<?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%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hye-Gyoung Yoon</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Insun Lee</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">RESEARCH-BASED TEACHING: ANALYZING SCIENCE TEACHERS’ PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING AND USING ACADEMIC PAPERS TO TEACH SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY</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%">case study</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">research-based teaching</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teacher’s learning process</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teaching plan</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2023</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2023/987-1676960659.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</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%">Postulating that academic papers can positively impact the actual teaching practices of science teachers, this study analysed the process of understanding and utilising academic papers by science teachers to teach scientific creativity in their schools. The 45–hour graduate course of three science teachers was explored to identify the difficulties teachers encountered in trying to understand academic papers and to discover how to solve these difficulties. Second, which aspects should be considered when developing teaching materials for scientific creativity to be used in schools were analysed. A transformation model of an academic paper was proposed to understand this process, and the results were organised accordingly. According to this model, it was emphasized to translate academic papers from a general and abstract state to a local and concrete state. Therefore, the role of science educators as knowledge translators was discussed for more practical and effective use of academic papers in school. This study is expected to contribute to research-based teaching by linking academic research with teaching practice.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">57-72</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%">Insun Lee</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDENT, PARENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND THE IMPLICATIONS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS' SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY</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%">behavioral characteristics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">creative environment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">creativity perception</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2021/987-1611648718.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</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%">Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of scientific creativity are assumed to be an important environmental factor for scientific creativity, so this research surveyed their perceptions of the behavioral characteristics of scientific creativity and compared their perceptions to those of students. This is achieved with a list of behavioral characteristics of creative physicists during their growth period. For this survey, 48 science teachers, 112 parents, and 145 science gifted students participated. Out of the 30 items of the list, they selected 10 items that were considered important indicators to become creative scientists in the future, and they ranked them according to their importance. The results showed that the three groups all perceived ‘conducting experiments, asking questions, thinking logically to solve difficult problems, and sharing ideas’ as important for scientific creativity. For the items that were perceived to be less important, it was discussed why these items might be necessary for scientific creativity. Comparative result showed that parents gave more importance to learning-related aspects, teachers to thinking-related aspects, and students to activities such as making and experimenting. This research showed the behavioral characteristics that should be encouraged to improve students’ scientific creativity at school and at home.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">67-79</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%">Daehyeok Kang</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongwon Park</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hanghwa Hong</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF IDEAS DEPENDING ON TIME WHEN CONDUCTING SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY ACTIVITIES</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%">gifted education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teaching creativity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">August/2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1479497961.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</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%">Teaching creativity is one of the major goals of science class. This study examined how much time is necessary to conduct a scientific creativity task requiring fluency in middle schools. To accomplish this, 76 and 45 scientifically gifted and ordinary students respectively generated as many ideas as possible for the creativity task. The results revealed that ordinary students spent, on average, approximately 20 minutes to generate 3.49 ideas per student. However, gifted students concentrated on the task for a longer time (roughly 60 minutes), and consequently generated greater (11.53) and more elaborate ideas. In comparing the ordinary students’ fluency with their school science scores, no relationship was found between them. This indicates that only teaching science cannot guarantee the development of creativity. Therefore, it is concluded that teaching fluency in middle schools is necessary and can possibly encourage creativity, provided that teachers can secure a minimal amount of time required to do so. Finally, the limitations of this study and further studies are discussed.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">448–459</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%">Jongwon Park</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY IN SCIENCE 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%">analogical thinking</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific creativity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">September/2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1410547126.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Divergent thinking, which indicates the capacity to generate multiple alternatives or solutions, received attention as a component of creative thinking after the “Sputnik shock” of the late 1950s. Since then, numerous special programs for fostering creativity in convergent, critical, associational or analogical thinking have been developed. As a result, an article in 1993 reported that there were about 250 programs for improving creativity, and in 1998, a researcher classified various teaching strategies used in the programs into 170 types.
Therefore, I with my colleagues have recently started to develop a new model called the ‘small-scale iterative experiences for teaching scientific creativity’. The following studies will focus on finding alternative ways to incorporate this model into the ordinary science curriculum, and to measure the effectiveness of these methods in improving creativity. Furthermore, we will strive for an additional proof that these ways of creative thinking are still in contact with the nature of learning science in understanding scientific knowledge, conducting scientific inquiry, as well as in nourishing scientific thinking. On a final note, I hope I have inspired a healthy curiosity on the subject matter of scientific creativity, for more authentic science teaching and learning experiences to come with many science educators.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">144-145 </style></section></record></records></xml>