<?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%">Peter Demkanin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Daša Červeňová</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">David Sands</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">APPLICATION OF SELECTED MODELS OF MIND IN THEORIES OF PHYSICS 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%">cognitive models</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mind theories</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physics education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">preliminary study</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=4713332</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 physics education research, we often focus on specific issues and rarely look at students as whole individuals. Over the past decade, researchers have explored students' bio-psycho-social aspects and analyzed the core principles of personality theories, comparing them with genetic mapping. Recently, new medical imaging techniques have been developed to scan the brain and explore the fundamental links between learning theories, incorporating psychological, social, and biological perspectives. This study offers a brief overview of selected mind theories relevant to physics education. In addition to theories and models of understanding, the primary focus is on one neurocognitive theory: the Theory of the Five Pillars of the Mind, established by Tokuhama-Espinosa. Four years of research applying this theory to physics education have produced promising results. Here, we present a preliminary study that highlights the theoretical framework of our ongoing research. The Theory of the Five Pillars of the Mind aligns well with existing physics education theories, and its application shows promising outcomes. In this contribution, we also showcase an example of how this theory can be applied. </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%">1117-1131</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%">Peter Demkanin</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">RAISING QUALITY OF PHYSICS EDUCATION: CONTRIBUTION OF JBSE OVER THE PAST ISSUES </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%">general scientific culture</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physics education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physics teachers</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">secondary school</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%">October/2023</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2023/987-1697653188.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%">I have worked more than thirty years in physics education (as some of the readers of this journal), many years as a secondary school physics teacher in various curricula (as some of the readers), and more than 20 years at university doing research and preparing future physics teachers (as some or readers). I am also the author of a physics textbook for secondary education, and now I am working on a new one. Naturally, I would like to have the new textbook, like my other outputs, based on the current state of knowledge and well-developed and well-applied theories behind physics education. And here is the seed of the question - how does our journal contribute to raising the quality of our outputs – in my case, increasing the quality of physics education? I first look at the goals of physics education. Here, I use the most straightforward taxonomy of goals presented in (Demkanin 2013): goals related to attitudes of society to science, goals related to methods of science, and goals related to particular knowledge. The last one I split into two sub-goals – knowledge selected to develop methods and attitudes and knowledge selected to raise the quality of living and general scientific culture. Of course, the goals we can reach by means – by the methods of education – methods of teaching and learning. So, let's look at a few previous issues of JBSE and at the contributions having the potential to raise the quality of physics education. I have mentioned only some of the contributions I will probably use in the next few years. I tried to focus on physics education, not explicit chemistry or biology education, even if some of such articles could be fully relevant to my work. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">744-748</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%">Peter Demkanin</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">THE WAYS THE THEORY OF PHYSICS EDUCATION CAN EVOLVE</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%">digital technologies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physics education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">university students</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2020/987-1606572136.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</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%">Theory of physics education, as well as our Journal of Baltic Science Education, made a significant step over the last 20 years. Twenty years ago, formal physics education had a one-and-a-half century of development; JBSE was just an idea to be turned into the 1st issue in 2002. In this article, I would like to mention some of the great steps physics education made in the last decades and some open questions for the nearest future. I would like to apologize to the readers from the field of biology, chemistry or primary science education - unlike in my previous articles in this Journal (Demkanin, 2013; Demkanin, 2018), here I focus on physics education.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">860-863</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%">Peter Demkanin</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CONCEPT FORMATION: PHYSICS TEACHER AND HIS KNOW-HOW AND KNOW-WHY</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%">concept formation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">normative knowledge</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physics education</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2018</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1519059651.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">17</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%">Physics education is an easy job, making people happy. It is an easy job for all, including teachers and learners. Do you agree? I do, but probably it is good to try to discuss these words somehow in details.
Quite often we see, even in our Journal, research results proving that Physics is not so popular. Physics courses require thinking, using correct words, not making too much algebra and calculation mistakes, using arguments. Really, a reasonable portion of pupils does not find Physics lessons as a source of happiness.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4-7</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%">Peter Demkanin</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PREPARATION OF NEW PHYSICS TEACHERS FROM VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES</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%">physics teacher</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pre-service teacher training</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science education</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">March/2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2015/987-1425757465.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">There is no doubt, that preparation of new teachers significantly influences many aspects of education. Most of us, readers of this Journal, are involved in preparation of new science teachers. My group focuses on physics teachers for secondary school level and this is the main perspective of this reflection.
Many of us work with transformative model of the knowledge base for teaching and with the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Magnusson, Krajcik &amp; Borko, 1999). We highlight five components of PCK: orientation toward science teaching; knowledge (and beliefs) about science curriculum; knowledge (and beliefs) about students’ understanding of science topics; knowledge (and beliefs) about assessment in science; and knowledge (and beliefs) about instructional strategies for teaching science. Let’s look at them from the perspective of pre-service teacher trainer.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4-5</style></section></record></records></xml>