<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hyojeong Hwang</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jun-Ki Lee</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ECOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS' DECISION-MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY AND IGNORANCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGY EDUCATION</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">adaptive expertise</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">biology education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">decision-making patterns</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ecological experts</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">post-normal science</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific ignorance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific uncertainty</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2025</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2025</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=4713337</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ecological scientists routinely make decisions in contexts where scientific uncertainty and ignorance constrain available evidence, yet empirical research on how they judge such situations remains limited. Understanding these decision-making processes is critical because ecological crises—such as biological invasions and chemical accidents—require rapid action despite incomplete information. Accordingly, this study aimed to examine how ecological field experts respond cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally to different uncertainty-laden scenarios. The study involved 16 ecological field experts from a single national context (with an average experience of 22.0 years), specializing in amphibians, reptiles, freshwater fish, and birds. Data were collected using three scenario-based instruments representing increasing levels of uncertainty, risk, and urgency, and analyzed through constant comparative analysis. Four distinct decision-making types emerged: Consistent Knowledge-Seekers (25.0%), Risk-Escalating Responders (25.0%), Action-Oriented Responders (25.0%), and Policy-Focused Responders (25.0%). As risk increased across scenarios, the research orientation decreased from 93.8% to 43.8%, while the preventive/management orientation increased to 56.2%. Additionally, emotional responses intensified to 25.0% in the high-risk scenario. These findings underscore the importance of biology education in leveraging uncertainty as a learning resource and fostering students’ contextual scientific reasoning, adaptive expertise, and communication competencies.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1132-1147</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hyojeong Hwang</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jun-Ki Lee</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">JUDGING INVASIVENESS UNDER SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY: VALUE ORIENTATIONS AND REASONING PATTERNS OF PRE-SERVICE BIOLOGY TEACHERS ON THE GOLDEN APPLE SNAIL</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">decision making</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">invasive species</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pre-service teachers</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific uncertainty</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">value orientation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2025</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">October/2025</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=4659913</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In the Anthropocene era, science educators must equip students to reason through uncertainty and navigate value-laden environmental dilemmas. This study aimed to examine how pre-service biology teachers make value-based decisions when facing scientific uncertainty, using the case of the golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) and its designation as an invasive species. Drawing on the framework of post-normal science and environmental ethics, a scenario-based mixed-methods survey was conducted with 191 participants across five universities in South Korea. Quantitative results showed that 69.1% of respondents supported the designation, typically adopting ecocentric and precautionary perspectives, while 30.9% opposed it, citing anthropocentric pragmatism and techno-optimism. Qualitative analysis revealed confirmation bias and temporal framing patterns, with participants selectively interpreting evidence in ways consistent with their prior value orientations. These findings highlighted the importance of fostering uncertainty literacy, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning in science teacher education. The study offers international relevance by addressing how future educators construct environmental judgments under uncertainty, with implications for curriculum design across diverse socio-ecological contexts.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">894-904</style></section></record></records></xml>