 1338 46.57
Female 1478 70.24
BSMJ Not assumed 11.25*** < .001
Male 1338 62.19
792
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 788-800)
Indicators n M Equal variance t p (2-tailed)
Female 2349 48.28

BMMJ1 Assumed .51 .614
Male 2193 48.62
Original Female 2147 43.83

BFMJ2 Not assumed -1.83* .067
sample Male 2074 44.96
Female 2122 68.25
BSMJ Not assumed 11.71*** < .001
Male 2024 61.03
Note. * p < .1, *** p < .001.
According to Table 2, in the analytic sample, there is no gender difference for BMMJ1. The gender difference
test for BFMJ2 suggested marginal significance, with male students’ fathers having slightly higher occupational
status than female students’ fathers. The gender difference for BSMJ was significant, with female students having
much higher career expectations than male students. The same pattern was observed in the original sample.
The PISA project team used student questionnaires to obtain information on gender, BMMJ1, BFMJ2, and
BSMJ, while data on STAFFSHORT was obtained through school questionnaires (OECD, 2020b).
The MLPA of this research required the establishment of four models. The first model was a single-level LPA;
the second was a parametric model with K-1 random intercepts; the third was a non-parametric MLPA model; and
the fourth was a multilevel regression mixture model with covariates (Henry & Muthén, 2010; Mäkikangas et al.,
2018; Vermunt, 2003). Model 2 was the simplest type of MLPA. K was the number of career expectation profiles
found in model 1. Model 2 was designed to determine whether there were different career expectation contexts
at the school level rather than how many there were. Model 3 set up latent profiles at the school level. Model 4
examined the effect of covariates on membership of the latent profiles. MLPA was performed with Mplus 7.4.
Research Results
Types of Career Expectations at the Student Level
At the student level, solutions from two to eight profiles were tried. According to Table 3, BIC decreases signifi-
cantly from the two-profile to five-profile, especially from the two-profile to three-profile solution. Subsequently,
from the five-profile to the eight-profile solution, the trend of BIC reduction became flat. As far as BIC was considered,
the three-profile to five-profile solutions were considered good. From the perspective of classification accuracy
indexes: entropy and lowest posterior probability, the four-profile solution was not good at classification accuracy.
The students were correctly classified into each profile by the three-profile and five-profile solutions. However, the
deceleration of the BIC of the five-profile solution was significantly lower than that of the three-profile solution,
and a small profile of only 4.2% appeared. In addition, the five-profile solution did not hold up in either model 3
or model 4, so the three-profile solution won out for its parsimony.
Table 3
Model Fit Indexes of Latent Profile Solutions for Estonian Sample (Model 1)
Solutions Fit statistics
Lowest posterior
BIC Entropy
probabilities
2 profiles 73279.93 .94 .98

3 profiles 72522.89 .95 .98
4 profiles 72073.77 .91 .84
793
(pp. 788-800) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Solutions Fit statistics
Lowest posterior
BIC Entropy
probabilities
5 profiles 71675.26 .96 .96

6 profiles 71526.17 .92 .87
7 profiles 71246.91 .88 .83
8 profiles 71073.44 .89 .86
Conditional means_BMMJ1-BFMJ2-BSMJ
(Proportions)
The three-profile solution

58.2-65.7-72.7 44.9-29.1-72.3 38.9-36.4-27.8
(42.7%) (43.4%) (13.9%)
The five-profile solution
36.3-28.8-29.6 48.9-44.9-50.9 45.9-29.9-76.1 58.7-67.1-75.6 48.9-62.3-31.3
(11.7%) (8.7%) {39.4%} {36%} {4.2%}
Note. n = 2816 students. Index values that suggest the profile solution is desirable are shown in bold.
Based on the three-profile solution, students were divided into three types of career expectations: enterpris-
ing, resilient, and disengaged. The enterprising group, at 42.7%, had high career expectations and parental career
status. The resilient group, at 43.4%, had a significantly lower occupational status of mothers than the enterprising
group but had a higher career status relative to the male partner in the family. This group of students also had
high career expectations. The disengaged group, at 13.9%, had a further lower occupational status for mothers
than the resilient group and was close to that of the male partner in the family. This group of students had low
career expectations. Enterprising meant students pursuing a high career status similar to their parents. The resilient
profile was named because this group of students transcended the limits of their family’s existing occupations to
pursue higher career status. The disengaged profile got its name because this group of students identified with
the low-skilled careers of their families and therefore were detached from the demands of the competitive job
market they would face as adults.
Types of Career Expectation Contexts at School Level
Since career expectations were divided into three profiles at the student level, two random means, C#1 and
C#2, were set at the school level. For Model 2, BIC = 72688.91, lowest posterior probability = .909, entropy = .894
(variance estimate for C#1 = 1.035, SE = .181, p < .001; variance estimate for C#2 = .115, SE = .066, p = .081). It
showed that the typicality of high or low career expectations of secondary school students varies across schools.
Namely, several school contexts existed, and the proportions of the three Level 1 profiles were significantly dif-
ferent across schools.
Model 3 can be exercised as long as model 2 holds. The best non-parametric model was at the school level,
classifying schools into three contexts. The model had a BIC of 72678.88, the lowest posterior probability of .781,
and entropy of .813. The classification results of career expectations at the student and school levels are shown
in Figure 2.
794
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 788-800)
Figure 2
Three School-level Career Expectation Contexts (Model 3)
The enterprising and resilient composite school consisted mainly of enterprising and resilient profiles at level
1. The enterprising school mainly consisted of level 1 student groups of high BMMJ1-BFMJ2-BSMJ. The disengaged
and resilient composite school was named because it was mainly composed of disengaged and resilient student
groups at level 1. The proportions for the three school types were 48.4%, 22.9%, and 28.7%, respectively.
Among the enterprising and resilient composite school contexts, the proportions of disengaged, enterprising,
and resilient profiles at level 1 were 10%, 40.1%, and 49.9%, respectively. In an enterprising school context, the
proportion of the level 1 enterprising profile was 76.7%. It accounted for a much large proportion than the resilient
or disengaged profile. Among the disengaged and resilient composite school contexts, the disengaged, resilient,
and enterprising profiles on level 1 accounted for 36.8%, 44.8%, and 18.4%, respectively.
There were 495 enterprising students in the enterprising school system, compared to 547 and 149 in the two
compound school systems. Thus, they were more numerous in compound school systems. Resilient students were
the largest group in the composite school context, and even in enterprising school contexts, they accounted for
one in five (20.5%, n = 132). Disengaged students were concentrated mainly in composite school contexts.
Effect of Covariates on Membership of Latent Profiles
The BC(3)C(3) setting fitted the data well when the two covariates, gender and science achievement, were set
at Level 1 (BIC = 72003.907, entropy = .799). In this case, no profile switching occurred at either level 1 or level 2.
Covariates can be set at level 2, and the complexity of the model increases. There were two covariates to choose
from: STAFFSHORT and the group mean of students’ science achievements. At level 2, when the group mean of
science achievement was a covariate, the entropy value increased to .875, BIC = 72058.374. While no profile switch-
ing occurred at level 1, profile switching occurred at level 2. At level 2 with STAFFSHORT as a covariate, there was
an entropy of .8 and a BIC of 72019.335. No profile switching occurred at either level 1 or level 2. As a result, the
multilevel latent profile model with gender and science achievement as covariates at Level 1 and STAFFSHORT as
a covariate at Level 2 fitted the data (i.e., Model 4; see Figure 1).
The model showed that the better students did in science, the more likely they were to belong to the enter-
prising profile (estimate = .012, SE = .001, p < .001). Besides, the probability of a student belonging to the resilient
profile increased with good science achievement (estimate = .007, SE = .001, p < .001). The model also showed that
795
(pp. 788-800) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
male students were less likely to belong to the enterprising profile than female students (estimate = -.866, SE =
.131, p < .001). Male students were also less likely than female students to belong to the resilient profile (estimate =
-1.086, SE = .12, p < .001). The model also showed that the level 2 covariate STAFFSHORT did not predict member-
ship in the level 2 enterprising profile (estimate = .18, SE = .367, p = .624). STAFFSHORT also did not forecast the
membership in the level 2 enterprising-resilient composite profile (estimate = .203, SE = .412, p = .622).
Discussion
The role of mothers in shaping their children’s career expectations should not be overlooked. Parents’ careers
affect the career aspirations of their offspring (Al-Bahrani et al., 2020; Bozick et al., 2010; Lee & Byun, 2019). Some
studies have highlighted the role of mothers in guiding career aspirations (Augustine, 2017; Korupp et al., 2002).
This research found that families with the lowest maternal occupational status also had children with the lowest
career expectations. Therefore, mothers who strive for higher occupations rather than stay at home are more
conducive to children developing positive occupational attitudes.
Gender predicted latent profile membership. Females were more likely than male secondary school students
to be in the enterprising or resilient profile, given the same parental occupational status. It supported those stud-
ies that suggest female teenagers have higher career expectations (Al-Bahrani et al., 2020; Marks, 2010; McDaniel,
2010). Therefore, in a family, mothers need to be as concerned with guiding the career aspirations of their sons as
they are with orienting the career aspirations of their daughters. Alternatively, the father in the family needs to be
more involved in their son’s career planning.
Science achievement predicted membership in level 1 enterprising and resilient profiles. This finding sup-
ported those studies that argue that students who do well in science tend to have higher career aspirations (Sikora
& Pokropek, 2012; Tai et al., 2006). It thus turns out that to value the science curriculum and its teaching is to invest
in the future human resources of the country.
The between-school variation in career expectations was not predicted by staff shortages. At the student
level, teachers’ ability to plan their students’ careers influences teenagers’ career aspirations (Holland & DeLuca,
2016; Roderick et al., 2011; Rowan-Kenyon et al., 2011). A two-level analysis also shows that STAFFSHORT predicts
career expectations at the school level (Jiang et al., 2021). This research found that educational staff shortages do
not forecast the schools’ career expectation profiles. This finding is not an argument against previous studies. Under
the technical framework of MLPA, this finding meant that STAFFSHORT did not predict the type of career expecta-
tion at level 2. In other words, the membership of the level 2 profile cannot be judged according to STAFFSHORT.
Person-centered MLPA is an exciting and promising analytical technique. For the first time, this research
linked students’ career expectations to their parents’ career status and identified types of career expectations at
the student and school levels. Rather than the isolated school contexts of enterprising, resilient, and disengaged,
the school contexts found in this research were predominantly composite. 77.1% of students lived in compound
school contexts.
The model could not fit the data when the science achievement group mean was used as a level 2 covariate. It
impeded testing whether the group mean of science achievement affects membership in the Level 2 latent profiles.
If this model can be established in subsequent studies, it will clarify the effect of science achievement on latent
profile membership at the between-school level. The effect of the level 2 covariate STAFFSHORT on between-school
latent profile membership was also not found in this study. The above were non-parametric models. Within the
framework of the parametric model, it is possible to test the effect of STAFFSHORT on within-school latent profile
membership (Henry & Muthén, 2010). However, this parametric model also failed to fit the data. In conclusion,
this study had limitations in testing the effects of the level 2 covariates (science achievement group means and
STAFFSHORT) on career expectation profile membership at the within-school and between-school levels.

At the student level, enterprising, resilient, and disengaged career expectation types were found among
Estonian secondary school students. The proportion of students in the resilient group was much larger than
in the disengaged group (43.4% vs. 13.9%). The enterprising and disengaged profiles were reflections of the
intergenerational transmission of careers. On the other hand, the resilient profile was a signal to break through
the intergenerational transmission of occupations. There was no severe aggregation of career expectations (that
796
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 788-800)
is, the isolation of different career expectations). No disengaged school contexts were found, so the low career
expectations student group was not isolated. Aggregation was mainly found in the second school context, i.e.,
the enterprising school context, where 22.9% of students were in this organizational climate. Its main body
was the enterprising student group, accounting for 76.7%. Most students (77.1%) were in a composite school
context that promotes integration and socialization. Nearly half of the students (48.4%) were in enterprising
and resilient compound schools, an organizational climate in which parents had varying levels of career status,
but most students had high career expectations. The study also found that gender and science achievement
predicted latent profile membership at the student level, while staff shortages did not predict latent profile
membership at the school level.
This research had three new developments. First, it found the predictive effect of science achievement on
the career expectation types of secondary school students at the within-school level. Second, maternal influence
was discovered to characterize the career expectation types of secondary school students. The mother’s moder-
ate but higher occupational status than the father’s increased the probability that the offspring belonged to the
resilient profile. Meanwhile, the mother’s and father’s low-skilled careers raised the possibility that the offspring
belonged to the disengaged profile. Third, it found gender differences in the types of career expectations of
students. Female students had a better chance of belonging to the enterprising and resilient profiles than male
students. Thus, this research complemented the findings of the existing variable-centered methodology with the
results of the person-centered one.
This research provides the following implications. Teachers should further improve students’ participation
in science courses. Achieving good science achievement increases the chances of students entering resilient and
enterprising profiles. Because there is a close association between the low occupational status of mothers and
their children belonging to the disengaged profile, society needs to focus on providing educational training and
employment opportunities for mothers who are unemployed or currently doing housework. Schools should of-
fer career planning guidance for students. Career planning teachers should also help secondary school students
understand the trajectory of higher education that is consistent with their career aspirations. In this way, the highly
skilled career aspirations of 15-year-old students have a better chance to transform into their adult career status. In
addition, society, schools, and families must not neglect career planning guidance for young men. Today’s young
men are not only the workforce in the future but also the fathers of a family in the future. The pursuit of higher
occupational status by young men will help to gradually reverse the trend where the fathers’ mean and median
occupation status is lower than those of mothers.
Further research should distinguish more precisely the types of students’ career expectations. For example,
by adding latent profile indicators, it is possible to test whether two subtypes exist in the high-skilled career ex-
pectations of secondary school students: management-related and science-related. When these two subtypes
hold in the student population, it is possible to test whether science achievement increases the odds of students
achieving membership in a science-related subtype compared to a management-related subtype. Another research
direction is to continue exploring career expectation contexts at the school level. Do schools exist that consist
of mainly disengaged students? It reflects the intergenerational transmission of low occupational status. If such
schools exist, what percentage of students attend them? These issues need to be answered. Going beyond career
expectations, the MLPA model can be used to explore a wide range of educational questions. For example, by
combining science learning behaviors, cognitive characteristics, and psychological characteristics (e.g., positive
emotions), it is possible to test whether there are three groups of students with high, medium, and low levels of
commitment to science courses. If the model holds, the researcher can know which cognitive and psychological
traits the three groups carry.
Acknowledgements
This research is from the project (Grant number BGA210057) supported by the National Social Science Foun-
dation of China.
797
(pp. 788-800) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
References
Al-Bahrani, M. A., Allawati, S. M., Abu Shindi, Y. A., & Bakkar, B. S. (2020). Career aspiration and related contextual variables.
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2020.1730201
Andersen, R., & van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2010). Education and occupational status in 14 countries: The role of
educational institutions and labour market coordination. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(2), 336–355.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01315.x
Augustine, J. M. (2017). Increased educational attainment among U.S. mothers and their children’s academic expectations.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 52, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2017.08.001
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations
and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273
Bigler, R. S., Averhart, C. J., & Liben, L. S. (2003). Race and the workforce: Occupational status, aspirations, and stereotyping
among African American children. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 572-580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.39.3.572
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072
Bozick, R., Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., Dauber, S., & Kerr, K. (2010). Framing the future: Revisiting the place of educational
expectations in status attainment. Social Forces, 88(5), 2027–2052.
Cannady, M., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K.N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor
serving our students and the STEM workforce? Science Education, 98(3), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108
Carolan, B. V. (2017). Assessing the adaptation of adolescents’ educational expectations: Variations by gender. Social
Psychology of Education, 20(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9377-y
Chung, G., Phillips, J., Jensen, T. M., & Lanier, P. (2020). Parental involvement and adolescents’ academic achievement:
Latent profiles of mother and father warmth as a moderating influence. Family Process, 59(2), 772–788.
https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12450
Collins, L. M., Fidler, P. L., Wugalter, S. E., & Long, J. D. (1993). Goodness-of-fit testing for latent class models. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 28(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2803_4
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2011). High aspirations but low progression: The science
aspirations-careers paradox amongst minority ethnic students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 9(2), 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9245-0
Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., & Schnyder, I. (2021). Using multilevel mixture models in
educational research: An illustration with homework research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(1), 209–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1652137
Henry, K. L., & Muthén, B. (2010). Multilevel latent class analysis: An application of adolescent smoking typologies with
individual and contextual predictors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 193–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511003659342
Hoff, K., Van Egdom, D., Napolitano, C., Hanna, A., & Rounds, J. (2022). Dream jobs and employment realities: How
adolescents’ career aspirations compare to labor demands and automation risks. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(1),
134–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211026183
Holland, J.L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, M. M., & DeLuca, S. (2016). “Why wait years to become something?” Low-income African American
youth and the costly career search in for-profit trade schools. Sociology of Education, 89(4), 261–278.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716666607
Hout, M. (2018). Americans’ occupational status reflects the status of both of their parents. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(38), 9527–9532. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802508115
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Jiang, T., Chen, J.-G., & Fang, W. (2021). The generative mechanism of secondary school students’ occupational expectations
in the Baltic countries: Influence of family, school, and individual science learning achievement. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 20(5), 759-774. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.759
Jodl, K. M., Michael, A., Malanchuk, O., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2001). Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents’
occupational aspirations. Child Development, 72(4), 1247–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00345
Kalmijn, M. (1994). Mother’s occupational status and children’s schooling. American Sociological Review, 59(2), 257–275.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2096230
Karlson, K. B. (2019). Expectation formation for all? Group differences in student response to signals about academic
performance. The Sociological Quarterly, 60(4), 716–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1580549
Kim, S., Klager, C., & Schneider, B. (2019). The effects of alignment of educational expectations and occupational
aspirations on labor market outcomes: Evidence from NLSY79. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(6), 992–1015.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1615333
Kleinjans, K. J. (2010). Family background and gender differences in educational expectations. Economics Letters, 107(2),
125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.01.002
798
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 788-800)
Korupp, S. E., Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & van der Lippe, T. (2002). Do mother matter? A comparison of models of the influence
of mother’s and father’s educational and occupational status on children’s educational attainment. Quality and
Quantity, 36(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014393223522
Krumboltz, J. D. (1994). Improving career development theory from a social learning theory perspective. In M. L. Savickas
& R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theory (pp. 9–32). CPP Books.
Lee, B., & Byun, S. (2019). Socioeconomic status, vocational aspirations, school tracks, and occupational attainment in
South Korea. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(8), 1494–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01056-5
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest,
choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
Loken, E., & Molenaar, P. (2008). Categories or continua? The correspondence between mixture models and factor models.
In G. R. Hancock & K. M. Samuelsen (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 277–297). Information Age
Publishing.
Mäkikangas, A., Tolvanen, A., Aunola, K., Feldt, T., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2018). Multilevel latent profile analysis with
covariates: Identifying job characteristics profiles in hierarchical data as an example. Organizational Research Methods,
21(4), 931–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118760690
Marks, G. (2010). Meritocracy, modernization and students’ occupational expectations: Cross-national evidence. Research
in Social Stratification and Mobility, 28(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2010.06.002
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept
dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(2), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751010
McDaniel, A. (2010). Cross-National gender gaps in educational expectations: The influence of national-level gender
ideology and educational systems. Comparative Education Review, 54(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1086/648060
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth
mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4),
535–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume II): Where all students can succeed.
OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation Development. (2020a). PISA 2018 Database [Data set]. OECD.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation Development. (2020b). Scaling procedures and construct validation of context
questionnaire data. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/PISA2018_Technical-Report-
Chapter-16-Background-Questionnaires.pdf
Roderick, M., Coca, V., & Nagaoka, J. (2011). Potholes on the road to college: High school effects in shaping urban students’
participation in college application, four-year college enrollment, and college match. Sociology of Education, 84(3),
178–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711411280
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Perna, L. W., & Swan, A. K. (2011). Structuring opportunity: The role of school context in
shaping high school students’ occupational aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly, 59(4), 330–344.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.tb00073.x
Schmitt-Wilson, S., & Faas, C. (2016). Alignment of educational and occupational expectations influences on young adult
educational attainment, income, and underemployment: Aligned expectations. Social Science Quarterly, 97(5),
1174–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12244
Schoon, I., & Parsons, S. (2002). Teenage aspirations for future careers and occupational outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 60(2), 262–288. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1867
Sikora, J. (2018). Aimless or flexible? Does uncertainty in adolescent occupational expectations matter in young adulthood?
Australian Journal of Education, 62(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944118776463
Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education,
96(2), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479
Sikora, J., & Saha, L. J. (2009). Gender and professional career plans of high school students in comparative
perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 15(4), 385–403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803610903087060
Silva, B. C., Bosancianu, C. M., & Littvay, L. (2020). Multilevel structural equation modeling. Sage.
Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Career choice. Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777),
1143–1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128690
Tsukahara, I. (2007). The effect of family background on occupational choice. LABOUR, 21(4-5), 871–890.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9914.2007.00395.x
Ve r m u n t , J . K . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . M u l t i l e v e l l a t e n t c l a s s m o d e l s . S o c i o l o g i ca l M e t h o d o l o g y, 3 3 ( 1 ) , 2 1 3 - 2 3 9 .
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0081-1750.2003.t01-1-00131.x
Wicht, A. (2016). Occupational aspirations and ethnic school segregation: Social contagion effects among
native German and immigrant youths. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(11), 1825–1845.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1149455
799
(pp. 788-800) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Wicht, A., & Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (2014). The impact of neighborhoods and schools on young people’s occupational
aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.006
Received: July 16, 2022 Revised: August 22, 2022 Accepted: October 02, 2022
Cite as: Jiang, T., Chen, J.-G., Xu, P.-C., & Zeng, P.-F. (2022). Multilevel latent profile analysis of Estonian secondary school students’
career expectations with science achievement and gender as covariates. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 788-800.
Tao Jiang PhD, Professor, Department of Physics, School of Materials Science

(Corresponding author) and Engineering, Taizhou University, 1139 Shifu Avenue, Jiaojiang
District, Taizhou 318000, Zhejiang Province, China.
E-mail: hopejt@163.com
Ji-gen Chen PhD, Professor, Department of Materials Engineering, School of
Materials Science and Engineering, Taizhou University, Taizhou
318000, Zhejiang Province, China.
E-mail: kiddchen@126.com
Ping-chuan Xu M.S., Professor, School of Physics and Astronomy, China West
Normal University, Nanchong 637009, China.
E-mail: pcxu@163.com
Ping-fei Zeng PhD, Professor, College of the Teacher Education, Zhejiang Normal
University, 688 Yingbin Road, Jinhua 321004, Zhejiang Province,
China
E-mail: zpf@zjnu.cn
800
TEACHING OF CRITICAL
THINKING SKILLS BY SCIENCE
TEACHERS IN JAPANESE ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
PRIMARY SCHOOLS ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Abstract. The importance of critical

thinking in science education is widely
recognized. However, little research
has been conducted on the teaching of
Hiroyoshi Kinoshita critical thinking by teachers. If actual
teaching conditions of teachers in the
classroom are clarified, effective teaching
methods for developing critical thinking
in students could be developed. This study
administered a questionnaire survey to
ascertain how science teachers teach
critical thinking in Japanese primary
Introduction
schools. The study population consisted
of 291 Japanese primary school teachers
These days, people are surrounded by an overflow of information, mak-
with teaching careers spanning 1–38 years.
ing it easy for them to access countless types of information in vast quanti-
The survey revealed the following. (1)
ties. Although some information may be unsubstantiated, false, or represent Teachers taught students the importance
pseudoscience, people tend to believe the information they encounter of conducting experiments by themselves
without question. To rise above this tendency, people need to develop critical to obtain results. However, teachers did
thinking skills. Paul and Elder (2001) identified two types of critical thinking, not sufficiently teach students the need
one in which others’ opinions and ideas are the object of critical thinking to conduct multiple experiments before
and the other in which one’s own opinions and ideas are the object. The lat- reaching a conclusion, improve data
ter is more progressive because it is not easy to think critically about one’s reliability before making decisions, or
own ideas when one has received or relies on unsubstantiated or incorrect examine their conclusions carefully given
information. The same is true in education: It is not easy for students to verify incomplete data. (2) Compared to teachers
the authenticity of the information they receive and examine their decisions with shorter teaching careers, teachers
to ensure that they are not making assumptions or overlooking something. with longer careers taught critical thinking
Thus, it is important for students to develop critical thinking skills for more more effectively, particularly in terms of
effective learning. emphasizing positivity and maintaining a
This idea has now become a global trend in education, with critical think- healthy skepticism. (3) Teachers who taught
ing and other skills and competencies receiving substantial attention (Sutiani emphasized positivity and encouraged
et al., 2021). One representative example is the “21st Century Skills” proposed multifaceted thinking were more likely to
in the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills Project: ATC21S (Griffin teach about emphasized evidence. The
et al., 2012). These skills are grouped into four categories—“ways of think- corresponding causal relationship analysis
suggests that teaching that emphasizes
ing,” “ways of working,” “tools for working,” and “living in the world”—and
positivity and encourages multifaceted
include critical thinking. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
thinking is key to promoting evidence-
Development Future of Education and Skills 2030 Project has also identified
oriented instruction.
three categories of skills as learning competences for achieving wellbeing
Keywords: science learning, critical
in 2030—“cognitive & meta-cognitive,” “social & emotional,” and “physical &
thinking skills, in-service teachers, teaching
practical”—and also includes critical thinking. Based on these international skills, teachers’ training
trends, the National Institute for Educational Policy Research (NIER, 2013) has
proposed “21st century competencies” that are skills necessary for students to
survive in the 21st century. These fall into the three categories of “basic skills,”
“thinking skills,” and “practical skills,” and then again, include critical think- Hiroyoshi Kinoshita
ing. Despite the increasing awareness of the importance of critical thinking, Hiroshima University, Japan
research on students’ critical thinking is still in its infancy, although several
related studies have been conducted (Pasquinelli et al., 2021). Specifically,
801
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
few research reports regarding teachers’ teaching skills on critical thinking have been published. Toward filling
this gap, this study examined teachers’ teaching skills on critical thinking, particularly the case of science teachers
in Japanese primary schools.
Theoretical Background
Critical thinking has been extensively studied in the West since the 1930s. The background was the wartime
propaganda movement, during which people had to develop critical thinking in order to resist declarations, doc-
trines, and so on. In the United States, “The Eight-Year Study (1933–1941)” was spearheaded by The Progressive
Education Association, which actively conducted research on critical thinking. Since then, many researchers have
defined critical thinking from their own perspectives, and controversy has ensued.
For example, according to Ennis (1962), a famous critical thinking researcher, critical thinking is defined as the
ability to correctly assess statements, which is independent of the subject matter and context and can be general-
ized. By contrast, McPeck (1981) argued that critical thinking is not generalizable because it depends on the subject
matter and context. Later, Ennis (1987) revised his own definition, stating that critical thinking is reasonable, reflec-
tive thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. Thus, the concept has been modified or expanded
in discussions among researchers. Despite the lack of consensus, these definitions have some commonalities, such
as reflective, rational, and skeptical perspectives.
Critical thinking has also received attention in science education, where researchers and practitioners consider
it necessary for students to acquire not only science knowledge and skills but also critical thinking (Byrne & John-
stone, 1987). A review of the literature on critical thinking in science education reveals several important studies.
Relevant published studies can generally be classified into four categories. The first category comprises studies
on the development of critical thinking measures, such as the work of Mapeala and Siew (2015), who presented
science content to primary school students and created questions that were answerable on a four-point scale.
When answering the questions, students were instructed to select the relevant items from the following catego-
ries to demonstrate critical thinking: comparing objects; ordering; and identifying cause and effect. However, this
measurement method does not easily capture the details of thinking methods and situations. Meanwhile, Forawi
(2016) developed the Critical Thinking Attribute Survey (CTAS) instrument to measure university students’ critical
thinking. The CTAS is designed to measure conclusions; it can measure the accuracy of statements, the soundness
of reasoning, and the interpretation of claims and results used to draw conclusions.
The second category concerns the assessment of critical thinking, which includes the work of Dowd et al.
(2018), who used the Biology Thesis Assessment Protocol to assess scientific reasoning in university students and
the California Critical Thinking Skills Test to measure critical thinking, and then analyzed the relationship between
the two. Gómez and Suárez (2020) analyzed the relationship between inquiry-based teaching (IBT) and critical
thinking using the results of the 2015 PISA test. The results revealed a positive association between IBT and stu-
dents’ self-reported critical thinking.
The third category concerns the development of critical thinking. For example, Hussein et al. (2019) focused
on the inquiry, communication, mystery, decision-making, challenge, and reward perspectives and designed an
educational computer game. After testing the game’s effectiveness in primary science units on “biological food
relations,” “plant life processes,” and “energy,” the authors reported significant improvements in students’ critical
thinking. Meanwhile, Rowe et al. (2015) developed a teaching method that includes three elements: incorporat-
ing case studies, such as the vaccine vs. autism debate; teaching the basics of argumentation and logical fallacies;
and contrasting science and pseudoscience. The effectiveness of the teaching method was tested in a university
“Foundations of Science” course, which revealed significant improvements in students’ critical thinking.
The fourth category concerns teacher education (pre-service and in-service). Arsal (2017) investigated the
impact of inquiry-based learning on the critical thinking of pre-service teachers. The results revealed no significant
difference in the pre-service teachers’ critical thinking in the experimental and control groups. In addition, the
study suggested that microteaching is effective in developing pre-service teachers’ critical thinking. Ariza et al.
(2021) noted that in-service teachers tended to replicate the teaching models they experienced as students and
designed several training activities for pre-service teachers. The results of the activities revealed that pre-service
teachers recognized encouraging students to think critically as an important part of the teacher’s role. While many
studies discussed above have investigated the assessment and development of critical thinking, few have focused
on teacher education in this context. Ma et al. (2021) noted that although the importance of critical thinking in
802
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ TEACHING OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS BY SCIENCE TEACHERS IN JAPANESE PRIMARY
SCHOOLS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 801-816)
science education has been widely recognized worldwide, scant research on the subject has been conducted.
Aims and Research Questions
Although the importance of critical thinking in science education is widely recognized, it has been assumed
that in-service teachers in some countries, including Japan, do not know how to teach critical thinking skills and
instead focus on teaching knowledge (Ariza et al., 2021; Forawi, 2016; Kinoshita, 2013). Research is needed in this
area given the insufficiency of prior studies on science teacher education. Specifically, a survey into the reality of
science education, which has yet to be clarified, is urgently needed. If the details of science teachers’ actual teaching
conditions can be clarified, effective teaching methods may be developed to help students cultivate critical thinking.
To those ends, this study clarifies the details of the conditions of science teachers’ teaching of critical thinking
in Japanese primary schools by surveying science teachers through a questionnaire. In this study, Ennis’s (1987)
definition of critical thinking, “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do,”
which is frequently cited in previous research, was used. For this purpose, three research questions were set:
(1) Do primary school science teachers in Japan provide instruction that acquires critical thinking in their
students? If so, what kind of instruction do they provide?
(2) Do the teaching skills of science teachers differ according to the length of a teaching career? If so, what
differences in teaching contents exist between teachers with long versus short teaching careers?
(3) Focusing on the science teachers’ teaching skills factors, what is the structure of these factors? With
reference to the factor structure, what can be done to improve teachers’ teaching skills?
Research Design
First, a questionnaire was developed to measure how primary science teachers teach critical thinking to their
students. Second, a survey of primary science teachers was conducted using the questionnaire, and factor analysis
and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on the responses obtained to determine the teachers’ teaching
conditions. Finally, a causal model was created using structural equation modeling (SEM) to identify the factor
relationships that influence science teachers’ teaching contents.
Research Sample
The survey was conducted between June 2021 and February 2022 using a questionnaire. The study population
consisted of 291 (136 male and 155 female) primary school teachers in the Hokkaido, Tokyo, Toyama, Okayama,
and Hiroshima prefectures in Japan. Primary schools in Japan are a compulsory six-year course, from grades 1 to 6.
Generally, the primary school teachers teach all curricular subjects, although some teachers do not teach science.
This survey’s teachers’ teaching careers ranged from 1 to 38 years, and all taught science classes. For this reason,
this study describes primary school teachers as science teachers. To eliminate as much bias as possible related to
the study area, the survey was conducted in five different urban areas. Written consent was first obtained from
the school principals and then the participating teachers. The gender and career-length proportions of the sci-
ence teachers surveyed were dominated by female teachers, many of whom had long careers. This is generally
representative of the primary school teachers’ population in the country. The questionnaires were distributed to
participants in person by the researcher, and the collection rate was 100%. The survey was subjected to a research
ethics review by Hiroshima University, and approval was obtained (approval number: 2021051).
Questionnaire Development
This study examined prior research for a scale to measure in-service teachers’ critical thinking teaching skills
with students in science classes but was unable to locate any such scale. Accordingly, the author then referred
to measures of students’ critical thinking. The Watson and Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson et al., 2002)
and California Critical Thinking Disposition (Banning, 2006) questionnaires are often used to measure inference,
recognition of assumptions, inquisitiveness, and other general aspects of critical thinking (Forawi, 2016). However,
803
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
as subject matter and context are important in critical thinking, questions that correspond to the reality of sci-
ence classes must be prepared. From this standpoint, Kinoshita et al. (2013), Kinoshita and Yamanaka (2014), and
Kinoshita (2015) focused on science classes from primary to high school and developed questionnaire items that
capture students’ critical thinking level. These questionnaire items were confirmed for validity and reliability through
statistical methods. The items for primary school students consisted of four factors: “reflective thinking,” “inquisi-
tive and rational thinking,”“emphasis on evidence,” and “healthy skepticism” (20 items). Items for secondary school
students consisted of four factors: “exploratory and rational thinking,”“multifaceted thinking,”“reflective thinking,”
and “healthy skepticism” (23 items). The items for high school students consisted of five factors: “emphasis on data
collection and interpretation,” “emphasis on demonstrability and reproducibility,” “inquisitive thinking,” “healthy
skepticism,” and “emphasis on objectivity” (20 items).
The questionnaire items for teachers were developed based on the above-mentioned questionnaire items
for students. In other words, the content of the questionnaire items was converted from the perspective of those
who receive science lessons to those who teach them. Three teachers teaching primary school teacher training
at a university and two teachers at a university-affiliated primary school examined the content and wording of
the questionnaire items and prepared 40 items. To achieve an authentic measurement, the subjects were not in-
formed at the time of the survey that it was a survey on the teaching of critical thinking. The survey was designed
to clarify teachers’ actual teaching practices in science classes. The participants were instructed to “Please answer
the questionnaire as you think it should be answered.” Under the instruction that “We will not identify or evaluate
individuals,” the subjects were asked to answer the questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale: (1) not applicable,
(2) not very applicable, (3) neither applicable nor not applicable, (4) somewhat applicable, and (5) applicable. The
numbers of the responses were used as scores as they were. However, scores were reversed for Q2, Q5, Q9, Q11,
Q14, Q15, Q19, Q35, Q37, and Q38, as can be seen in Table 1. In addition, a column for an open-ended question
was provided so that respondents could state what they paid special attention to when teaching science in the
classroom (Table 1). The following attributes were also reported: gender, number of years of teaching career,
whether they had received training in science, and whether they were uncomfortable with science instruction.
Table 1
Questionnaire Items
Q1 When students disagree with each other, you instruct them to reflect on their ideas once.
Q2R When students disagree with each other, you instruct them to decide by majority vote.
Q3 You instruct students not to believe an opinion just because many people agree with it.
Q4 You instruct students to consider multiple causes for a single outcome.
Q5 R You instruct students to ignore data that cannot be explained.
Q6 You instruct students to repeat the experiment multiple times.
Q7 You instruct students to think about whether there are other ways to do the experiment before they do it.
Q8 You instruct students to focus on the experimental data they have obtained and to make decisions.
Q9 R You do not require students to experiment when they already know the scientific law or principle.
Q10 You instruct students to give reasons for their opinions.
Q11 R
You do not require students to repeat the same experiment after they have obtained the expected experimental results.
Q12 You instruct students to check if there are any conditions they have overlooked before drawing their conclusions.
Q13 You instruct students to collect as much experimental data as possible.
Q14 R You do not require students to experiment subsequently in a different manner when they have obtained the expected experimental results.
Q15 R
You do not require students to experiment when the results are obvious without the need to experiment.
Q16 You instruct students not to trust the results of a single experiment.
Q17 You instruct students not to draw conclusions when they do not have all the experimental data.
804
SCHOOLS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 801-816)
Q18 You instruct students to conduct the experiment even though they can predict the outcome of the experiment.
Q19 R You instruct students to use the information they find on the Internet if they do not get the expected experimental results.
Q20 You instruct students to make decisions based on evidence.
Q21 You instruct students to conduct the experiment even though they already know the scientific law or principle.
Q22 You instruct students to check the experimental data for errors.
Q23 You instruct students to check for errors in experimental procedures when they are unable to collect experimental data successfully.
Q24 You instruct students not to trust a statement just because it is from a textbook.
Q25 You instruct students not to trust the information they find on the Internet just because they have looked it up.
Q26 You instruct students to try new things.
Q27 You instruct students to think about any oddities in the experimental results when they are obtained.
Q28 You instruct students to keep the conclusions to what is derived from the experimental data.
Q29 You instruct students to be objective and to interpret the experimental data.
Q30 You instruct students to focus on both sides of what the experiment revealed and what was not revealed.
Q31 You instruct students not to ignore experimental data just because it is inconvenient.
Q32 You instruct students to think things through until they are satisfied with themselves.
Q33 You instruct students to try different methods when one method does not solve the problem.
Q34 You instruct students to look for better ideas even when they come up with good ones.
Q35 R You instruct students to use the data presented in the textbook when they have not successfully collected experimental data.
Q36 You instruct students to check for errors in the way the experiment was conducted.
Q37 R
You instruct students to use the results presented in the textbook when they do not obtain the expected experimental results.
Q38 R You do not require students to perform an experiment if the experiment is a simple one.
Q39 When a student’s experiment does not go well, you instruct students to think about what went wrong.
Q40 You instruct students not to make assumptions about the results of the second experiment based solely on the results of the first experiment.
When you are teaching a science class, what is your particular focus during the class?
Note: R means reverse.
Validity and Reliability Analysis
To examine the validity of the created questionnaire items, factor analysis (principal factor method and promax
rotation) was conducted. Items with loadings of .35 or higher were designated as items within the factor structure.
The factor analysis was repeated except for items that did not meet this criterion, and five factors were extracted
(Table 2). Factor 1 was labeled “multifaceted thinking” because it consisted of items such as “Before conducting
an experiment, have students think about whether there are other experimental methods” and “Before drawing a
conclusion, have students check if there are any conditions they have overlooked.” Factor 2 was labeled “emphasis
on demonstrability” because it consisted of items such as “Have students conduct experiments even if they know
the scientific rules involved” and “Have students conduct experiments even if they can predict the results of the
experiments.” Factor 3 was labeled “emphasis on evidence” because it consisted of items such as “Have students not
draw conclusions when the necessary experimental data are not available,” and “Have students not believe opinions
just because many people agree with them.” Factor 4 was labeled “healthy skepticism” because it consisted of items
such as “When experimental data were not obtained successfully, have them use data presented in textbooks (R)”
and “When the expected experimental results were not obtained, have them use information from the Internet (R).”
Factor 5 was labeled “emphasis on objectivity” because it consisted of items such as “Have the participants interpret
805
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
the experimental data with an objective attitude” and “Have the participants make judgments with emphasis on
the experimental data obtained.”
The reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for each factor were then calculated to examine the questionnaire
items’ reliability. The results showed that .531 ≤ α ≤ .810, thus confirming the internal consistency of each factor.
Based on the above, the researcher concluded that the created questionnaire items were valid and reliable in
capturing the reality of teachers’ critical thinking in science classes. SPSS Ver. 28 was used for the analysis.
Table 2
Factor Analysis
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Q11 R .714 .155 .246 .079 .008

Q14 R
.659 .206 .133 .024 .112
Q7 .568 .062 .238 .027 .084
Q33 .567 .073 .092 .020 .034
Q12 .548 .091 .271 .079 .072
Q30 .547 .221 .081 .004 .250
Q34 .514 .034 .126 .044 .062
Q6 .397 .011 .059 .085 .239
Q21 .097 .718 .201 .069 .059
Q18 .220 .664 .194 .040 .119
Q9 R .094 .640 .117 .015 .023
Q38 R .122 .591 .044 .064 .064
Q15 R .194 .575 .099 .140 .027
Q40 .014 .021 .679 .054 .016
Q39 .035 .095 .605 .036 .051
Q17 .001 .039 .491 .135 .042
Q4 .316 .032 .412 .035 .144
Q3 .147 .230 .392 .091 .135
Q37 R .030 .041 .108 .950 .080
Q35 R .014 .013 .059 .821 .004
Q19 R
.040 .133 .025 .382 .110
Q28 .008 .039 .148 .058 .563
Q29 .193 .010 .127 .019 .527
Q8 .041 .128 .044 .103 .472
F1 - .213 .450 .320 .304
F2 - .344 .104 .191
F3 - .097 .471
F4 - .117
F5 -
Note: R means reverse.
806
SCHOOLS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 801-816)
Research Results
Comparison of Factor Scores
It can be inferred that the teaching of critical thinking is not uniform and that some matters are carefully
taught while others are poorly taught. Therefore, based on the responses obtained, this study analyzed the reality
of how primary science teachers teach their students to develop critical thinking. First, for each of the five factors
obtained, the mean of the scores of the items comprising the factor was calculated, and this was used as the subscale
score (Table 3). Next, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether significant differences
existed among the scores of the five factors (Table 4). The results showed a significant main effect on the mean of
the scores for each factor (F (1, 290) = 23,354.897, p < .01). Therefore, multiple comparisons were performed using
Bonferroni’s method to determine which scores had significant differences between them (Table 5). The results
showed significant differences among all scores. The highest score was for “emphasis on empirical evidence,” with
a value greater than 4.00, while the lowest score was for “emphasis on evidence,” with a value of less than 3.00.
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Each Factor
Factor M SD
Multifaceted thinking (F1) 3.41 0.65

Emphasis on demonstrability (F2) 4.32 0.58
Emphasis on evidence (F3) 2.81 0.83
Healthy skepticism (F4) 3.97 0.54
Emphasis on objectivity (F5) 3.70 0.59
Note: N = 291.
Table 4
One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Five Factors Scores
SS df MS F
Factor 19278.359 1 19278.359 23354.897**
Residuals 239.381 290 .825

Note: ** means p < .01.
Table 5
Multiple Comparisons of Factors
MD
Multifaceted Emphasis on Emphasis on Healthy Emphasis on

thinking demonstrability evidence skepticism objectivity
Multifaceted thinking − .910** .587** .564** .290**
Emphasis on demonstrability − 1.497** .346** .620**
Emphasis on evidence − 1.150** .877**
Healthy skepticism − .274**
Emphasis on objectivity −
Note: ** means p < .01.
807
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Comparison by Teaching Career
It is inferred that differences exist in the teaching of critical thinking between teachers with long and short
teaching careers. As such, this study divided teachers into five groups according to the number of years of teach-
ing experience and analyzed whether differences in instruction existed. First, teachers who did not describe their
teaching career years in the attribute items of the questionnaire were excluded from the analysis, and the remaining
288 teachers were categorized into Career 1 (5 or less years of teaching), Career 2 (6–10 years of teaching), Career
3 (11–20 years of teaching), Career 4 (21–30 years of teaching), and Career 5 (31 or more years of teaching; Table
6). The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Board of Educa-
tion consider life stage categories of 1, 5, 10, and 20 years of teaching and provide legal training accordingly. The
groups were thus classified based on this idea.
Next, an ANOVA was conducted with the factor as the dependent variable and teaching career as the inde-
pendent variable (Table 7). The results showed significant main effects on the mean of the scores for “emphasis
on demonstrability” (F (4,283) = 2.874, p < .05), “healthy skepticism” (F (4,283) = 8.370, p < .01), and “emphasis on
objectivity” (F (4,283) = 5.438, p < .01). Thus, multiple comparisons were conducted using Bonferroni’s method to
determine which scores had significant differences among them. The results showed that for “emphasis on demon-
strability,” the mean of the scores was significantly higher for Career 2 teachers than for Career 1 teachers (Table 8).
For “healthy skepticism,” the mean of the scores was significantly higher for Careers 4 and 5 teachers than for Career
1 teachers, and for Career 4 teachers than for Careers 2 and 3 teachers (Table 9). Furthermore, for “emphasis on
objectivity,” the mean of the scores was significantly higher for Careers 4 and 5 teachers than for Career 1 teachers,
and for Careers 4 and 5 teachers than for Career 3 teachers (Table 10).
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Career Groups in Each Factor
Factor Career Group N M SD
1 71 3.308 .622
2 55 3.384 .688
Multifaceted thinking (F1) 3 55 3.375 .584
4 65 3.471 .639
5 42 3.490 .771
1 71 4.119 .706
2 55 4.458 .503
Emphasis on demonstrability (F2) 3 55 4.386 .575
4 65 4.314 .601
5 42 4.332 .555
1 71 2.861 .744
2 55 2.806 .816
Emphasis on evidence (F3) 3 55 2.788 .837
4 65 2.718 .880
5 42 3.008 .915
808
SCHOOLS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 801-816)
Factor Career Group N M SD
1 71 3.716 .581
2 55 3.931 .489
Healthy skepticism (F4) 3 55 3.935 .566
4 65 4.215 .446
5 42 4.084 .520
1 71 3.521 .534
2 55 3.733 .572
Emphasis on objectivity (F5) 3 55 3.521 .429
4 65 3.862 .598
5 42 3.881 .732
Table 7
ANOVA with Factor as Dependent Variable and Teaching Career as Independent Variable
Source of
SS df MS F
variation
Between groups 1.320 4 .330 .768

Multifaceted
Within groups 121.616 283 .430
thinking
Total 122.936 287
Between groups 4.151 4 1.038 2.874*
Emphasis on demonstra-
bility
Total 106.326 287
Between groups 2.340 4 .585 .843
Emphasis on evidence Within groups 196.504 283 .694
Total 198.845 287
Between groups 9.181 4 2.295 8.370**
Healthy
skepticism
Total 86.786 287
Between groups 7.103 4 1.776 5.438**
Emphasis on objectivity Within groups 92.079 283 .327
Total 99.182 287
Note: * and ** mean p < .05 and p < .01, respectively.
809
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 8
Multiple Comparisons of Factors (Emphasis on Demonstrability)
MD
Career 1 Career 2 Career 3 Career 4 Career 5
Career 1 − .339* .267 .195 .213
Career 2 − .072 .144 .126
Career 3 − .072 .054
Career 4 − .018
Career 5 −
Note: * means p < .05.
Table 9
Multiple Comparisons of Factors (Healthy Skepticism)
MD
Career 1 − .215 .219 .499** .368**
Career 2 − .004 .284* .153
Career 3 − .280* .149
Career 4 − .131
Career 5 −
Table 10
Multiple Comparisons of Factors (Emphasis on Objectivity)
MD
Career 1 − .212 .000 .341** .360*
Career 2 − .212 .129 .148
Career 3 − .341* .360*
Career 4 − .019
Career 5 −
Structural Analysis of Factors
Five factors related to the teaching of critical thinking were extracted, and a detailed analysis of these factors
revealed that “emphasis on demonstrability” scored high, indicating that teachers provided careful instruction. Mean-
while, scores for “emphasis on evidence” were low, indicating issues in teaching. Regarding teaching careers, “emphasis
on demonstrability” scores were generally high for all experience levels, but Career 2 teachers taught more effectively
than Career 1 teachers. There was no difference in teaching “emphasis on evidence” by career length, and scores were
810
SCHOOLS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 801-816)
generally low for all experience levels, indicating issues in teaching. In addition, teachers with longer careers tended
to score higher in “healthy skepticism” and “emphasis on objectivity,” indicating that they provide detailed guidance.
Based on the above, this study determined that of the five factors, “emphasis on evidence” is the most problem-
atic and needs to be improved. As such, the author conducted a structural analysis of the causal relationship among
the five factors and explored the possibility of improving “emphasis on evidence.” In doing so, the factor structure
was examined using “emphasis on demonstrability”—which scored high—as the key clue. As a specific procedure, a
causal model was created via SEM, targeting “emphasis on evidence” and explaining it with four factors: “emphasis on
demonstrability,” “healthy skepticism,” “multifaceted thinking,” and “emphasis on objectivity” (Figure 1). In this study,
the goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
were used as goodness of fit indices for the causal model. Based on these goodness-of-fit indices, the goodness of fit
between the created causal model and the sample data was examined, and it was determined that the created causal
model and the sample data fit well enough considering GFI = .906, CFI = .937, and RMSEA = .043.
The direct, indirect, and total effects of factors influencing “emphasis on evidence” were then calculated (Table
11). The direct effect of “emphasis on demonstrability” on “emphasis on evidence” was .292, a significant path, although
not relatively large. The overall effect was .490, a relatively large value. This indicates that teachers who emphasize
empiricism in their science lessons are more likely to teach with a greater emphasis on evidence. Similarly, the direct
effect of “emphasis on objectivity” on “emphasis on evidence” was .237, a significant path, although not relatively
large. The overall effect was .491, a relatively large value. This indicates that teachers who teach with an emphasis
on objectivity are more likely to teach with an emphasis on evidence. The direct and total effects of “multifaceted
thinking” on “emphasis on evidence” were .438, which was relatively large, revealing that the more teachers teach
multifaceted thinking, the more they emphasize the importance of evidence. Meanwhile, the indirect and total ef-
fects of “healthy skepticism” on “emphasis on evidence” amounted to .096, a relatively small value. This indicates that
no causal relationship exists between “emphasis on evidence” and “healthy skepticism.” Although not a direct effect
of “emphasis on evidence,” but the direct effect of “emphasis on objectivity” on “multifaceted thinking” was .580, a
relatively large value. Amos Ver. 28 was used in the analysis.
Figure 1
Causal Model for “Emphasis on Evidence”
811
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 11
Effects of Factors Influencing “Emphasis on Evidence”
Factor Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect
Emphasis on demonstrability (F2) .292 .198 .490
Healthy skepticism (F4) .000 .096 .096
Multifaceted thinking (F1) .438 .000 .438
Emphasis on objectivity (F5) .237 .254 .491
Discussion
Based on the results obtained from the analysis of the survey responses, this study examined how Japanese
science teachers teach critical thinking to their students, whether science teachers’ teaching skills differ by length
of a teaching career, and what causal relationships exist among factors related to instruction. First, regarding
how teachers teach, the results presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5 show significant differences among all factors.
Extracting the characteristics of these results, the highest scores were obtained for “emphasis on demonstrabil-
ity,” followed by “healthy skepticism.”
Meanwhile, scores for “emphasis on evidence” were the lowest. Teachers instructed students to conduct
experiments and check the results, even though the results were predictable, or the experiments were simple.
In the open-ended section of the questionnaire (What do you particularly emphasize in the classroom when
teaching science?), 70 of the 125 teachers who filled out the questionnaire indicated that in their teaching they
emphasized having each student perform the experiment individually and letting them think of their own ex-
perimental methods. This indicates that teachers teach students the importance of conducting experiments on
their own to obtain results because even the experimental results in textbooks or information obtained from
the Internet may not always be as described, depending on the experimental method, environment, and other
factors. Lesson studies and microteaching are generally popular in Japanese primary schools; through them,
teachers may learn the importance of letting each student experiment by themselves (Lewis, 1995). Arsal (2017)
conducted a survey of Turkish pre-service teachers and found that experiencing microteaching was effective
in improving critical thinking, which is consistent with the finding in this study. However, teachers may not be
aware that they are teaching critical thinking and may be teaching it unintentionally.
Moreover, teachers did not do enough to teach students to conduct experiments multiple times before
drawing conclusions, to increase the reliability of their data before making judgments, or to examine their conclu-
sions carefully when they do not have all the necessary data. Regarding critical thinking during science classes,
the Kinoshita (2013) survey of primary school students revealed that many students were drawing conclusions
without sufficient evidence. This indicates that the reality of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning coincide.
In the current survey, only two of the 125 teachers who filled out the free response section of the questionnaire
stated that they emphasized having students experiment repeatedly. In addition, only five teachers stated that
they carefully instruct students on the rationale for decision-making. It is easy to encourage students to ques-
tion the new things they face, but it is difficult to motivate them to reexamine their previously held beliefs and
hypotheses and notice contradictions and inconsistencies. Therefore, teachers should ask students to check for
hidden assumptions and to examine whether they are making judgments based on impressions or intuition.
Specifically, teachers should ask, “Is that true in all cases?” and “Are there any oversights that need to be consid-
ered before you make a decision?” to guide students to think from various perspectives without being limited
by their own assumptions or biased views. However, this study speculates that teachers may not have provided
sufficient guidance because they did not know how to teach critical thinking skills. Alternatively, teachers may
812
SCHOOLS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 801-816)
not have had the time to allow students to experiment multiple times or collect more information. In this regard,
Oliveras et al. (2013) noted that the teachers in their study were not trained in critical thinking and lacked the time
and resources to incorporate critical thinking into their lessons. The authors also noted that teachers generally
lack the time and resources to incorporate critical thinking into their teaching. Similarly, Forawi (2016) noted
that teachers do not know how to teach critical thinking skills. Kinoshita (2013), in a survey of Japanese science
teachers, also found that teachers have difficulty in providing sufficient experiment and note-taking instruction
within the class period (45 minutes). These are consistent with the ideas discussed above.
Next, regarding whether teachers’ teaching skills differ by teaching career length, the results (Tables 6 and
7) indicate significant differences in “emphasis on demonstrability,”“healthy skepticism,” and “emphasis on objec-
tivity.” A detailed analysis of the results for “emphasis on demonstrability” (Table 8) shows that the mean of the
scores was significantly higher for teachers in Career 2 than for teachers in Career 1. All career length categories
had a mean value of scores higher than 4.000, indicating that, overall, “emphasis on demonstrability” is executed
well. However, teachers with shorter teaching careers may not have provided adequate instruction because
they were less experienced with lesson study. For example, teachers may have only transferred knowledge and
not asked questions that encouraged critical thinking by students (Soysal, 2021). Teacher training programs in
Japan tend to focus on teaching subject-specific knowledge and lack experience in practical classroom teach-
ing. Therefore, one aspect of this is that pre-service teachers are therefore gaining experience after becoming
teachers and improving their teaching skills by conducting lesson studies. By contrast, teachers with some years
of teaching may have mastered the teaching methods and provided detailed instruction. Furthermore, more
experienced teachers may also have been influenced by their frequently attending training sessions organized
by MEXT and the Board of Education. For example, teachers participating in training sessions learn about the
latest theories and develop new teaching materials and test questions. In addition, several teachers form groups
to reflect on and discuss their own teaching methods and consider ways to improve them.
The detailed analysis of “healthy skepticism” (Table 9) shows that the means of the scores were significantly
higher for Career 4 and 5 teachers than for Career 1 teachers. The mean of the scores was also significantly
higher for Career 4 teachers than for Career 2 teachers. Like the aforementioned “emphasis on demonstrability,”
the tendency for teachers with longer teaching careers to teaching more carefully than teachers with shorter
teaching careers was confirmed. In particular, it is inferred that teachers with less than five years of teaching
experience, that is, Career 1 teachers, do not have the advanced skills to instruct students on skepticism con-
cerning the results of experiments, and they struggle just to get students to conduct experiments. In Kinoshita’s
(2013) study, it was found that teachers with short teaching careers experience difficulties in teaching when
their students do not get the expected experimental results. Thus, it is inferred that when teachers do not get
the expected results, they instruct their students to gather information from textbooks or the Internet and draw
conclusions on that basis. In the present study, the author conjectures that by contrast, teachers with more than
21 years of teaching experience, that is, Careers 4 and 5 teachers, know how to use their time and how students
think; instead of pushing students to make decisions in a hurry, these teachers thoroughly instruct them not to
rely on information gathered from textbooks or the Internet. One Career 5 teacher (with 30 years of teaching
experience) who filled in the free response section of the questionnaire stated, “When I do not get the expected
experimental results, I do not immediately show the students the results in the textbook but let them think for
themselves about whether they should do the experiment again.” This representative response suggests that
teachers with longer teaching careers carefully teach critical thinking. Finally, a detailed analysis of the results
for “emphasis on objectivity” (Table 10) shows that the mean scores were significantly higher for Careers 4 and
5 teachers than for Career 1 teachers. The mean of the scores was also significantly higher for Career 4 teachers
than for Career 3 teachers. These results are generally consistent with the results for “emphasis on demonstrabil-
ity” and “healthy skepticism.” The results suggest that teaching students to be objective and draw conclusions
solely from the results obtained requires a high level of teaching skills; thus, teachers with short teaching careers
may not achieve this sufficiently. By contrast, teachers with long teaching careers provide detailed instruction
using skills acquired through extensive lesson study experience and training sessions organized by the MEXT
and other organizations, and this is linked to their teaching of critical thinking. It is unknown why teachers with
more than 10 years of teaching experience were at the same level as teachers with shorter careers, and this point
needs to be analyzed in more detail.
813
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Regarding the causal relationships among the factors related to instruction, the results (Figure 1 and Table
11) indicate that the more teachers taught their students to experiment and clarify facts—even if the students
knew the laws being tested or the results were obvious without experimentation—the more objective they were
in their attitude toward data interpretation. In addition, the more teachers taught their students to interpret data
objectively, the more they taught their students not to draw conclusions when they could not obtain sufficient
evidence to guarantee objectivity. This indicates that in science classes, teachers provide a series of lessons in
which students themselves conduct experiments, collect sufficient data to establish objectivity, and draw conclu-
sions based on the data. Conversely, teachers who did not provide this series of lessons indicated that they did
not provide sufficient “emphasis on evidence.” Thus, an “emphasis on demonstrability” may improve “emphasis
on evidence” in instruction. However, since the study participants were not informed that the survey was about
teaching critical thinking, they may have been teaching with an “emphasis on demonstrability” without being
aware that they were teaching critical thinking. Encouraging teacher awareness could further enhance the ef-
fectiveness of “emphasis on evidence” instruction. In addition, the more teachers instructed students to consider
whether there were any oversights or alternative methods, the more students learned to suspend their judgment
before interpreting the data or drawing conclusions and to make evidence-focused final judgments. This kind
of “multifaceted thinking” is an important factor in improving “emphasis on evidence” as well as “emphasis on
demonstrability.” Beyer (1987) indicated the importance of direct instruction in critical thinking as a kind of skill
and that teachers’ intentional instruction can improve students’ critical thinking.
Despite extensive research on critical thinking in the field of science education for more than 50 years,
and progress in measuring students’ critical thinking and proposing effective teaching methods based on this
research, research and analysis on how teachers teach at present have been insufficient. Toward filling this gap,
the researcher sought to determine what Japanese science teachers do to acquire critical thinking in their stu-
dents, whether their teaching skills differ by teaching career length, and what causal relationships exist among
the instruction-related factors.
The survey revealed that Japanese science teachers taught the following elements of critical thinking:
“emphasis on demonstrability” and “healthy skepticism.” However, they did not necessarily teach critical thinking
intentionally, and it is possible that they were teaching it unintentionally. This point needs to be investigated
further. In addition, teachers did not adequately teach “emphasis on evidence.” Regarding differences that arise
from the length of teaching careers, teachers with longer teaching careers tended to provide more careful
guidance on “emphasis on demonstrability,” “healthy skepticism,” and “emphasis on objectivity” than those with
shorter teaching careers. Regarding “emphasis on evidence,” for which teachers’ lack of guidance was evident,
and “emphasis on demonstrability” and “multifaceted thinking,” had a strong influence. In other words, the more
teachers taught “emphasis on demonstrability” and “multifaceted thinking,” the more they taught “emphasis on
evidence.” As such, the key to promoting the teaching of “emphasis on evidence” is teaching “emphasis on demon-
strability” and “multifaceted thinking,” and it is considered effective for teachers to be aware of and intentional
about these aspects of their teaching. The findings reported above provide teachers with useful information.
Based on the above, this study makes three recommendations. First, science teachers should be taught the
importance of teaching critical thinking to students from an early stage of their pre-service teacher education.
More importantly, they should be specifically taught how to teach critical thinking through science lessons. In
addition, for in-service teacher education, MEXT and the Board of Education should prepare a training system
to support the teaching of critical thinking, especially for newer teachers, in addition to in-school lesson stud-
ies. Furthermore, in future studies, researchers should not examine teachers’ critical thinking teaching skills and
students’ critical thinking skill growth separately; rather, they should examine and study the two in relation to
one another. Establishing respective critical thinking teaching programs for pre-service and in-service teachers
would be significant in developing students’ critical thinking skills. In addition, a long-term teaching program
connecting these programs is unprecedented in the world and is expected to contribute to science education
in the future.
This research has some limitations. Interaction with others is thought to play an important role in the work-
ings of students’ critical thinking. However, questions about interaction during instruction, such as discussions
814
SCHOOLS
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 801-816)
with others, were not included in the questionnaire used in this study. Thus, future studies should focus on
instruction on interaction with others and analyze this aspect in detail. In addition, this study investigated the
teachers’ teaching conditions using only a questionnaire, which alone is not sufficient; interviews with teachers
and students, as well as classroom observations and recordings, should be conducted to collect more information
for a more detailed analysis. Furthermore, there is a need to increase the sample size of teachers and conduct
research in countries other than Japan, as the results cannot be generalized.
References
Ariza, M. R., Armenteros, A. Q., & Castro, A. E. (2021). Promoting critical thinking through mathematics and science teacher
education: The case of argumentation and graphs interpretation about climate change. European Journal of Teacher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1961736
Arsal, Z. (2017). The impact of inquiry-based learning on the critical thinking dispositions of pre-service science teachers.
International Journal of Science Education, 39(10), 1326-1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1329564
Banning, M. (2006). Nursing research: Perspectives on critical thinking. British Journal of Nursing, 15(8), 458-461.
Beyer, B. K. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Allyn and Bacon.
Byrne, M. S., & Johnstone, A. H. (1987). Critical thinking and science-education. Studies in Higher Education, 12(3), 325-339.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078712331378102
Dowd, J. E., Thompson, R. J., Jr., Schiff, L. A., & Reynolds, J. A. (2018). Understanding the complex relationship between
critical thinking and science reasoning among undergraduate thesis writers. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(1).
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking: A proposed basis for research in the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking
ability. Harvard Educational Review, 32(1), 81-111.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Forawi, S. A. (2016). Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 20, 52-62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005
Gómez, R. L., & Suárez, A. M. (2020). Do inquiry-based teaching and school climate influence science achievement and critical thinking?
Evidence from PISA 2015. International Journal of Stem Education, 7(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00240-5
Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer.
Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Cheong, L. S., & Thong, M. K. (2019). A digital game-based learning method to improve students’ critical
thinking skills in elementary science. Ieee Access, 7, 96309-96318. https://doi.org/10.1109/Access.2019.2929089
Kinoshita, H. (2013). Study on elementary school teacher discussion guidance in science observations and experiments. Japan
Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 439-449. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15077/jjet.KJ00008609389
Kinoshita, H. (2015). A research study on the critical thinking of high school students in science. Bulletin of the Graduate School
of Education, Hiroshima University, 64, 1-8. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.15027/38948
Kinoshita, H., & Yamanaka, S. (2014). A research study on the critical thinking of junior high school students in science. Bulletin
of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 63, 15-21. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.15027/36628
Kinoshita, H., Yamanaka, S., & Nakayama, T. (2013). A study of the critical thinking of elementary school students
in science and the structure of associated factors. Journal of Research in Science Education, 54(2), 181-188.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11639/sjst.13023
Lewis, C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds: Reflections on Japanese preschool and elementary education. Cambridge University
Press.
Ma, X., Zhang, Y., & Luo, X. (2021). Students’ and teachers’ critical thinking in science education: Are they related to each other and
with physics achievement? Research in Science & Technological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1944078
Mapeala, R., & Siew, N. M. (2015). The development and validation of a test of science critical thinking for fifth graders. Springerplus,
4, 741. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1535-0
McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. St. Martin’s.
NIER. (2013). Basic research report on curriculum development 5: Basic principles of curriculum development to develop qualities and
abilities to respond to changes in society. NIER.
Oliveras, B., Marquez, C., & Sanmarti, N. (2013). The use of newspaper articles as a tool to develop critical thinking in science
classes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 885-905. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.586736
Pasquinelli, E., Farina, M., Bedel, A., & Casati, R. (2021). Naturalizing critical thinking: Consequences for education, blueprint for
future research in cognitive science. Mind Brain and Education, 15(2), 168-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12286
Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Prentice Hall.
Rowe, M. P., Gillespie, B. M., Harris, K. R., Koether, S. D., Shannon, L. J., & Rose, L. A. (2015). Redesigning a general education science
course to promote critical thinking. CBE Life Sciences Educcation, 14(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032
Soysal, Y. (2021). Talking science argument-based inquiry, teachers’ talk moves, and students’ critical thinking in the classroom.
Science & Education, 30(1), 33-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00163-1
815
SCHOOLS
(pp. 801-816) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Sutiani, A., Situmorang, M., & Silalahi, A. (2021). Implementation of an inquiry learning model with science literacy to improve
student critical thinking skills. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 117-138. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.1428a
Watson, G., Glaser, E. M., & Rust, J. (2002). Manual of the Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal (UK edition). Psychological
Corporation.
Received: August 10, 2022 Revised: September 15, 2022 Accepted: October 05, 2022
Cite as: Kinoshita, H. (2022). Teaching of critical thinking skills by science teachers in Japanese primary schools. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 21(5), 801-816. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.801
Hiroyoshi Kinoshita PhD, Associate Professor, Hiroshima University, 739-8524, Japan.

E-mail: hk4183@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Website: https://www.hiroshima-u.ac.jp
816
RASCH MODELLING TO
EVALUATE REASONING
DIFFICULTIES, CHANGES ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
OF RESPONSES, AND ITEM ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
MISCONCEPTION PATTERN OF
HYDROLYSIS Abstract. This study evaluates the
difficulties in concept reasoning,
changes in response patterns, and item
misconception hydrolysis patterns using
Rasch modeling. Data were collected
through the development of 30 distractor-
Lukman A. R. Laliyo, based diagnostic test items, measuring ten
Akram La Kilo, levels of conceptual reasoning ability in
Mardjan Paputungan, three types of salt hydrolysis compounds:
Wiwin Rewini Kunusa, , and .
Lilan Dama, These 30 written test items were completed
Citra Panigoro by 849 students in Gorontalo, Indonesia.
The findings show empirical evidence of the
reliability and validity of the measurement.
Further analysis found that the students’
reasoning difficulty levels of the concept of
saline solutions were varied; the calculation
Introduction of saline solution’s pH level is the most
difficult construct to reason. In particular
Chemistry learning is not only intended to transfer knowledge and items, changes in response patterns were
skills but also to build higher-order thinking skills (analytical, creative, critical, found; the misconception curve showed
synthetic, and innovative) in students. Developing this ability requires correct a declining trend and disappeared along
conceptual mastery of chemistry so that students can use their knowledge with the increase of comprehension
to solve problems. Unfortunately, students often experience obstacles in along the spectrum of students’ abilities.
developing these abilities, which tend to be caused by the learning difficul- The item misconceptions pattern was
ties they experience. Many factors can cause the cause of this difficulty; one found repeatedly in similar items. This
of which potentially hinders the conceptual development of students is the finding strengthens the conclusion that
difficulty of conceptual reasoning and misconceptions. resistant misconceptions potentially tend
Difficulties in concept reasoning are often indicated as one of learning to cause students’ conceptual reasoning
barriers that students find in solving problems due to their lack in utilizing difficulties and are difficult to diagnose in
conceptual understanding in an accurate and scientific fashion (Gabel, 1999; conventional ways. This study contributes
Gette et al., 2018). Experts argue that all students – in all educational level to developing ways of diagnosing resistant
– oftentimes do not understand; or only few who understand; or find difficul- misconceptions and being a reference for
ties in elaborating the linkages between concepts (Johnstone, 1991; Taber, teachers and researchers in evaluating
2019), as well as difficulties in explaining social-scientific problems with the students’ chemical conceptual reasoning
knowledge in chemistry that they have learned in school (Bruder & Prescott, difficulties based on Rasch modeling.
2013; Kinslow et al., 2018; Owens et al., 2019). These types of difficulties com- Keywords: reasoning difficulties,
monly take place due to the students’ conceptual understanding that they hydrolysis, misconception, Rasch model.
form according to their own thought process (Ausubel et al., 1978; Yildirir &
Demirkol, 2018). This refers to the understanding that is formed based on
the sensory impressions, cultural environment, peers, learning media, and Lukman A. R. Laliyo, Akram La Kilo,
learning process in class (Chandrasegaran et al., 2008; Lu & Bi, 2016), that Mardjan Paputungan, Wiwin Rewini
Kunusa, Lilan Dama, Citra Panigoro
contains misconception (Johnstone, 2006, 2010; Taber, 2002, 2009), and Gorontalo State University, Indonesia
is divergent from scientific concepts (Alamina & Etokeren, 2018; Bradley &
Mosimege, 1998; Damanhuri et al., 2016; Orwat et al., 2017; Yaşar et al., 2014).
817
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Misconceptions that are resistant (Hoe & Subramaniam, 2016) tend to hinder the correct process of conceptual
reasoning (Soeharto & Csapó, 2021), as students will find difficulties in receiving and/or even rejecting new insights
when they are inconsistent and contrary to their own understanding (Allen, 2014; Damanhuri et al., 2016; Jonassen,
2010; Soeharto et al., 2019). These types of misconceptions come in various forms (Aktan, 2013; Orwat et al., 2017).
Therefore, it is crucial to understand how these misconceptions occur in the process of concept reasoning in order
to formulate proper strategies to develop students’ understanding that is accurate and scientific (Chandrasegaran
et al., 2008; Kolomuç & Çalik, 2012; Sunyono et al., 2016).
Salt hydrolysis is one of the concepts in chemistry that students often find it difficult to understand (Da-
manhuri et al., 2016; Orwat et al., 2017; Tümay, 2016). This issue has been explored by numerous research, and
they commonly agree that misconception is one of the contributing factors. Misconceptions in salt hydrolysis
are often caused by the difficulties in reasoning the submicroscopic dynamic interaction of buffer solution due
to the students’ lack of competence in explaining the acid-base concept and chemical equilibrium (Demircioǧlu
et al., 2005; Orgill & Sutherland, 2008; Orwat et al., 2017); error in interpreting the concept of acid-base strength
(Tümay, 2016); difficulty in understanding the definition of salt hydrolysis and characteristics of salt (Sesen &
Tarhan, 2011); and difficulty in reasoning the concept of formulation and capacity of buffer solution (Maratusho-
lihah et al., 2017; Sesen & Tarhan, 2011; Tarhan & Acar-Sesen, 2013). The various studies above can conclude the
types of concepts that are misunderstood by students, however, generally there are no studies that are able
to explain the relationship between these misconceptions and how these misconception patterns are under-
stood at the item level and individual students. This information is crucial for teachers in making subsequent
instructional decisions.
Studies on misconceptions commonly use raw scores as the reference. However, raw scores do not refer to
final version of data. Therefore, they lack in-depth information to be used as reference in formulating conclusions
(He et al., 2016; Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2015). Hence, research studies that use raw scores as reference to obtain
conclusion are rather limited in presenting relevant information regarding reasoning difficulties and misconcep-
tion characteristics of items and students. Psychometrically, this approach tends to have limitations in measuring
accurately (Pentecost and Barbera, 2013), due to the difference of scales in the measurement characteristics (Linn
& Slinde, 1977). To solve the limitation of conventional psychometric analysis method (Linacre, 2020; Perera et
al., 2018; Sumintono, 2018), an approach of Rasch model analysis was applied. This analysis adopts an individual-
centered statistical approach that employs probabilistic measurement that goes beyond raw score measurement
(Boone & Staver, 2020; Liu, 2012; Wei et al., 2012).
Research studies on misconceptions in chemistry that use Rasch modelling were focusing on diagnosing
the changes in students’ understanding and learning progress (Hadenfeldt et al., 2013), measuring the content
knowledge by pedagogical content knowledge (Davidowitz and Potgieter, 2016), measuring conceptual changes
in hydrolysis (Laliyo et al., 2022), measuring scientific investigation competence (Arnold et al., 2018), investigating
the item difficulty (Barbera, 2013) and (Park & Liu, 2019), and identifying misconceptions in electrolytes and non-
electrolytes (Lu and Bi, 2016). In particular, research studies on misconceptions in chemistry by (Herrmann-Abell
& DeBoer, 2016; Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2011) were able to diagnose the misconception structures and detect
problems on the items. Grounding from this, a study by Laliyo et al. (2020) was able to diagnose resistant mis-
conceptions in concept of matter state change. In spite of this, research studies on misconceptions that evaluate
reasoning difficulties and misconceptions are still relatively limited.
Concept reasoning difficulties and misconceptions often attach to a particular context, and thus are insepa-
rable from the said context in which the content is understood (Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Park & Liu, 2019).
Students might be capable of developing an understanding that is different to the context if it involves a ground
and scientific concept. However, misconceptions tend to be more sensitive and attached to the context (Nehm &
Ha, 2011). The term ‘context’ in this study refers to a scientific content or topic (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Grossman &
Stodolsky, 1995; Park & Liu, 2019). The incorporation of context in research on misconceptions that apply Rasch
model analysis opens up a challenging research area to be explored. This study intended to fill the literature gap
by emphasizing the strength and the weakness of Rasch model in evaluating conceptual reasoning and estimating
resistant item misconception patterns.
The reasoning difficulties of the concept of salt hydrolysis: , , and are analyzed
by distractor-type multiple choices test. Each item contains one correct answer choice and three answer choices
designed on a distractor basis. The answer choices of this distractor are answer choices that are generally understood
by students but contain misconceptions. The design of this misconception test instrument is adapted from research
818
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ RASCH MODELLING TO EVALUATE REASONING DIFFICULTIES, CHANGES OF RESPONSES,
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
reported by Tümay (2016) regarding misconceptions in acid-base reaction, Seçken (2010) on misconceptions in
salt hydrolysis, Damanhuri et al. (2016) regarding acid-base strength, and Orwat et al. (2017) on misconceptions
in dissolving process and reaction of ionic compounds with water and chemical equations. According to Sadler
(1999) and Herrmann-Abell and DeBoer (2011), distractor answer choices can minimize students giving answers
by guessing; therefore, it increases the diagnostic power of the item. The distractor answer choice allows students
to choose an answer according to their logical understanding of what they understand.
The problems on these items are detected by option probability curve, in which the item difficulty level is
determined based on the size of item logit (Boone & Staver, 2020; Laliyo et al., 2022; Linacre, 2020). By dichoto-
mous score, the curve that is appropriate with the probability of correct answer choice usually increases monoto-
nously along with the increase in students’ understanding; while the curve for the distractor sequence tends to
decline monotonously as the students’ understanding increases (Haladyna, 2004; Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013;
Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2016). Items influenced by distractors will usually generate a curve that deviates from
the monotonous behavior of traditional items (Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2016; Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2011;
Sadler, 1998; Wind & Gale, 2015).
Problem Statement
Considering the previous explanation, this study was intended to answer the following questions. First, how
is the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument employed in this study? This question is intended to
explain the effectiveness of the measurement instrument and how valid the resulting data is, including explaining
whether the measurement data is in accordance with the Rasch model. The test parameters used are the validity
of the test constructs, summary of fit statistics, item fit analysis, and Wright maps.
Second, how does the item reasoning difficulties of salt hydrolysis of and
differ from each other? This question is to explain how the reasoning difficulties of students in different
classes differ. Are there items that are responded to differently by the class of students seen from the same con-
struct level? In addition, from the point of view of differences in item difficulty, it can be identified in strata, which
construct the level of conceptual reasoning, which tends to be the most difficult for students to reason.
Third, based on changes in the misconception answer choice curve on an item, can it be diagnosed that the
response pattern of students’ items shows resistant misconceptions? This question is to detect a hierarchy of mis-
conception answer choice curves on an item, which decreases as understanding increases along the spectrum of
students’ abilities. This hierarchy indicates that there is a dominant problem or difficulty experienced by students
on the item in question; this can be proven by the response pattern of misconceptions on certain items, which
are repeated on other similar items at the same construct level. If three similar items are found showing the same
pattern of response choices for misconceptions, then this shows that there is a tendency for students’ misconcep-
tions to be resistant in the construct in question.
Research Design
The study employed a non-experimental descriptive-quantitative approach, in which the measured variable
was students’ reasoning ability of concept of hydrolysis. The measured variable involved ten levels of constructs,
where each construct has three typical items from different contexts of reasoning tasks. The measurement result
was in the form of numbers, while each right answer on an item was given a score. The numbers represent the
abstract concepts that are measured empirically (Chan et al., 2021; Neuman, 2014). No interventions in any way
were made in the learning process and learning materials. In other words, no treatments were applied to students
to ensure that they can answer all question items in the measurement instruments correctly. The scope of the
construct comprised properties of salt-forming compounds, properties of salts in water, properties of salts based
on their constituent compounds, types of salt hydrolysis reactions, calculation of pH, types of compounds form-
ing buffer solutions, and properties of buffer solutions based on their constituent compounds. The research was
conducted for six months, from January to June 2022. The research permit for this study was obtained from the
government, the school administration staff, and the university board of leaders.
819
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Respondents
A total of 849 respondents were involved in this study. The respondents were 537 upper-secondary school
students (A), 165 university students majoring Chemistry Education (B), and 147 Chemistry students (C). The
reason for selecting respondents in strata was to estimate that the difficulty of reasoning on certain items may
be experienced by respondents at all grade levels. The A group (16-17 age range) was selected from six leading
schools in Gorontalo by random sampling technique. This technique allows the researchers to obtain the most
representative sample from the entire population in focus. In Gorontalo, there were 62 public upper-secondary
schools spread over six districts/cities. Each area was randomly assigned to one school, and the sample was randomly
selected from every eleventh grade in those schools (Neuman, 2014). Meanwhile, students B and C (aged 19-21
years) were randomly selected from a population of 1200 students from the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
sciences, from one of the universities in Gorontalo, Indonesia. Prior to conducting this study, the respondents in
A group were confirmed to have learned formally about acid-base, properties of hydrolyzed salts, hydrolysis reac-
tions, pH calculations, and buffer solution reactions. For the B and C group, these concepts were re-learned in the
Basic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry courses. With regard to research principles and ethics as stipulated by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB), students who are voluntarily involved in this research were asked for their consent,
and they were notified that their identities are kept confidential, and the information obtained is only intended
for scientific development (Taber, 2014).
Development of Instruments
The research instrument involved 30 items that measure the students’ reasoning ability on the concept of
hydrolysis. The instrument was in the form of multiple-choice test that was adapted from the previous study (Laliyo
et al., 2022; Suteno et al., 2021), and developed by referring to the recommendations from Wilson (2005). Table 1
shows the conceptual map of reasoning of salt hydrolysis that involves ten levels of constructs. A difference in level
of reasoning construct represents the qualitative improvement of the measured construct (Wilson, 2009, 2012).
These construct levels refer to the Curriculum Standard of Chemistry Subject in the Eleventh Grade in Indonesia,
as per the Regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic of Indonesia No. 37/2018. Each level of
construct has three typical items, for example, 1/Item1A, 6/Item1B, and 11/Item1C. These items measure the level
1 construct, i.e., determining the characteristics of forming compounds of , , and .
These three items are different from each other from the context of reasoning task of hydrolysis solution.
Table 1
Conceptual Map of Reasoning of Salt Hydrolysis
Serial Number/Item/Context
Reasoning Task
Concept Reasoning Level
A B C
Level 1. Determining the properties of forming compounds of salt 1/Item1A 6/Item1B 11/Item1C
Level 2. Explaining the properties of compounds that are completely and partially ionized in
16/Item2A 21/Item2B 26/Item2C
salt solutions
Level 3. Determining the properties of salt in water 2/Item3A I7tem3B 12/Item3C
Level 4. Explaining the properties of salt based on the forming compounds 17/Item4A 22/Item4B 27/Item4C
Level 5. Determining types of hydrolysis reaction of salt 3/Item5A 8/Item5B 13/Item5C
Level 6. Explaining result of salt hydrolysis reaction 18/Item6A 23/Item6B 28/Item6C
Level 7. Calculating pH level of salt solution 4/Item7A 9/Item7B 14/Item7C
Level 8. Explaining pH calculation result of salt solution 19/Item8A 24/Item8B 29/Item8C
Level 9. Determine types of forming compounds of buffer solution 5/Item9A 10/Item9B 15/Item9C
Level 10. Explaining the properties of buffer solution based on the forming compounds 20/Item10A 25/Item10B 30Item10C
Description: A = salt solution, B = salt solution, C = salt solution
820
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
Each item was designed with four answer choices, with one correct answer and three distractor answers.
The distractor functions to prevent students from guessing the correct answer choice, as is often the case with
traditional items, by providing answer choices that are considered reasonable, particularly for students who hold
firmly to their misconceptions (Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2016; Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2011; Naah & Sanger,
2012; Sadler, 1998). A score of 1 is given for the correct answer, while 0 is given for the incorrect answers. The
probability of guessing each correct answer choice is relatively small, only 0.20 (Lu and Bi, 2016). Students will
only choose an answer that is according to their comprehension. If the distractor answer choices on each item
work well, the correct answer choices on each item should not be easy to guess (Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2016;
Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2011).
The congruence of the correlation between constructs and items, or the suitability of answer choices with
the level of the item’s reasoning construct, or congruence of content with the constructs measured by (Wilson,
2005, 2008) were confirmed through the validation of three independent experts, i.e., one professor in chemistry
education and two doctors in chemistry. The three expert validators agreed to determine Fleiss measure, Κ= .97,
p < .0001, or that the item validity arrived at ‘good’ category (Landis & Koch, 1977).
Data Collection
The data collection was conducted face-to-face, at school supervised by classroom teachers and on campus
supervised by researchers. Each respondent was asked to give written response through the answer sheet provided.
All students were asked to work on all items according to the allotted time (45 minutes). Instrument manuscripts
were collected right after the respondents finished giving responses, and the number of instruments was con-
firmed to be equal to the number of participating students. The data obtained in the previous process were still in
the form of ordinal data. The data were then converted into interval data that have the same logit scale using the
WINSTEPS software version 4.5.5 (Bond & Fox, 2015; Linacre, 2020). The result is a data calibration of the students’
ability and the level of difficulty of items in the same interval size.
Conducting Rasch Analysis
The Rasch model analysis is able to estimate students’ abilities and stages of development in each
item (Masters, 1982). This allows the researchers to combine different responses opportunities for dif-
ferent items (Bond & Fox, 2007). It combines algorithm of probabilistic expectation result of item ‘i’ and
student ‘n’ as: . The statement
is the probability of student n in the item i to generate a correct answer (x = 1); with
the students’ ability, ßn, and item difficulty level of (Bond & Fox, 2015; Boone & Staver, 2020). If the algorithm
function is applied into the previous equation, it will be ; thus, the prob-
ability for a correct answer equals to the students’ ability minus item difficulty level (Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2015).
The measures of students’ ability (person) and the item difficulty level are stated on a similar interval
and are independent to each other, which are measured in an algorithm unit called odds or log that can vary from
-00 to +00 (Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2011; Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2015). The use of logit scale in Rasch model
is the standard interval scale that shows the size of person and item. Boone et al. (2014) argue that ordinal data
cannot be assumed as linear data, therefore cannot be treated as a measurement scale for parametric statistic.
The ordinal data are still raw and do not represent the measurement result data (Sumintono, 2018). The size of
data (logit) in Rasch model is linear, thus, can be used for parametric statistical test with better congruence level
compared to the assumption of statistical test that refers to raw score (Park & Liu, 2019).
Research Results
Validity and Reliability of the Instruments
The first step is to ensure the validity of test constructs by measuring the fit validity (Banghaei, 2008; Chan et
al., 2021). This serves to determine the extent to which the item fits to the model, and because it is in accordance
with the concept of singular attribute (Boone et al., 2014; Boone & Noltemeyer, 2017; Boone & Staver, 2020). The
mean square residual (MNSQ) shows the extent of impact of any misfit with two forms of Outfit MNSQ and Infit
821
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
MNSQ. Outfit is the chi-square that is sensitive to the outlier. Items with outliers are often guess answers that
happen to be correct chosen by low-ability students, and/or wrong answers due to carelessness for high-ability
students. The mean box of Infit is influenced by the response pattern with focus on the responses that approach
the item difficulty or the students’ ability. The expected value of MNSQ is 1.0, while the value of PTMEA Corr. is the
correlation between item scores and person measures. This value is positive and does not approach zero (Bond &
Fox, 2015; Boone & Staver, 2020; Lu & Bi, 2016).
Table 2 indicates that the average Outfit MNSQ of test item is 1.0 logit; this is in accordance with the ideal score
range between 0.5-1.5 (Boone et al., 2014). This means that the item is categorized as productive for measurement
and has a logical prediction. The reliability value of the Cronbach’s Alpha (KR-20) raw score test is 0.81 logit, indicating
the interaction between 849 students and the 30 KPIH test items is categorized as good. In other words, the instru-
ment has excellent psychometric internal consistency and is considered a reliable instrument (Adams & Wieman,
2011; Boone & Staver, 2020; Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2015). The results of the unidimensionality measurement using
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the residuals show that the raw data variance at 23.5%, meeting the minimum
requirements of 20% (Boone & Staver, 2020; Sumintono & Widhiarso, 2014). This means that the instrument can
measure the ability of students in reasoning hydrolysis items very well (Chan et al., 2021; Fisher, 2007; Linacre, 2020).
Table 2
Summary of Fit Statistics
Student (N=849) Item (N=30)
Measures (logit)
x̄ -.20 .00
SE (standard error) .03 .14
SD (standard deviation) 0.99 0.75
Outfit mean square
x̄ 1.00 1.00
SD 0.01 0.02
Separation 1.97 9.15
Reliability .80 .99
Cronbach’s Alpha (KR-20) .81
The results of testing the quality of the item response pattern as well as the interaction between person and
item show a high score of the separation item index (9.15 logit) and high item reliability index (.99 logit); this is
the evidence of the level of students’ reasoning abilities and supports the construct validity of the instrument
(Boone & Staver, 2020; Linacre, 2020). The higher the index (separation and reliability) of the items, the stronger
the researcher’s belief about replication of the placement of items in other students that are appropriate (Boone
et al., 2014; Boone & Staver, 2020; Linacre, 2020). The results of the measurement of the person separation index
(1.97 logit) and the person reliability index (.80 logit) indicate that there is a fairly good instrument sensitivity in
distinguishing the level of reasoning abilities of high-ability and low-ability students. The average logit of students
is -.20 logit, indicating that all students are considered to have the abilities below the average test item (.00 logit).
The deviation standard is at .99 logit, displaying a fairly wide dispersion rate of item reasoning ability of hydrolysis
in students (Boone et al., 2014; Boone & Staver, 2020; Linacre, 2020).
The second step is to ensure the item quality by statistic fit test (Boone & Staver, 2020; Linacre, 2020). An item
is considered as misfit if the measurement result of the item does not meet the three criteria of: Outfit mean square
residual (MNSQ): .5 < y < 1.5; Outfit standardized mean square residual (ZSTD): -2 < Z < +2; and point measure correla-
tion (PTMEA CORR): .4 < x < .8. Outfit ZSTD value serves to determine that the item has reasonable predictability.
Meanwhile, the Pt-Measure Corr value is intended to check whether all items function as expected. If a positive
value is obtained, the item is considered acceptable; however, if a negative value is obtained, then the item is con-
sidered not functioning properly, or contains misconceptions (Bond & Fox, 2015; Boone et al., 2014; Sumintono &
Widhiarso, 2015). Table 3 indicates that all items are in the Outfit MNSQ range, while 18 items are not in the Outfit
822
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
ZSTD range, and 13 items are not in the Pt-Measure Corr range, and there is no negative value for the Pt-Measure
Corr criteria. There is no single item that does not meet all three criteria, so all items are retained. If only one or two
criteria are not met, the item can still be used for measurement purposes.
Table 3
Item Fit Analysis
Point Measure
Item Measure Infit MNSQ Outfit MNSQ Outfit ZSTD
Correlation
Item1A -1.21 ,91 .82 -2.96* .44

Item1B -.55 .94 .95 -1.13 .44
Item1C -1.13 .95 .91 -1.53 .40
Item2A -.69 1.05 1.07 1.91 .32*
Item2B .00 1.09 1.16 3.84* .31*
Item2C -.19 1.12 1.17 3.92* .28*
Item3A -.26 .89 .90 -2.41* .49
Item3B -.41 .87 .83 -4.31* .52
Item3C -.89 .95 .86 -2.71* .43
Item4A -.60 1.00 1.07 1.57 .36*
Item4B -.59 .87 .84 -3.72* .50
Item4C -.80 .95 .89 -2.11* .42
Item5A -1.14 .98 .91 -1.45 .37*
Item5B -.24 .96 .94 -1.55 .43
Item5C -.87 .97 .89 -2.20* .41
Item6A .37 .99 1.03 .57 .41
Item6B .42 .96 .97 -.65 .44
Item6C .22 .93 .91 -2.20* .48
Item7A .50 .85 .83 -3.70* .55
Item7B .45 .83 .82 -3.98* .56
Item7C -.06 1.02 1.03 .64 .39*
Item8A 1.16 .89 .90 -1.35 .49
Item8B 1.58 1.11 1.22 2.20* .27*
Item8C .16 1.11 1.12 2.70* .31*
Item9A .49 1.16 1.40 7.40* .25*
Item9B .70 1.05 1.07 1.27 .36*
Item9C .82 .99 1.06 1.06 .40
Item10A .93 1.21 1.28 4.11* .21*
Item10B .84 1.18 1.27 4.13* .23*
Item10C .97 1.19 1.36 4.97* .21*
Description: (*) is the items not in the range of Outfit MNSQ and Point Measure Correlation
The third step is to measure the consistency between item difficulty level and students’ ability level. Figure 1
below is a Wright map that shows the graphic representation of an increase in the students’ ability and the item’s
difficulty levels within the same logit scale (Bond & Fox, 2015). The higher the logit scale, the higher the student’s
ability level and the item’s difficulty level. On the other hand, the lower the logit scale, the lower the student’s ability
level and the item’s difficulty level (Boone et al., 2014). Most of the items are at above average (.00 logit). Item8B
(1.58 logit) is the most difficult item, while Item1A (-1.21 logit) is the easiest item. However, at the lower (<-1.21
823
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
logit) and higher (>1.58 logit) students’ ability levels, there were no items equivalent to the intended ability level.
Meanwhile, the distribution of students’ abilities is in accordance with the logit size. The students with the highest
ability reached 3.62 logit, while the students with the lowest ability obtained -3.61 logit.
Figure 1
Wright Map: Person-Map-Item
824
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
Difference in Item Reasoning Difficulty of Salt Hydrolysis: , , and
Based on the size of logit value item (LVI), by dividing the distribution of measure of all logit items based on
the average of item and deviation standard, the item reasoning difficulty level of salt hydrolysis of ,
, and is categorized into four categories: easiest items to reason (LVI ≤ -.75 logit), easy items
to reason (-.75 ≥ LVI ≥ .00 logit), difficult items to reason (.00 ≥ LVI ≥ .75 logit), and most difficult items to reason
(LVI > .75 logit). It is displayed in Table 4. From this table, two interesting points were discovered. First, there are
no similar items with the same difficulty level. For example, Item2A (-.69) and Item2C (-.19) are easier for students
to reason than Item2B (.00). Second, the sequence of item difficulty in saline solutions of , ,
and is different and does not match the conceptual map (Table 1). For example, Item 5A(-1.14), was
found to be easier to reason than Item2A(-.69), Item4A(-.60) and Item3A (-.26). In contrast, Item8B (1.58) was the
most difficult to reason than Item10B(.84), Item9B(.70). This finding explains that at the same construct level, the
level of reasoning difficulty of three similar items turns out to be different.
Table 4
Logit Value Item (LVI) Analysis (N=30)
Item Code (logit)

Difficulty Level
A B C
Item8A(1.16) Item8B(1.58) Item10C(.97) Item9C(.82)
Very Difficult: (LVI > .75 logit).
Item10A(.93) Item10B(.84)
Item7A(.50) Item9B(.70) Item7B(.45) Item6C(.22)
Difficult: (.00 ≥ LVI ≥ .75 logit) Item9A(.49) Item6A(.37) Item6B(.42) Item8C(.12)
Item2B(.00)
Item3A(-.26) Item5B(-.24) Item7C(-.06) Item2C(-.19)
Item4A(-.60) Item2A(-69) Item3B(-.41)
Easy: (-.75 ≥ LVI ≥ .00 logit)
Item1B(-.55)
Item4B(-.59)
Item5A(-1.14) Item1A(-1.21) -- Item4C(-.80)
Very Easy: (LVI ≤ -.75 logit). Item5C(-.87) Item3C(-.89)
Item1C(-1.13)
Description: A = saline solution, B = salt solution, C = salt solution
The testing of difference of item reasoning difficulty level from the difference of students’ grade level applied
Differential Item Functioning (DIF) (Adams et al., 2021; Bond & Fox, 2007; Boone, 2016; Rouquette et al., 2019). An
item is considered as DIF if the t value is less than -2.0 or more than 2.0, the DIF contrast value is less than 0.5 or
more than 0.5, and the probability (p) value is less than .05 or more than .05 (Bond & Fox, 2015; Boone et al., 2014;
Chan et al., 2021). A total of 12 items were identified to yield significantly different responses (Figure 2). There are
five curves that approach the upper limit, i.e., items with high reasoning difficulty level: Item9B (.70), Item10B (.84),
Item10A (.93), Item8A (1.16), and Item8B (1.58). Moreover, four curves that approach the lower limit are items with
low reasoning difficulty level, i.e.: Item1A (-1.21), Item5A (-1.14), Item3C (-.89), and Item5C (-.87).
825
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Figure 2
Person DIF plot based on Difference of Students’ Grade Level
Note: A = Upper-Secondary School students, B = Chemistry Education university students, C = Chemistry university students
Based on Figure 2, an interesting case was identified, where for student A, Item8B was more difficult than
Item8A; on the other hand, for students B and C, Item8A was more difficult than Item8B. In other words, the char-
acteristics of item difficulty among A, B, and C groups are different. It is possible that students in group A with low
abilities could guess the correct answer to Item8A, while students B and C with high abilities answered Item8A
incorrectly because of carelessness. In addition, it was found that the difficulty level was Item8B (1.58) > Item10B
(.84) > Item9B (.74). That is, the difficulty level of the items is different; this happens because of differences in
student responses.
Analysis of Changes in Item Misconception Curve and Pattern
The option probability curve is applied to detect the response pattern of students’ choice of answers on each
item. This curve provides a visual image of the distribution of correct answer choices and distractor answer choices
(containing misconceptions) across the spectrum of students’ knowledge (starting from high school students,
chemistry education students, and chemistry students). This allows the researchers to evaluate if the shape of
the curve is fit for purpose, or if there is something unusual that indicates a structured problem with an item. The
shape of the curve can show a hierarchy of misconceptions that disappears sequentially as students become more
knowledgeable about a topic, either through out-of-school experiences or through formal learning. In this article,
we present the sample of option probability curve for three items: Item8A, Item8B, and Item8C.
Sample 1
Figure 3 (a) displays Item8A (1.16 logit) that tests the students’ reasoning on the pH calculation results of
. The option probability curve of this item is shown in Figure 3 (b). Students whose reasoning ability
is very low (between -5.0 and -1.0 logit on the overall ability scale) are more likely to choose answer A (pH level of
the solution < 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ). Students with abilities between -4.0 and +1.0
prefer the answer B (pH level of the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ), and students
with abilities between -5.0 and +3.0 are more likely to choose answer C (pH level of the solution < 7 resulting from
the hydrolysis reaction of ion ). Meanwhile, students with abilities greater than -3.0 choose the correct an-
swer D (pH level of the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ). The pattern of responses
produced by students at this level of ability is understandable. At the lowest level, students do not understand the
calculation of pH and ions resulting from the salt hydrolysis reaction (answer choice A). When their understanding
of acids and bases develops, they choose the answer B. In this case, students can reason with the calculation of
pH, but do not understand the hydrolysis reaction and the principle of reaction equilibrium. Conversely, students
who pick the option C find difficulties in reasoning the calculation of pH but are able to correctly state the ions
resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of . The misconceptions in answer choice A are significant for low-
ability students, but misconceptions in answer choices B and C are actually detected in high-ability students. The
visualization of answer choices B and C curves appears with two peaks, reflecting an unusual or strange curve,
then decreases and disappears as understanding increases.
826
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
Figure 3.
(a) Sample of Item8A (1.16 logit) Tests the Students’ Reasoning on pH Calculation Result of ,
(b) Option Probability Curve of the Said Item
Sample 2
Figure 4 (a) displays Item8B (1.58 logit) that tests the students’ reasoning on the pH calculation results of
. The option probability curve of this item is shown in Figure 4 (b).
Figure 4
(a) Sample Item8B (1.58 logit) Testing the Students’ Reasoning on pH Calculation Result of
(b) the Option Probability Curve of the Said Item
Students whose reasoning ability is very low (between -5.0 and -5.0 logit on the overall ability scale) are
more likely to choose answer A (pH level of the solution < 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ). The
answer B (pH level of the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ) and answer C (pH level
of the solution < 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ) show two curve peaks in the probability of
students’ ability between -4.0 and +1.0 logit. Meanwhile, the answer D (pH level of the solution > 7 resulting from
the hydrolysis reaction of ion ) increases along the improvement of students’ ability, moving from -4.0 up to
+3.0 logit. The response pattern expressed in the option probability curve for this item is interesting, because the
answer choice curves A, B, and C further justify acid-base misconceptions and hydrolysis reactions, as happened in
827
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Item 8A. In addition, the visualization of answer choices B and C curves is seen with three peaks, reflecting unusual
or odd curves, which decrease as understanding increases.
Sample 3
Figure 5 (a) displays Item8C (.12 logit) that tests the students’ reasoning on the pH calculation results of
. The option probability curve of this item is shown in Figure 3 (b).
Figure 5
(a) Sample of Item8C (.12 logit) Testing the Students’ Reasoning on the pH Calculation Results of ,
(b) Option Probability Curve of the Said Item
The probability of answer A (pH level of the solution < 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion )
is the highest for students with lowest reasoning ability (between <-3.0 and 2.0 logit). The visualization of curve A
shows three peaks, i.e., in the lowest capability range (<-3.0 logit), then in the capability range between -1.0 logit
and 2.0 logit. The visualization of curve of answer C (pH level of the solution < 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reac-
tion of ion ) also has three peaks, similar to the curve A; on the other hand, the curve of answer D (pH level of
the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ) is at the ability range of high-ability students
(<2.0 logit). The correct answer B (pH level of the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion )
at the ability range between -4.0 and 5.0 logit increases monotonously along with the decline in curve A, C, and D.
It is interesting to take a closer look at how the curves of the three items change using the Guttman Scalogram
(Table 6). This table details several examples of student item response patterns, in two forms, namely the 0 and 1
dichotomy pattern, and the actual response pattern. This response pattern is ordered by the level of difficulty of
the item (easiest at left to most difficult at right). The response patterns of 409AF (1.54), 421AF (1.54), 411AF (1.33)
and 412AF (1.33), which were highly capable, chose the misconception answer D (for Item8C, fourteenth row from
right), answer choice B (for Item8A, second row from right), and answer choice D (for Item8B first row from right).
This is an example of a resistant item misconception pattern. Meanwhile, the response pattern of respondent
419AF (3.62) who chose the misconception answer C (for Item8A), 049AF (2.07) and 094AM (2.07) choosing the
misconception answer C (for Item8B), and 659BF(2.41) choosing the misconception answer A (for Item8B). Item8C)
is a different pattern of misconceptions.
828
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
Table 6
Scalogram Analysis
Discussion
The results of the study have shown empirical evidence regarding the validity and reliability of the mea-
surement instruments at a very good level. This means that the used instrument is effective to evaluate the
difficulty of students’ conceptual reasoning. On top of that, it is also highlighted that: (1) the order of item
reasoning difficulty level of salt hydrolysis of , , and is different (not matching
the construct map), and there are no similar items with the same difficulty level despite being in the same
construct level; (2) the difficulty level of similar items is different, it is possible that it occurs due to different
student responses, where low-ability students can guess the correct answer, while high-ability students are
wrong in answering items due to carelessness; (3) The visualization of changes in the answer choice curves
and the pattern of item misconceptions shows the evidence that high-ability students tend to have a response
pattern of item misconceptions that tend to be resistant, especially related to the construct of calculating the
pH of the salt solution.
The results of the research above show that the difficulty level of the three salt hydrolysis compounds (
, and ) tends to be different. This difference is relatively caused by the poor level
of mastery of the content and, therefore, gives different reasoning responses in the context of the three salt
hydrolysis compounds in question. This fact reinforces the findings of Davidowitz and Potgieter (2016) and Park
and L iu (2019) that reasoning and misconceptions tend to be strongly influenced by students’ content mastery.
This fact has also been explained by Chu et al. (2009), that students showed the existence of context-dependent
alternative conceptions or misconceptions in optics when items used different examples, despite evaluating
students’ understanding of the same concept. Research by Ozdemir and Clark (2009) supports the conclusion
that students’ reasoning is fragmented and tends to be inconsistent with items in different contexts. Likewise,
diSessa et al. (2004) found that students’ scientific explanations do not represent their overall understanding
829
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
of their understanding of a particular item. However, Weston et al. (2015) proposed the opposite results, that
students’ responses to the four versions of the questions about photosynthesis are not significantly different.
This is possible due to the fact that they do not focus on revealing students’ misconceptions but rather focus
on examining scientific ideas obtained from student responses.
To explain these problems, it is exemplified in the item misconception patterns of the students, for ex-
ample: answer B (pH level of the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ) for Item8A, answer
B (pH level of the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ) for Item8B, and answer D (pH
level of the solution > 7 resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of ion ) for Item8C. It can be seen that
all three show the same pattern of misconceptions, in terms of: (a) the pH value of the solution is > 7, and (b)
the ions resulting from the hydrolysis reaction of the salt solution. This finding is interesting to observe further.
This is because students do not master the concepts of strong acid and strong base accurately and scientifi-
cally; they also tend to find it difficult to reason about the hydrolysis reaction of salt solutions. For example,
the hydrolysis reaction: , where ion and
excess of ion cause pH level of the solution to be < 7 and acidic. In addition, the hydrolysis reaction of salt:
, where ion that reacts with water becomes ,
excess of ion causes pH level of the solution to be > 7 and the solution becomes basic. This is to say that
students tend to lack adequate concept understanding on explaining the contribution of ions and
towards the pH change of saline solution. This finding supports Tümay’s (2016) conclusion, that most of stu-
dents are unable to conceptualize properties acid-base and strength of acid as the property that results from
interaction between many factors. This finding is also supported by Nehm and Ha (2011), that the pattern of
student responses is highly predictable regardless of the context, especially when the responses involve core
scientific concepts. This means that students are more sensitive to their misconceptions than using correct
conceptual reasoning in explaining the context of the item.
The results of this study have shown that although students are indeed able to state the acidity of a salt
solution correctly, most of them have misconceptions in writing chemical equations. In addition, students
tend to have difficulty explaining the nature of hydrolyzed salts, as a result of their inability to understand the
acid-base properties of salt-forming compounds as well as to write down salt hydrolysis reaction equations
that meet the principles of chemical equilibrium. Therefore, they experience difficulty calculating the pH of the
saline solution. This supports the conclusions of Orwal et al. (2017) and Damanhuri et al. (2016), that students
have difficulty in explaining the nature of acid-base, strong base and weak base, despite that more than 80%
of them understand that ionized acids in water produce ion and that the pH level of neutral solution equals
to 7, as well as be able to write down the chemical equation for reaction between acid and base. The previous
findings also strengthen the study by Solihah (2015), that students assume that the addition of a small amount
of strong acid and strong base to a buffer solution does not affect the shift in equilibrium. However, the correct
concept is that the addition of a small amount of strong acid and strong base affects the shift in equilibrium.
Experts argue that difficulties in understanding the nature of acid-base tend to be influenced by the cultural
background of students, and therefore their understanding becomes different and inconsistent (Chiu, 2007;
Kala et al., 2013; Lin & Chiu, 2007).

Compared to the previous studies, the novelty of this study is that it can demonstrate the evidence and
the measurement accuracy of reasoning difficulties as well as changes of item misconception curve and pat-
tern on hydrolysis up to the individual scale of each item and each student. The Rasch model can estimate the
character and nature of misconceptions, yielding valuable information for teachers in developing appropri-
ate and measurable instructional strategies. The study shows how to combine the procedures of qualitative
item development and quantitative data analysis that allow us to investigate deeper regarding the reasoning
difficulties and misconceptions on hydrolysis. The example of using the option probability curve above can
explain the prevalence of changes in students’ misconception answer choices. The pattern of misconceptions
was justified using the Guttman Scalogram map; thus, this study was able identify resistant item misconcep-
tions that are commonly experienced by high-ability learners.
830
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
These research items are carefully developed and constantly aligned with key ideas about the concept of
hydrolysis chemistry that have been learned by students in upper-secondary school. It is hoped that teachers,
researchers, and curriculum material developers will be able to use quantitative items and methods similar to
those discussed in this study to compare the effectiveness of various materials and approaches with greater
precision and objectivity. While this study does not address questions about individual student performance
or growth, it is hoped that the items will be useful in helping teachers diagnose individual learners’ thinking
so as to target learning more effectively.
This research contributes to the field of chemistry learning assessment by validating the reasoning ability
test of the hydrolysis concept using psychometric analysis techniques based on the Rasch model of measure-
ment. The validation of the reasoning ability test in this study is expected to fill the gaps in the literature that
tend to be limited in conceptual reasoning in the field of hydrolysis chemistry. This is further expected to be
one of the references in developing and integrating the Rasch model measurement in the school curriculum
in the world, especially in Indonesia.
This research can also function as a guide for researchers in developing ways to assess students’ concep-
tual reasoning abilities. This will provide valuable information regarding differences in ethnicity, gender, and
grade level in assessing students’ reasoning abilities. These findings will assist researchers in modifying the
reasoning ability test developed in this study, into a new assessment that is more adaptive to the learning
progress of students.
Research Limitation and Further Study
This study has not considered the differences in the context of the problem presentation and the charac-
teristics of the item on the item difficulty level parameter. Therefore, it is difficult to distinguish the difficulty of
items based on differences in students’ understanding abilities or precisely because of differences in the context
of the problem presented in each item. In addition, the reach of the student population has not yet reached
other parts of the Indonesian territory. Future research is expected to be able to reach a wider population of
students in Indonesia, taking into account the demographic aspects of students (such as ethnic, social, and
cultural differences), and measuring their influence on the level of mastery of concepts and scientific reason-
ing in different content scopes.
References
Adams, D., Chuah, K. M., Sumintono, B., & Mohamed, A. (2021). Students’ readiness for e-learning during the COVID-19
pandemic in a South-East Asian university: a Rasch analysis. Asian Education and Development Studies, 11(2), 324-339.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-05-2020-0100
Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369
Aktan, D. C. (2013). Investigation of students’ intermediate conceptual understanding levels: The case of direct current electricity
concepts. European Journal of Physics, 34(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/34/1/33
Alamina, J. I., & Etokeren, I. S. (2018). Effectiveness of imagination stretch teaching strategy in correcting misconceptions of
students about particulate nature of matter. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 27(1), 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2018/43063
Allen, M. (2014). Misconceptions in primary science (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Arnold, J. C., Boone, W. J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2018). Assessment of competencies in scientific inquiry through the application
of Rasch measurement techniques. Education Sciences, 8(4), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040184
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Banghaei, P. (2008). The Rasch model as a construct validation tool. Rasch Measurement Transaction, 22(1), 1145–1162.
Barbera, J. (2013). A psychometric analysis of the chemical concepts inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(5), 546–553.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3004353
831
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201
Boone, W. J. (2016). Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-04-0148
Boone, W. J., & Noltemeyer, A. (2017). Rasch analysis: A primer for school psychology researchers and practitioners. Cogent
Education, 4(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1416898
Boone, W. J., & Staver, J. R. (2020). Correction to: Advances in Rasch analyses in the human sciences. In Boone, W. J., & Staver,
J. R. (Eds.), Advances in Rasch analyses in the human sciences (pp. C1-C2). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
43420-5_21
Boone, W. J., Yale, M. S., & Staver, J. R. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-6857-4
Bradley, J. D., & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: A comparative study of student teachers with
different chemistry backgrounds. South African Journal of Chemistry, 51(3), 137–143.
Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education,
45(6), 811–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0542-2
Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., & Sumintono, B. (2021). Assessing computational thinking abilities among Singapore secondary
students: a Rasch model measurement analysis. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40692-020-00177-2
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students’
ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science
Education, 38(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9046-9
Chiu, M. H. (2007). A national survey of student’s conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education,
29(4), 421–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601072964
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher,
28(2), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177185
Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts
in different contexts using two-tier multiple-choice items. Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(3), 253–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903162553
Damanhuri, M. I. M., Treagust, D. F., Won, M., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2016). High school students’ understanding of acid-base
concepts: An ongoing challenge for teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(1), 9–27.
https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2015.284a
Davidowitz, B., & Potgieter, M. (2016). Use of the Rasch measurement model to explore the relationship between content
knowledge and topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge for organic chemistry. International Journal of Science
Education, 38(9), 1483–1503. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1196843
Demircio-lu, G., Ayas, A., & Demircio-lu, H. (2005). Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids
and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90003K
diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of
force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.003
Fisher, W. P. (2007). Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 21(1), 1095. www.rasch.org/
rmt/rmt211m.htm
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of
Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548
Gette, C. R., Kryjevskaia, M., Stetzer, M. R., & Heron, P. R. L. (2018). Probing student reasoning approaches through the lens
of dual-process theories: A case study in buoyancy. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 1-16. https://doi.
org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010113
Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching.
Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024008005
Hadenfeldt, J. C., Bernholt, S., Liu, X., Neumann, K., & Parchmann, I. (2013). Using ordered multiple-choice items to assess
students’ understanding of the structure and composition of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(12), 1602–1608.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3006192
Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203825945
Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850381
He, P., Liu, X., Zheng, C., & Jia, M. (2016). Using Rasch measurement to validate an instrument for measuring the quality of
classroom teaching in secondary chemistry lessons. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 381–393. https://
doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00004E
Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2016). Using Rasch modeling and option probability curves to diagnose students’
misconceptions. Paper Presented at the 2016 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Washington, DC
April 8-12, 2016, 1–12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572821.pdf
832
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2011). Using distractor-driven standards-based multiple-choice assessments and Rasch
modeling to investigate hierarchies of chemistry misconceptions and detect structural problems with individual items.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90023d
Hoe, K. Y., & Subramaniam, R. (2016). On the prevalence of alternative conceptions on acid-base chemistry among secondary
students: Insights from cognitive and confidence measures. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 263–282.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00146c
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 7, 75–83.
Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemical Education Research and Practice,
7(2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1039/b5rp90021b
Johnstone, A. H. (2010). You Can’t Get There from Here. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1021/ed800026d
Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Research Issues in Problem Solving. The 11th International Conference on Education Research New
Education Paradigm for Learning and Instruction, 1–15.
Kala, N., Yaman, F., & Ayas, A. (2013). The effectiveness of Predict-Observe-Explain technique in probing students’ understanding
about acid-base chemistry: A case for the concepts of pH, pOH and strength. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 11(1), 555–574.
Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology
class. Environmental Education Research, 4622, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418
Kolomuç, A., & Çalik, M. (2012). A comparison of chemistry teachers’ and grade 11 students’ alternative conceptions of “rate
of reaction.” Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/12.11.333
Laliyo, L. A. R., Sumintono, B., & Panigoro, C. (2022). Measuring Changes in Hydrolysis Concept of Students Taught by Inquiry
Model: Stacking and Racking Analysis Techniques in Rasch Model. Heliyon, 8(March), e09126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2022.e09126
Laliyo, L. A. R., Tangio, J. S., Sumintono, B., Jahja, M., Panigoro, C. (2020). Analytic Approach of Response Pattern of Diagnostic
Test Items in Evaluating Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Characteristics of Particle of Matter. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 19(5), 824-841.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). Landis and Koch1977_agreement of categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Lin, J. W., & Chiu, M. H. (2007). Exploring the characteristics and diverse sources of students’ mental models of acids and bases.
International Journal of Science Education, 29(6), 771–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855559
Linacre, J. M. (2020). A User’s Guide to W I N S T E P S ® M I N I S T E P Rasch-Model Computer Programs Program Manual 4.5.1.
www.winsteps.com.
Linn, R. L., & Slinde, J. A. (1977). The Determination of the Significance of Change Between Pre- and Posttesting Periods. Review
of Educational Research, 47(1), 121–150. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001121
Liu, X. (2012). Developing measurement instruments for science education research. In B. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie
(Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 651–665). Springer Netherlands.
Lu, S., & Bi, H. (2016). Development of a measurement instrument to assess students’ electrolyte conceptual understanding.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1030–1040. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00137h
Maratusholihah, N. F., Sri, R., & Fajaroh, F. (2017). Analisis miskonsepsi siswa sma pada materi hidrolisis garam dan larutan
penyangga [Analysis of high school students’ misconceptions on the material of salt hydrolysis and buffer solution].
Jurnal Pendidikan, 2(7), 919-926. https://doi.org/10.17977/jptpp.v2i7.9645
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch Model for Partial Credit Scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02296272
Naah, B. M., & Sanger, M. J. (2012). Student misconceptions in writing balanced equations for dissolving ionic compounds in
water. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP00015F
Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3),
237–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20400
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson Education Ltd.
Orgill, M. K., & Sutherland, A. (2008). Undergraduate chemistry students’ perceptions of and misconceptions about buffers
and buffer problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1039/b806229n
Orwat, K., Bernard, P., & Migdał-Mikuli, A. (2017). Alternative conceptions of common salt hydrolysis among upper-secondary
school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 64–76.
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Teaching practices for enactment of socio-scientific issues instruction: an
instrumental case study of an experienced biology teacher. Research in Science Education, 51(April), 375–398. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9799-3
Ozdemir, G., & Clark, D. (2009). Knowledge structure coherence in Turkish students’ understanding of force. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 46(5), 570–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20290
Park, M., & Liu, X. (2019). An investigation of item difficulties in energy aspects across biology, chemistry, environmental
science, and physics. Research in Science Education, 51(Suppl 1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9819-y
Pentecost, T. C., & Barbera, J. (2013). Measuring learning gains in chemical education: A comparison of two methods. Journal
of Chemical Education, 90(7), 839–845. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400018v
833
(pp. 817-835) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Perera, C. J., Sumintono, B., & Jiang, N. (2018). The psychometric validation of the principal practice questionnaire based on
Item Response Theory. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 2(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.22452/
iojel.vol2no1.3
Rouquette, A., Hardouin, J. B., Vanhaesebrouck, A., Sébille, V., & Coste, J. (2019). Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in composite
health measurement scale: Recommendations for characterizing DIF with meaningful consequences within the Rasch
model framework. PLoS ONE, 14(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215073
Sadler, P. M. (1998). Psychometric models for student-conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-
driver assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 265–296.
Sadler, P. M. (1999). The relevance of multiple-choice testing in assessing science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee,
& J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 251–274). Elsevier Academic Press.
Seçken, N. (2010). Identifying student’s misconceptions about SALT. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 234–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.004
Sesen, B. A., & Tarhan, L. (2011). Active-learning versus teacher-centered instruction for learning acids and bases. Research in
Science and Technological Education, 29(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2011.581630
Soeharto, Csapó, B., Sarimanah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and
their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649
Soeharto, S., & Csapó, B. (2021). Evaluating item difficulty patterns for assessing student misconceptions in science across
physics, chemistry, and biology concepts. Heliyon, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08352
Solihah, M. (2015). Penggunaan instrumen diagnostik two-tier untuk mengidentifikasi pemahaman konsep siswa kelas XI SMA
Negeri se-Kota malang pada materi larutann penyangga [The use of two-tier diagnostic instruments to identify the
understanding of the concept of class XI SMA Negeri Malang City on the material buffer solution]. Fakultas MIPA UM.
Sumintono, B. (2018). Rasch model measurements as tools in assessment for learning. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Education Innovation (ICEI 2017), October 2017. https://doi.org/10.2991/icei-17.2018.11
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2014). Aplikasi model Rasch untuk penelitian ilmu-ilmu sosial [Rasch model application for social
science research]. Penerbit Trim Komunikata.
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi pemodelan Rasch pada assessment pendidikan [Rasch modeling application in
educational assessment]. Penerbit Trim Komunikata.
Sunyono, S., Tania, L., & Saputra, A. (2016). A learning exercise using simple and real-time visualization tool to counter
misconceptions about orbitals and quantum numbers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(4), 452–463. https://doi.
org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.452
Suteno, I. K., Laliyo, L. A. R., Iyabu, H., & Abdullah, R. (2021). Mengevaluasi level pemahaman konsep hidrolisis garam peserta
didik menggunakan tes diagnostik pilihan ganda empat tingkat [Evaluating the level of understanding of the salt
hydrolysis concept of students using a four-level multiple choice diagnostic test]. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia,
9(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v9i3.20543
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions—Prevention, diagnosis, and cure. Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Challenging Misconceptions in the Chemistry Classroom: Resources to Support Teachers. Educació Química
EduQ, 4, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.2346/20.2003.02.27
Taber, K. S. (2014). Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving “human subjects.” Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 15(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp90003k
Taber, K. S. (2019). The nature of the chemical concept re-constructing chemical knowledge in teaching and learning. Royal Society
of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781788013611-FP001
Tarhan, L., & Acar-Sesen, B. (2013). Problem based learning in acids and bases: Learning achievements and students’ beliefs.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(5), 565. https://doi.org/1648-1652
Tümay, H. (2016). Emergence, learning difficulties, and misconceptions in chemistry undergraduate students’ conceptualizations
of acid strength. Science and Education, 25(1–2), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9799-x
Wei, S., Liu, X., Wang, Z., & Wang, X. (2012). Using Rasch measurement to develop a computer modeling-based instrument
to assess students’ conceptual understanding of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(3), 335–345. https://doi.
org/10.1021/ed100852t
Weston, M., Houdek, K. C., Prevost, L., Urban-Lurain, M., & Merrill, J. (2015). Examining the impact of question surface features
on students’ answers to constructed-response questions on photosynthesis. CBELife Science Education, 14, 1–12.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781410611697
Wilson, M. (2008). Cognitive diagnosis using item response models. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 216(2),
74–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.74
Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20318
Wilson, M. (2012). Responding to a challenge that learning progressions pose to measurement practice. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W.
Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progression in science (pp. 317–344). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-824-7
Wind, S. A., & Gale, J. D. (2015). Diagnostic opportunities using Rasch measurement in the context of a misconceptions-based
physical science assessment. Science Education, 99(4), 721–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21172
834
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 817-835)
Yaşar, I. Z., İnce, E., & Kırbaşlar, F. G. (2014). 7. Class science and technology course “structure of atom” subject readiness
improvement test. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152(October), 662-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.09.259
Yildirir, H. E., & Demirkol, H. (2018). Identifying mental models of students for physical and chemical change. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 17(6), 986–1004. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.986
Cite as: Laliyo, L. A. R., La Kilo, A., Paputungan, M., Kunusa, W. R., Dama, L., & Panigoro, C. (2022). RASCH modelling to evaluate
reasoning difficulties, changes of responses, and item misconception pattern of hydrolysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education,
21(5), 817-835. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.817
Lukman A. R. Laliyo PhD, Associate Professor, Gorontalo State University, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 6,
(Corresponding author) Dulalowo Tim., Kec. Kota Tengah, Kota Gorontalo, Gorontalo 96128, Indonesia.
E-mail: lukman.laliyo019@gmail.com
Website: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=owQHcqkAAAAJ&hl=id
Akram La Kilo PhD, Assistant Professor, Gorontalo State University, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 6,
Dulalowo Tim., Kec. Kota Tengah, Kota Gorontalo, Gorontalo 96128, Indonesia.
E-mail: akram@ung.ac.id
Website: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=YWz4wUMAAAAJ&hl=id
Mardjan Paputungan MSc, Associate Professor, Gorontalo State University, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 6,
E-mail: marpa@ung.ac.id
Website: https://www.ung.ac.id/formasi/people/196002151988031001
Wiwin Rewini Kunusa MSc, Assistant Professor, Gorontalo State University, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 6,
E-mail: rewinikunusa2014@gmail.com
Website: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5dukwJYAAAAJ&hl=en
Lilan Dama PhD, Assistant Professor, Gorontalo State University, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 6,
E-mail: lilandama@ung.ac.id
Website: https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?user=cpg6CX8AAAAJ&hl=id
Citra Panigoro MSc, Assistant Professor, Gorontalo State University, Jl. Jend. Sudirman No. 6,
E-mail: citrapanigoro@ung.ac.id
835
DEVELOPING COMMUNICATION
COMPETENCE IN DIGITAL
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR
Abstract. Effective natural science

teaching in primary schools helps students
Polonca Legvart,
to form and change their conceptions Metka Kordigel Aberšek,
about nature and natural processes. This Maja Kerneža
is only possible through communicating
about learners’ existing misconceptions
and the process of transforming them
into correct scientific concepts – using a
socio-constructivist learning approach. Introduction
The aim of this study was to find out
what happens when the natural science The starting point is the definition of learning environments as provided
teaching/learning process moves by the international study of the OECD on Innovative Learning Environ-
into digital learning environments. ments – ILE (OECD, 2013, p. 11), which states that a learning environment is
Immediately after the end of the Covid- an “organic, holistic concept – an ecosystem that includes the activity and the
induced school lock down, a sample of 183 outcomes of the learning”. It is “marked by a variety of teaching approaches,
first-, second- and third-grade teachers in the dynamics of the learning process, the flexible roles of the main actors in
Slovenia were asked to report about what this process, and the use of contemporary technologies”.
happened in their science classes during All learning environment concepts are based on some paradigm or
the 11-week school lock down. The results learning theory (Hannafin et al., 1997). Typically, learning theories are an
reveal problems originating in very limited interdisciplinary patchwork of education science, philosophy, psychology,
digital literacy competences as well as a cognitive science, social anthropology, organizational science, linguistics,
lack of basic skills (in the first grade), and cybernetics, architecture, social design, and, more recently, the neurology
slowly emerging basic literacy in grades of learning, multiple intelligences, and multimedia.
two and three. This had a great impact Unlike teaching theories, learning theories are descriptive and explain
on the communication between teachers the nature of learning. They are not limited to a single model or method but
and students and between students provide a basis for their selection or construction according to the circum-
themselves. According to research results, stances. Their focus is on the learner and his or her patterns of thinking, which
the problem significantly affects science form the framework of his or her own learning metacognition (“learning
teaching and is particularly urgent in (how) to learn”). This research focuses on those learning theories that reveal
didactics of chemistry and physics. the role and importance of the learning environment. Most often, this is the
Keywords: basic literacy, communication case with different constructivist learning theories:
competence, digital literacy, primary •• cognitive constructivism, which focuses on the active role of the
school, science class, socio-constructivist learner and learning in a real-life environment (Piaget, 1953);
learning approach •• social learning theory, which includes socio-historical and
cultural-historical conditions as well as situational learning and
communities of practice, and treats learning as a process/product
Polonca Legvart of the social context (Bandura, 1971);
Primary school bratov Polančičev Maribor,
Slovenia •• critical learning theory, which emphasizes that the existing social
Metka Kordigel Aberšek, Maja Kerneža context is man’s own construct toward which a critical attitude
University of Maribor, Slovenia must be formed, and which must be constantly improved in order
to create a better world (Freire, 2005).
836
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ DEVELOPING COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE IN DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 836-848)
Constructivism has also received attention in the context of the acquisition of scientific (or STEM) competences,
which we now understand as STEM literacy. A new understanding of “STEM knowledge” is coming to the fore, which
refers not only to the memorization of information about the natural world and the processes that occur within it,
but also to the interpretation of this information in relation to prior knowledge, experiences, and values (Cencelj
et al., 2020; Kordigel Aberšek & Aberšek, 2022). Constructivism offers a fresh perspective on learning and consid-
ers the emotional, motivational, and social dimensions of learning in addition to the cognitive. Teachers must also
be able to create meaningful learning environments that foster processes of active thinking, experimentation,
participation, and group communication (Lamanauskas, 2009; Lamanauskas & Vilkonis, 2005).
In fact, all learning is situated (Engeström, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978), therefore learning environments occur
wherever learning takes place, and one can see how different components of learning come together and inter-
twine in them. “Learning is any process in a living organism that leads to permanent capacity changes but is not
merely a biological maturation or aging” (Illeris, 2007, p. 3). It takes place in the triangle of content, incentive, and
interaction (Illeris, 2009, p. 9). Remarkable advances in cognitive neurology are revealing in increasing detail how
learning processes actually occur (Bansal et al., 2019). Through learning, the learner forms mental structures that
are stored in the brain in the form of mental schemas or patterns and are the elements of the learner’s thought
organization. “Learning is more than knowledge acquisition. It is often a process with multiple phases and differ-
ent components. Inquiry, investigation, decision making, selection and deselection are all preparatory activities
before we even enter the learning experience (where the learning experience is defined as the moment when we
actively acquire the knowledge that is missing in order for us to complete the required tasks or solve a problem).
During (and after) the learning experience, assessments or evaluations take place to measure whether the required
learning has occurred. Each phase has different requirements. Preparatory learning tends to rely more on informal
tools; the learning experience is most likely to use structured content and dialog with gurus; the assessment phase
requires informal discussion, reflection, and self-expression” (Siemens, 2006, p. 25).
Jonassen and Land (2000) found that neurological discoveries suggest significantly different ontological and
epistemological arguments for learning in comparison to communication theory, behaviourism, and cognitive
theories: learning is an activity that takes place within a goal-directed and integrated activity system. Learning is a
closed-end process of intention, action, and reflection, and therefore the learning process is not just about obtain-
ing knowledge, but about making it meaningful for one’s own use. A socio-dialogical process requires a referential
social environment and exists not only in individual thought, but also in public discourse, social relationships, and
material ideas.
In the cross-section of learning concepts presented in the OECD publication The Nature of Learning (Dumont et
al., 2010), there is a strong emphasis on the learning environment as a concept that has a major impact on percep-
tions of learning. DeCorte (2010) emphasised that high quality learning environments promote constructive learn-
ing based on the recognition of students as key actors in the process of knowledge acquisition; and self-regulated,
conceptual, and cooperative learning that refers to the relationships among all actors in the learning environment.
Today, constructivism is the dominant view in teaching and learning. It refers to a new understanding of
teaching and learning and to the changed role of teachers and learners. The latter is an active subject, while
the teacher encourages rather than transfers knowledge. In other words, learning is a self-regulating process of
constructing thoughts that takes place in interaction, and the teacher supports the learning process by selecting
learning materials and methods that are appropriate to the learning process. Therefore, learners construct their
own knowledge rather than passively receiving it from the teacher (Darmody et al., 2010).
Such an understanding of learning is adopted by the “model for designing a constructivist learning environ-
ment” (Jonassen, 1999), which refers to a pedagogical approach in which reality in the learning environment is not
just some textbook “illustration” or other, but a source of open questions, genuine problems, and a realistic reason
for undertaking projects. In this model, related examples and information sources support understanding of the
problem and imply possible solutions; cognitive tools help learners interpret different aspects of the problem;
conversational or collaborative tools enable learning communities to negotiate and construct meanings; and
social and contextual supports serve to implement the entire model. Clearly, creating a context for presentation
and an educational space for manipulation in which learners can communicate about their learning process, is a
challenging task. It remains to be determined whether learning environments created under distance education
conditions can meet these requirements. As the current research showed, options of instructors and learners
range from negative or reserved (Kerndl & Kordigel Aberšek, 2016) to quite positive (Lamanauskas et al., 2022).
“Naturally, satisfaction with online learning depends on many different factors, such as students’ motivation, the
837
(pp. 836-848) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
system of study, organization, the socio-cultural environment, the quality of teacher’s work” (Lamanauskas et al.,
2022, p. 239) and it also depends on students’ digital literacy competence and the topic they are learning about.
Learning Environments in Primary Science Classes
The advantage of constructivist-oriented physical learning environments that focus on learners’ interest in
discovery and encourage collaboration, anticipation, assumption, work with objects, inquiry, research, and in-
novation, are widely recognized (Dangel, 2013). The role of teachers is to provide a context for such practices, as
indicated by physical indicators such as seating arrangements, wall panels, the general layout of the classroom, etc.
Analysing a large sample of British primary school students, aged 5 to 11, the HEAD (Holistic Evidence and
Design) study found that for students of this age, the classroom environment is significantly more important than
the school environment as a whole (Barrett et al., 2015, p. 15; Barrett et al., 2017, p. 436). In addition, the results of
the PISA 2012 survey, which showed that up to 25% of differences between schools in learning outcomes can be
explained by differences in the quality of their learning environments, clearly indicate that this is primarily true for
physical environments in the classroom (OECD, 2013). When it comes to teaching and learning processes, STEM
teachers most often choose between a traditional and student-centred, constructivist approach to the learning
environment.
According to Brown (2008), in constructivist-oriented learning environments, learners play an active role in
gathering experiences as a basis for their own reasoning. Learners are able to develop their own understanding
of subject content because they are interested and excited about it. Although the teacher leaves the stage and is
less visible, their role in such teaching is more demanding, both in terms of planning and supporting learning and
in terms of formative assessment. Constructivist teachers plan and design learning environments that encourage
learners to engage in problem solving, social negotiation, discovery, creativity, communication, and research.
Learning Environments for Teaching Primary School Science Constructively
Effective primary science teaching supports students to form and modify their ideas about nature and natural
processes. Effective teaching at an early age also enhances learners’ curiosity, motivates them to explore the world
in productive directions, and develops active thinkers. This interpretation of learning primary science is based on
conceptual development, according to which students take steps towards the concepts. “Learning science is also
interpreted as students becoming members of a classroom-based science community – one in which they develop
scientific competences and learn what it means to engage in inquiry-oriented practices” (Skamp & Preston, 2018, XVI).
As Brockett (2011) and Murphy (2012) pointed out, learners’ conceptions are the essential starting point for
learning science in primary classes. These conceptions differ from scientifically correct concepts, and are often
referred to as alternative conceptions because they refer to “experience-based explanations constructed by learners
to make sense of a range of natural phenomena and objects (Wandersee et al., 1995). Other terms used to describe
these non-scientific concepts include “misconceptions”, “everyday” or “intuitive” or “naïve” ideas, or “preconceptions”.
These alternative ideas come from everyday experiences with the world; they may be adopted from misinforma-
tion from peers, family, and the media. In addition, language can also influence misconceptions, when scientific
terms have different meanings than those used in everyday speech (Taber, 2015). In recent years, misinformation
is often due to the World Wide Web with its fake news and advertisements, because it is difficult for children to
know what a reliable source of information is.
Learners’ alternative concepts are often resistant to change. Learners may reject new ideas, they may simply
add new ideas (which they encountered in science classes) to their existing ideas, or they may change their exist-
ing ideas, but not necessarily in accordance with scientific interpretations of phenomena or events, which means
that the outcomes of formal science learning may lead to a range of unintended conceptual learning outcomes
(Leach, 2015). With a social constructivist approach in primary science classes, the rejection of new concepts and
the formation of parallel scientific concepts can be reduced or even avoided. The didactic approach in primary
science classes should focus on the group (in the classroom), on the learning process (which should be based
mainly on the learner’s interaction with their social environment), and on language, whose first function is to en-
able communication among learners or between learners and the teacher (Bachtold, 2013).
Knowing all this, while considering the circumstances of the shift in learning environments from “face to
face” to “distance/remote”, a key question arises: is it possible to provide appropriate learning environments for
838
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 836-848)
achieving a central goal of primary science curricula, i.e., science literacy? The second relevant set of questions
would be the following:
•• What happened to the already changed teaching approach that occurred over the last two decades
as teachers moved from the traditional to the socio-constructivist teaching/learning paradigm, from
presenting science through explanations, reading texts, watching videos, or observing teachers conduct
experiments to guiding students in an active, extended inquiry?
•• Were teachers successful in exploring students’ existing alternative conceptions related to selected
natural science phenomena, or not? The answer to this question is of utmost importance because
knowledge of students’ alternative conceptions is critical in determining the science-teaching approach
to be used in a primary science class.
It is important to find out what actually happened to primary science classes when teaching and learning
moved to digitally supported learning environments.
To address this central topic, the aim of this study was to provide answers to the following research questions:
1. What digital learning environments did teachers use for teaching science when were they forced to
make a shift from “face to face” to digital learning environments?
2. How many natural science curricular goals were achieved in these digital learning environments?
3. What natural science curricular goals were not achieved with digital learning environments?
4. What are the reasons for not choosing certain specific natural science curricular goals during the
distance-learning period in digital learning environments?
General Background
The research was conducted in the week in which Slovenian students returned to school – in February 2021. In
Slovenia, the Covid school lock down lasted 11 weeks, and it provided the opportunity to examine what happened in
primary school natural science teaching in terms of the social constructivist approach (in digital learning environments).
For the purposes of this research, a quantitative approach was chosen in order to provide the answers to the research
questions. A questionnaire was designed, tested, and sent to all compulsory school headmasters in northeast
Slovenia. They were asked to distribute them to the first-, second- and third-grade teachers in their schools. There
are two reasons why Slovenian schools are an appropriate sample for exploring what happened to primary-level
science teaching in digital learning environments. The first reason is the level of general preparation for teaching by
means of digital learning environments. Four main factors influence student performance in digital environments:
two technological factors (accessibility and quality of the internet connection, and students being equipped with
laptops or tablets), teachers’ digital competence (their ability to teach in digital environments), and the participation
of students who are already digitally competent in the process of online learning in digital learning environments.
These four factors usually occur together, but not in Slovenia: in Slovenia, both technological factors were solved
very quickly, and teachers were prepared to use digital learning environments. The second reason is the fact that
the period of school lock down and therefore the time frame for remote teaching in digital learning environments
in Slovenia was relatively long – it lasted 11 weeks, which is one of the longest periods in the world.
Sample Selection
The sample consisted of 183 randomly selected first triennium teachers in Slovenia (in the 2019/2020 school
year, there were a total of 22,009 teachers in primary education in Slovenia; about 7,000 taught in the first triennium),
with different length of service (Table 1). With this sample size (representative sample) we got level of confidence
approx. 93% which is not ideal, but still good enough for preliminary conclusions.
839
(pp. 836-848) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 1
Participating Teachers by Length of Service
f %
1–3 years 11 6.01

4–6 years 5 2.73
7–18 years 54 29.51
19–30 years 64 35.00
31–40 years 49 26.88
Total 183 100.0
In Slovenian schools, there are 97.4% of female teachers at the primary level and only 2.6% of male teachers,
which is why a sociodemographic description was not specifically included in this research.
Ethical Procedures
Participants’ approval was obtained in research in line with the voluntary principle. All participants were
informed of the purpose of the research. The identity of participants was maintained at all stages, and the codes
provided to the participants were used when citing raw data.
Data were collected using the online questionnaire Learning Environments for the First Three Grades in the Time
of Remote Teaching, which included 52 questions about teachers’ experiences after the Covid-19 school lock down.
For the purposes of this research, 7 questions from this extensive questionnaire were relevant and were interpreted.
The first part of the questionnaire contained questions about demographic data (teaching experience – length of
service), and the second part collected data about teachers’ experiences with remote teaching in digital learning
environments during the 11-week school lock down from the perspective of different curriculum subjects.
The first question focused on what learning environments teachers used for teaching science in the distance-
learning period. They selected between: videoconferences (Zoom, Teams, Meet, etc.), e-mails, online learning en-
vironments (Moodle, Mahara, 0386, Seesaw, Google classroom, E-assistant classroom, Xooltime), social networks,
phone calls, and other (Mentimeter, BookCreator, Padlet, Plickers, Quizlet, Kahoot, Thinglink, etc.). A 6-point Likert
scale was used (range: 1 – never, 2 – once a month, 3 – once every two weeks, 4 – up to 3 times a week, 5 – daily).
Teachers were also asked about what methods they used during videoconferences. On a 5-point Likert scale
(1 – never, 2 – rare, 3 – sometimes, 4 – often, 5 – always), they rated how often they used videoconferencing for
the organization of their work, for communication at the time of explanation, for communication at the time of
interpretation, for communication after interpretation, for socializing, and so on.
Then teachers were asked what percentage of science curricular goals they achieved during the remote teach-
ing period. They compared their annual teaching plan (created before knowing that the school lock down would
occur in October and last until mid-January) with the realization. The percentage of curricular goals achieved was
stated as follows: one fifth and less, a quarter, one third, half, two-thirds, three-quarters, and almost all curricular goals.
Next, teachers focused on the science curriculum goals that they have successfully implemented in digital
learning environments, and on those for which they believed were not appropriate for implementation in digital
learning environments. They listed the three didactic units that they thought were most successful, and the three
didactic units that they chose not to implement. They also gave reasons why they did not select specific natural
science curricular goals for implementation in digital learning environments. The teachers’ responses were catego-
rized as follows: students were not present, the curriculum is overloaded anyway, the goal is too demanding for
digital learning environments, no digital learning resources available, distance learning requires a different didactic
approach, students’ limited digital competence, my own limited digital competence. The teachers’ responses were
interpreted by comparing the social sciences with the natural sciences.
The questionnaire was piloted on a sample of 15 primary-level teachers. The same teachers responded to
the same questionnaire again after a two-week period. The results confirm the reliability of the questionnaire. The
840
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 836-848)
results were thoroughly reviewed, thematically and methodologically edited, and differences and errors were ad-
dressed. Subsequently, the final version of the questionnaire was prepared. The reliability of the rating scales was
checked using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) and was found to be acceptable for the observed variables (Nunnally,
1978): the scale reliability for learning environments for teaching science in the distance-learning period was: α =
.702, and for methods used by teachers during videoconferences Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was: α = .714. The
validity was evaluated through two expert evaluations (both experts are active in the field of research in digital
learning environments, primary science class and statistical analysis). Objectivity was ensured in the implementa-
tion phase: the survey took place in an online environment that allowed to avoid stimuli, closed-end questions
were preferred, and the proportion of personal interpretation was deliberately controlled in the evaluation phase
of the open-end questions.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data of primary school teachers from first (6-year-olds) to third (8-year-olds) grade was collected.
After verifying that the data were correct, a quantitative analysis was conducted, which analysed the data according
to the following phases: encoding, definition and organisation of the data, and interpretation of the results. The
programme IBM SPSS was used for statistically processing the data. The sample is presented with basic statistics.
To compare the results obtained with the 5- and 6-point Likert scales, null and alternative hypotheses were es-
tablished. The Friedman test was used to test whether there were significant differences in the learning environ-
ments teachers used to teach science in the distance-learning period (6-point Likert scale) and in the frequency of
using different teaching methods during videoconferences (5-point Likert scale). If the Friedman test confirmed
the presence of the statistical differences between the learning environments and in the use of different teach-
ing methods during the videoconferences, the Chi-square test was used to test whether there were statistically
significant differences in the frequency of use within each individual learning environments (6-point Likert scale)
and within each individual teaching method used during videoconferences (5-point Likert scale). The mean of the
responses given for each variable was also calculated. The mean value was calculated based on the frequency of
responses on the Likert scale for the individual learning environment and, in a next step, for the frequency of using
different teaching methods during the videoconferences. The higher the value, the more frequently the teachers
used the individual learning environment or the more frequently they used different teaching methods. Based on
the results obtained, the mean values of all learning environments were compared. The share of science curricular
goals reached during the remote teaching period was presented using basic statistical interpretation, a Chi-square
test was conducted to measure the possible differences among observed variables. Science curricular goals that
teachers did/did not implement are presented tabularly with basic descriptive statistics for comparison. The rea-
sons why teachers didn’t select natural science curricular goals in digital learning environments were statistically
tested using the Chi-square test.
Research Results
The first question regarding science teaching in distance learning period focused on the learning environments
that teachers chose for science classes. The null hypothesis H0 was stated: All types of learning environments are
used equally often. An alternative hypothesis H1 stated: All types of learning environments are not used equally
often. A non-parametric Friedman test of differences was conducted. Differences are statistically significant (χ2 (6)
= 451.97, p = .001). Based on the results, H0 was rejected. The use of learning environments for distance science
education is unevenly distributed.
Table 2
Learning Environments (LE) for Teaching Science in the Distance-Learning Period (Lock Down)
Learning Environments x̄ χ2 df p
Videoconferencing 5.4 202.11 5 .001

Email 4.1 54.39 6 .001
Online learning environment 3.9 270.39 6 .001
841
(pp. 836-848) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Learning Environments x̄ χ2 df p
Social networks 1.5 586.96 6 .001

Phone calls 2.5 106.96 6 .001
Because it was found that the use of learning environments for teaching science in the distance-learning period
was unevenly distributed, the individual learning environments using Chi-square test were further examined. The
answers presented in Table 2 indicate that on a daily basis, most teaching/learning sessions were held in Zoom,
MS Teams, or another videoconferencing environment. Moodle, Mahara, Seesaw, Xooltimme, Google classroom,
and e-assistant classroom were used almost as frequently. The data showing the use of email, social networking,
and phone calls reveals the fact that some students could not successfully participate in online science classes and
that they could do so after some assistance. The frequency of individual communication channels used daily, such
as e-mail (teacher – students, teacher – parents), could indicate problems in performing science didactic units in
digital learning environments (which could be solved individually), but also communication between teachers
and students or students (peers) among themselves could indicate that a social constructivist approach to sci-
ence teaching was used. Individual communication channels could be used for asking questions, communicating
problems, and suggesting/comparing solutions.
From this perspective, the results presented in Table 2 suggest further exploration: What methods did you
use during the videoconferences? The null hypothesis H0 is: Teachers use different work methods equally frequently
during videoconferences. The alternative hypothesis H1 is: Teachers do not use different work methods equally
frequently during videoconferences. A Friedman test of differences showed a statistically significant Chi-square
value (χ2 (6) = 309.96, p = .001). The null hypothesis was rejected, which means that teachers use different work
methods unequally during videoconferences. Accordingly, this research focused on which methods teachers used
more frequently than others. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
The Frequency of Using Different Teaching Methods During Videoconferences in Distance Learning Period (Lock Down)
Frequency of Using Different Teaching Methods x̄ χ2 df p
Organization of learning work 4.0 119.09 5 .001

Communication at the time of explanation 3.0 23.31 5 .001
Communication at the time of interpretation 4.0 72.47 5 .001
Communication after interpretation 2.4 74.87 5 .001
Socializing 2.7 30.65 5 .001
Other 2.1 59.00 5 .001
As the results in the Table 3 show, videoconferencing was most commonly used for “organization of learning
work”, and for “communication at the time of interpretation”. Both teaching methods were used equally often with
the sample mean 4.0. Only one tenth of teachers reported giving traditional “lectures” daily. 15.8% taught frontally
for 4 hours per week or more, and about one-third did so sometimes (1-2 hours per week). The data that teachers
used videoconferencing for “communication at the time of explanation” indicates the possibility of implementing
more advanced didactic approaches that include dialogues between students and the teacher, and between
peers. 33.9% of respondents reported that they always communicated with students “in time of interpretation”,
and 21.3% reported that they did so at least 4 hours per week. This optimistic interpretation seems less correct
when considering the data on the use of videoconferencing for “communication after interpretation”. Only 3.8%
of teachers always provided the opportunity to communicate about students’ new knowledge, what beliefs they
held prior to instruction, and how and why they changed their viewpoints (and the same number did so 4 hours
per week). More than half of teachers provided this opportunity 1-2 hours per week or less. Insight into what hap-
pened during videoconferencing time (besides teaching, organization, and socializing) can be derived by reading
what teachers listed under the “Other” response. Only 19.7% of teachers provided information in this section. They
mentioned “feedback on work, joint discussion of solved tasks”, “overview of completed activities”, “instructions and
842
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 836-848)
explanations” “allowing students to ask their classmates questions about the topic”, “games and fun experiments
for motivation” … The remaining 80.3% of the sample gave no answers.
The third research question examined the percentage of science curriculum objectives that teachers were
able to achieve during the remote teaching period. Teachers were asked to compare the annual teaching plan
they had created before they knew that the school lock down would occur in October and last until mid-January,
with the realization of their plan.
Table 4
Share of Science Curricular Goals Reached During the Remote Teaching Period (lock down)
Curricular Goals Reached f %
One fifth of curricular goals and less 2 1.1

A quarter of curricular goals 4 2.2
One third of the curricular goals 13 7.1
Half of the curricular goals 21 11.5
Two-thirds of the curricular goals 19 10.4
Three-quarters of the curricular goals 41 22.4
Almost all or all curricular goals 54 29.5
No answer 29 15.8
Total 183 100.0
The results in the Table 4 reveal that less than one third of teachers reached the realization of all science
curricular goals they had planned before they knew they will need to change the learning environment from
face-to-face to digital learning. Slightly more than one-fifth achieved the realization of three-thirds of the science
curricular goals and nearly the same number of teachers (21.9%) reported that they were able to achieve half or
less than half of the science curricular goals.
The results presented in Table 4 show statistically significant differences in share of science curricular goals
reached during the remote teaching period (χ2 (7) = 98.05, p = .001) and require closer examination. To provide insight
into what was happening with the teaching/learning of science in digital learning environments during the school
lock down, teachers were asked to list three science curriculum goals that were – in their opinion – implemented
particularly successfully, and three science curricular goals, they decided not to implement in digital learning en-
vironments. The answers to this question are of great importance because they reveal a problematic situation in
the field of natural science didactics at the primary level. Why is this so? In Slovenia, the school subject Science on
primary level covers curricular goals, connected with social and natural sciences. Under these circumstances, the
answers to the question: Which curricular goals did you implement successfully, and which did you skip, reveal which
special didactic did not offer suitable solutions: didactic approaches, and didactic materials in distance learning
environments. The answers show the gap between the existing didactic approaches in natural science teaching
and the didactic approaches that teachers would need to know additionally in digital learning environments.
Table 5
Science Curricular Goals that Teachers did/did not Implement
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Total

Science Curricular Goals
f % f % f % f %
Implemented
Social sciences 7 10.5 10 14.9 9 13.4 26 38.8
Natural sciences 20 29.9 11 16.4 10 14.9 41 61.2
Total 27 40.0 21 31.3 19 28.3 67 100.0
843
(pp. 836-848) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Total

Science Curricular Goals
f % f % f % f %
Not implemented
Social sciences 8 17.4 3 6.5 0 .0 11 23.9
Natural sciences 18 39.2 11 23.9 6 13.0 35 76.1
Total 26 56.6 14 30.4 6 13.0 46 100.0
Note. Social sciences = history, geography, philosophy, sociology; Natural sciences = chemistry, physics, biology, technology, and
engineering.
The results presented in Table 5 show that the didactic problem of digital learning environments is more urgent
in natural science special didactics than in social science special didactics. Of the unachieved science curricular
goals, only 11 belong to the social science fields. On the other hand, teachers’ answers reveal they felt helpless
in implementing natural science curricular goals in digital learning environments. The list of unachieved science
curricular goals includes 35 topics from the field of chemistry, physics, biology, and technology and engineering.
This research also focused on why teachers did not select natural science curricular goals in the digital learning
environments. The results revealed statistically significant differences (χ2 (6) = 66.23, p = .001). Nearly half of the
teachers surveyed (44.0 %) responded that they did not select natural science curricular goals because distance
learning requires a different didactic approach. 16.5 % and 15,2 % of teachers cited limited student digital literacy
and overly challenging curricular goals for implementation in digital learning environments, while less than one-
tenth of teachers cited reasons such as “my own limited digital competence” (7.6 %), “no digital resources available”
(7.6 %), “students were not present” (6.3 %) and “the curriculum is overloaded anyway” (2.6 %).
Discussion
The results of the present study may be considered inconsistent with some previous studies. They (as well as
other recent research results) do not share the optimistic view of the connection between constructivism and online
learning design in natural science teaching – an optimistic view that was typical of educational science before the
Covid-conditioned school lock down. Even more, they broaden the focus to educational problems that were hardly
mentioned in the research, problems related to natural science teaching on primary level, where students’ prior
knowledge and competences in general literacy and digital literacy are not sufficiently developed to use them in
a communication process needed in the social constructivist teaching/learning paradigm.
In 2005, Bellefeuille et al. pointed out that technology, particularly computer technology, offers many resources
that have been proven to complement constructivist practices in the classroom and distance learning. According
to them, “the computer base instructional design (and web-based instruction) offers learning environments that
are more inherently constructivist in nature” (p. 374).
According to Gazi (2009), the constructivist approach encourages students to manage their learning through
metacognitive, self-reflective, and collaborative processes. Gazi pointed out that a constructivist-based online
course enhances student learning and promotes communication, teamwork, and critical thinking.
Nevertheless, as early as 2007, Van Merriënboer (2007) pointed out the difficulty of integrating new informa-
tion into students’ prior knowledge in digital learning environments and using it to solve new problems. Therefore,
Merriënboer developed a model to improve learning transfer. When designing an online course, the teacher can
use videos, animations, or audios to arouse learners’ interest and introduce a learning topic. Students can then learn
more about the topic by visiting a variety of websites and resources provided by the teacher. Students selected
the information, analysed it, and shared their views in the discussion session. In this context the communication
between the teacher and the students, as well as between the students themselves, is essential to this learning
process. A chat room or internet conferencing should be used to make real-time conversation for immediate an-
swers and questions. The teacher can provide support and guidance to students via e-mail, instant messaging, or
discussion board. And perhaps the most important rule for teaching in a digital learning environment: the teacher
must provide students with the necessary skills and knowledge (Van Merriënboer, 2007).
This absence of satisfactory levels of these prerequisite skills and competencies, needed for successful com-
munication in digital learning environments proved to be a key factor in lower learning outcomes when the school
was suddenly faced with moving instruction to digital learning environments.
844
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 836-848)
In the context of Covid-19, the IEA and UNESCO, in collaboration with the European Commission (EC), conducted
a study that draws a broader picture of the pandemic’s impact on global education: Responses to Educational
Disruption Survey (REDS). The sample consisted of 15,004 teachers (also 21,064 students and 1,581 school prin-
cipals) from 11 countries, including Slovenia (REDS, 2022). The aim of the study was to find out how schools were
prepared for distance learning in times of school lock down as well as during a subsequent reopening phase, and
to gain insights into the effect of disruption and factors and measures that may influence the success of distance
learning for students in different countries.
The results are consistent with the findings of the study: Slovenian teachers in the READ, which confirmed
the readiness of the digital infrastructure. Internet connections were always available (91% of teachers, a similar
result to Denmark, the participating country with the best results), 95% of students had a computer (Denmark
99%), 95% had their own smartphone. Despite this fact, the teachers’ answers reveal that they were able to achieve
only 28% of the curricular goals without adopting them to the new circumstances in digital leaning environments.
89% of them agreed with the statement that they limited themselves to achieving only the curricular goals that
they considered “essential”. Particularity important in the context of this research is the READ study result which
relates to natural science teaching and learning. Only 35% of the teachers agreed with the statement that they
were able to meet the curriculum goals associated with the so-called “practical skills”. It is explained (in brackets)
that “practical skills” are primarily natural science experiments and products produced in connection with the cur-
riculum goals of technical education (and also arts education). 75% of teachers indicated that they were unable to
communicate with students about the results of natural science experiments (and other products in the context of
assessing “practical skills”), although 46% of them assigned them anyway (Meinck, et al., 2022). These three results
reveal the full range of problems, which occurred around natural science teaching in digital learning environments
during school closure and confirm the results obtained through this research.
The findings are consistent with the results of the NESET report (Sternandel, 2021). NESET is an advisory network
of experts working on the social dimension of education and training, established by the European Commission’s
Directorate-General for Education and Culture. This report provides an overview of the available data on the impact
of Covid-19-related school disruptions on the learning outcomes of primary and secondary school students in
the EU. The report first mentions a study conducted in July 2020 in the United Kingdom based on responses from
primary and secondary school teachers and principals. Sharp et al. (2020) found that 98% of teachers believed their
students were behind in curriculum learning at the end of the 2019-2020 school year. Teachers reported covering
an average of 66% of the usual curriculum in the 2019-2020 school year and estimated that their students were on
average about three months behind, which is consistent with the findings of this research. A more detailed picture
of the impact of Covid-19 on student learning outcomes is provided by a closer look at the results provided by
evidence from standardised tests (Engzell et al., 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2020).
Most of the research conducted immediately after the school lock down focused on learning outcomes in
the mother tongue (spelling, reading, reading comprehension) and mathematics. Engzell et al. (2021) analysed
primary school performance in these subjects in the Netherlands. Their results are particularly convincing because
national tests are administered twice a year in the Dutch school system, in January/February and at the end of the
school year. Thus, in 2020, these test dates fell just before and after the first nationwide school closures. Access to
data from 3 years prior to the pandemic allowed for a comparison of the results and an assessment of differential
learning outcomes. The results showed that Dutch primary school students made little or no progress during the
12-week full school lock down and the 11-week partial school lock down. Comparing the data with those from
2017, the results showed that students faced a learning loss of about 3 percentile points in maths and reading or
.08 standard deviations, which is equivalent to one-fifth of a school year.
Similar results were obtained in French schools. Andreu et al. (in REDS (2022) have compared the results of
national standardised tests in the mother tongue (French) and mathematics and compared them with results from
2019. The tests were carried out in the first and second grades of primary school students. The first-grade results
in 2020 showed a massive reduction in learning outcomes in both French and mathematics. In French, test results
decreased in all seven evaluated items (compare a series of letters, letters recognition, knowing the sound the let-
ters produce, syllables manipulation, understanding text/sentences/words read aloud by teacher). In mathematics,
the results decreased in all evaluated items but one (associate a number with a position). The students were less
efficient than in the year before in the following tasks: compare numbers, quantify collections, and resolve problems,
list full numbers, reproduce assembly. The second-grade learning outcomes decreased in seven out of the eight
items for the subject “French language”. Results dropped significantly in several key areas: the share of students
845
(pp. 836-848) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
who could read the text satisfactorily (down 4.8 percentage points), the share of students who could read words
properly (down 4.3 points), and the share of students who could write words properly (down 4.5 points). Results
in mathematics were less concerning: only one item decreased by more than one percentage point (REDS, 2022).
Despite the fact that only a few studies have evaluated the impact of school closures on primary and secondary
level teaching, it can be concluded (in no uncertain terms) based on the standardised test results that “the period
of school closure generally has had a negative impact on student learning outcomes” (Sternandel, 2021, p. 12).
Focusing on learning outcomes in science teaching, the results of this research can be considered consistent
with the Belgian study performed by Maldonado and De Witte (2020). Their study did not only focus only on the
mother tongue and mathematics, but they also examined learning outcomes in all other subjects of the school
curriculum. Their results showed that in the year 2020 students experienced significant learning loss compared to
the previous generation in all subjects except for social sciences. In mathematics, the results showed learning losses
between 0.18 and 0.25 standard deviations, and in science, a decline between 0.22 and 0.33 standard deviations.
In contrast, as noted earlier, no significant decline in test scores was found in social sciences.
Regarding the international context of the presented research, at least two research backgrounds relevant to the
present research should be mentioned. The first is the fact that the primary grade students belong to Generation
Alpha, which had already been exposed to digital environments in early childhood. Consequently, one might ex-
pect a higher level of (at least basic) digital literacy competence at the age when children enter school. This would
enable first grade students to successfully participate in digital learning environments. The second is the previous
research study (by the same authors as in this research), which showed that playing video games and viewing
YouTube images does not equip children with the kind of digital literacy that would enable them to successfully
participate in the educational process in digital learning environments. At the primary level, this circumstance
comes together with the lack or absence of basic literacy skills (in the first grade) and a slowly emerging basic
literacy in the second and third grade. All this has a great impact on the creation of communication channels for
communication between teachers and students and between students themselves in a learning community, which
is essential for the science learning process. The results of the present research support the idea that the second
research corpus, which points out the necessity of systematic development of digital competence in members of
the Generation Alpha, seems to be right.
The absence of competences needed for successful communication in digital learning environments is a key
factor for lower learning outcomes in digital learning environments, which are observed internationally – including
students of the first school years. The majority of international research on primary level learning outcomes focuses
on reading and writing skills and mathematics, and very little is focused on science and especially natural science
curricular goals. The presented research brings deeper insight in natural science education during school lock
down, when the learning process moved into digital learning environments. As the READ study showed, teachers,
when instructed to ‘select’ curricular goals according to their own judgement, i.e., deciding whether certain goals
are suitable for digital learning environments or not – have very often decided that natural science topics ‘are not
suitable for digital learning environments’. The presented results of this research showed that such decisions were
made even more frequently in primary science classes, where teachers indicated that the main problem in this
situation was the fact that they were unable to communicate the results of natural science experiments to their
students. This result should be considered in the context of the theoretical background (as part of this research),
according to which there is no other way to carry out a socio-constructivist teaching/learning process than com-
munication about existing misconceptions, and communication about the process of searching for answers and
constructing new knowledge.
As the presented research results showed, the didactics of natural sciences is facing a set of new challenges
in finding methodological solutions for teaching early-level physics, chemistry, and technical sciences. The solu-
tion that teachers have used during the school closure period, i.e., to skip the natural sciences curricular topics, is
simply not an answer we can be satisfied with.
846
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 836-848)
References
Bachtold, M. (2013). What do students ‘construct’ according to constructivism in science education? Research in Science Education,
43(6), 2477–2496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9369-7
Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press.
Bansal, K., Garcia, J., Tompson, S., Verstynen, T., Vettel, J., & Muldoon, S. (2019). Cognitive chimera states in human brain networks.
Science Advances, 5(4), eaau8535, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau8535
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2015). Clever classrooms. Summary report of the HEAD project. University of Salford.
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2017). The holistic impact of classroom spaces on learning in specific subject.
Environment and Behavior, 49(4), 425–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516648735
Baviskar, S., Hartle, T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of
the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4),
541–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121
Bellefeuille, G., Martin, R. R., & Buck, M. P. (2005). From pedagogy technology in social work education: A constructivist approach
to instructional design in an online, competency-based child welfare practice course. Child and Youth Care Forum, 34(5),
371–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-005-5909-2
Brockett, K. (2011). Science: Don’t be scared of it! Primary Science, 120, 11–13.
Brown, G. (2008). The ontology of learning environment. In: P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, G. Vogl (Eds.). Learning and learner: Exploring
learning for new times (pp. 220–236). University of Wollogong.
Cencelj, Z., Aberšek, B., Flogie, A., & Kordigel Aberšek, M. (2020). Metacognitive model for developing science, technology, and
engineering functional literacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.220
Dangel, J. (2013). An analysis of research on constructivists teacher education. In Education, 17(2) 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.37119/ojs2011.v17i2.85
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00372.x
Darmody, M., Smyth, E., & Doherty, C. (2010). Designing primary school for the Future. The Economic and Social Research Institute.
DeCorte, E. (2010). Historical developments in the understanding of learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The
Nature of learning: Using to inspire practice (pp. 35–67). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-4-en
Dumont, H., Instance, D., & Benavides, F. (2010). Analysing and designing learning environments for the 21st Century. In
H. Dumont, D. Istance, & Benavides, F. (Eds.), The Nature of Learning: Using to Inspire Practice, OECD Publications (pp.
19–34). Centre for Educational Research and Innovation & Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-en
Engeström, Y. (2009). From learning environments and implementation to activity systems and expansive learning. Actio, An
International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 17–33.
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.20223761188
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Gazi, Z. A. (2009). Implementing constructivist approach into online course designs in distance education institute at Eastern
Mediterranean University. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 68–81.
Guy, R. (2007). The role of interaction in e-learning. In N. A. Buzzeto-More (Ed.), Principles of effective online teaching (pp. 83–103).
Informing Science Press.
Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundation and assumption of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning
environments. Instructional Science, 25(3), 167–202. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002997414652
Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Routledge.
Illeris, K. (2009). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 7–21).
Routledge.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional – design theories and
models (pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2000). Preface. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundation of learning environments (pp. iii-ix).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kerndl, M., & Kordigel Aberšek, M. (2016). The effectiveness of distanced e-learning in teachers’ education: A case study in
Slovenia. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 72, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/16.72.16
Kordigel Aberšek, M., & Aberšek, B. (2022) New digital competence for science technology and engineering education. Journal
of Baltic Science Education, 21(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.108
Lamanauskas, V., Gorghiu G., Santi E. A., & Pribeanu C. (2022). Satisfaction with online education during the pandemic: A
comparison between Romanian and Lithuanian master students. In M. Turčáni, Z. Balogh, M. Munk, M. Magdin, L. Benko,
& J. Francisti (Eds.), DIVAI 2022 – The 14th international scientific conference on Distance Learning and Applied Informatics (pp.
237–248). Wolters Kluwer.
Lamanauskas, V. (2009). Learners’ interaction with nature: Some educational issues. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 17,
5-9. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/457-1399913983.pdf
Lamanauskas, V., & Vilkonis, R. (2005). The Characteristics of the learners’ (forms 5 to 12) interaction with nature. The evaluation
aspects of behavioral situations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 4(2), 55–67. http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/?q=node/99
847
(pp. 836-848) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Legvart, P., Kordigel Aberšek, M., & Kerneža, M. (2021). Primary school students’ natural science digital literacy competence in
digital learning environments. In V. Lamanauskas (Ed.), Science and technology education: Developing a global perspective:
Proceedings of the 4th International Baltic Symposium on Science and Technology Education (BalticSTE2021), Šiauliai, 21-22
June, 2021 (pp. 105–114). Scientia Socialis. https://doi.org/10.33225/balticste/2021.105
Leach, J. (2015). Learning demand. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of science education (pp. 588–599). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0
McCrindle, M., & Fell, A. (2020a). Understanding generation alpha. McCrindle Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/d2e8g
McCrindle, M., & Fell, A. (2020b): Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on the emerging generations. McCrindle Research.
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2858307714/view
Meinck, S., Fraillon, J., & Strietholt, R. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on education. International evidence from the
responses to educational disruption survey (REDS). UNESCO.
Murphy, C. (2012). Vygotsky and primary science. In B. Frazer, K. Tobin & C. McRobbie (Eds), Second International Handbook of
Science Education (pp. 177–187). Springer.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill.
OECD (2013). Innovative learning environment, educational research, and innovation. OECD.
OECD (2017). Starting strong V: Transitions from early childhood education and care to primary education. OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en
Piaget, J. (1953). The origins of intelligence in children. Routledge and Kegan.
REDS (2022). Responses to educational disruption survey. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2022-01/REDS%20
Infographics.pdf
Sharp, C., Nelson, J., Lucas, M., Julius, J., McCrone, T., & Sims, D. (2020). The challenges facing school and pupils in September 2020.
National Foundation for Educational Research. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/4119/schools_responses_to_covid_19_the_
challenges_facing_schools_and_pupils_in_september_2020.pdf
Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Lulu.
Skamp, K., & Preston, C. (2018). Teaching primary science constructively. Cengage Australia.
Sternadel, D. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on student learning outcomes across Europe: the challenges of distance education
for all (Publication No. 2/2021). https://nesetweb.eu/en/resources/library/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-student-learning-
outcomes-across-europe-the-challenges-of-distance-education-for-all/
Taber, K. (2015). Alternative conceptions/frameworks/misconceptions. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Science Education
(pp. 37–41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0
Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J., & Novak, J. (1995). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). Macmillan.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Alternate models of instructional design: Holistic design approaches and complex learning. In
R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 72–81). Pearson Education.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Received: May 21, 2022 Revised: August 01, 2022 Accepted: October 01, 2022
Cite as: Legvart, P., Kordigel Aberšek, M., & Kerneža, M. (2022). Developing communication competence in digital learning
environments for primary science students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 836-848. https://doi.org/10.33225/
jbse/22.21.836
Polonca Legvart PhD Student, Primary school bratov Polančičev Maribor, Prešernova
ulica 19, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
E-mail: polonca.legvart@guest.arnes.si
Metka Kordigel Aberšek PhD, Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Maribor,
Koroška ulica 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
E-mail: metka.kordigel@um.si
Maja Kerneža PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Maribor,
(Corresponding author) Koroška ulica 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
E-mail: maja.kerneza1@um.si
848
EFFECTS OF INQUIRY
LEARNING WITH DIFFERENT
TASK ORDERS ON FIFTH ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
GRADERS’ INDIVIDUAL AND ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
SITUATIONAL INTEREST AND

CONCEPT ACHIEVEMENT IN
SCIENCE EDUCATION
Abstract. Inquiry-based learning has been

Yinsheng Liu, widely applied in the classroom. Different
Wei He, inquiry learning models may have different
orders of performing tasks and discussing.
Li Zhao
In this study, the Discuss-Do (D-DO) inquiry
model and the Do-Discuss (DO-D) inquiry
model were applied in the science learning
of two groups of fifth-grade students.
Group 1 (n = 41) used the Discuss-Do model
whereas Group 2 (n = 38) used the Do-
Introduction
Discuss model. Interest measurements and
the Light Reflection Test were administered
Many international organizations focus on science education and em-
to the two groups prior to and following
phasize the importance of scientific literacy, for example: Next Generation
the experiment to investigate the effects of
Science Standards (NGSS), Program for International Student Assessment
the two kinds of inquiry model on students’
(PISA), and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
individual and situational interest, and
Improving students’ scientific literacy and science achievement have been
concept achievement through learning the
important goals of science education worldwide (Grabau et al., 2022). The
unit of Light Reflection in a science course.
results of PISA have revealed differences in science literacy among students
Results showed a significant difference
from different countries, which has further increased research related to
in situational interest and concept
teaching methods and teaching strategies in science education (OECD, 2016;
achievement between the two groups.
OECD, 2019). The standards of science education around the world emphasize
However, there was no significant difference
the importance of engaging students in learning science through making
in the individual interest of the two groups.
inquiries (e.g., NGSS Lead States, 2013). This learning approach is called inquiry
Findings suggested that the adoption of
learning (Wen et al., 2020). Inquiry-based learning has received much atten-
the Do-Discuss model is more conducive
tion due to its advantages of guiding students to extract valid conclusions
to learners’ development of situational
from hands-on experiments, to share solutions, and to build knowledge
interest and concept achievement, which
through practice and peer collaboration (Lederman & Lederman, 2019).
has implications for exploring task order
Previous studies have constructed many inquiry-based learning models
adjustments for inquiry-based learning, as
for science education, such as the Prediction-Observation-Quiz-Explanation
well as in education for science instructors.
(POQE) model (Hong et al., 2019b), the Question-Observation-Doing-Expla-
nation (QODE) model (Yang et al., 2021), and the Orientation-Decision-Do- Keywords: concept achievement,
Discuss-Reflect (OD3R) model (Anwar et al., 2018). A learning model is not a individual interest, inquiry learning, science
prescribed or uniform linear process. The effectiveness and specific phases of education, situational interest, task order
the inquiry model may vary depending on the subject content and learning
Yinsheng Liu
environment (Pedaste et al., 2015). Nanjing Normal University, China
Additionally, when conducting comparative studies, subject differences Wei He
and the specific arrangement of tasks can have a significant impact on interest South China Normal University, China
Li Zhao
measurement data (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2014). Comparing previous studies, Nanjing Normal University, China
it was found that many inquiry models tended to add a new instructional
849
EDUCATION ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
(pp. 849-861)
phase or adapt some instructional phases. In science teaching, the roles of the doing task and discussion phases
have been repeatedly emphasized (Hwang et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2021), and many inquiry learning models include
these two phases, but the impact of the order of the two has not been explored in much depth. Therefore, for this
study we designed the D-DO (Discuss-Do) and DO-D (Do-Discuss) models geared toward the same instructional
content, with the models adjusting only the doing task and discussion phases to explore the effect of task order
on students’ learning effect.
It is worth noting that interest plays a positive role in science education. Interest is usually divided into individual
interest, which is a relatively stable preference developed over a long period of study of a subject or topic, and
situational interest, which is a relatively short-term response developed in response to a high level of stimulation
experienced in an educational or life environment (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2017). Failure to examine individual and
situational interests separately when exploring interest may result in misjudgment of students’ interest develop-
ment (Rodríguez-Aflecht et al., 2018). Therefore, this study analyzed the two types of interest separately.
Similarly, science concept achievement is also one of the important evaluation indicators to measure the
effectiveness of science learning (Özdem, 2010). Zhao et al. (2021) found that when applying POE inquiry-based
learning, learners achieved better concept achievement. However, if the task order is changed, it is worth exploring
whether the students’ concept achievement can be promoted. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the structure
of the inquiry model in greater depth and to explore differences in the individual and situational interests and
concept achievement of fifth graders based on the different inquiry models.
Literature Review
Task Order in Inquiry Learning
Inquiry learning was defined by Ketpichainarong et al. (2010) as the pedagogical strategies which take sci-
entific inquiry and use general processes as the methodology of teaching and learning; it emphasizes students’
question proposal, exploration, and problem solving. There are many inquiry-based learning models with different
processes. For example, The Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) inquiry model has been shown to increase students’
interest and willingness to continue studying science (Hong et al., 2014; Pegg, 2006). The Prediction-Observation-
Quiz-Explanation (POQE) inquiry model (Hong et al., 2019b) was adopted to facilitate learners’ conceptual knowledge
acquisition. Comparing the above models, it was found that some tasks are presented in multiple models, but the
order of the tasks may differ. In science teaching, inquiry-based learning sessions are constantly being adapted to
different teaching contexts, and different inquiry-based learning models affect students’ understanding of scientific
concepts and interest differently (Bumbacher et al., 2018; Zhao et al, 2021). Therefore, attention should be paid to
changes in students’ concept achievement and interests when adjusting the order of tasks.
In exploring specific educational sessions, previous researchers have explained the significance of the phase
of doing tasks while constructing models. Yang et al. (2021) developed the model of Question-Observation-Doing-
Explanation (QODE), which highlights the importance of doing tasks during the process of inquiry learning. The
discussion of learning-by-doing has also attracted the attention of researchers. The importance of the discussion
of learning was emphasized by Favero et al. (2007) who found that in the discussion condition, students performed
and rated the activity higher than those in the individual problem-solving condition. Other studies on the discus-
sion phase have shown that discussion can be more effective in terms of encouraging and facilitating students’
active performance during their learning (Hwang et al., 2018). Both the doing tasks and discussion phases have
profound educational significance, and it is necessary to explore the appropriate order of the two to achieve better
inquiry-based learning effects.
In exploring meaningful biochemistry learning, Anwar et al. (2018) proposed the inquiry model of Orientation-
Decision-Do-Discuss-Reflect (OD3R) and found that it could improve practical skills and develop students’ scientific
attitudes. However, Anwar et al. (2018) did not examine students’ interests and conceptual achievements. Based on
the OD3R inquiry model, this study designed two inquiry models with different steps: the Orientation-Decision-
Discuss-Do-Reflect (D-DO) inquiry model and the Orientation-Decision-Do-Discuss-Reflect (DO-D) inquiry model
to explore the effect of task order in inquiry learning on fifth-grade students’ interests and concept achievement
in science education.
850
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ EFFECTS OF INQUIRY LEARNING WITH DIFFERENT TASK ORDERS ON FIFTH GRADERS’
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ EDUCATION
(pp. 849-861)
Individual Interest (II) in Science Education
Durik and Harackiewicz (2007) proposed that individual interest (II) is characterized by persistence, disposi-
tion, and positive responses to certain categories of stimuli in different contexts. They argued that when students
develop II in a subject, they will invest more time and effort in related domains to enrich their knowledge structure
in following studies. That is, one key characteristic of II is that the individual spontaneously stimulates participation
in the activity and maintains a high level of excitement. Previous research has shown that II plays an important
role in science education. Hidi (1990) noted that II has an impact on knowledge construction and cognitive ability;
moreover, interest in learning content directly determines students’ attention levels and academic performance.
In exploring II in science teaching practices, Taskinen et al. (2013) concluded that II in science teaching can be
promoted in schools, for example, by providing a wide range of science activities and by teachers actively adopt-
ing richer teaching methods.
Cultivating students’ II in scientific knowledge is one of the important goals of science educators (Renninger
& Hidi, 2015). However, the existing problem is that students’ II varies significantly and often does not correspond
exactly to the subjects they need to study at the school level, especially in subjects such as science. Hidi and
Harackiewicz (2000) reported that an important reason for cultivating students’ interest in science was that their
interest declines as they grow older. Previous studies have suggested that it is necessary for instructors to explore
students’ II in order to effectively enhance science education. Therefore, this study aimed to explore students’ II in
science education.
Situational Interest (SI) in Science Education
Situational interest (SI) was defined as the relatively brief interest that certain content elicits in a given situa-
tion (Hidi, 1990). For example, science activities in a planetarium or laboratory can generate a fleeting interest in
science, even for those who are usually not interested in science. Many activities in the science subject area have
been found to generate students’ SI. For example, Nieswandt (2007) studied chemistry learning among ninth grad-
ers and found that hands-on activities, experimental demonstrations, and chemical phenomena in everyday life
can elicit SI. Azevedo (2017) concluded that SI in STEM-based practices is important for maintaining the continuity
of activities.
The educational significance of SI for students must also be emphasized. The main goal of science education
is to increase students’ interest in science subjects based on their understanding of scientific concepts. SI has a
close relationship with learning according to previous studies. For example, Jung et al. (2019) proposed that SI was
positively associated with learning in an outdoor education program. Similarly, sustained SI is thought to positively
influence students’ attitudes and individual interest in science (Hong et al., 2019a; Palmer, 2004). Rotgans and Schmidt
(2017) also agree that students’ SI is extremely important pedagogically because it is easily aroused and can be
controlled to some extent by instructors. Thus, it makes sense to explore better guidance to promote students’ SI.
Concept Achievement in Science Education
Research on students’ conceptual achievement in science education has been quite active. The educational
implications of concept achievement are a common theme that runs through this area of research (Kang et al,
2004; Voska & Heikkinen, 2000; Zhao et al., 2021). Concept achievement in science education can be enhanced
with the help of emerging technologies or laboratory activities. For example, Falloon (2019) effectively enhanced
students’ concept achievement in physics through simulated experiments with circuit components; Uriel et al.
(2020) used virtual and augmented reality technologies to improve students’ understanding of basic science con-
cepts. Many researchers have combined different forms of instruction to attempt to enhance learners’ conceptual
development in science. For example, Zhao et al. (2021) explored the influence of the POE inquiry-based model
on students’ concept achievement in a science course, this study results showed that POE could promote their
concept achievement. If the task order is changed, it is valuable to explore whether their concept achievement
could be promoted as well. One of the aims of this study was to further explore the effects of different task orders
on students’ concept achievement by adapting the specific instructional phases. Therefore, this study designed
the D-DO and DO-D models to explore the effects of different task orders on concept achievement.
851
(pp. 849-861)
Research Questions
Previous studies have provided new ways to explore students’ interest and concept achievement; that is, under
the condition that other tasks remain unchanged, the two phases of doing tasks and discussing were analyzed in
different orders. The D-DO and DO-D models were conducted in different groups. Therefore, this study focused
on the effects of task order in inquiry-based learning on fifth-grade students’ interest and concept achievement
for the topic of light reflection. The following research question was proposed.
Can the effects of the D-DO model and the DO-D model on students’ 1) individual interest, 2) situational
interest, or 3) concept achievement be identified, and what are the differences in the effects of the two models?
General Background
To explore the effect of the different orders of DO and DISCUSS in inquiry learning on students’ individual and
situational interests and on their concept achievement, this study used a quasi-experimental design with pre-test
and post-test for two groups of fifth-grade students from a primary school in Nanjing, China, in Fall 2020. Before
the experiment, the two groups were tested using the Individual Interest Questionnaire (IIQ) (see Appendix 1), the
Situational Interest Questionnaire (SIQ) (see Appendix 2), and the Light Reflection Test (LRT) (see Appendix 3). An
experiment was conducted in the science laboratory and the learning context was the light reflection concept.
After the experiment, the same instruments were administered as before the experiment.
Participants
There were 79 fifth-grade students (42 boys and 37 girls) in two groups participating in the study. Their aver-
age age was approximately 11 years old. There was no significant difference in the prior knowledge (p = .840 > .05),
individual interest (p = .695 > .05), or situational interest (p = .898 > .05) of the two groups. Group 1 (G1, n = 41)
participated in the D-DO model whereas Group 2 (G2, n = 38) participated in the DO-D model. The same science
teacher taught both groups, and the two groups were provided with identical Light Refraction content. The science
teacher had 15 years of experience teaching science. The students and teacher were informed of the study prior to
the experiment. The results of the anonymous test were used only for research and improvement of teaching, not
for commercial use, and the students had the freedom to quit at any time. In addition, the study was approved by
the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Normal University (No. NNU 202207001).
Procedure
This study was implemented with fifth-grade students at a primary school in Fall 2020. Communicating with
the teachers in the early stage, it was found that they adopted the exploratory way of discussing before doing
work and presenting work in the content. This teaching process is similar to the D-DO inquiry-based learning in
this study. Thus, G1 participated in D-DO inquiry-based learning, whereas G2 students performed experimental
activities using the DO-D inquiry-based learning.
Firstly, both groups took a pre-test. The Light Reflection Test, Situational Interest Questionnaire, and Individual
Interest Questionnaire were administered to understand their interest, and to identify their light conceptions
knowledge, respectively. During the instruction, G1 participated in D-DO inquiry learning. Correspondingly, G2
participated in DO-D inquiry learning. Finally, both groups took a post-test. The same instruments were admin-
istered to all of the students in order to understand the effects of the task order on the students’ Light Reflection
concept achievement and two kinds of interest.
Design of the D-DO model and the DO-D model for Light Reflection
Both the D-DO and DO-D models in this study are based on the inquiry model. They consisted of five similar
basic phases, except that the task order of discussing and doing was reversed (see Figure 1). In both models, the
main task of the DO phase was for the students to make a periscope or kaleidoscope through the previous design.
852
(pp. 849-861)
In this phase, students needed to link theory and practice and develop skills such as hands-on practice and prob-
lem solving. In the DISCUSS phase, students discussed the principles of light reflection and related concepts. This
phase emphasizes teacher feedback and student discussion, which helps to broaden students’ ideas and produce
better reflections (Anwar et al., 2018).
Figure 1
Procedure of Two Types of Inquiry Model
Instrument

The questionnaire items were adopted from a previous study (Hong et al., 2019a). The researchers profes-
sionally translated the original items into Chinese. All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 stands
for “not true at all” and 5 stands for “very true for me”. The reliability of the constructs was subsequently tested.
Individual Interest Questionnaire (IIQ)
This study adopted the Individual Interest Questionnaire (IIQ) (Rotgans, 2015) to measure changes in stu-
dents’ II. This questionnaire has been used to measure the II of students at different ages from primary school to
high school. It is common to adapt the IIQ to measure II in different subjects (Duchatelet et al., 2018; Roure et al.,
2021). Rotgans’ example items (e.g., I am very interested in chemistry) measure the students’ individual interest in
“biochemistry”. If the measure is an interest in another subject or discipline, such as “physiology”, “biochemistry”
needs to be replaced with “physiology” in these items (Rotgans, 2015). In this study, “biochemistry” was replaced
with “science”. The IIQ has seven items, for example: I am very interested in Science. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for IIQ was .805, which indicates that IIQ has sufficient reliability.
853
(pp. 849-861)
Situational Interest Questionnaire (SIQ)
The Situational Interest Questionnaire (SIQ) (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011) was adjusted to measure students’ SI.
This questionnaire was first proposed to explore changes in SI in classroom learning, focusing on concentration
and affective dimensions for judgment. The follow-up study applied the questionnaire to examine the impact of
learning environment elements and learning opportunities (Alexander et al., 2012; Swarat et al., 2012). This study
explored the effect of task order on students’ SI, so it was adapted in conjunction with the learning theme. The
instrument includes six items, for example: I want to know more about today’s topic. The coefficient Cronbach’s
alpha of the SIQ was .885, which demonstrated that the SIQ measure is adequate.
The Light Reflection Test (LRT)
Light reflection is a basic but important concept in physics education (Kroothkaew & Srisawasdi, 2013). Light
and its properties are an interesting topic that has a strong appeal to students early in their studies (Varela et al.,
2014). In science education in Chinese primary schools, the unit of Light Reflection is taught in the fifth grade.
It is important for their future study (e.g., Light Refraction) that students acquire the concept of Light Reflection
properly in this grade.
The Light Reflection Test (LRT) was to measure the students’ concept achievement of Light Reflection before
and after the treatment. It consists of five multiple-choice questions and five true-or-false questions. One point
is recorded for each question. The same questions were used in the pre- and post-test, but in a different order. A
team of two science teachers analyzed the test items in relation to the instructional objectives and confirmed that
the content of the LRT instrument and the construct validity of the measure were appropriate for the participating
students. Answer cards were scored by two independent raters for each student’s LRT. Participants were awarded
1 point for each accurate concept. The inter-rater agreement was 0.87. When there were discrepancies, they were
resolved through discussion.
Data Analysis
The pre-test and post-test interest and concept achievement data were processed in SPSS. Basic descriptive
statistics of the numerical variables were determined. An independent sample t test was utilized to compute the
difference in the pre-test and post-test of the interest and concept achievement, while the paired sample t test
was used to analyze the difference in the change of interest between the pre-test and post-test in the two groups.
In addition, the significance level of the independent sample t test and paired sample t test in this study was set
at p = 0.05.
Research Results
Individual Interest in the Unit of Light Reflection
In Table 1, the paired-samples t test was used to analyze the differences in individual interest between the
two groups in the pre- and post-test, and it was found that neither G1 (t = -1.522, p = .136) nor G2 (t = -1.131,
p = .265) showed significant changes in individual interest in the pre- and post-test. Additionally, Table 2 shows
the independent sample t-test results of students’ individual interest in the light reflection unit. In both models
of inquiry learning, no significant differences were found between the pre-test results of G1 and G2 (t = -.394,
p = .695, Cohen’s d = .089), and the results of the post-test showed no significant differences between G1 and G2
either (t = -.086, p = .931, Cohen’s d = .012).
854
(pp. 849-861)
Table 1
Paired-Samples t-test results for the Pre-test and Post-test of Individual Interest
Paired Differences
Group Test t p
M SD SE
Pre-test 3.955 .852 .133

G1 -1.522 .136
Post-test 4.066 .752 .117
Pre-test 4.034 .934 .152

G2 -1.131 .265
Post-test 4.083 .943 .153
Note: G1: DO-D model, G2: D-DO model
Table 2
Independent Sample t-test results of Individual Interest
Group
Pre- G1 41 3.95 .852

-.394 77 .695 .089
test G2 38 4.03 .934
Post- G1 41 4.07 .751

-.086 77 .931 .012
test G2 38 4.08 .943
Situational Interest in the Unit of Light Reflection
In Table 3, paired-samples t tests were used to analyze the differences in the situational interest of the two
groups in the pre-test and post-test, and it was found that the post-test results for situational interest in G1 (t =
-3.518, p < .001) and G2 (t = -6.963, p < .0001) were significantly different from the pre-test. The independent sample
t-test results of the students’ situational interest of the unit of light reflection are shown in Table 4. No significant
difference (t = -.128, p = .898, Cohen’s d = -.049) was found between G1 and G2 in the pre-test. However, the results
of the post-test showed a significant difference (t = -2.785, p = .007 < .05, Cohen’s d = -.620) between G1 and G2.
The post-test scores of G2 (M = 4.73, SD = .379) were higher than those of G1 (M = 4.38, SD = .702). G2 had more
success in terms of promoting situational interest compared to G1.
Table 3
Paired-Samples t-test results for the pre-test and post-test of Situational Interest
Paired Differences
Group Test t p
M SD SE
Pre-test 4.219 .723 .113

G1 -3.518 .001
Post-test 4.378 .702 .109
Pre-test 4.236 .455 .074

G2 -6.963 .0001
Post-test 4.728 .378 .062
855
(pp. 849-861)
Table 4
Independent Sample t-test results of Situational Interest
Group N M SD t df p d
Pre- G1 41 4.22 .723

-.128 68 .898 .049
test G2 38 4.25 .469
Post- G1 41 4.38 .702

-2.785 62 .007** .620
test G2 38 4.73 .379
Analysis of the Concept Achievement of the Unit of Light Reflection
Table 5 shows the students’ concept achievement of the unit of light reflection. No significant difference
(t = .414, p = .140, Cohen’s d = .094) was found between G1 and G2 in the pre-test. The results of the post-test
showed a significant difference (t = -2.559, p = .013 < .01, Cohen’s d = .565) between G1 and G2. Both G1 (M = 8.32,
SD = 1.404) and G2 (M = 8.97, SD = .822) significantly increased students’ concept achievement. G2 had more suc-
cess in terms of promoting concept achievement compared to G1.
Table 5
Independent Sample t-test results of Concept Achievement
Group N M SD t df p d
Pre- G1 41 5.56 1.629

.414 77 .140 .094
test G2 38 5.42 1.348
Post- G1 41 8.32 1.404

-2.559 65 .013* .565
test G2 38 8.97 .822
Note: G1: DO-D model, G2: D-DO model.
Discussion
Students’ Individual Interest
In this study, there was no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of individual interest in
either G1 or G2. There was also no significant change in individual interest in either group after the adoption of
the different inquiry models. The findings support earlier studies which found that II develops slowly with the pas-
sage of learning activities, and it is only after individuals continuously participate in a certain activity in a specific
environment that significant changes will occur (Chen & Darst, 2002). It is difficult to observe significant changes
in individual interest as a result of short-term learning. The motivational role of individual interest in learning is
unquestionable, but it tends to be relatively stable and difficult to change. In addition, due to differences in indi-
vidual knowledge and values, there is a huge difference in individual interest, and an in-depth study of individual
interest requires the long-term practice of the DO-D model.
Students’ Situational Interest
Based on the results of the paired samples t-test, this study found that the post-test results were significantly
different from those of the pre-test, indicating that both inquiry models awakened students’ situational interest.
However, according to the results of the independent sample t test, learners in G1 and G2 had similar situational
interest before, but their SI was significantly different after the different inquiry model interventions, with G2 able
to experience better situational interest than G1. Situational interest is considered to be a transient interest that
856
(pp. 849-861)
is elicited in many conditions through stimuli such as cultural differences, interesting experiments, or puzzling
phenomena, and is therefore more likely to be evoked and to play an active role under the control of the teacher
(Hauer et al., 2008). In this study, the DO-D model examines changes in situational interest by adjusting the order
of tasks. When the DO-D model was used to support clear explanations of science concepts, lessons provided
powerful stimulating experiences and students’ situational interest was significantly improved. The task order was
adjusted in a way that made sense in terms of exploring students’ situational interest.
Additionally, the results of differentiation between individual and situational interest in the DO-D model also
illustrate that individual and situational interest grow asynchronously, and both may have unique motivational
functions as separate motivational entities at specific stages of learning (Alexander et al., 1995). However, the four-
stage model of interest development proposed by Rotgans and Schmidt (2017) states that repeated arousal of
situational interest promotes the growth of individual interest. It shows that it is possible to establish a connection
between the two types of interest. The results of the study suggest that the DO-D model can influence situational
interest; therefore, the DO-D model can be adopted to explore the effect of repeated evocation of situational
interest on individual interest.

Students’ Concept Achievement
Some studies have shown the usefulness of inquiry-based learning for supporting students’ interests, concep-
tual development, and self-perception in science learning (Raes & Schellens, 2012; Suduc et al., 2015). Exploring
the effects on students’ concept achievement by adjusting the task order was verified, with data from the study
indicating that participants in the DO-D model had more significant conceptual achievement gains than those in
the D-DO model. Although no studies have explored the effects of task order on students’ concept achievement,
the results of this study can be explained by some previous studies. Students’ concept achievement is significantly
increased when the teaching sessions are properly sequenced (Bybee et al., 2006).
According to Bybee et al. (2006), inquiry is a fundamental component of primary science education that helps
students assess their responses, allows them to communicate clearly, and supports their answers with evidence.
In terms of the specific components involved, in the DO-D model, the doing task phase is ahead of the discussion
phase. Building scientific knowledge based on hands-on practice emphasizes the bridging role of hands-on work
in inquiry learning, whereas the D-DO model emphasizes effective discussion prior to the hands-on component.
Students have enough time to organize hands-on practice during the discussion phase. Both models effectively
build students’ scientific concepts about the refraction of light, but the task order of the DO-D model is clearly more
appropriate for teaching the content of this unit. The appropriate order of tasks should be used for different content
to promote students’ concept achievement, which needs to be concluded by a great deal of practice over time.
In science education, a large number of inquiry learning models have been proposed and proven to be effective
for developing student interest and subject knowledge. Previous research has focused on creating and summariz-
ing new inquiry learning models, but few studies have focused on the impact of subtle adjustments to task order
within the models. In order to accommodate different learning content, the task order in inquiry learning should
be appropriately adapted to promote students’ learning interest and their concept achievement. It is important
to note that subtle task order adjustments are controllable in teachers’ instruction. Therefore, this study adjusted
the order of DO and DISCUSS, two common and important educational sessions of inquiry-based learning, and
designed the D-DO and DO-D models to explore the effects of adjusting task order on students’ individual and
situational interests, and concept achievement. Research results show that there was a significant difference in
situational interest and concept achievement between the two models, with participants using the DO-D model
showing a more significant increase than those using the D-DO model. In addition, there were no significant dif-
ferences in individual interest between the two models.
Theoretically, the overall results of this study suggest that when students practice the DO-D learning model,
they can effectively increase their situational interest and promote the development of their concept achieve-
ment in science. Thus, the findings point to a mechanism whereby it is feasible to influence students’ interest and
concept achievement by adjusting the task order. This provides theoretical support for task-order adjustments and
teacher instructional dynamics in inquiry learning, and expands the forms in which inquiry-based learning can be
857
(pp. 849-861)
conducted. From a practical point of view, to increase primary school students’ interest and concept achievement
in science learning, we propose to implement the DO-D learning model. At the same time, rationalizing the task
order not only facilitates innovative educational processes, but can also be adapted to the needs of other different
subjects. This model and other task order models deserve to be tried and tested in more schools and subjects.
Improving students’ learning in science education is the theoretical and practical pursuit of global science
education in the 21st century. The conclusion of this study can provide some implications for science instructors
from all over the world for improving students’ learning in science education. Instructors can adjust the task order
to help enhance students’ interest and concept achievement. The study of the DO-D model showed that the adjust-
ment of the task order was effective in terms of enhancing students’ situational interest and concept achievement.
Therefore, it is recommended that teachers use the DO-D model in science courses to enhance students’ interest
and conceptual learning. In addition, there are still many possibilities for exploring task order. In science teaching,
teachers often teach multiple classes. During the instructional design phase, teachers can differentiate teaching
for different classes by adjusting the task order and making long-term observations of students’ individual and
situational interests to conclude a more appropriate inquiry model.
Limitations and Future Studies
A shortcoming of this study is that the time of the two groups’ learning was relatively short, and the learn-
ing content was limited to one learning unit. Therefore, the applicability of the DO-D model to other content or
more participants is uncertain. Further studies with participants from different contexts and for longer periods of
time are necessary to explore the development of interest. In addition, this study significantly enhanced students’
situational interest through the DO-D model, but there was no clear analysis of how the task order affected the
“triggering” and “sustaining” phases. Thus, the specific stages of situational interest should be further investigated.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Jiangsu Prov-
ince (CN), (No.19JYB017).
References
Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science
and the development of interests related to science. Science Education, 96(5), 763-786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018
Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of
domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 559-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.559
Anwar, Y. A. S., Senam, & Lakson, E. W. (2018). Meaningful biochemistry learning using the orientation-decision-do-discuss-reflect
(od3r) method. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1132a
Azevedo, F. S. (2017). An inquiry into the structure of situational interests. Science Education, 102(1), 108-127.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21319
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model:
Origins, effectiveness and applications. BSCS: Colorado Springs. 1-19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242363914
Bumbacher, E., Salehi, S., Wieman, C., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Tools for science inquiry learning: Tool affordances,
experimentation strategies, and conceptual understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 215-235.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9719-8
Chen, A., & Darst, P. W. (2002). Individual and situational interest: The role of gender and skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
27(2), 250-269. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1093
Duchatelet, D., Bursens, P., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Spooren, P. (2018). Student diversity in a cross-continental EU-simulation
exploring variation in affective learning outcomes among political science students. European Political Science, 17(4), 601-
620. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-017-0116-9
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational
factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597-610. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.597
Favero, L. D., Boscolo, P., Vidotto, G., & Vicentini, M. (2007). Classroom discussion and individual problem-solving in the teaching
858
(pp. 849-861)
of history: Do different instructional approaches affect interest in different ways?. Learning & Instruction, 17(6), 635-657.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.012
Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis.
Computers & Education, 135, 138-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001
Grabau, L. J., Trudel, L., & Ma, X. (2022). Associations between science dispositions and science literacy: A comparison of the United
States and Canada. International Journal of Science Education, 44(9), 1440-1461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2080887
Hauer, K. E., Durning, S. J., Kernan, W. N., Fagan, M. J., Mintz, M., O’Sullivan, P. S., Battistone, M. J., DeFer, T., Elnicki, M., Harrell, H.,
Reddy, S., Boscardin, C. K., & Schwartz, M. D. (2008). Factors associated with medical students’ career choices regarding
internal medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(10), 1154-1164. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.10.1154
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549-571.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1170506
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of
Educational Research-70(2), 151-179. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002151
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Liu, M. C., Ho, H. Y., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Using a “prediction-observation-explanation” inquiry model to
enhance student interest and intention to continue science learning predicted by their internet cognitive failure. Computers
& Education, 72, 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.004
Hong, J. C., Chang, C. H., Tsai, C. R., & Tai, K. H. (2019a). How situational interest affects individual interest in a STEAM competition.
International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1667-1681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1624992
Hong, J. C., Tsai, C. R., Hsiao, H. S., Chen, P. H., Chu, K. C., Gu, J., & Sitthiworachart, J. (2019b). The effect of the “prediction-observation-
quiz-explanation” inquiry-based e-learning model on flow experience in green energy learning. Computers & Education,
133, 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.009
Hwang, W. Y., Li, Y. H., & Shadiev, R. (2018). Exploring effects of discussion on visual attention, learning performance, and perceptions
of students learning with str-support. Computers & Education, 116, 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.015
Jung, Y. J., Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. (2019). Emerging and developing situational interest during children’s tablet-mediated
biology learning activities at a nature center. Science Education, 103(4), 900-922. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21514
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in
Science Education, 34(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.b3
Ketpichainarong, W., Panijpan, B., & Ruenwongsa, P. (2010). Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an
inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(2), 169-187.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ884417.pdf
Kroothkaew, S., & Srisawasdi, N. (2013). Teaching how light can be refracted using simulation-based inquiry with a dual-situated
learning model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93(3), 2023-2027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.159
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Teaching and learning of nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: building
capacity through systematic research-based professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(7), 737-762.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1625572
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
44(7), 908-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20169
O E C D. ( 2 0 1 6 ) . P I S A 2 0 1 5 re s u l t s ( vo l u m e I ) : E xce l l e n ce a n d e q u i t y i n e d u ca t i o n . O E C D P u b l i s h i n g .
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume I) : What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Özdem, Y., Çavas, P., Çavas, B., Çakıroglu, J., & Ertepınar, H. (2010). An investigation of elementary students’ scientific literacy levels.
Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9(1), 6-19. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1404740965.pdf
Palmer, D. (2004). Situational interest and the attitudes towards science of primary teacher education students. International
Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 895-908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000177262
Pegg, J. (2006). Developing explanations: Student reasoning about science concepts during claims-evidence inquiry lessons. PH.D.
diss. Corvallis, OR: Department of science and Math Education. Oregon State University. http://hdl.handle.net/1957/3190
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki,
E.(2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Raes, A., & Schellens, T. (2012). The impact of web-based inquiry in secondary science education on students’ motivation for
science learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1332-1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.070
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2015). The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771045
Rodríguez-Aflecht, G., Jaakkola, T., Pongsakdi, N., Hannula-Sormunen, M., Brezovszky, B., & Lehtinen, E. (2018). The development
of situational interest during a digital mathematics game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 259-268.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12239
Rotgans, J. I. (2015). Validation study of a general subject-matter interest measure: The individual interest questionnaire (IIQ).
Health Professions Education, 1(1), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.009
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning
& Instruction, 21(1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.001
859
(pp. 849-861)
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Interest in subject matter: The mathematics predicament. Higher Education Studies, 4(6),
31-42. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n6p31
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). Interest development: Arousing situational interest affects the growth trajectory of individual
interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.02.003
Roure, C., Lentillon-Kaestner, V., & Pasco, D. (2021). Students’ individual interest in physical education: Development and validation
of a questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 62(1), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12669
Suduc, A.-M., Bizoi, M. & Gorghiu, G. (2015). Inquiry based science learning in primary education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 205, 474-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.044
Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21010
Taskinen, P. H., Schüette, K., & Prenzel, M. (2013). Adolescents’ motivation to select an academic science-related career: The
role of school factors, individual interest, and science self-concept. Educational Research & Evaluation, 19(8), 717-733.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.853620
Uriel, C., Sergio, S., Carolina, G., Mariano, G., Paola, D., & Martín, A. (2020). Improving the understanding of basic sciences concepts
by using virtual and augmented reality. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 389-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.165
Varela, P., Abreu, C., & Costa, M. F. M. (2014). Reflection of light: A teaching and learning activity with primary school children.
In Second International Conference on Applications of Optics & Photonics, 9286, 92862I. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2063840
Vosk a, K . W., & Heik k inen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to
s o l ve c h e m i c a l e q u i l i b r i u m p ro b l e m s. Journal of Research in S cience Teaching, 37( 1 ) , 1 6 0 – 1 7 6 .
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<160::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-M
Wen, C. T., Liu, C. C., Chang, H. Y., Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiang, S. H. F., Yang, C. W., & Hwang, F. K. (2020). Students’ guided
inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education, 149,
Article 103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830
Yang, X., Zhang, M., Kong, L., Wang, Q., & Hong, J. C. (2021). The effects of scientific self-efficacy and cognitive anxiety on science
engagement with the “question-observation-doing-explanation” model during school disruption in covid-19 pandemic.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(3), 380-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09877-x
Zhao, L., He, W., Liu, X., Tai, K. H., & Hong, J. C. (2021). Exploring the effects on fifth graders’ concept achievement and scientific
epistemological beliefs: Applying the prediction-observation-explanation inquiry-based learning model in science
education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(4), 664-676. http://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.664
Appendix
Appendix 1: Individual interest questionnaire (IIQ).

1. I am very interested in Science.
2. Outside of school I read a lot about Science.
3. I always look forward to my Science lessons, because I enjoy them a lot.
4. I have been interested in Science since I was young.
5. I watch a lot of Science-related TV programs (e.g., Discovery channel).
6. Later in my life I want to pursue a career in Science or a Science-related discipline.
7. When I am reading something about Science, or watching something about Science on TV, I am fully focused
and forget everything around me.
Appendix 2: Situational interest questionnaire (SIQ)

1. I want to know more about today’s topic.
2. I will enjoy working on today’s topic.
3. I think today’s topic is interesting.
4. I expect to master today’s topic well.
5. I am fully focused on today’s topic; I am not distracted by other things.
6. Presently I feel bored.
Appendix 3: The items of the light reflection test

Choice questions
1. When light hits the mirror or the curtain wall, the light will return; this phenomenon is called ( ).
A. the straight lines of light B. the reflection of light C. the refraction of light
2. Almost everything reflects light, and ( ) the surface, the better.
860
(pp. 849-861)
A. the flatter B. the rougher C. the smoother

3. ( ) is the best reflector.
A. a plane mirror B. a convex lens C. a concave lens
4. The image in the mirror is ( ) to the actual object.
A. upside-down B. heterochiral C. similar
5. The smaller the angle between the two mirrors, ( ) the image.
A. The bigger B. the smaller C. the same as
True or false
1. Only mirrors can reflect light.
2. The fact that a mirror can display an image of an object shows that light does not travel in a straight line.
3. Light can be reflected.
4. A convex lens is needed to make a periscope.
5. The image in the convex mirror is upright and of the same size as the real thing.
Received: June 09, 2022 Revised: August 04, 2022 Accepted: October 01, 2022
Cite as: Liu, Y., He, W., & Zhao, L. (2022). Effects of inquiry learning with different task orders on fifth graders’ individual
and situational interest and concept achievement in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 849-861.
Yinsheng Liu School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, China.

E-mail: 210602132@njnu.edu.cn
Wei He Institute of Artificial Intelligence in Education, South China Normal
University, China.
E-mail: 2022010073@m.scnu.edu.cn
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6510-217X
Li Zhao School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, China.
(Corresponding author) E-mail: li.zhao@njnu.edu.cn
861
EFFECT OF INQUIRY-BASED
LEARNING ON STUDENTS’
ATTITUDE TOWARDS
LEARNING BIOLOGY AT UPPER
SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN
RWANDA
Abstract. Attitude has been regarded
as a motivating feeling for the learning
of biology. However, how inquiry-based
learning contributes to attitude change
towards the learning of biology has not Henriette Manishimwe,
yet been studied in Rwanda. This study William Aino Shivoga,
intends to determine the effect of inquiry- Venuste Nsengimana
based learning on students’ attitudes
toward learning biology. A sample of 228
secondary school students at the upper
secondary level in Rwanda was used.
A quasi-experimental design with pre-
and post-test was employed. One group
was randomly assigned to the control
Introduction
group (N = 109) under the conventional
teaching method, while the second group
Attitude of students towards a subject is one of the factors affecting
participated as the experimental group (N
their interest and achievement. In this regard, a conducive learning environ-
= 119) under the inquiry-based learning
ment with resources and activities that elicit learners’ attention is an added
method. Biology attitude questionnaire
condition to attract their interest in the lesson (Kortam et al., 2018). More-
(BAQ) was tested and a Pearson reliability
over, teaching methods strongly affect students’ attitude in learning science
of .89 coefficient was found, and hence the
subjects (Taştan et al., 2018). Science education has become an agent for
BAQ was adopted and used for the control
socio-economic development in many countries, contributing to better
and treatment groups before and after
scientific knowledge and literacy (Aktamiş & Hİğde, 2016). For instance,
learning microbiology. Results asserted a
in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries improvement in science teaching
significant effect of intervention in favor
has led to changing knowledge-based curriculum to competence-based
of the experimental group. However, a
curriculum, equipping learners with required skills, attitudes and values
significant effect of the treatment on
that will contribute to sustainable future (Nsengimana et al., 2020). A close
students’ attitude change in relation
association between students’ attitudes and achievement in science was
to gender was not identified. The study
found to be linked with the teaching approach (Kisoglu , 2018; Narmadha &
recommends using inquiry-based learning
Chamundeswari, 2013). In this regard, it was observed that teacher-centered
to promote attitude toward learning
methods did not encourage a positive attitude towards science (Narmadha
biology as it raises students’ interest
& Chamundeswari , 2013). Hacieminoglu (2016) argued that there is a posi-
to learning biology and alleviates the
tive correlation between meaningful learning and achievement in science,
difficulty of its concepts.
which influences the attitude towards biology learning.
Keywords: biology education, inquiry- The decline in students’ attitude toward science has led to reforms
based learning, students’ attitudes, quasi- in science education, with the main purpose of bringing active teaching
experimental design strategies which increase students’ interest in science subjects (Adejimi et
Henriette Manishimwe al., 2022).With respect to active learning, instructions such as inquiry-based
University of Rwanda, Rwanda learning were pointed out as one of the teaching methods that create an
William Aino Shivoga environment where students interact with each other (Aulia et al., 2018). It
Masinde Muliro University of Science and
Technology (MMUST), Kenya also paves the way for students to interact with their teachers and actively
Venuste Nsengimana plays a big role in knowledge construction (Kang & Keinonen, 2018). In this
University of Rwanda, Rwanda regard, learners are given opportunities to explore the new situation using
862
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ EFFECT OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING ON STUDENTS’ ATTITUDE TOWARDS LEARNING
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 862-874)
resources and hands-on activities to build a new biology concept. This raises students’ attention and interest,
and their attitude improves greatly (Conradty & Bogner, 2019). Therefore, efforts should be initiated to guide
delivery of science and mathematics lessons away from the cramming to a more learner-centered approach
(Nsengimana et al., 2017).
Factors such as grade level, gender, parents, teachers, and school environment were identified as major
factors affecting students’ attitudes toward learning science (Bizimana et al., 2022;Vlckova et al., 2019;Hu et al.,
2018). For example, a study has shown that girls prefer learning biology compared with boys (Almasri et al.,
2021), even though Oba and Lawrence (2014) found that gender does not have any effect on students’ attitudes
in learning physics. However, slight difference was noticed in favor of females. In addition, the lab environment
has shown increasing motivation to learn biology at the Universities in Rwanda (Mukagihana et al., 2021a).
Further, cooperative learning, student-centered method, and resource-based teaching methods were
found to improve feelings toward biology subjects (Rabgay, 2018; Njoku & Nwagbo, 2020 ; Mukagihana et al.,
2021b ). Therefore, factors such as gender would be of interest for researchers to well cater for both males and
females inclusively. These are the reasons why educators need to lend an ear to students’ attitudes and other
factors that affect students’ learning outcomes (Rogayan, 2019). This is because students manifest either nega-
tive or positive attitudes towards biology depending on how they have been taught and how they perform in
assessments (Adejimi et al., 2022; Bizimana et al., 2022). In addition, biology tends to be difficult from the lower
to upper secondary school level (Kisoglu, 2018; Vlckova et al., 2019). It was suggested that biology lessons be
conducted in an environment that fosters students’ interest and access to living organisms to boost their attitude
towards biology (Kisoglu, 2018; Manishimwe et al., 2021).
In pursuance of inquiry-based learning influence on students’ attitudes, studies revealed that when students
are subjected to inquiry-based instruction, they are more engaged in the lesson (Nkurikiyimana et al., 2022;
Sandika & Fitrihidajati, 2018). Interactions between students are more encouraged, and more collaborations
while exploring concepts in their respective groups. Students become motivated to conduct activities given
to them, searching for information and evidence to find solutions using different resources (Kang & Keinonen,
2018). In this regard, experiments are performed to satisfy students’ curiosity about scientific phenomena (Wu
et al., 2021) . These raise students’ interest in learning and improve students’ relationships. As a result, students’
attitude toward science improves (Aktamiş & Hİğde, 2016). Sandika and Fitrihidajati (2018) supported the idea
that inquiry-based learning method provides a scientific learning environment that stirs up students to develop
scientific thinking skills and increase scientific attitude. Additionally, creative scientific thinking skills were boosted
in learning biology. In this situation, students’ attitude toward learning biology was improved upon the inquiry
medium of teaching method (Tsybulsky et al., 2018).
Under inquiry-based learning, the 5Es educational model was pointed out as a learning cycle that improves
students’ attitudes toward biology. The inquiry model consists of a sequence of five interdependent phases
(Nyirahagenimana et al., 2022). These are Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. Learners contribute
to knowledge construction at each stage of the learning cycle. The model was developed while designing an
inquiry instruction for biology lessons (Patrick, 2013). The 5Es educational model provides a learning environ-
ment where students are exposed to activities that foster discovering concepts or phenomena using their pre-
requisite knowledge (Nkurikiyimana et al., 2022).
Assessing students’ attitudes before and after teaching helps determine the influence of teaching methods
on students’ attitudes towards learning a given subject. The learning model lies in social constructivism theory,
by which students collaborate to build knowledge themselves. The learning theory was discovered by Vygotsky
(Schreiber & Valle, 2013), fostering students to actively participate in their studies while facilitated by teachers.
This theory corroborates our study, where students learned together and compared their attitude scores after
and before learning biology.
Extensive studies have indicated the decline of interest towards science subjects, particularly biology
(Adejimi et al., 2022;Shin et al., 2019). Moreover, low performance in biology was observed in literatures to be
associated with negative attitude towards biology (Bizimana et al., 2022b; Hacieminoglu , 2016). There abound
evidences of studies giving an impartation on how students consider biology difficult due to negative attitude
towards the subject (Bizimana et al., 2022a). In all these cases, teachers’ style of delivering lessons with poor
pedagogy, which is teacher – centered strategy, was attributed to this trend. From the above reasons, this study
sought to quench this trend by evaluating the effect of inquiry – based learning on students’ attitude towards
learning biology.
863
(pp. 862-874) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Studies conducted on different learning subjects have realized the effect of inquiry-based learning on
students’ attitudes toward science (Aktamiş et al., 2016 ; Sen & Oskay, 2016; Yakar & Baykara, 2014). However,
few pieces of research made an emphasis on biology. Attitude has been regarded as a motivating feeling for
the learning of biology. Additionally, ways in which the inquiry-based learning contributes to attitude change
towards the learning of biology has not yet been studied in Rwanda. This research contributes to the existing
literature by adding empirical evidence on the effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ interest in biology,
easiness to biology, and how they find biology as important and career-lead subject. Its aim was to determine
the effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ attitudes towards learning biology at the upper secondary
level among selected Rwandan secondary schools. It uses a quantitative approach for data collection. Students’
attitudes before intervention and after were evaluated, where the control and experimental groups were com-
pared to determine the effect of inquiry-based learning on performance and, hence, attitude change. For the
reasons mentioned above, the following research questions were answered:
1) What are the effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ attitudes toward learning biology?
2) Is there any significant difference between the control and experimental groups before and after
learning biology using traditional and inquiry-based teaching methods?
3) What are the effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ attitudes based on gender?
(4) Is there any difference between the mean scores of students on the four dimensions of the biology
attitude questionnaire?
Research Design
A quasi-experimental design was employed by which quantitative data were collected and analyzed to
provide an insight into the problem (Fraenkel et al., 2012). This design was employed with pre-test and post-test
nonequivalent design. Two independent variables with experimental and control groups were used. Pre-and
post-test scores were dependent variables, while gender-based influence was considered as an independent
variable. However, other variables were extracted from the attitude questionnaire that the attention was paid
to during data analysis. Groups were randomly assigned to the experimental and control group. A pre-test was
administered to all groups before the intervention, while the post-test came after the intervention, where the
experimental group was subjected to inquiry-based learning, while the control group was taught with a con-
ventional teaching method.
Sample and Sampling Techniques
The population of this study comprises all senior four (grade ten) students studying biology in one district
in Kigali city and two districts outside of Kigali. The selection of districts was based on urban, sub-urban, and
rural districts. Purposive sampling techniques were employed to select schools in the three districts based on
majoring in mathematics, chemistry and biology (MCB) at upper secondary level and having both girls and
boys students. Moreover, schools which were well equipped in terms of teaching resources were considered.
Referring to the mentioned criteria, two schools from each district were chosen, making a total of six schools
considered as a sample size. Therefore, two hundred twenty-eight students, with 107 females and 121 males.
In each district, one school was randomly assigned to either control or experimental group.
Research Instruments
Data collection was conducted using a Biology Attitude Questionnaire (BAQ) adapted from Prokop et al.
(2007); Russell and Hollander (1975). The questionnaire was initially composed of 28 items to evaluate students’
attitudes towards biology. The items were distributed in four dimensions (factors): interest, difficulty, importance,
and career in biology. Furthermore, the items were attributed to the Likert scale ranging from strongly agree
to strongly disagree. The questionnaire was reviewed by three experts in biology education from the College
of Education, University of Rwanda and four researchers from the African Centre of Excellence for Innovative
Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS) to check the instrument’s validity.
864
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 862-874)
Experts from the University of Rwanda, College of Education were requested to determine the content
validity of the attitude questionnaire by (a) evaluating which statements clearly indicate positive or negative
attitudes towards biology; and (b) classifying items to one of the four thematic unities, namely the importance
of biology, the difficulty, the interest, and future career in biology. Their reports were compared to the original
classification developed by Prokop et al. (2007); Russell and Hollander (1975). The feedback classified 17 state-
ments as positive, while 11 statements were classified as negative attitude statements. Further, thirteen state-
ments were classified as revealing interest in learning biology; five statements were classified as revealing the
level of difficulty of learning biology, seven as revealing importance of learning biology, while three statements
were classified as statements that reveal the career path related to the quality of teaching.
The statement “I hate learning biology” was removed because it was similar to “I do not like learning biology.
“In addition, the statement “Biology is a school course that I enjoy most” was removed because it was similar
to “I like Biology more than other science subjects” and “I am happier in a biology class than in any other class.”
Furthermore, the statement “Biology is very difficult for me” was removed because it was similar to “Biology is one
of the easiest subjects for me.” Thus, the variable “difficulty” was then changed to “easiness.” Finally, ten statements
were reformulated from those which may show negative attitudes to those raveling positive attitudes (Table 1).
Table 1
Reformulated Statements Based on the Feedback from Experts in Biology Education
Negatively formulated statements Positively reformulated statements
1 I do not like learning biology I like learning biology
2 I am unable to think clearly and logically when learning Biology I am able to think clearly and logically when learning Biology
3 It makes me annoyed to hear about Biology It makes me pleased to hear about Biology
4 I do not feel well in Biology class I feel well in Biology class
5 I often face difficulties in understanding Biology concepts I often feel easy to understand Biology concepts
6 I feel being lost whenever I am learning Biology I feel being regained whenever I am learning Biology
7 Learning Biology is not important in everyday life Learning Biology is important in everyday life
I see Biology as something I will not use very often when I get I see Biology as something I will use very often when I get out
8
out of school of school
9 Biology knowledge is not important for my future career Biology knowledge is important for my future career
10 During Biology lessons, I am bored During Biology lessons, I am entertained
The questionnaire remained with 25 statements that were considered final and used for data collection
and analysis. Eleven statements were related to interest, four were related to easiness, seven were related to
importance, and three were related to career (See Appendix A). Each statement was rated at 5-point Likert scale,
where strongly agree was assigned a 5-score, agree was assigned 4-score, neutral was assigned 3-score, disagree
was assigned 2-score, and strongly disagree was assigned 1-score. A pilot study was conducted at two schools
outside of the sample size. The instrument’s reliability was calculated, and a Cronbach alpha of .89 was obtained,
confirming the consistency of the questionnaire.
Data Collection Procedures
Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE) before collecting
data. Further explanations about the purpose of the study were given to participants. Once a participant accepted
to participate in the study, both teachers and students signed a consent form. Before teaching, a pre-test con-
sisting of BAQ was administered to all students in both groups to measure their attitude towards biology. After
the intervention, all groups were administered a post-test to evaluate the effect of an intervention on students’
attitudes toward biology. The whole process of data collection took three months, and teaching intervention
took four weeks (April-May 2021). A couple of three days of training on inquiry-based learning through the 5Es
865
(pp. 862-874) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
learning cycle was conducted with the experimental group teachers. Lesson plans were prepared on microbi-
ology unit-18 of the S4 syllabus of biology in Rwanda (REB, 2015) in collaboration with teachers. During the
lesson delivery, teacher and students’ activities were identified at all stages of the 5Es learning cycle (Table 2).
Table 2
Activities Done by the Experimental Group
5E’s levels Related activities
The teacher probed an introductory question that elicited learners’ prior knowledge and engaged them
Engage phase in the lesson. Moreover, the engage phase makes students excited and provides them the opportunity
to discover what they are going to study.
Teachers provide activities to students and allow them to collaborate using different resources in their
Explore phase
respective groups so as to find solutions.
Learners were given a chance to express their responses, and teachers added on what they had not
Explain phase
touched and relieved misconceptions.
Elaborate phase Supplementary activities were provided for knowledge extension and transfer.
Lastly, there comes evaluate phase in which the teacher assesses learners’ outcomes via oral ques-
Evaluate phase
tions and learners peer-assed each other for their progress.
The conventional teaching method, which is mainly teacher’s presentation of concepts, was employed by
teachers of the control group. Teachers of the control group were informed about the purpose of the research
and given instructions. For instance, topics such as characteristics of different microorganisms, diseases caused
by microorganisms, the economic importance of some microorganisms, and their culturing techniques were
taught by chalk and board where the teacher lectured and students followed, and sometimes they were assigned
to work in groups and allowed to present. Learners experience their usual teaching method and study the same
biological content as the experimental group.
Data Analysis
The individual scores or class means were compared to find out if students’ measured attitudes towards
biology have become more positive, remained the same, or became less positive (Russell & Hollander, 1975). The
scales were constructed to detect and evaluate changes in attitude toward biology but not to measure absolute
attitude toward biology. Thus, the scales were designed to be used at the beginning and the end of a course. The
MS Excel 16 and SPSSVs 23 software -were used for data analysis. MS Excel was used to compute the number of
students who answered under five scales (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) for each statement. In this
analysis, the related percentage was computed from the number of students. The five scales were narrowed
down to visualize data by merging strongly agree and agree and strongly disagree and disagree together.
The SPSS was used for descriptive and inferential statistics to answer all research questions. We first com-
puted the average for each student across all 25 statements. Averages were also narrowed down to each of
four attitude factors. Since data were collected in both pre-and post-tests, we secondly used repeated-measures
ANOVA. These were done twice. Firstly, the pre-test and post-test among teaching intervention (control and
experimental groups) and gender (female and male students) were used. Secondly, using average scores for
attitude factors among teaching intervention and gender for both pre-and post-test. The third analysis was ex-
tended to reveal differences between the control and experimental groups as statistical significance is concerned
in the post-test attitude questionnaire across four attitude factors: interest, easiness, importance, and career.
Research Results
Table 3 encompasses descriptive statistics for experimental and control groups before learning and after
learning. Note that among each group, male and female students were compared. Before intervention on both
sides of all groups, female and male students scored almost the same mean (3.7, N = 5). After the intervention,
there was an attitude change in all groups regardless of the type of teaching methods students went through.
866
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 862-874)
On the side of the control group, attitude change for female students increased from 3.7 ±.21to 4.1± .40 mean
score and standard deviation, while for male students, the attitude changed from 3.7 ± .24 to 4.2 ± .41mean
score and standard deviation. Males scored slightly higher compared to female students.
On the other hand, the attitude changed from 3.7± .19 to 4.5± .20 mean score and standard deviation for
female students and 3.7± .29 to 4.4 ± .22 mean score and standard deviation for male students. There was a mean
difference of 0.2 between male students from the control and experimental group in favor of the experimental
group. A mean difference of 0.4 was identified between females of both groups in favor of the experimental group.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics among Control and Experimental Groups at Both Pre-and Post-Test
Intervention Gender M SD N
Female 3.72 .21 49

Control group Male 3.70 .24 60
Total 3.71 .23 109
Female 3.77 .19 59
Pre-test_all Experimental group Male 3.70 .29 60
Total 3.73 .25 119
Female 3.75 .20 108
Total Male 3.70 .26 120
Total 3.72 .24 228
Female 4.14 .40 49
Control group Male 4.22 .41 60
Total 4.18 .40 109
Female 4.53 .20 59
Post-test_all Experimental group Male 4.47 .22 60
Total 4.50 .21 119
Female 4.35 .36 108
Total Male 4.35 .35 120
Total 4.35 .35 228
Table 4 portrays the influence of the intervention on students’ attitude change concerning gender through
repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Students in both groups statistically significantly performed
well after learning (F = 637.27, df = 1, p < .001) with an effect size of .74. Likewise, the experimental group
outperformed the control group. Thus, students taught about inquiry-based learning statistically raised their
attitude significantly (F = 37.13, df = 1, p < .001). However, neither inquiry-based learning nor conventional
teaching method brought a significant difference in attitude change between male and female students (F =
1.197, df = 1, p > .05).
Table 4
Inferential Statistics for Teaching Intervention and Gender
Pillai’s Trace Partial Eta Squared

Effect F Hypothesis df Error df p
Value of Effect Size
Tests .74 637.27b 1.00 224.00 <.001 .74

Tests * Intervention .14 37.13b 1.00 224.00 <.001 .14
Tests * Gender .006 1.38b 1.00 224.00 .24 .006
Tests * Intervention * Gender .005 1.19b 1.00 224.00 .27 .005
a. Design: Intercept + Intervention + Gender + Intervention * Gender
Within Subjects Design: Tests
b. Exact statistic
867
(pp. 862-874) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 5 shows that students’ attitude changes factor to factor before and after learning. By comparing at-
titude change based on interest factors, both experimental and control groups were at the same level at 3.7 out
of 5 mean scores. After learning, there was an increase in positive attitude at the mean of 4.2 on the side of the
control group and a mean of 4.5 on the side of the experimental group. This shows that inquiry-based learning
has boosted students’ interest in biology more than the conventional teaching method. Looking at the easiness
factor, both groups were almost at the same level at 3.2 and 3.3 for the control and experimental groups. After
learning, the group who received treatment (inquiry-based learning) greatly increased their mean score from 3.3
to 4.5, while in the group who received conventional teaching techniques, their mean score increased from 3.2 to
3.5. It is worth saying that inquiry-based learning makes biology easier than the conventional teaching method.
Table 5
Factors into Attitude Scale – Descriptive Statistics
Factors Intervention M SD N
Control group 3.77 0.30 109

Interest_Pre-test
Experimental group 3.78 0.31 119
Easiness_Pre-test
Importance_Pre-test
Career_Pre-test
Interest_Post-test
Easiness_Post-test
Importance_Post-test
Career_Post-test
Comparing attitude change an important factor; before learning, both groups were at the same level a 3.8
mean score. After the intervention, the mean score increased from 3.8 to 4.3 on the side of the control group.
Similarly, the mean score increased from 3.8 to 4.5 on the side of the experimental group. This shows that the
experimental group finds, after treatment, biology more important than the control group subjected to usual
teaching methods. Lastly, on career factor, all groups were at the same level with an attitude mean score of 3.8.
After learning, the attitude mean score changed from 3.8 to 4.4 on the side of the control group and from 3.8
to 4.6 on the side of the experimental group. A slight mean difference of 0.2 was identified, meaning that the
group who received treatment scored higher than the group taught with the conventional method.
Reference to Table 5, the pre-test showed that both treatment and control have a positive attitude at almost
the same level of interest, importance, and career factors. Exception to easiness factor, both groups manifest a
low score in the test, which indicates that biology seems to be difficult for students. On the other hand, students’
attitudes toward biology in the experimental group improved moderately in all dimensions of the attitude ques-
tionnaire compared to students in the control group after the intervention. Mean score on interest factor gives
an insight into how an intervention has boosted students’ interest in biology on the side of the experimental
group. For example, mean sore increased from 3.78 to 4.50 while it increased from 3.77 to 4.24 for their counter-
parts. Looking at the easiness factor, the experimental group finds biology easy compared to the control group
after being subjected to inquiry-based learning. For instance, in the experimental group mean scores increased
868
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 862-874)
from 3.31 in pre-test to 4.37in post-test while students in the control group taught using the teacher-centered
method had a slight mean gain from 3.25 in pre-test to 3.59in post-test. Moreover, experimental students find
biology a more important and career-led subject than students in the control group.
Table 6 shows the influence of intervention as statistical significance is concerned. The table shows a statis-
tical significance difference from intervention to attitude factor at p < .001 (.001) level of significance. One can
see that the attitude factor depends on the intervention given. There was a statistically significant difference
between students who learned with inquiry-based learning and the poor teaching method in favor of those who
learned with the inquiry method. However, from factor to gender, there is no statistically significant difference
with p > .05 (0.61). This gives an insight into how attitude change according to factors has not shown a differ-
ence between male and female students. Similarly, no significant difference was identified from intervention to
factor concerning gender at p > .05 (0.51).
Table 6
Factors into Attitude Scale – Inferential Statistics
Pillai’s Trace Partial Eta Squared

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df p of Effect Size
Factor .80 130.21b 7.00 218.00 <.001 .80

Factor * Intervention .33 15.63b 7.00 218.00 <.001 .33
Factor * Gender .02 .76b 7.00 218.00 .61 .02
Factor * Intervention * Gender .02 .89b 7.00 218.00 .51 .02
a. Design: Intercept + Intervention + Gender + Intervention * Gender
Within Subjects Design: Factor
b. Exact statistic
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed for all attitude factors to show the effect of inter-
vention at post-test, as represented in Table 7. In all factors, a statistically significant difference was identified in
which the p-value is smaller than the .05 significance level at one degree of freedom (df = 1). It means that the
intervention has brought a difference in attitude change between experimental and control groups in favor of
the experimental group in each attitude factor. Thus, inquiry-based learning increased students’ interest (F =
23.90, df = 1, p < .001), easiness of biology concept (F = 23.90, df = 1, p < .001), importance to learn biology (F =
15.59, df = 1(226), p < .001), and career path connected to daily life (F = 7.28, df = 1(226), p < .001).
Table 7
One-Way ANOVA for Attitude Factors at Post-Test
Factors Analysis SS df MS F p
Between Groups 3.72 1 3.72 23.90 <.001

Interest_Post-test
Within Groups 35.18 226 .15
Between Groups 34.80 1 34.80 23.90 <.001
Easness_Post-test
Between Groups 2.21 1 2.21 15.59 <.001
Importance_Post-test
Between Groups 1.89 1 1.89 7.28 .007
Career_Post-test
869
(pp. 862-874) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Discussion
The present study aimed to explore the effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ attitudes toward
biology among upper secondary schools in Rwanda. Findings portrayed that the students taught with inquiry –
based learning had a remarkable increase in attitude change compared to their counterparts in conventional
teaching methods characterized mainly by teachers’ presentation of concepts. This was evident with statistical
significance of mean scores after learning in favor of experimental group. This can be attributed to the teach-
ing styles implemented in inquiry-based method, which provide an opportunity to learners to explore biology
concepts in groups with interesting hands-on activities. With this learning environment, students became more
engaged in learning, interact with each other, and share ideas. In doing so, their attitude improves. This corrobo-
rates with Kisoglu (2018) who asserted that biology lessons should be taught in a manner fostering students’
interest so as to improve their attitude toward the subject.
Before learning, results have indicated that students in both groups presented a positive attitude towards
learning biology almost at an equal level. Conversely to the easiness dimension, students had a less mean score.
This can be explained by the fact that both groups answered the statement before the intervention and hence
were at the same level. Upon intervention, either inquiry-based learning or conventional teaching method influ-
ence an increase in attitude change. This was confirmed by Rogayan (2019); Mukagihana et al. (2021a), asserting
that after learning, students improve their attitude towards biology regardless of the teaching techniques they
went through. Nevertheless, statistical results with a one-way variance analysis showed a significant difference
in attitude change between the two groups in favor of the experimental group taught with inquiry-based learn-
ing at a .05 significance level. This difference between groups can be explained by poor teaching techniques
(Nzeyimana & Ndihokubwayo, 2019), which are teacher-centered and found in conventional that did not promote
an increase in attitude change (Narmadha & Chamundeswari, 2013).
Besides statistical findings, this study indicated how the inquiry learning model has changed the learning
into enjoyable activities susceptible to promote self – direct learning that develops a habit of searching infor-
mation from different sources by students regardless the order from the teacher. This has implicated students
in the lesson and motivated them to like biology subject, developed critical thinking skills (Conradty & Bogner,
2019; Tsybulsky et al., 2018). Further, it raised the curiosity to identify the importance of biology in real life and
opportunities it offers on labor market. Hence, their attitude toward learning biology increased (Wu et al., 2021).
Contrary to control side subjected to teacher-centered method, students were accumulating information from
teacher with less enthusiasm and could not develop the habit of asking and searching more information.
Regarding gender aspect, inquiry –based learning did not show significant differences in attitude change
between male and female students. This can be associated with opportunity given by inquiry teaching meth-
ods to female students and male students to participate equally in the learning activities. Apart from statistical
results, all students manifest the same feelings towards biology irrespective of gender. This study concurs with
other studies showing no statistical difference between male and female attitudes in both groups (Uitto, 2014).
In contrast with Vlckova et al. (2019), who observed that female students present higher positive attitudes than
male students. Looking at inquiry-based learning, students’ subjects to this treatment did not significantly dif-
fer in attitude change about gender. One can consider that inquiry-based learning shows no gender disparities
and provides an equal chance for male and female students to participate in the learning process, as affirmed
by Erbas and Yenmez (2011). However, although gender was found to not affect students’ attitudes, Oba and
Lawrence (2014) found a slight difference in favor of females and recommended stakeholders consider differ-
ences in males’ and females’ attitudes in the development and implementation of the curriculum.
Looking at all factors of attitude used in this study, attitude change in all dimensions was found on the
experimental side. This research has specifically revealed how inquiry-based learning makes biology more interest-
ing and easier for students to understand biological concepts. This can specifically be seen in the inquiry-based
learning method used in an experimental group of students, which is an active learning method that offers a
learning environment that facilitates learners to collaborate and actively engage in their learning (Nkurikiyimana
et al., 2022; Nyirahagenimana et al., 2022). This study is in agreement with other studies revealing that teach-
ing methods that actively engage learners in biology lesson with resources improve students’ attitude toward
learning biology (Armbruster et al., 2010; Fančovičová & Prokop, 2008; Kisoglu, 2018; Mukagihana et al., 2021a;
Prokop et al., 2007).
870
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 862-874)
Conclusion and Implications
Generally, this study confirms the effect of inquiry-based learning in promoting a positive attitude toward
learning biology. The study seeks to determine the student’s attitude either in the control group or in the ex-
perimental group before learning and after learning microbiology. Students were at the same level responding
to attitude statements before learning. After learning, the statistical results revealed a significant difference
between the control group taught with the conventional teaching method and the experimental group taught
with inquiry-based instruction in favor of the experimental group. It is evident that the inquiry-teaching method
was more efficient than the conventional teaching method in improving the attitude change of students toward
learning biology.
It is worth saying that poor teaching method did not facilitate students to improve attitudes toward learning
biology and did not foster students’ interest in biology. It was observed that female and male students do not
present statistically significant differences in attitude change towards learning biology irrespective of the teach-
ing methods they went through. Thus, even though inquiry-based learning did not present gender disparities
in attitude change toward biology, it showed strength in raising students’ interest learning biology and made
different biological concepts easy to learn than teacher’s presentation method can do.
The study recommends the integration of inquiry-based learning in teaching biology to assist teach-
ers in improving students’ attitudes toward learning biology to boost their learning outcomes. Training on
inquiry-based instructions using the 5Es learning cycle should be provided to biology teachers to effectively
implementing active teaching methods that foster a positive attitude toward learning biology. This study does
not hint at student-teacher relationships. Further studies can examine the effect of inquiry-based learning on
student-teacher relationships.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teach-
ing and Learning Science and Mathematics (ACEITLMS) for funding this research. They also want to thank the
teachers and students who participated in the study.
References
Adejimi, S. A., Nzabalirwa, W., & Shivoga, W. A. (2022). Enhancing students’ attitudes toward biology using consensus and
cooperative reflective journal writing educational strategies. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 80(2), 242–255.
https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/22.80.242
Aktamiş, H., Hiğde, E., & Özden, B. (2016). Effects of the inquiry-based learning method on students’ achievement, science process
skills and attitudes towards science: A meta-analysis science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(4), 248–261. https://
doi.org/10.12973/tused.10183a
Almasri, F., Hewapathirana, G. I., Ghaddar, F., Lee, N., & Ibrahim, B. (2021). Measuring attitudes towards biology major and non-
major: Effect of students’ gender, group composition, and learning environment. In PLoS ONE (Vol. 16, Issue 5 May). https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251453
Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E. W. (2010). Active Learning and Student-centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and
Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09
Aulia, E. V., Poedjiastoeti, S., & Agustini, R. (2018). The Effectiveness of guided inquiry-based learning material on students’ science
literacy skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012049
Bizimana, E., Mutangana, D., & Mwesigye, A. (2022a). Enhancing students’ attitude towards biology using concept mapping and
cooperative mastery learning instructional strategies: Implication on gender. International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research, 21(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.2.7
Bizimana, E., Mutangana, D., & Mwesigye, A. (2022b). Students’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment and
engagement in cooperative mastery learning-based biology classroom instruction. Hindawi Education Research International
2022 (14 ). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5793394
871
(pp. 862-874) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Chu, S., Tang, Q., Chow, K., & Tse, S. K. (2007). Study on inquiry-based learning in a primary school through librarian-teacher
partnerships. IASL Annual Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29173/iasl7584
Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). From stem to steam: cracking the code? how creativity & motivation interacts with inquiry-
based learning. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641678
Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement
in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262–273. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20204
Erbas, A. K., & Yenmez, A. A. (2011). The effect of inquiry-based explorations in a dynamic geometry environment on sixth
grade students’ achievements in polygons. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2462–2475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.07.002
Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes toward computer use in Slovakia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 4(3), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75347
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw Hill..
Hacieminoglu, E. (2016). Elementary school students’ attitude toward science and related variables. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 11(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2016.288a
Hu, X., Leung, F. K. S., & Chen, G. (2018). School, family, and student factors behind student attitudes towards science: The case of
Hong Kong fourth-graders. International Journal of Educational Research, 92(September), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2018.09.014
Kang, J., & Keinonen, T. (2018). The effect of student-centered approaches on students’ interest and achievement in science:
Relevant topic-based, open and guided inquiry-based, and discussion-based approaches. Research in Science Education,
48(4), 865–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9590-2
Kisoglu, M. (2018). An examination of science high school students’ motivation towards learning biology and their attitude
towards biology lesson. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(1), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n1p151
Kortam, N., Basheer, A., Hofstein, A., & Hugerat, M. (2018). How project-based learning promotes 7th grade students’ motivation
and attitudes towards studying biology. Action Research and Innovation in Science Education, 1(2), 9–17. https://doi.
org/10.51724/arise.10
Manishimwe , H,Shivoga, W., & Nsengimana,V. (2021). The role of innovative teaching and learning methods towards the
classification of living things: A review. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences , 4(1), 12–16.
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajesms/article/view/219846
Mukagihana, J., Nsanganwimana, F., & Aurah, C. M. (2021a). Effect of resource-based instructions on pre-service biology teachers’
motivation toward learning biology. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 20(8), 262–277.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.1.1637
Mukagihana, J., Nsanganwimana, F., & Aurah, C. M. (2021b). How pre-service teachers learn microbiology using lecture, animations,
and laboratory activities at one private university in Rwanda. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 20(7), 328–345. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.7.18
Narmadha, U., & Chamundeswari, S. (2013). Attitude towards learning of science and academic achievement in science among
students at the secondary level. Journal of Sociological Research, 4(2), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.5296/jsr.v4i2.3910
Njoku, M. I. A., & Nwagbo, C. R. (2020). Enhancing Students’ Attitude and Achievement in Biology Through Innovative Strategies.
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.62.134152
Nkurikiyimana, J. D. D., Uwamahoro, J., & Ndihokubwayo, K. (2022). Teaching and learning mechanics explored trough the use of
5E’ s educational model. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 80(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/22.80.179
Nsengimana, T., Habimana, S., & Mutarutinya, V. (2017). Mathematics and science teachers’ understanding and practices of
learner-centred education in nine secondary schools from three districts in Rwanda. Rwandan Journal of Education, 4(1),
55–68. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/rje/article/view/160062
Nsengimana, T., Rugema Mugabo, L., Hiroaki, O., & Nkundabakura, P. (2020). Reflection on science competence-based curriculum
implementation in Sub-Saharan African countries. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and
Public Engagement, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2020.1778210
Nyirahagenimana, J., Uwamahoro, J., & Ndihokubwayo, K. (2022). Assessment of physics lesson planning and teaching based
on the 5Es instruction model in Rwanda secondary schools. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education 2022, 3(1),
1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/11573
Nzeyimana, J. C., & Ndihokubwayo, K. (2019). Teachers’ role and learners’ responsibility in teaching and learning science and
elementary technology in Rwanda. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 15(2), 1–16. https://
www.ajol.info/index.php/ajesms/article/view/188762
Oba, F. J., & Lawrence, A. A. (2014). Effects of gender on students’ attitude to physics in secondary schools in Oyo State, Nigeria.
European Scientific Journal March, 10(7), 1857–7881. https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/2991
Patrick Ajaja, O. (2013). Which way do we go in biology teaching? lecturing, concept mapping, cooperative learning or learning
cycle? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJSTER12.008
Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education,
42(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chudá, J. (2007). Slovakian students’ attitudes toward biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 3(4), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75409
872
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 862-874)
Rabgay, T. (2018). The effect of using cooperative learning method on tenth grade students’ learning achievement and attitude
towards biology. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11218a
REB. (2015). Advanced Level Biology Syllabus (S4-S6). Rwanda Basic Education Board/Ministry of Education.
Rogayan, D. V. (2019). Biology learning station strategy (BLISS): Its effects on science achievement and attitude towards biology.
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 1(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.10
Russell, J., & Hollander, S. (1975). A Biology Attitude Scale. American Biology Teacher, 37(5), 270–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/4445229
Sandika, B., & Fitrihidajati, H. (2018). Improving creative thinking skills and scientific attitude through inquiry-based learning
in basic biology lecture toward student of biology education. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia, 4(1), 23. https://doi.
org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i1.5326
Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research,
44(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413488422
Sen, S., & Oskay, O. O. (2016). The effects of 5E inquiry learning activities on achievement and attitude toward chemistry. Journal
of Education and Learning, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p1
Shin, D. J. D., Lee, M., Ha, J. E., Park, J. H., Ahn, H. S., Son, E., Chung, Y., & Bong, M. (2019). Science for all: Boosting the science
motivation of elementary school students with utility value intervention. Learning and Instruction, 60(February 2018),
104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.003
Taştan, S. B., Davoudi, S. M. M., Masalimova, A. R., Bersanov, A. S., Kurbanov, R. A., Boiarchuk, A. V., & Pavlushin, A. A. (2018). The
impacts of teacher’s efficacy and motivation on student’s academic achievement in science education among secondary
and high school students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2353–2366. https://doi.
org/10.29333/ejmste/89579
Tsybulsky, D., Dodick, J., & Camhi, J. (2018). High-school students in university research labs? Implementing an outreach model
based on the ‘science as inquiry’ approach. Journal of Biological Education, 52(4), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/0021
9266.2017.1403360
Uitto, A. (2014). Interest, attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs explaining upper-secondary school students’ orientation towards
biology-related careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(6), 1425–1444. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10763-014-9516-2
Vlckova, J., Kubiatko, M., & Usak, M. (2019). The perception of biology by Czech lower secondary school students. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105277
Wu, J., Guo, R., Wang, Z., & Zeng, R. (2021). Integrating spherical video-based virtual reality into elementary school students’
scientific inquiry instruction: effects on their problem-solving performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 496–509.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1587469
Yakar, Z., & Baykara, H. (2014). Inquiry-based laboratory practices in a science teacher training program. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1058a

Appendix A
Final Attitude Questionnaire
Attitude statements 5 4 3 2 1
1 I like learning biology

2 I like Biology more than other science subjects
3 Biology is very interesting, and I enjoy it
4 Biology is self-inspiring to me.
6 The biology lesson is very interesting
Interest 10 It makes me pleased to hear about Biology
12 I feel well in Biology class
18 I am happier in a biology class than in any other class
20 Biology gives me a feeling of satisfaction
23 I would like to have Biology lessons more often
24 During Biology lessons, I am entertained
5 I am able to think clearly and logically when learning Biology
25 Biology is one of the easiest subjects for me
Easiness
14 I often feel easy to understand Biology concepts
16 I feel being regained whenever I am learning Biology
873
(pp. 862-874) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Attitude statements 5 4 3 2 1
I like Biology because it gives me a clear picture of how living organisms are related
9
to each other
11 Biology helps me in learning other school subjects
13 All students should be required to understand Biology due to its importance
Importance 17 Learning Biology is important in everyday life
Biology knowledge is essential for understanding other subjects related to life sci-
19
ence
27 Knowledge acquired in Biology will help me to learn other science subjects
28 Learning Biology has helped me to understand the diversity of living organisms
8 Biology knowledge is very important for my future career
Career 21 I see Biology as something I will use very often when I get out of school
22 Biology knowledge is important for my future career
Received: June 04, 2022 Revised: July 15, 2022 Accepted: September 20, 2022
Cite as: Manishimwe, H., Shivoga, W. A., & Nsengimana, V. (2022). Effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ attitude
towards learning biology at upper secondary schools in Rwanda. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 862-874.
Henriette Manishimwe Master of Science in Biotechnology, PhD Student, African Centre of

(Corresponding author) Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and
Science (ACEITLMS), University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE),
PO BOX 55 Rwamagana, Rwanda.
E-mail: mahenrie03@gmail.com
Website: http://www.aceitlms.ur.ac.rw
William Aino Shivoga Doctor of Natural Sciences (Dr.rer.nat., Limnology/Ecology, Professor
of Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences, School of
Natural Sciences, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology
(MMUST) P.O. Box 190-50100 Kakamega, Kenya.
E-mail: m.mulish@mmust.ac.ke
Website: http://www.mmust.ac.ke
Venuste Nsengimana PhD in “Sciences Agronomiques et Ingénierie Biologique” (Agronomy
and Bioengineering), ), Senior Lecturer, Department of Mathematics,
Science and Physical Education, School of Education, University of
Rwanda College of Education (URCE), PO BOX 55 Rwamagana, Rwanda.
E-mail: venusteok@gmail.com
Website: http://www.ur.ac.rw
874
RESEARCH TRENDS
AND ISSUES INCLUDING
COMPUTATIONAL THINKING ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/
IN SCIENCE EDUCATION AND ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN
THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Abstract. Software (SW) is one of the key

Woongbin Park, technologies in modern society, and its
Hyuksoo Kwon importance is receiving the attention of
the educational community. In addition,
Computational Thinking (CT) has been
studied in fields of various education such
as computer science, science, mathematics,
and technology. The prominence of
computer science education has increased
Introduction
in K-12 South Korean schools with the effect
of the 2015 Revised National Curriculum
Computational Thinking (CT) is an essential competency in the 21st and the National Plan for Activating
century’s intelligent information-oriented society. There is rapidly increas- Software Education. In addition, there
ing interest in software-based industries such as the Internet of Things, big are active efforts to include CT in science,
data, 5G, and artificial intelligence, which are core technologies for the 4th technology, and mathematics classrooms.
Industrial Revolution. Accordingly, new attempts have been made around Therefore, this study aims to review prior
the world in education to nurture people in related competencies (Shahroom studies on CT in science and mathematics
& Hussin, 2018). In particular, software (SW) has been highlighted. While education. The results of this study are as
previously education systems implemented information and communication follows: 1) CT in science and mathematics
education has a different conceptual
technology (ICT) education that promotes computerization or information
approach than CT in computer education.
technology literacy, most of them are currently shifting to emphasize soft-
Science education is mostly about problem-
ware, programming, coding, etc. (Korea Education and Research Information solving activities using computers, and
Service, 2013). mathematics education mostly utilizes
In line with this trend in South Korea, the Ministry of Education (2016) the ‘abstraction’ related approach. 2) The
announced the “Basic Plan for Activating Software Education.” In addition, key to improving CT in both subjects is to
the Ministry of Education of South Korea organized the curriculum for “the implement practical experience in science
2015 revised curriculum (technology/home economics)/information sub- and mathematics education. Variables
ject,” and made SW education required in elementary and middle schools of interest in prior studies were scientific
since 2018. The 2015 revised curriculum recommends that six core com- and mathematical problem-solving skills,
petencies for information be promoted in school education. Among these, the attitude of subjects, and creativity. 3)
CT education in science and mathematics
“knowledge information processing ability for rational problem solving”
education has used a convergence
further supports the necessity of information subject education (Ministry
education approach (STEAM education).
of Education, 2015). Keywords: computational thinking,
South Korea is making efforts to nurture creative convergence talents mathematics education, research trend
by selecting a competency-based curriculum model rather than a subject- analysis, science education
centered curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2015). However, in recent SW-
related school policies (such as AI education leading schools), other subjects Woongbin Park
were excluded and only information teachers were allowed to take charge Gajaeul Middle School, Republic of South
(Ministry of Science and Technology Information and Communication, 2021). Korea
Hyuksoo Kwon
This view is contrary to the direction from the Ministry of Education, which Kongju National University, Republic of
aims for convergence education, and reflects an immature policy manage- South Korea
ment method.
875
RESEARCH TRENDS AND ISSUES INCLUDING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN SCIENCE
(pp. 875-887) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Recently, the educational field is making efforts to improve Information Technology (IT) and SW-related
competencies (like computational thinking). The UK greatly increased the number of required computer-related
courses, and in some places, such as France, software-related contents were incorporated into mathematics and
technology subjects (Lee, 2020). As such, most developed countries (USA, Canada, UK, Finland, etc.) are promoting
these IT and SW-related competencies by including them in national-level convergence education (like science,
technology, engineering, mathematics: STEM) (Kwon et al., 2020).
Convergence education in South Korea is called STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics)
education. In line with this global trend, Korea is also promoting convergence education and SW education. There
is research literature that analyzes the trends in information subject research and studies that analyze the current
status of convergence education by subject, but there is insufficient research dealing with how IT or SW-related
competencies are being studied in convergence education (Kwon et al., 2020; Min & Shim, 2021))
In the above context, the purpose of this study was to understand how computational thinking was integrated
into convergence education. For this, considering South Korea’s competency-based curriculum model, this study
limited the research variable to CT, and the subjects to science education and mathematics education, which are
classified as the primary subjects. After that, research trends related to CT were classified into the two subjects, and
how CT is applied in each subject was investigated and analyzed. The research questions are as follows:
•• • How is computational thinking defined in science and mathematics education?
•• • How is computational thinking applied in science and mathematics education?
•• • What is the difference between the approaches to computational thinking in science education and
mathematics education?
Theoretical Background
Computational Thinking
The term computational thinking was first used by Papert (1980) in his book Mindstorms, and quickly spread
through a study entitled “Computational Thinking” by Wing (2006). In South Korea, it is used in various forms such
as computational thinking, computer scientific thinking, and computational thinking. Since the term computing
thinking was used in the 2015 revised curriculum, it has been referred to as computational thinking in South Korea
(MOE, 2015).
Computational thinking has received a lot of attention and research over the past few years, Currently, there
is still no consensus on the components and definitions (Brenna & Resnick, 2012). A wide variety of scholars have
defined the operational definition of computational thinking, and the definitions differ as shown in Table 1. However,
Wing’s (2006) study is frequently cited for its definition of CT and its components. Wing (2006) gave the operational
definition of computational thinking as “integrative problem-solving thinking following the fundamental concept
of computer science.”
Table 1
Definition of CT
Researcher Computational Thinking Definition
Wing (2006) Convergent problem-solving thinking following the fundamental concept of computer science
A problem-solving process that includes logical organization and analysis of data, representation of data through
ISTE & CSTA (2011) abstraction, automating solutions through algorithmic thinking, defining and implementing possible solutions, and
generalizing solutions to other problems
Barr & Stephenson (2011) An approach to solving a problem in a computer-implementable way and a problem-solving methodology
Ministry of Education The ability to understand real life and various academic problems using the basic concepts and principles of com-
(2015b) puter science and computing systems, and to creatively implement and apply solutions
Studies on the components of CT have also been conducted. Table 2 summarizes representative existing studies
on CT components. The CT components presented by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) are defined by educators (Barr et al., 2011). Furthermore,
876
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ RESEARCH TRENDS AND ISSUES INCLUDING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN SCIENCE
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 875-887)
there is a CT component created for evaluation by Brennan and Resnick (2012) at the MIT Media Lab. Brennan and
Resnick’s study evaluates CT based on Scratch, an educational programming language (EPL), because Scratch
was developed at the MIT Media Lab. In addition, there is also the definition of the Google Computer Science (CS)
education program and the definition of the Ministry of Education, which are frequently cited in Korea.
Computational Thinking in Curriculum
Wing (2006) said that computational thinking is not a computer’s thinking, but a person’s way of thinking that
follows the computer’s method, and emphasized that it is a necessary ability for everyone. Therefore, computational
thinking education should pursue a convergence approach, but the current computational thinking education in
South Korea is being promoted centered on information subjects. Moreover, computational thinking in Korean
is translated as computing thinking. This leads to a misunderstanding of “computational” (regardless of using a
computer) to mean “computing” (using a computer) (Chang, 2017).
Nevertheless, studies to apply computational thinking to the curriculum are being actively conducted in
science education and mathematics education. In science education, research is being carried out to link to the
curriculum by focusing on problem solving and inquiry, while using words as they are (Park & Green, 2019; Kang
& Kim, 2020). Mathematics researchers argue that computational thinking is different from computing thinking.
Therefore, they said that the Korean expression of computing thinking that emphasizes the use of computers is
not correct. For this reason, they prefer the term computational thinking (Ahn, 2014; Chang, 2107; Kim, 2019).
Table 2
CT Components of Previous Studies
Brennan &
Researcher ISTE & CSTA Google (2016) by Ministry of
Wing (2006) Resnick (2012) in
(Year) (2011) Stephenson Education (2015)
MIT Media Lab
·Abstraction ·Formulating ·Concept: ·Abstraction, ·Collecting data
Sequences,
·Algorithms ·Organizing ·Algorithms & ·Data analysis
Loops, Events,
Procedures,
·Automation ·Analyzing Parallelism, ·Structured
Automation
Conditionals,
·Problem ·Modelling ·Abstraction:
Operators, Data ·Data
Decomposition Decomposition,
·Abstractions Collection &
·Practice: Modeling,
·Generalization Analysis
·Algorithmic Being Algorithms
Thinking Incremental ·Data
CT ·Automation:
and Iterative, Representation
·Automating Coding,
Components Testing and
·Modeling & Simulation
·Efficiency Debugging,
Simulation,
Reusing and ·Generalization
·Generalizing
Remixing, ·Parallelization
·Transferring Abstracting and & Problem
Modularizing Decomposition
·Perspective:
Expressing,
Connecting,
Questioning
Data Collection and Pre-processing
In order to understand the current status of research related to CT in mathematics and science education
domestic academic journals and theses were surveyed from 2013 to 2021 (2nd quarter). In Research Information
Sharing Service (RISS) and Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), science education was searched for
computational thinking, science, science education, and mathematics education was searched for computational
877
(pp. 875-887) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
thinking, mathematics, and mathematics education. Researchers developed an analytical framework for the litera-
ture review to identify and select research papers related to CT in science and mathematics education. After that,
researchers systematically analyzed related publications in a wide range of journals to obtain a comprehensive
overview of the current status and trends of research in science and mathematics education related to CT.
Statistical Analysis
As a result of the search, 1338 journals and degree-related papers were found in science education, and 703
journals and degree-related papers in mathematics education were searched for a total of 2041 studies. Among
2041 studies, a total of 59 studies were selected as research subjects as a result of screening duplicates, confer-
ences, and irrelevant studies. Among 59 studies, 24 were science education and 35 were mathematics education. As
shown in Figure 1, 59 studies selected through literature search were categorized by year of publication, publisher,
publication status, academic classification (science, mathematics), research method 1 (conceptual, development,
implementation), and research method 2 (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), implementation type (regular subject,
creative experience activity, free semester, gifted education, etc.), and target class (elementary, middle, high school,
university, pre-service teacher, teacher).
Figure 1
Framework for Analysis
Research Results
Research Trends of Computational Thinking in Science and Mathematics Education
Year of Publication
In the analysis, the number of publications each year increased rapidly after 2018, when SW education became
required as shown in Table 3.
878
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 875-887)
Table 3
Definition on CT
Year Raw Percentage (%)
2011 1 1.7
2013 1 1.7
2014 3 5.1
2015 4 6.8
2016 3 5.1
2017 3 5.1
2018 13 22.0
2019 15 25.4
2020 14 23.7
2021 (until 2nd quarter) 2 3.4
Publication Types
As shown in Figure 2, among 59 studies, 29 journals and 30 degree-related papers were published. Of the
30 theses, 28 were master’s level, and there were no doctoral theses in mathematics education, only in science
education. There were 35 papers related to mathematics education, and 24 papers related to science education,
and mathematics education was relatively high.
Figure 2
Publication Types
Research Methods
As for the research type, 11 were technical (conceptual) studies, 3 were in science education, and 8 were
in mathematics education, suggesting mathematics education is widely studied. Program development stud-
ies included 4 in science education and 8 in mathematics education. There were a total of 32 implementation
studies, 15 in science education and 17 in mathematics education. There were 4 research studies. Among the
types of research, implementation research was the most common, and the program was developed, and the
effect on students was analyzed.
Additionally, among the total of 32 implementation studies, 7 were quantitative, 5 were qualitative, and
20 were mixed. Except for those that were not clearly defined in terms of implementation, there were 6 regular
879
(pp. 875-887) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
subjects, 6 gifted education, 4 free semesters, and 12 others. In the case of others, various creative experience
activities and other special programs were implemented.
School Class
As shown in Figure 3, among the 32 experimental studies in total, 3 high school students, 8 junior high
schools, 18 elementary schools, and 3 pre-service teachers were studied in experimental studies.
Figure 3
School Class for Participants
Teaching and Learning Tools
As shown in Figure 4, using unplugged activities was the most common teaching and learning tool in
science education, but considering that Entry is a program similar to Scratch, it can be said that Education
Programming Language (EPL) activities were the most common.
Figure 4
Teaching and Learning Tools – Science
Other than that, various physical computing tools such as Bitbrick, Arduino, Lego, MODI, and Turtlebot
were used. In addition, Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL) and Algodoo (physical experiment program)
linked to scientific experiments were also used once.
This study counted the frequency for each tool if two or more tools were used in one study. However, the
case of requesting C language like Arduino was not counted in the number of C language.
880
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 875-887)
Figure 5 shows the use of teaching and learning tools in mathematics education. The javaMAL (block
stacking) used at Seoul National University’s Gifted Learning Center is the most used, followed by Scratch
(developed by M.I.T Media Lab), Python, and Unplugged. Additionally, block stacking tools similar to javaMAL
are used, such as Turtlecraft and Mathcraft. An entry similar to Scratch was also used as the EPL. The rest had
graph drawing tools such as Sage, Graph Drawing and Desmos, and P-turtle (probability statistics program) and
R language were used for probability statistics. As for the physical tool, the Hamster robot was used only once.
Figure 5
Teaching and Learning Tools – Mathematics
Although it is difficult to sort the variety of teaching and learning tools, EPL was the most used as a teaching
and learning tool in science and mathematics education as a whole. Relatively, science education tried to use
teaching and learning tools capable of physical computing (bitbrick, Arduino, etc.) rather than mathematics
education. These lead to examples of science curricula that use physical computing tools to solve scientific
problems. For mathematics education, the physical form of the hamster robot was used only once. On the
other hand, mathematics education uses tools that can visualize mathematical concepts, such as block stacking
(javaMAL, Turtlecraft, Mathcraft), P-turtle, sage, and Graph Drawing. In addition, various tools were applied to
the curriculum such as algebra, geometry, probability, and statistics.
Issues of Computational Thinking in Science and Mathematics Education
Definition of Computational Thinking
Concept, development, and implementation research areas occupied most of science and mathematics
education research, and the key issue among them was the definition of CT and its components. Conceptual
studies discussed the operational definitions of CT, definitions of components, their significance in education,
and methods of evaluation application (Ahn, 2014; Chang, 2017; Park & Hwang, 2017; Park, 2018). Furthermore,
there is a discussion on the definition of clear CT not only in conceptual research but also in development
and implementation research (Seo, 2019; Park & Green, 2020). Researchers in science and mathematics edu-
cation have studied and applied CT in various ways to achieve the purpose of each subject. As a result of the
analysis, researchers in science and mathematics education were looking at CT from four perspectives. First,
CT that emphasizes the use of computers in computer science (CS), second, CT in science education, third, CT
in mathematics education, and fourth, CT for integrated education.
881
(pp. 875-887) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
The first point of view accepts the CT of CS as it is. This perspective, citing CS research, approaches CT as a
“problem-solving strategy or computer-based problem-solving strategy” during learning rather than pursuing
scientific and mathematical competency. Most of the time, the focus was on the use of the computer. There-
fore, it emphasizes the use of CT as a teaching and learning strategy in each subject rather than defining CT
or pursuing CT competency. Kim (2018) designed a science class to apply technology through graph drawing
using Desmos, and Ahn (2014) presented a class to apply CT through the activity of drawing graphs with a
computer in mathematics education. In the study of Han and Kim (2019), they tried to develop a computer-
based science education program by simultaneously measuring changes in CT and scientific attitude in an
earth science education program using EPL.
The second is the view of CT in science. Most research in science education emphasizes CT as a problem-
solving strategy. Based on the relatively recent study of Barr et al. (2011), the approach as a scientific problem-
solving activity was the most common (Hwang, Mun & Park, 2016; Mo, 2018, Kim, 2019; Kim, M. & Kim, S., 2020).
In science education, there was no big difference in the approach to CT. Apart from the different emphasis,
the rest of the science education studies also defined CT as a scientific problem-solving method and linked it
with science education.
The third is to look at CT from the point of view of mathematics education. There has not yet been a
unified view of CT in mathematics education (Hickmott, Prieto-Rodriguez, & Holmes, 2018). For this reason,
many studies on mathematics education related to CT have been on definitions (Chang, 2017; Choi, 2020; Kim,
2019; Shim & Park, 2019). Most studies in mathematics education consider CT as problem-solving thinking and
abstraction as the core. In addition, it was emphasized that computing tools are not essential (Chang, 2017;
Kim, 2019; Shin & Koh, 2019). Therefore, many studies of mathematics education are currently approaching CT
education as a teaching and learning method to improve students’ abstract competency.
Lastly, some look CT as linked to integrated education. This is similar to the second and third views, but
emphasizes a wider range of convergence education rather than the performance of each curriculum. There
have been many different types of research. Park and Green (2020) conducted a study on how to analyze CT
elements in integrated education that includes science subjects. Park and Green (2019) viewed CT as a catalyst
for integrated education in science education, and said that the problem-solving ability of CT helps science
education linking integrated education. Kim (2019) confirmed the effectiveness of mathematics education in
integrated education including CT. Kim (2018) measured the change in students’ attitudes toward integrated
education in statistical education using R language based on CT. As such, there have been various studies
related to integrated education in both science and mathematics education.
CT measurement tool in South Korea
There are three main types of evaluation tools for CT in Korea. The first was a tool to directly evaluate the
coding ability of CT using block coding, and the second was an evaluation of the creativity type that empha-
sized the cognitive thinking aspect of CT and excluded block coding. Lastly, the third was the measurement
of CT through questionnaire items.
Although there are some differences in measurement tools, about 50% of domestic CT evaluation tools
use the Scratch-based evaluation of Brennan and Resnick (Choi, 2019). In addition, although there is not much
research, the evaluation tool officially provided by the Ministry of Education for SW education leading schools
also uses Scratch or Entry-based block coding evaluation (Yang et al., 2018). In conclusion, considering that
Entry is almost the same as Scratch, the use of block coding-based evaluation in tools for evaluating CT in
Korea is very high. However, the evaluation based on block coding is almost impossible to evaluate without
prior knowledge of block coding, and it can be criticized for approaching CT only with coding that requires
the use of a computer. This evaluation method conflicts with Wing’s (2006) claim that CT is not related to the
use of computers and cannot be the correct evaluation method.
As a result of reviewing the literature on evaluation of CT, Kim’s measuring tool (2014) was used the most
among CT evaluation studies in Korea (Choi, 2019). Kim’s tool also consists of Scratch-based CT evaluation items.
The only feature of Kim’s tool is that it discloses all test tools. Tools such as Moreno-Leon (Dr. Scratch), Beaver
Challenge, and Choi’s tool were frequently used after Kim’s tool (Choi, 2019). The measurement of Moreno-Leon
(2015) provides instant evaluation when the Scratch (block coding) file output is uploaded to the Dr. Scratch
882
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 875-887)
website. The website-based beaver challenge consists of items that even students without experience in block
coding can solve, and is similar to general creativity problems. Choi (2014) is based on the evaluation of Brennan
and Resnick (2012), and consists of questions to evaluate knowledge, performance, and attitude toward CT.
Major Variables in Science and Mathematics Education
There were a total of 25 studies that measured CT in 32 program implementation studies. Among them,
few studies set only CT as a variable. Most of the studies set variables in a very diverse way to match the pur-
pose of subject education. As described above, there have been few studies that have fully disclosed the CT
measurement tool items. Therefore, it can be inferred that the tools used in computer education are difficult
to apply to science and mathematics education as it is.
Most of the research related to science and mathematics education designated and analyzed various
competencies as a variable pursued in each subject. In particular, attitudes toward science and mathematics
learning, creativity, and problem-solving ability were outstanding. Researchers analyzed CT as well as scientific/
mathematical attitudes, convergence educational learning attitudes, or academic achievement (Han & Kim
2019; Hwang, Mun & Park, 2016; Kim, 2018; Kim, D., 2019; Kim, Y., 2019; Sim & Park, 2019). Additionally, there
were studies that measured problem-solving ability and creativity (Kim & Choi, 2019; Mo, 2018; So, 2016). In
addition, there were a few studies that used programs related to CT but did not measure CT (Jeong, 2018; Sim
& Park, 2019). Conversely, there have been studies that only measure CT (Hwang, Moon & Choi, 2020).
Discussion
Studies of information education show that CT can be learned in all subject areas regardless of the use
of computers (Shin et al., 2016; Wing, 2006). Accordingly, studies on CT are active in other subjects as well. In
particular, research studies were active in science and mathematics, which are STEM subjects. On the other hand,
with the exception of information subjects, there were few studies in technology and engineering fields (Lee,
2019). Studies on science and mathematics education were not just computer-based, but involved systematic
analysis, researching the cultivation of CT and its application in each subject.
By classifying and arranging a total of 59 research subjects, this study found that implementation research
occupies the largest proportion with 32 subjects. In addition, most of the implementation studies included
program development. If 12 program development studies were included, there were a total of 44 program
development research topics. This study found that many research studies sought to develop programs or
curricula related to CT.
In addition, it was possible to confirm that the selection of teaching and learning tools was different for
each subject. As for the teaching and learning tools used in science education, the use of physical computing
tools was the highest, except for block coding. The types vary greatly depending on the purpose of the study,
but most used SBC or robot types. On the other hand, there was only one study using physical computing tools
in mathematics education. There was a big difference in pursuing the purpose of each subject as described
above. Science education actively used physical computing tools to develop scientific problem-solving ability.
Mathematics education used a lot of tools to simulate or shape thinking. Accordingly, tools such as 3D block
stacking and graph drawing were used. For this reason, compared to science education, the use of physical
problem-solving tools was relatively small.
In addition, research on elementary education in the field of science and mathematics was the most active
compared to other school levels. A possible explanation for this trend is that secondary education selects and
requires different programs for each subject area in South Korea. On the other hand, it can be inferred that
elementary education is an integrated degree, which is easily accessible in any subject. In elementary educa-
tion research, most of the teaching and learning tools were EPL and unplugged. The high percentage of EPL
and unplugged rates in the overall study was influenced by research on CT in primary education.
On the other hand, the key discussion among science and mathematics education studies related to CT
was the understanding of CT focusing on subjects. As a result of the analysis, it was possible to broadly clas-
sify the four types of CT from the perspective of understanding. First, the view of accepting the definition of
CS as it is; second, the view of science education that focuses on the subject; third, the view of mathematics
education that focuses on the subject; and fourth, the view of integrated education.
883
(pp. 875-887) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
There are characteristics that should be recognized from these points of view. First, studies of CT in CS
originally emphasized competency from a cognitive point of view, but there were many studies that simply
emphasized the use of computers. Indeed, this view cites the definition, but does not apply it and just utilizes
computers in science and mathematics classrooms. This maintained independence between variables when
measuring other key variables besides CT. On the other hand, there were clear differences in the viewpoints
of science and mathematics education. The point of approaching CT to realize the purpose of each subject
was the same. In this process, science education studies approached CT as a tool to improve the efficiency of
scientific problem solving, such as obtaining experimental data and solving problems using computers. Math-
ematics education studies compared the realm of CT with that of mathematics education, and redefined the
elements of CT that should be pursued in mathematics education. The scholars who deal with mathematics
education also emphasized the definition of the term “computational thinking” to center on thinking skills (like
an abstraction) instead of the use of computers. This trend shows the same results as the systematic review
conducted abroad (Nordby et al., 2022). Through these studies, science and mathematics education brought
CT into each subject. Lastly, the perspective of integrated education took a more macroscopic approach than
other viewpoints. Although there were various types of research, most emphasized convergence and integration
rather than just the purpose of each subject. This perspective expected a synergistic effect of the subjects. The
researchers conducted studies for various purposes, such as pioneering a new curriculum area and cultivating
complex problem-solving skills.
On the other hand, research on science and mathematics education has also included a lot of studies on
the evaluation of CT. Teaching and learning tools related to SW education in Korea are biased toward block
coding and use Scratch and Entry in more than 70% of classes (Choi, 2019). The selection of teaching and
learning tools affected the evaluation tools, and it was found that science and mathematics education also
focused on Scratch-based evaluation. However, since the block coding method requires prior knowledge, it
is impossible to evaluate it independently. Although Scratch can foster CT, it is important to remember that
Scratch itself does not have to be evaluated when evaluating CT. Similarly, the absence of a CT evaluation tool
was also pointed out as a problem in international studies (Waterman et al., 2020).
On the other hand, there were few studies in science and mathematics education that only used CT as a
variable. Both subjects realized the purpose of the subject through methods such as evaluating the variables
required in each subject with CT. In previous studies, each subject mainly set scientific and mathematical
problem-solving skills, attitudes toward topics, and creativity as major variables of interest. As can be seen from
the perspective of each subject or the analysis of teaching and learning tools, each subject mainly utilized the
form of practical experience using CT, whether it was physical computing or visualization through software.
Because of this, it was possible to observe practical characteristics as the main variables.
This study aimed to identify the trends of CT research conducted in science and mathematics education
in Korea. Currently, there have been many studies on CT and convergence education in each field, but there
have been few studies to analyze the trends of which and how much research is being conducted. Additionally,
there were no studies comparing and analyzing CT studies in each field from the perspective of convergence
education. This study would hold implications to other subjects (technology, engineering, etc.) as well as sci-
ence and mathematics in the STEM field.
Research method analysis shows that mathematics is more active than science, and largely concentrated
in program implementation research. Analysis by school level shows that elementary school students are more
studied than middle school students. The analysis of teaching and learning tools showed that there are many
block coding and physical computing tools. Through the analysis of these results, it was shown that the scientific
approach relatively focused on problem-solving application, and the mathematics focused on the definition
of CT in mathematics. In most studies, the same CT evaluation tools were used for the information subject.
Through this literature analysis, it was possible to know the differences between CT research conducted
in science and mathematics. CT research was relatively active in mathematics education. CT has been mainly
accepted as a means of problem-solving in science education. For this reason, CT studies in science education
were relatively narrow compared to CT studies in mathematics education. On the other hand, CT research on
884
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 875-887)
science education found similarities with the research purpose of convergence education. Although the degree
of emphasis was somewhat different, there was a common point of pursuing problem-solving skills through
practical project learning. In this context, the approach of convergence education in each field is positive.
Unfortunately, in both fields, concrete studies on the effect of the curriculum applied with CT on students
are lacking. In order to solve these problems, research from various perspectives is needed for the proper
practice of CT education in science and mathematics education. In particular, in order to realize science and
mathematics education, it is urgent to develop a CT evaluation tool for each field and to study the student effect.
References
Ahn, D. (2014). Understanding computational thinking in math education. Studies in Mathematical Education, 2014(2), 267-271.
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the
computer science education community?. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational
thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1, 1-25.
http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf
Chang, K. (2017). A feasibility study on integrating computational thinking into school mathematics. School Mathematics,
19(3), 553-570.
Choi, H. (2014). Development of a holistic measure of learning effects in robotics program: Connecting sociocultural
context and computational thinking. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 18(4), 541-584.
https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2014.18.4.541
Choi, S. (2019). Review of domestic literature based on system mapping for computational thinking assessment. The Journal
of Korean Association of Computer Education, 22(6), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.32431/kace.2019.22.6.003
Google. (2016). Computational thinking from a dispositions perspective. Google AI blog. https://blog.google/outreach-
initiatives/education/computational-thinking-dispositions-perspective/
Han, S., & Kim, H. (2019). A Study on the change of the perception of students’ computational thinking and scientific
attitudes in earth science classes using a block-based coding. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 12(2), 131-140.
https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2019.12.2.131
Hwang, Y., Mun, K., & Choi, Y. (2020). Analysis of students’ computational thinking competencies and their changes through
computational thinking based socioscientific issues (CT-SSI) educational programs. Journal of Education & Culture,
26(2), 175-196.
Hwang, Y., Mun, K., & Park, Y. (2016). Study of perception on programming and computational thinking and attitude
toward science learning of high school students through software inquiry activity: Focus on using scratch
and physical computing materials. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(2), 325-335.
https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2016.36.2.0325
Jeong, Y. (2018). Effect of mathematics-centered STEAM program using computational thinking (CT) on convergent thinking and
collaboration skills of elementary school math students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Korea University.
Kang, E., & Kim, J. (2020). The effects of experimental activity with computing thinking expression on elementary school
students’ scientific models. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 70(7), 595-602. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.70.595
Lee, A. (2018). Domestic research trends analysis of software education. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 24(2),
277-301. https://doi.org/10.29275/sm.2020.03.22.1.125
Lee, A. (2019). Domestic research trend analysis of computing thinking. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 19(8),
214-223. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2019.19.08.214
Lee, S. (2020). An analysis of the middle school mathematics curriculum in France: Focusing on ‘algorithms and programming’.
school mathematics, 22(1), 125-159.
Kim, B. (2014). Programming education program based on PPS to improve computational thinking ability [Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation]. Jeju National University.
Kim, D. (2019). A study of the variables affecting computational thinking of mathematics and science gifted students.
Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 29(3), 331-347.
Kim, H. (2019). The improvement of computational thinking in mathematical education [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Yensei
University.
Kim, H. (2018). The study on the improvement of computational thinking competence of statistical analysis lesson based on CT-
STEAM instruction [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Konkuk University
885
(pp. 875-887) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Kim, H., & Choi, S. (2019). The effects of instructional strategies using the process of procedural thinking on computational
thinking and creative problem-solving ability in elementary science classes. Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 329-
341. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.3.329
Kim, J. (2018). Development and application of education program about a production of teaching materials based on
computational thinking for improving science teachers’ technological pedagogical contents knowledge [Unpublished
master’s thesis]. Korea National University of Education.
Kim, M. (2019). Changes in physical concepts for highschool students and characteristics of computational thinking in the process
of scientific problem solving based on physical computing [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Ewha Womans University.
Kim, M., & Kim, S. (2020). The effect of scientific problem-solving education using physical computing on computational
thinking. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 20(8), 387-410.
Kim, Y. (2019). Improvement of academic achievement in mathematics subject using the computational thinking-based STEAM
program [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Korea University.
Kwon, H., Kim, E., Park, H., Bae, Y., Lee, D., Lee, H, D., Lee, H, N., Choi, S., & Ham, H. (2020). Research report on convergence
education status and revitalization plans in elementary and secondary education. Korea Foundation for the Advancement
of Science and Creativity.
Kwon, H., Kim, E., Park, H., Bae, Y., Lee, D., Lee, H, D., Lee, H, N., Choi, S., & Ham, H. (2021). Current status of the
implementation of convergence education in primary and secondary schools. Journal of Science Education, 45(3), 336-
348. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2021.45.3.336
Ministry of Education. (2015a). Practical arts(technology/home economic)/information course curriculum. Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2015b). Software education guidelines. Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2016). Basic plan for software education activation [Press release]. Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Science and Technology Information and Communication. (2020). Adding artificial intelligence education to software
education [Press release]. Ministry of Science and Technology Information and Communication.
Min, J., & Shim, J. (2021). A Study on Domestic Research Trends in Secondary School Computer Education. The Journal of
Korean Association of Computer Education, 24(1), 29-36.
Mo, J. (2018). Development and application of teaching-learning program for improving computational thinking of elementary
science gifted based on algodoo [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Korea National University of Education.
Moreno-Leon, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate scratch projects. Proceedings of the
workshop in primary and secondary computing education. 132-133. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818338
Nordby, S. K., Bjerke, A. H., & Mifsud, L. (2022). Computational thinking in the primary mathematics classroom: A systematic
review. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8, 27-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-022-00102-5
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Park, M. (2018). The operational definition of computational thinking practices from the view of science education and its
implication in science education [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Chosun University.
Park, Y., & Green, J. (2019). Bringing computational thinking into science education. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society,
40(4), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2019.40.4.340
Park, Y., & Green, J. (2020). The analysis of computational thinking practices in STEAM program and its implication
for creative problem solvers in the 21st century. Journal of the Korean Earth Science society, 41(4), 415-434.
https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2020.41.4.415
Park, Y., & Hwang, J. (2017). The preliminary study of developing computational thinking practice analysis
tool and its implementation. Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 10(2), 140-160.
https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2017.10.2.140
Park, J. (2021). An analysis of domestic research trend of artificial intelligence education. Journal of the Edutainment, 3(2), 51-62.
Shahroom, A., & Hussin, N. (2018). Industrial revolution 4.0 and education. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 8(9), 314-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i9/4593
Seo, Y. (2019). Development and application of coding mathematics curriculum linked to elementary and secondary schools
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Seoul National University.
Shin, S., Kim, C., Park, N., Kim, K., Sung, Y., & Jung, Y. (2016). Convergence organization strategies of the computational
thinking in informatics curriculums. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 20(6), 607-616.
https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2016.20.6.607
Shin, D., & Koh, S. (2019). A study on investigation about the meaning and the research trend of computational thinking(CT)
in mathematics education. The Mathematical Education, 58(4), 483-505. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2019.58.4.483
Sim, H., & Park, M. (2019). The effects of computational thinking-based instruction integrating of mathematics learning
and assessment on metacognition and mathematical academic achievements of elementary school students.
Education of primary school mathematics, 22(4), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2019.22.4.239
So, H. (2016). A study on computational thinking-based free semester program : Focusing on polyhedron and figurate number
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Seoul National University.
Waterman, K. P., Goldsmith, L., & Pasquale, M. (2020). Integrating computational thinking into elementary science curriculum:
An examination of activities that support students’ computational thinking in the service of disciplinary learning. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09801-y
886
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 875-887)
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communication of the ACM, 49(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yang, J., Heo, H., Lim, K., Soh, W., Park, H., Park, Y., Choi, H., Lee, J., Jeong, S., Kim, J., Kim, Y., & Seo, J. (2018). Software education
competency diagnosis and analysis research. (Report No. RR 2018-7). Korea Education and Research Information Service.
Received: May 28, 2022 Revised: July 02, 2022 Accepted: September 20, 2022
Cite as: Park, W., & Kwon, H. (2022). Research trends and issues including computational thinking in science
education and mathematics education in the Republic of Korea. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 875-887.
Woongbin Park Gajaeul Middle School, Bukgajwa-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic

of South Korea.
E-mail: wbpark@kakao.com
Hyuksoo Kwon PhD, Professor in Integrative STEM Education, Department of Technology
(Corresponding author) and Home-Economics Education, Kongju National University, 102
Human Ecology Building, Gongjudaehak-ro 56, 32588, Gongju-si,
Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of South Korea.
E-mail: hskwon@kongju.ac.kr
887
EFFECTS OF SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC
ISSUES BASED ON THINKING
MAPS APPROACH ON FUTURE
THINKING OF SECONDARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS
Abstract. This study was conducted to Nyet Moi Siew,

examine the effects of the socio-scientific Mohammad Syafiq Abd Rahman
issue (SSI) approach assisted by the future
thinking map (FTM) on five constructs of
future thinking, namely i) understanding
the current situation, ii) identifying the
trends, iii) analyzing the relevant drivers, iv)
synthesizing the possibilities or needs of the
future and v) choosing with the justification
of the desired future. The future-thinking
Introduction
test instrument was developed to measure
the level of future thinking. A quasi-
Knowledge gained through attaining future thinking in a field helps
experimental pre-test and post-test control
students connect the present with the future (21st Century Fluency Series,
group design was employed. A total of
2016). Describing future entities through a relationship built from various
255 form four students (age 16) from three
aspects of life creates a community of people who actively investigate all
randomly selected rural secondary schools
possibilities, predict future needs, and create the desired future (Hines &
in Tawau District, Malaysia were assigned
Bishop, 2012). Furthermore, Jones et al. (2012), who conducted a study on
to i) SSI-FTM (n = 85), ii) SSI (n = 85), and
New Zealand curriculum reform at every level of education, found that future
iii) conventional (CV, n = 85) teaching
thinking can be honed as early as pre-school education up to the university
and learning (TL) strategies. The results
level. However, the movement of researchers at the international level is not
of the MANCOVA analysis showed that
in line with the focus of researchers in Malaysia, who are more focused on
there was a statistically significant effect
researching the attainment of high-level thinking skills. Thus, this research
across all three groups of TL strategies. The
unravels two questions: (1) Can future thinking be nurtured among students?,
ANCOVA analysis showed that there was a
and (2) what are the effective teaching and learning (TL) strategies in cultivat-
statistically significant effect of the SSI-FTM
ing future thinking among students?.
TL strategies compared to the SSI and CV
TL strategies on the five future thinking
Research Problem
constructs. The quasi-experimental study
proves that the SSI-FTM TL strategy is
The information boom of the 21st century and the development of the
effective in nurturing future thinking
Industrial Revolution 4.0 has led the international community to focus on the
among form four students in science
implementation of a socio-scientific issue (SSI) approach to improve future
lessons.
thinking (Bolstad, 2011; Buntting & Jones, 2015; Jones et al., 2012; Paige et al.,
Keywords: future thinking, future thinking 2018). Generally, this approach is based on issues or phenomena in students’
map, secondary schools, socio-scientific real lives. It assimilates with scientific elements that require students to go
issue through a process of reasoning about values and ethics and triggering pos-
sible ideas to solutions based on issues or topics raised (Kristóf, 2006; Pinzino,
2012; Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). A socio-scientific learning framework that
Nyet Moi Siew, focuses on three main dimensions, namely i) teacher, ii) social, and iii) learn-
Mohammad Syafiq Abd Rahman
University of Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia
ing environment, is capable of training students to become future thinkers
and, at the same time, inculcate a high scientific literacy (Jimenez-Aleixandre
& Osborne, 2012).
888
ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ EFFECTS OF SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES BASED ON THINKING MAPS APPROACH ON FUTURE
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 888-901)
However, Berkowitz (1997), Kristóf (2006), Sadler (2004), and Zeidler and Keefer (2003) argued that the lack
of wise judgment in the selection of socio-scientific issues (SSI) by educators also contributes to the weakness of
attainment of future thinking among students. The use of contemporary issues that do not stimulate students to
think ahead resulted in students being unable to predict, infer, make hypotheses, and extrapolate in identifying
possibilities, needs, and selection of decisions needed in the future. According to Albe (2008), the selection of
appropriate socio-scientific issues prepares students to relate scientific knowledge to current situations and the
ability to predict things that are likely to happen in the future.
According to Driver et al. (2000), Evagorou et al. (2012), and Zeidler et al. (2009), the discussion and debate
on the SSI approach provide a framework for understanding science content while enhancing students’ future
thinking. Nevertheless, the discussion and debate for this approach require educators to be competent in its
implementation, making this approach less popular to be implemented in the classroom. Facione and Facione
(2007), Jones et al. (2012), Row et al. (2016), and Zeidler and Nichols (2009) argued that the implementation of the
SSI approach requires teachers to act as facilitators and play an important role in ensuring students use optimal
cognitive capacity through the process of linking, analyzing, synthesizing, predicting, making choices to plan,
and creating the desired future. Lack of competence and understanding of how the SSI approach work results in
students’ future thinking not being fully stimulated (Leadbeater, 2011).
The success and failure of teaching and learning are also influenced by selecting and applying appropriate
teaching aids or materials. Therefore, the selection of appropriate teaching aids is an aspect that needs to be given
due emphasis. This is also explained by Jones et al. (2012) and Zeidler (2016), who argued that the presentation of
structured data and complex relationships would engage students in the production of actions, selections with
justifications and solutions that students think are appropriate. Although the thinking map is a new element in the
field of education in Malaysia, the reference for its application and implementation is similar to the types of i-think
maps that have been absorbed into the education system through the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2010-2025
(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013). Nevertheless, the opposite phenomenon occurs when Daliyanie (2011)
states that students nowadays seem to be shaped through curriculum machines and learning in schools is only
focused on using textbooks as teaching aids.
To some extent, the lack of systematic and specific guidelines in the implementation of SSI has a negative
impact on the stimulation of students’ future thinking. The lack of guidelines has made it difficult for teachers to
guide students to visualize something outside the context of the classroom and to predict the next 20 to 30 years
compared to what students are facing now. This is also agreed by Leadbeater (2011) and Row et al. (2016), in the
implementation of the SSI approach, teachers should have a systematic guideline to facilitate them to link students’
existing knowledge with knowledge that students do not yet know. Therefore, due to these constraints, there is a
need for further research to be carried out to develop the future thinking module as well as to evaluate its impact
on the future thinking of students.
Research Aim and Research Hypotheses
The positive effects of integration of SSI with the future thinking maps (FTM) approach are less reported on
specific aspects of future thinking of form four students who take science subjects. Therefore, the overall aim of
this study was to assess the effects of SSI-FTM on nurturing the five constructs of future thinking among form four
students, such as understanding the current situations, identifying trends, analyzing relevant drivers, synthesizing
future possibilities or needs and choosing with justification the desired future. Accordingly, this study was focused
on testing the hypothesis of the ‘integration approach’ versus the ‘non-integration approach’. The study aimed to
investigate the extent to which SSI-FTM and SSI nurture students’ future thinking. In addition, this study also ex-
plores the TL strategies of SSI-FTM and SSI compared to conventional (CV) TL strategy. As such, three TL strategies
were used in this study: SSI-FTM, SSI and CV. Thus, the hypotheses of this study are as follows:
Students who are taught using the SSI-FTM TL strategy are significantly performed better than students
who are taught using the SSI TL strategy, next students who are taught using the SSI TL strategy are significantly
performed better than students who are taught using the CV TL strategy for the constructs of understanding the
current situation, identifying the trends, analyzing relevant drivers, synthesizing possibilities or future needs, and
selecting with justification the desired future.
889
(pp. 888-901) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Literature Review
Theoretical Framework of SSI-FTM TL strategy
The SSI-FTM TL strategy is developed based on two main learning theories, namely Piaget’s Theory of Cogni-
tive Constructivism (Piaget, 1952) and Vygotsky’s Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978).), and two models of i)
Socio-scientific Learning (Sadler et al., 2017), ii) Future Thinking (Jones et al., 2012) and iii) Future Thinking Map
(Glenn, 1972). The combination of these theories, models, and teaching aids in the context of this study is a solid
foundation and guide to ensure SSI-FTM TL strategy is developed according to the level and development of
children, as well as a guide and scaffolding in this study. Overall, the theoretical framework used in this study is
summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 11
Figure
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical of the of
Framework Study
the Study
Theory of Constructivism
Cognitive Constructivism (Piaget, 1952), Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978)
Socio-Scientific Approach Model

(Sadler et al., 2017) Future Thinking Model
(Jones et al., 2012)
Future thinking Map
(Jerome Glenn, 1972)
Lee dan Abd-Ei-Khalick (2006) argued that there are four important features of constructivism theory that have
implications for SSI, namely i) the mind develops, changes and adapts to issues that occur when interacting with
existing schemata and the environment, ii) understanding is gained through the interaction of socio-scientific issues,
iii) information seeking to create solutions to socio-scientific issues stimulates students’ cognitive development, iv)
knowledge is built through social collaboration and assessment of the diversity of views. The characteristics and
functions of FTM as a thinking tool are appropriate in translating students’ thinking systematically and by future-
thinking patterns (Bengston, 2015; Glenn, 1972; Jones et al., 2012).
The socio-scientific approach model (Sadler et al., 2017) is one of the main conceptual models in develop-
ing the SSI-FTM TL module. The model consists of two sections, namely i) the sequence of learning that must be
present in the implementation of SSI, and ii) the various learning objectives that can be achieved through the
implementation of SSI (Figure 2). The first section consists of three main phases, namely i) issues of focus, ii) student
involvement in scientific knowledge, science practice and socio-scientific reasoning practice, and iii) synthesis
and practice of idea. The SSI sequence is divided into three main phases starting with the issues of focus. This is
to ensure that students can understand how the ideas and principles of science are related to social issues and
the problems that arise from the issues used. According to Abd Rahim (2017), SSI learning should emphasize the
involvement of students in the practice of science content to assist in creating a productive and substantive sci-
ence learning experience related to social issues. The second phase provides a platform for teachers to encourage
students to actively find the intersection between social issues, scientific knowledge, and scientific practice to make
issues more complex, interesting, and difficult to solve, known as socio-scientific reasoning (Sadler et al., 2017).
The final phase in SSI learning demands that the development of the SSI TL module should encourage students
to synthesize ideas and practices.
890
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 888-901)
Figure 2
Figure 2Socio-scientific Approach Model (Sadler et al. 2017)
Socio-scientific Approach Model (Sadler et al. 2017)
Issues of focus Phase I

Social Relationships
 Science Practice of Learning

Phase II
Knowledge Socio Scientific Objectives
 Science Practice Reasoning
Synthesis of Ideas and Practices Phase III
The details of Figure 3, in turn, display the future thinking model consisting of five thinking constructs founded
by Jones et al. (2012), that is, i) understand the current situation, ii) identify the trends, iii) analyze relevant drivers,
iv) synthesize future possibilities and needs, and v) selection with the justification the desired future. The construct
of understanding the current situation is an attempt to explore events holistically, channel scientific knowledge
and connect the context with individual and social aspects (Hodson, 2003). The trend identification construct
refers to the pattern change in the event that can be observed in the present or seen in the future and is due to
a change in the driving force (Rialland & Wold, 2009). The construct of analyzing relevant drivers is the analysis of
the factors that cause the change, influence, or impact something (Saritas & Smith, 2011). The fourth construct in
future thinking refers to the effort to make the future more realistic in decision-making to produce new thoughts
and decisions, learning how to think by seizing all the opportunities available to be explored (Jones et al., 2012).
The final construct in future thinking is the hopes, aspirations and dreams desired for the future through the ex-
ploration of the available opportunities (Hicks, 2012).
Figure 3
Future3 Thinking Model (Jones et al., 2012)
Figure
Future Thinking Model (Jones et al., 2012)
Understanding the Current Situation What is happening now and why?

The Process of Nurturing Future
Are the changes that are happening now different

Identifying Trend from what happened in the past and why? Is the
change justified? What are the benefits? What are
the shortcomings?
Analysing Relevant Drivers Are some changes (trends) relevant? What is the
Thinking
main reason for this change?
Synthesising Future Possibilities and Develop scenarios of future needs and

Needs possibilities. Are current trends and drives
continuing? How do trends and drives impact the
future? What can change that?
Selection with Justification of the
needs of Desired Future What do you want to happen in the future and
why?
891
(pp. 888-901) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
While the future thinking map (FTM) (Figure 4) adapted from Glenn (1972) was used as a visualization and
thinking tool to guide students in the discussion of activities in the developed module. The first prerequisite in
using FTM is the map’s center as the group discussion’s initial focus. Details about the center of the FTM should
be given to students who do not have in-depth knowledge of a change. Most researchers present an issue as
central to FTM and can be shown in the form of audiovisuals, excerpts, or newspaper clippings. While the second
prerequisite, according to Surowiecki (2004) and Page (2007), is that members in the group should be composed
of various cultures, ethnicities, knowledge, gender and age to enhance a more effective effect in the discussion.
According to Schreier (2005), there are five levels in the FTM. The first level is a step to prepare students to list the
characteristics based on the issues in the center of FTM and then identify the differences between the past and
the present. The second level discusses more specifically the significant changes or trends that can be observed
in the current scenario. According to Schreier (2005) and Jones et al. (2012), students at the third level are looking
for the drivers that cause change. At the fourth level, students are required to use high-level thinking to predict
and synthesize any possibilities and needs in the future based on trends and drivers that have been identified. At
this level, students should be able to develop scenarios for synthesizing future possibilities and needs. Finally, the
fifth level requires students to analyze the future effects, opportunities and potential and then justify the choices
made per future needs.
Figure 4
Future Thinking Map adapted from Glenn (1972)
Conceptual Framework
Based on the theory, model and literature review, the researcher presents a conceptual framework of the study
that focuses on SSI-FTM to determine its effects on future thinking for the physical theme of Form Four science. The
conceptual framework of the study is an illustration of the effects of independent variable on dependent variable.
Overall, the framework of the study is summarized in Figure 5.
892
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 888-901)
Figure 5
Figure 5Conceptual Framework of the Study
Conceptual Framework of the Study
Future Thinking
Teaching and Learning i. Understanding the current situation [CS]
Strategies ii. Identifying key trends [TR]
iii. Analysing relevant drivers [DR]
i) SSI-FTM iv. Synthesising future possibilities and needs
ii) SSI [PN]
iii) CV v. Selection with justification of the desired
future [JD]
Research Design
This study used a quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test control group design to examine the effects of
three different teaching and learning (TL) strategies on future thinking. The independent variables were three
TL strategies: SSI-FTM, SSI (placebo group) and conventional (control group). Dependent variables are based on
students’ attainment of future thinking for five future thinking constructs, namely i) understanding the current
situation, ii) identifying trends, iii) analyzing relevant drivers, iv) synthesizing future possibilities or needs and v)
selection with justification of the desired future.
Sample
The study population consisted of 842 form four students of rural secondary schools in the Tawau district
(Tawau District Education Office, 2019). A total of three rural category schools fully funded by the Ministry of Edu-
cation Malaysia were selected based on the acquisition of equivalent pre-future thinking test scores. The three
schools in the same category also aimed to reduce the demographic disturbance factor of the study sample in the
study findings. A total of 255 students were involved, with 85 students selected from each school with the consent
of the Principal and the Tawau District Education Office. The study sample consisted of 96 males (37.6%) and 159
females (62.4%) aged 16 years. Each selected school was divided into three randomly selected classes to qualify
as a whole group: the SSI-FTM, SSI, and CV. All 255 students involved in this study were given the intervention in
the same week but with different teaching strategies for nine weeks between Mac - August 2019.
.
Instrument
This study uses a Future-Thinking Test (FTT) instrument developed by the researcher (Siew & Abdul Rahman,
2019) and was adapted from the study of Jones et al. (2012). FTT consists of 5 items and 6 sub-items for the theme
of Physical Science. The validity and reliability analysis of FTT is based on the Rasch Measurement Model, which
was conducted on 66 study samples (36 females and 30 males aged 16 years) from two rural secondary schools in
Tawau District, Sabah, Malaysia. Overall, FTT has good reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha (KR-20) value of 0.69. The
results also show that FTT has excellent item reliability and moderately high values of 0.97 and 5.92. FTT also has
sufficient reliability and individual separation values o
f 0.67 and 1.41. The unidimensionality analysis of FTT found
that the value of Raw variance explained by measures 51.7% and Unexplained variance in 1st contrast 10.4% did
not exceed the control limit set by the Rasch Measurement Model, and the Eigen value located at Unexplained
variance in 1st contrast was 2.6 not more than 5 indicating FTT is unidimensional and there is no second dimen-
sion in measuring future thinking.
893
(pp. 888-901) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Teaching and Learning (TL) Strategies
SSI-FTM
The learning module utilized in the SSI-FTM TL strategy was developed by the researchers (Abdul Rahman &
Siew, 2019). The SSI-FTM learning module consisted of six learning activities that studied Physical Science topics
in the Form Four Science Curriculum. A socio-scientific issue without rigid answers were first presented to allow
students to reflect on the social and scientific practice. For example, ‘In your opinion, should the production and
use of plastic material be stopped to protect our environment?’. Students then carried out the learning activities
using the FTM. The scenario posed in the learning activities entailed the changes which occurred in the students’
daily lives. One sample of the learning activities related to the scenario was:
“Classrooms have changed a lot over the last hundred years. Changes in classroom are not specific to its layout but the
change in infrastructure as well. Are these changes desirable? How will the classroom of the future look like?
Students were required to first understand the given current scenario, list out its features. and give reasons
why the features were such as stated in the scenario. Students list out the differences between the classroom in
the past and today based on the scenario given. Students were also instructed to give major changes (trends) that
could be observed in the classroom today and give the underlying causes (drivers) for those changes. Next, stu-
dents were to answer advantages and disadvantages of these drivers respectively. Students were required to give
reasons as to whether these trends and factors would continue to affect a classroom in the future. Students were
also required to give the possibilities of a future classroom in line with the development of factors and changes
in the classroom today. Students were then asked to produce and label the sketches of a future classroom model
if they were given the opportunity to build a classroom for community use in the next 70 years. Students then
named their future classrooms and stated the materials used while providing justifications for the selected features
for their future classrooms.
The SSI-FTM activities were conducted in groups of four to five students under the facilitation of their teach-
ers. Each learning activity would take about 90 minutes to complete. The learning activities were carried out in five
levels via future thinking maps (FTM) drawn on a piece of mahjong paper. The construction of FTM involves two
steps on a piece of mahjong paper namely a) making the fold, and b) drawing a line on the fold. The empty space
between the folds forms a level that allows students to write their ideas on it.
With these FTM, all the group members had an equal opportunity to expand their ideas using the same
mahjong paper. In order to establish a meaningful discussion, students were encouraged to share their thoughts
and views with one another, and entertained viewpoints from peers and facilitators. With the help of more capable
peers, teachers and FTM, students developed their five constructs of future thinking in the given learning tasks.
SSI
The students taught in the SSI group undertook similar learning tasks as their counterparts in the SSI-FTM
group in groups of 4-5 people but were not exposed to the utilization of future thinking maps. Students could
use graphic organizers such as mind-maps to which they had been exposed in previous science lessons to carry
out the learning activities. At the end of the learning sessions, the groups shared their results with the class, while
other groups made their comments. From the input given by their peers and teacher, the groups made improve-
ments to their future models.
CV
In the CV TL strategy, students completed the learning tasks in a conventional way without using SSI-FTM
learning modules and FTM. Students in their own groups used textbooks as the main reference in finding answers
to the learning activities. However, the answers to each activity were still regulated and given by the teacher. As
the students encountered problems during the learning activities, they approached their teachers for assistance.
894
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 888-901)
At the end of the intervention, a post-test was administered on all three groups of TL strategies and mean
scores were calculated as an indicator of the change of their future thinking.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for means (M), standard deviations (SD) and mean difference (MD). The MD
measures the absolute difference between the mean value in two different groups. The equivalence of the research
groups was examined using MANOVA through the scores obtained from pre-test. In this study, the Pre-CS, Pre-TR,
Pre-DR, Pre-PN, Pre-JD served as covariates to adjust for possible pre-existing differences between the TL groups.
Preliminary Analysis
Preliminary analysis was conducted to check whether the prerequisite assumptions of MANOVA/MANCOVA
were met. Thus, the assumptions to MANOVA/MANCOVA in the statistical analysis were examined for: (a) multivariate
normal distribution, (b) equality of group population covariance matrices, (c) linear relationship between covariates
and dependent variables, (d) absent of multicollinearity, and (e) homogeneity of dependent variable variance. The
assumptions that were used for the MANCOVA/MANOVA and inferential statistics analyses were tested using SPSS
for Windows (Version 24). Alpha value (p) was set at 0.05 level of significance.
Pre-Experimental Research
The purpose of pre-experimental research was to test the assumption that the respondents across the three
TL groups were equivalent in their future thinking of Pre-CS, Pre-TR, Pre-DR, Pre-PN, Pre-JD. One-way multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to examine if there were statistically significant differences among
the students’ mean score on Pre-CS, Pre-TR, Pre-DR, Pre-PN, Pre-JD across the three TL groups. If the overall mul-
tivariate test (MANOVA) was not significant, univariate F test (ANOVA) was examined to further examine if there
were significant statistical differences between the respondents across the three TL groups in each of the pre-test.
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted (with pre-tests as the covariates) to investigate
the main effects of the three different TL strategies on respondents’ Post-CS, Post-TR, Post-DR, Post-PN, and Post-
JD, while controlling the five covariates. By employing the MANCOVA, the extraneous differences among groups
can be controlled after removal of the effects of covariates from the dependent variables (Hair et al., 2010). If the
overall multivariate test (MANCOVA) was significant, univariate F test (ANCOVA) was carried out on post-test mean
scores with pre-test mean scores as covariates to further examine if there was a significant statistical main effect
of TL groups on each of the post-tests.
The effect size index (f) and eta square (η²) were calculated. According to Cohen’s characterization, 0.2 ≤ f <
0.5 is deemed as a small effect size, 0.5 ≤ f < 0.8, a medium effect size, and f ≥ 0.8 as the large effect size. For inter-
preting η², 0.010≤ η² ≤ 0.039 = small, 0.039 < η² ≤ 0.11 = medium, and 0.11 < η² ≤ 0.20 = large effect size (Cohen,
1988, p. 284-288).
Research Results
Preliminary Analysis
Preliminary analysis indicated adequate conformity to all univariate and multivariate assumptions of MANOVA/
MANCOVA for: (a) multivariate normal distribution, (b) equality of group population covariance matrices, (c) linear
relationship between covariates and dependent variables, (d) absence of multicollinearity, and (e) homogeneity
of dependent variable variance.
Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics of students’ pre-test and post-test scores on their five constructs of future thinking
are summarized in Table 1.
895
(pp. 888-901) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Variables
Pre-test Post-test
Dependent variables TL Group N
M SD M SD
SSI-FTM 85 1.95 .66 2.91 .27
Understanding the current situation SSI 85 1.82 .60 2.84 .24

[CS] CV 85 1.90 .69 1.73 .76
Total/Average 255 1.89 .65 2.49 .73
SSI-FTM 85 2.15 .78 2.83 .52
SSI 85 2.19 .74 2.34 .25
Identifying key trends [TR]
CV 85 2.22 .68 1.11 .60
Total/Average 255 2.18 .73 2.09 .87
SSI-FTM 85 2.06 .71 2.78 .29
SSI 85 2.12 .68 2.40 .49
Analyzing relevant drivers [DR]
CV 85 2.11 .71 0.88 .47
Total/Average 255 2.10 .70 2.02 .93
SSI-FTM 85 .73 .49 2.69 .49
Synthesizing future possibilities and SSI 85 .71 .56 2.18 .61

needs [PN] CV 85 .70 .508 0.89 .70
Total/Average 255 .71 .52 1.92 .97
SSI-FTM 85 1.41 .33 2.90 .41
Selection with justification the desired SSI 85 1.42 .33 1.89 .31
future [JD] CV 85 1.46 .36 1.09 .70
Total/Average 255 1.43 .34 1.96 .89
The Pre-experimental Research Results
The results of MANOVA and ANOVA indicated that there were no significant statistical differences across the
three groups in Pre-CS, Pre-TR, Pre-DR, Pre-PN, and Pre-JD (Table 2).
Table 2
Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) Results and Followed-up ANOVA Results on Pre-test Mean Scores
MANOVA effect and dependent variables Multivariat F Univariat F
Pillai’s Trace df = 2, 252

df = 10, 498
F=.384, P=.954
Pre-CS F=.77, P=.46
Pre-TR F=.19, P=.82

Pre-DR F=.23, P=.79
Pre-PN F=.07, P=.92
Pre-JD F=.49, P=.61
896
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 888-901)
The Experimental Research Results
The results of MANCOVA analysis with pre-test as covariate showed that there is a significant effect of TL
strategy [Pilai Trace = .556, F (2, 247) = 60.32, p < .05] on five constructs of future thinking. Further the results of
ANCOVA analysis showed that TL strategies had a major effect on the construct of CS [F (2, 251) = 186.58, p < .05,
η² = .598], TR [F (2, 251) = 287.36, p < .05, η² = .69], DR [F (2, 251) = 469.29, p <.05, η² = .79], PN [F (2, 251) = 196.131,
p <.05, η² = .61] and JD [F (2, 251) = 279.12, p < .05, η² = .69].
In addition, Post Hoc analysis (Table 3) showed the existence of a large effect size in comparisons between
SSI-FTM and CV TL strategies in CS (2.33), TR (3.05), DR (4.9), PN (2.96), and JD (3.17). While the comparison between
SSI-FTM and SSI also displays a large effect size magnitude for constructs of CS (0.87), TR (1.19), DR (0.92), PN (0.93),
and JD (2.78). In addition, Table 3 also displays large effect sizes in comparisons between the SSI TL strategy and
the CV TL group for the constructs of CS (1.96), TR (2.68), and DR (3.17), PN (1.96), JD (1.49). Overall, the study find-
ings are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Summary of Post Hoc Pairwise Comparison
Group Comparison MD p f Interpretation
Understanding the Current Situation (CS)

SSI-FTM vs SSI 0.15 .05 0.87 Big
SSI-FTM vs CV 1.25 .05 2.33 Big
SSI vs CV 1.10 .05 1.96 Big
Identifying Trends (TR)
SSI vs CV 1.23 .05 2.68 Big
Analyzing Relevant Drivers (DR)
SSI vs CV 1.52 .05 3.17 Big
Synthesizing Future Possibilities or Needs (PN)
SSI vs CV 1.28 .05 1.96 Big
Choosing with Justification the Desired Future (JD)
SSI vs CV 0.81 .05 1.49 Big
Discussion
Overall, the results of this study indicate that students taught through the SSI-FTM TL strategy are significantly
better than students taught through the SSI TL strategy in five constructs of future thinking, namely i) Understanding
the current situation, ii) Identifying the trends, iii) Analyzing relevant drivers, iv) Synthesizing future possibilities or
needs, and v) Selecting with justification the desired future. Similarly, it was found that students taught through the
SSI TL strategy also performed better than those taught through the CV TL strategy in the five constructs of future
thinking. The significant effect size in comparing i) SSI-FTM and CV TL strategies and ii) SSI-FTM and SSI TL strate-
gies, respectively, showed that the SSI-FTM TL strategy was the most effective of the three strategies in promoting
897
(pp. 888-901) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
the five future thinking constructs. In addition, students taught through the SSI strategy outperformed students
taught through the CV TL strategy with a large effect measure.
The SSI-FTM TL strategy based on socio-scientific issues and assisted by FTM provided a meaningful learning
experience for students to understand a situation in their environment. FTM provided an opportunity for students
to communicate actively in groups in the generation of ideas which needed to be written in the space provided in
the first level of FTM. The FTM stimulated students to list the characteristics and reasons based on the socio-scientific
issues in the middle of the FTM. This helped the students to use their cognitive capacity optimally while increasing
their understanding of the current situation compared to their peers in the SSI and CV groups. Shabiralyani et al.
(2015) and Raiyn (2016) also agreed that using visual materials could stimulate thinking, be a catalyst for discus-
sion, and enhance the quality of learning. Without FTM in the SSI and CV TL strategy reduces the opportunity for
students to participate in discussions and provide explanations on socio-scientific issues, thus reducing their ability
to understand the current situation. This is also expressed by Yacoubian and Khisfe (2018), who agreed that SSI is
an effective method of teaching science at school. However, suppose students are not engaged in teaching and
learning aids; in that case, it will cause them not to be involved in exploring profound socio-scientific issues, thus
inhibiting their understanding of the current situation.
The findings of this study also showed that ability of identifying trends among SSI-FTM students is better
than their peers learned in the SSI and CV TL strategy. Teaching and learning through the SSI-FTM strategy that
focuses on activities in listing the differences between past and present phenomena in the second level of FTM
can strengthen students’ ability to compare the differences and further identify the trends. In addition, the levels
of FTM also helped students to collaborate in organizing ideas from discussions and exchanging ideas between
group members in a more systematic way. The findings also support the evidence from the study by Siew and
Mapeala (2016) which revealed that thinking maps is an effective tool in improving the ability to organize ideas
systematically.
The third level of FTM helped students to develop the skills of analyzing drivers through two stages of learn-
ing, namely i) group discussion in analyzing drivers based on the trends identified in the second level and ii) critical
argumentation in considering the advantages and disadvantages of drivers from the aspects of science concepts,
society, economy, technology, and materials. These two stages of learning enhance students’ ability to analyze the
drivers that cause the change and advantages and disadvantages of these drivers. This finding is supported by
Inayatullah (2014), who found that the ability to build relationships between levels helps develop analytical skills
among future thinkers.
The fourth level of FTM requires students to explore various possibilities or future needs based on the trends
and drivers identified in the second and third levels of FTM. According to Petrakis and Konstantakopoulou (2015),
identifying patterns and trends encourages strategic thinking in predicting future possibilities for a desirable and
feasible future. Through this process, students could improve their ability to analyze, synthesize, and choose ap-
propriate strategies for their desired future needs. This is also supported by Pisapia et al. (2005) that the skill of
synthesizing does not only focus on components and relationships, but it involves an understanding of directions
and patterns that will open space for appropriate action.
SSI in this study which focused on scientific arguments from various disciplines, was not enough for students
to develop the skills of synthesizing future possibilities or needs compared to the SSI-FTM group. According to
Kreibich et al. (2011), approaches that do not apply appropriate thinking tools will cause difficulties in building
students’ ability to synthesize possibilities or needs in the future. The findings of this study are also in line with the
findings of studies conducted by Boujaoude (2000) and Deal (2002). They found that the lack of use of a thinking
map will result in students being unable to relate relationships and present complex relationships visually while
creating unsystematic exploration.
Through the activity of connecting and extracting ideas from the entire levels of the FTM, students increased
their understanding of possible implications and chose the desired future with justification. This is because students
can use the ideas displayed on the levels in the FTM to build and plan the future for specific reasons. The entire
FTM allows students to comprehensively understand the possible implications. This can be used as a preparation
and alternative to face or avoid it by giving more rational justifications. The use of socio-scientific issues such as
problems in society, health, environmental pollution and so on strengthened the ability of students to choose the
desired future in solving the existing problems.
The SSI TL strategy used in this study involved brainstorming activities and the generation of ideas to im-
prove students’ ability to understand the current situation well and then develop other future thinking constructs
898
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 888-901)
compared to the CV TL strategy. However, the SSI TL strategy that does not use FTM in every learning activity has
resulted in students being less able to relate to relationships and present complex relationships visually, creat-
ing unsystematic exploration. This impact is also highlighted by Lederman and Lederman (2014) and Yacoubian
and Khisfe (2018), who argued that students could not use cognitive capacity optimally for thinking critically and
analytically in understanding, identifying, analyzing, and synthesizing socio-scientific issues if students are not
exposed to teaching aids.
The CV TL strategy applied a single teaching mode where the teaching process emphasizes the concept of
finding answers, but less space was created for students to discuss and think. Students became passive learners
and put the teacher at the center of learning. This is supported by Slavin (2019), who stated that conventional
learning is ineffective in producing active learning and less stimulating students in discussions in the classroom.
Prince (2004) added that the regulation of answers that still depends on the teacher limits the ability of students
to develop ideas. This was expressed by Zhou (2018), who stated that CV learning that emphasizes one-way in-
teraction between teachers and students causes students not to participate actively even though students work
in small groups. This finding supports the view of Alexander et al. (2011) and Pescatore (2007) in that students’
thinking ability in learning cannot occur randomly. It requires structured exposure for students to construct and
stimulate thinking in finding existing patterns based on ongoing phenomena. For these reasons, students taught
in the CV TL strategy did not perform comparably to those taught using the SSI-FTM and the SSI TL strategies in
the five constructs of future thinking.
Overall, this study has shown the positive effects of the SSI-FTM TL strategy in promoting the five constructs
of future thinking, namely i) understanding the current situation, ii) identifying the trends, iii) analyzing relevant
drivers, iv) synthesizing future possibilities or needs and v) choosing with justification the desired future. This clearly
shows that integrating the SSI-FTM TL strategy that integrates socio-scientific issues and future thinking maps in
the science classroom is capable of training students to become future thinkers who are able to identify possibili-
ties, needs, and selection of decisions needed in the future. In addition, the inclusion of socio-scientific elements
and socio-scientific issues in the teaching and learning of science can increase students’ awareness of the need to
consider all aspects of life and the impact they will have on the future.
This study only involves topics for physical science themes in the form four Science syllabus, so it is hoped that
the scope of topic selection is expanded to several other topics or subjects, using a mixed method in data collec-
tion, and involving a larger number of samples to reconfirm the effects of SSI-FTM TL strategy on future thinking.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia under Grant No. SDN0005-2019.
References
21st Century Fluency Series. (2022, July 07). Education for the 21st century: Here, now and into the future. Hamilton-Wentworth
District School Board.
https://kipdf.com/download/education-for-the-21st-century-here-now-and-into-the-future_5acb8f517f8b9ab5578b4698.
html?reader=1
Abd Rahim, R. (2017). Kesan pembelajaran sains berasaskan isu sosio-saintifik dengan nilai Islam ke atas sikap, nilai murni & kemahiran
berfikir kritis pelajar sekolah menengah Tingkatan Empat [The effect of learning Science based on socio-scientific issues with
Islamic values on attitudes, values & critical thinking skills of form four secondary school students]. [Unpublished doctoral
thesis]. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Abdul Rahman, M. S., & Siew, N. M. (2019). Kesahan dan kebolehpercayaan modul pengintergrasian pendekatan sosio-saintifik
dan peta pemikiran roda masa hadapan bagi pelajar Tingkatan empat [Validity and reliability of the socio-scientific
approach and the future thinking wheel integration module for form four students]. Jurnal Penyelidikan Pendidikan [Journal
of Educational Research], 20, 193-208.
899
(pp. 888-901) ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’
argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90.
Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D. L., Fox, E., Grossnickle, E. M., Loughlin, S. M., Maggioni, L., Parkinson, M. M., & Winters, F. I. (2011).
Higher order thinking and knowledge: Domain-general and domain-specific trends and future directions. In G. Schraw &
D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 47–88). IAP Information Age Publishing.
Bengston, D. N. (2015). The futures wheel: A method for exploring the implications of social– ecological change. Society & Natural
Resources, 29(3), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054980
Berkowitz, M. W. (1997). The complete moral person: Anatomy and formation. In J. M. DuBois (Eds.), Moral issues in psychology:
Personalist contributions to selected problems (pp. 11-42). University Press of America.
Bolstad, R. (May 2011). Taking a “future focus” in education - What does it mean? https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/taking-
future-focus-in-education.pdf
Boujaoude, S. B. (2000). What might happen if . . .?: Students use the futures wheel to analyze science-related social issues.
Science Teacher, 67(4), 45-47.
Buntting, C. M., & Jones, A. (2015). Futures thinking in science education. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp.
434-436). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2150-0
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Daliyanie, M. S. (2011). Pelaksanaan pembelajaran berasaskan masalah (PBM) dalam Matematik di peringkat sekolah
menengah.[Implementation of problem-based learning (PBL) in Mathematics at the secondary school level].
[Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Deal, W.F., (2002). Making the connection: Technological literacy and technological assessment. Technologiy Teacher, 61(7), 16–18.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education,
84(3), 287–312.
Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ A study exploring students’
justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09
500693.2011.619211
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2007). Talking critical thinking. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(2), 38–45.
Glenn, J. C. (1972). Futurizing teaching vs. futures courses. Social Science Record, 9(3), 26–29.
Hair, F. J., Anderson, E., Tatham, L. & Black, C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hicks, D. (2012). Sustainable schools, sustainable futures: A resource for teachers. World Wide Fund for Nature.
Hines, A., & Bishop, P. C. (2013). Framework foresight: Exploring futures the Houston way. Futures, 51, 31–49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.05.002
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6),
645-670.
Inayatullah, S. (2014). Causal layered analysis defined. Futurist, 48(1), 26.
Jimenex-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2001). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high
school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6%3C757::AID-
SCE5%3E3.0.CO;2-F
Jones, A., Buntting, C., Hipkins, R., McKim, A., Conner, L., & Saunders, K. (2012). Developing students’ futures thinking in science
education. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9214-9
Kreibich, R., Oertel, B., & Evers-Wolk, M. (2011). Futures studies and future-oriented technology analysis principles, methodology
and research questions. HIIG Discussion Paper Series No. 2012-05, SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2094215
Kristóf, T. (2006). Is it possible to make scientific forecasts in social sciences? Futures, 38(5), 561–574.
Leadbeater, C. (2011). Rethinking innovation in education: Opening up the debate. Centre for Strategic Innovation.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 600-620). Routledge.
Lee, H., & Abd-Ei-Khalick, F. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the
science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 97-117.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University
Press.
Paige, K., Lloyd, D., Caldwell, D., Comber, B., O’Keeffe, L., Osborne, S. Roetman, P. (2018). Futures in primary science education –
connecting students to place and ecojustice. Visions for Sustainability, 9, 49-59. https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/2773
Pescatore, C. (2007). Current events as empowering literacy: For English and Social Studies teachers. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 51(4), 326–339.
Petrakis, P. E., & Konstantakopoulou, D. P. (2015). Futuring and visioning as strategic instruments for predicting the future. In:
Uncertainty in entrepreneurial decision making. Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth.
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137460790_9
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
Pinzino, D. W. (2012). Socioscientific issues: A path towards advanced scientific literacy and improved conceptual understanding of
socially controversial scientific theories (Unpublished Education Specialist thesis). University of South Florida. https://core.
ac.uk/download/pdf/154469935.pdf
Pisapia, J, Reyes-Guerra, D., & Coukos-Semmel, E. (2005). Developing the leader’s strategic mindset: Establishing the measure.
Leadership Review, 5, 41–68.
900
ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ (pp. 888-901)
Raiyn, J. (2016). The role of visual learning in improving students’ high-order thinking skills. Journal of Education and Practice,
7(24), 115–121. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1112894.pdf
Rialland, A., & Wold, K. E. (2009). Future studies, foresight and scenarios as basis for better strategic decisions. https://pbsm.um.ac.
ir/images/23/stories/pdfword/TarhayeMotaleati/rahbordi2/Future_Studies_Foresight_and_Scenarios.pdf
Row, B. N., Subramaniam, S., & Renuka, V. (2016). When students say “I just could’ think”: Challenges in teaching skilful thinking.
Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 59–69.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://
doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International
Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 75.
Saritas, O., Smith, J. (2011). The big picture-trend, drivers, wild cards, discontinuities, and weak signals. Futures, 43(3), 292-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.11.007
Schreier, J. (2005). Evaluating a simulation with a strategic exploration tool. Business, 32, 389–403.
Shabiralyani, G., Hasan, K. S., Hamad, N. & Iqbal, N. (2015). Impact of visual aids in enhancing the learning process case research:
District Dera Ghazi Khan. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), 226–234. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079541.pdf
Siew, N. M., & Mapeala, R. (2016). The effects of problem-based learning with thinking maps on fifth graders’ science critical
thinking. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15 (5), 602–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.602
Siew, N. M., & Abdul Rahman. (2019). Assessing the validity and reliability of the future thinking test using Rasch measurement
model. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 14(4), 139–149. http://www.ijese.net/makale/2110.html
Slavin, R. E. (2019). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Pearson.
Surowiecki, J. (2006). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business,
economies, societies, and nations. Abacus.
Tawau District Education Office. (2019). Primary school student statistics. Malaysian Ministry of Education.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Yacoubian, H. A., & Khishfe, R. (2018). Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and socioscientific issues: A dialogue
between two researchers. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2
018.1449986
Zeidler, D. L. (2016.) STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response.
Culture Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In:
Zeidler, D.L. (eds), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Science
& Technology Education Library, vol 19. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4996-X_2
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
Zhou, Z. (2018). A study on the cultivation of critical thinking ability of English majors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
8(3), 349. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0803.11
Cite as: Siew, N. M., & Abdul Rahman, M. S. (2022). Effects of socio-scientific issues based on thinking maps approach on future
thinking of secondary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 888-901. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.888
Nyet Moi Siew PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University
(Corresponding author) of Malaysia Sabah, 88400, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
E-mail: sopiah@ums.edu.my
Mohammad Syafiq Abd PhD, Senior Teacher, Convent Father Barre Primary School, Sungai Petani,
Rahman Kedah, Malaysia.
E-mail: platinum_titanium@yahoo.com.my
901
INFORMATION
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Journal of Baltic Science Education (JBSE) publishes original scientific research articles in the field of Natural Science Education and
related areas for all educational levels in the Baltic and other countries. It is possible to publish special (thematic) issues of JBSE. The
papers should be submitted and will be published in English. JBSE will promote to establish contacts between researchers and practical
educators both in the Baltic countries and countries around.
The authors of the manuscripts are responsible for the scientific content and novelty of the research materials. Articles, published
before in other international journals or papers’ collections will not be accepted for publication in JBSE.
As a publication that represents a variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, the JBSE invites manuscripts on
a wide range of topics, especially in the following areas:
• Didactics of natural sciences. • Philosophical, political, economical and social aspects
• Theory and practice in natural science teacher of natural science education.
education. • The supplementary natural science education.
• Integrated natural science education. • ICT in natural science education.
• Natural science and technological literacy. • The standardisation of natural science education etc.
• General and professional natural science education.
MANUSCRIPTS GUIDELINES
The structure of the research paper presented to the Journal of Baltic Science Education should be as follows: abstract - short report of the
investigation; introduction inc. aim and subject of the research; research methodologies and methods; results of the research incl. discussion;
conclusions; list of references in APA style (7th Ed.).
The papers should be submitted in English. If English is a second language for the author, please consider having the manuscript
proof read and edited before submitting.
The text must be elaborated in Word for Windows, using 12 point Times New Roman letters. An article should not exceed 7-10 A4 pages,
included figures, tables and bibliography. Publishing of longer articles should be negotiated separately. Texts margins: top and bottom 20mm,
left - 25mm, right - 20mm. The title: capital letters, 14pt, bold; space between the title and the author’s name is one line interval. Author’s name
and surname: small letters, 12pt, bold. Under the name, institution: 11 pt, italics; space between the title and the text: 1 line interval. Abstract
– about 100-150 words - precedes the text. The text: 12pt Single or Auto spacing, in one column. Key words: no more than five words. The
language must be clear and accurate. The authors have to present the results, propositions and conclusions in a form that can suit scientists
from different countries.
Titles of the tables and figures: 11 pt, small letters. Space between figures or tables and the text: 1 line interval. Introduction, titles of
chapters and subchapters: 12pt, bold, small letters. Numbers: Arabic, subchapters numbered by two figures (1.1, 1.2, etc.). Figures, tables and
captions should be inserted within the manuscript at their appropriate locations. Diagrams and graphs should be provided as finished black
and white line artwork or electronic images. When there are a number of illustrations, the author should endeavour to reduce the amount of
text to accommodate the illustrations in the limited space available for any article.
References in the text should be presented in brackets (Knox, 1988; Martin, 1995). If necessary, the page can be indicated: (Martin,
1995, p.48). The list of references should be presented after the text. The Words List of References: 11pt, bold, small letters. The references
should be listed in full at the end of the paper in the following standard form:
For books: Saxe, G.B. (1991). Cultural and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
For articles: Bekerian, D.A. (1993). In Search of the Typical Eyewitness. American Psychologist, 48, 574-576.
For chapters within books: Bjork, R.A. (1989). Retrieval Inhibition as an Adaptive Mechanism in Human Memory. In: H.L. Roediger III & F.I.M.
Craik (Eds.), Varieties of Memory & Consciousness (pp. 309-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
On a separate page, author - related data should be presented in English: name, surname, degree and academic title, institution, full
correspondence address in the clearest and most complete form /ordinary post and e-mail addresses /, position (to ensure anonymity in the
review process). The author (authors) should confirm in writing, that the manuscript has not been published in other journal or
handed over (transferred) to other journal for publication.
EDITORIAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Manuscripts will be sent anonymously to reviewers with expertise in the appropriate area. All manuscripts will be rewieved by two
experts before JBSE’s accept them for publication. This process usually takes about two months. The journal co-editors will make minor
editorial changes; major changes will be made by the author(s) prior to publication if necessary. JBSE’s redaction will sent to author(s)
only one correcture which must be sent back within 2 weeks. JBSE will not review submissions previously published elsewhere through
print or electronic medium.
Manuscripts submitted to the JBSE cannot be returned to authors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves. Authors’
signatures should be at the end of the paper and its second checked proofs.
Manuscripts, editorial correspondence (and other correspondence for subscription and exchange), and any questions should be
sent to editor-in-chief or to regional redactors.
Journal`s requirements for the authors are available online: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/JBSE_requirements_2019.pdf
902
JBSE
SMC „SCIENTIA EDUCOLOGICA“
The Associated Member of Lithuanian Scientific Society, European Society for the History of Science
(ESHS) and International Council of Association for Science Education /ICASE/,
SCIENTIA SOCIALIS Ltd
A member of the Lithuanian Publishers Association & Crossref
E-mail: scientia@scientiasocialis.lt Website: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt
Dear colleagues,
We would like to invite articles for an international blind peer-review
scientific journal (Twenty fifth CFP)
Problems of Psychology in the 21st Century

ISSN 2029-8587 (Print) ISSN 2538-7197 (Online)
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/ppc/ 2022: Vol. 16, No. 1; No. 2
Papers submitted to PPC_25CFP_2022 should be original work and

substantively different from papers that have been previously published or are
under review in a journal or another peer-reviewed conference. We invite
submission of papers describing innovative research on all aspects of psychology
and related areas. Submitted papers will be assessed based on their novelty,
technical quality, potential impact, and clarity of writing.
Responsible
E-mail: problemsofpsychology@gmail.com Publication
Peer Reviewed
The call is open till 25 May 2022. Open Access
Global Readership
Application form + declaration + full paper: 25 May 2022
EBSCO http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/ppc/files/PPC_guidelines_2018.pdf
INDEX We advise you to use a template for paper preparation. You can download it
COPERNICUS from our website: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/ppc/node/6 (template for paper,
ANVUR Word format). Theoretical papers usually follow an argumentative pattern and
CNKI are organised around the solution of a problem.
OAJI
Ulrich's Periodicals Last but not least
Directory
MIAR International journal „Problems of Pscyhology in the 21st Century“ is a high quality
ROAD, scientific journal which publishes original research on all areas of psychological
Europub, sciences. The Journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general
DOI, criteria of significance and scientific excellence. Submitted papers will be assessed
Crossref, based on their novelty, scientific and technical quality, potential impact, and clarity of
Scilit, writing. All submissions will be checked by iThenticate before sending to reviewers.
Internet Archive, The publisher and journal have a policy of “Zero Tolerance on the Plagiarism”.
ScienceGate etc. PPC is an open access academic journal published semiannually.
Submission online: http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/ppc/node/136
Information related to APC can be found at:
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/ppc/node/node/11
Sincerely yours, Editorial Board
903
ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/, ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/
Compiled by: Vincentas Lamanauskas

Linguistic Editor: Ilona Ratkevičienė
Cover design by: Jurgina Jankauskienė
Layout design by : Linas Janonis

28 October 2022. Publishing in Quires 10,5. Edition 90
Publisher Scientia Socialis Ltd.,

Donelaicio Street 29, LT-78115 Siauliai, Lithuania
E-mail: scientia@scientiasocialis.lt
Phone: +370 687 95668
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt

Printing Šiauliai printing house
9A P. Lukšio Street
LT-76207 Šiauliai, Lithuania
Phone: +370 41 500 333.
Fax: +370 41 500 336
E-mail: info@dailu.lt
https://siauliuspaustuve.lt/

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Vol.21, No.

Published since 2002 Address:

ISSN 1648–3898 (Print) © Scientia Socialis Ltd., a member of the Lithuanian

ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902

PROBLEMS OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903

NATURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904

CRISES OF THE WORLD, CRISES OF THE SCIENCE EDUCATION? LET´S TAKE A

Svatava Janoušková, Martin Bílek

The authors declare no competing interest.

Svatava Janoušková PhD in Pedagogy with orientation to Chemistry and Environmental

MISCONCEPTION ABOUT ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/

Abstract. Global warming is the most

Research Aim and Research Questions

Instrument and Procedures

True Confident True Confident SK

True Confident False Confident FP

False Confident True Confident FN

False Confident False Confident M

True Confident True Not Confident LK 1

True Not Confident True Confident LK 2

True Not Confident True Not Confident LK 3

True Confident False Not Confident LK 4

True Not Confident False Confident LK 5

True Not Confident False Not Confident LK 6

False Confident True Not Confident LK 7

False Not Confident True Confident LK 8

False Not Confident True Not Confident LK 9

False Confident False Not Confident LK 10

False Not Confident False Confident LK 11

False Not Confident False Not Confident LK 12

SK scientific knowledge, LK lack of knowledge, M misconception, FP false positive, FN false negative.

Reliability 1: Reliability of Scientific Knowledge

Reliability 2: Reliability of Misconceptions

Validity 1: Factor Analysis

Fit Indices Observed in Test

χ²/df χ²/df ≤ 3 3< χ²/df <5 1.440

RMSA 0< RMSA ≤ 0.05 0.06 <RMSA < 0.08 0.033

S-RMR 0≤ S-RMR ≤ 0.05 0.05< S-RMR< 0.01 0.041

GFI GFI ≥ 0.90 0.85 < GFI < 0.90 0.965

AGFI AGFI ≥ 0.90 0.85 < AGFI < 0.90 0.950

IFI IFI ≥ 0.95 0.90 < IFI < 0.95 0.933

TLI TLI ≥ 0.95 0.90 < TLI < 0.94 0.915

First Confidence Score .440 < .001

Second Confidence Score .492 < .001

Both Confidence Score .488 < .001

Validity 3: False Positive and False Negative

Validity 4: Expert Opinions

Percentages of Scientific Knowledge, Misconceptions and Lack of Knowledge Based on

Content Area Test Items Scientific Knowledge Misconception Lack of Knowledge

1 37.9 26.1 26.6

Content Area Test Items Scientific Knowledge Misconception Lack of Knowledge

6 49.1 21.6 21.4

Conclusions and Implications

The authors declare no competing interest.

The research was guided by the research questions which follow.

ICT in Chemistry Education

Educational Software (EduSW)

Theories of Innovation/Technology/Software Acceptance

Research Model and Hypotheses

Instrument and Procedures

Construct Abbreviation Items References

(Chroustová et al., 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016;

Analysis Results of Measurement Models

All user Type User type 1 User type 3 User type 4

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final

Factors Influencing the Acceptance and Use of EduSW (RQ1, RQ2)

Multifaceted thinking − .910 .587 .564 .290

Emphasis on demonstrability − 1.497 .346 .620**

Emphasis on evidence − 1.150 .877

Career 1 − .215 .219 .499 .368