SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 305316.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ault, C., Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Constructing vee maps for clinical interviews on molecule concepts. Science Education, 68(4), 441462.
  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Revision of course materials on the basis of research on conceptual difficulties. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 12, 213223.
  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The solo taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
  • Boo, H. K. (1998). Students' understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569581.
  • Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S.Carey & R.Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121152.
  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281302.
  • de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1985). A new road to reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 692694.
  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105225.
  • diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 11351191.
  • Draney, K., Wilson, M., & Pirolli, P. (1996). Measuring learning in lisp: An application of the random coefficients multinomial logit model. Objective Measurement, Theory Into Practice, 3, 195218.
  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 512.
  • Driver, R., & Scanlon, E. (1989). Conceptual change in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 5(1), 2536.
  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
  • Feynman, R. P. (1963). Atoms in motion. In six easy pieces. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
  • Furio, C., Azcona, R., & Guisasolo, J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concepts “amount of substance” and “mole”: A review of the literature. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3): 277292.
  • Glaser, R. (1984). The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93104.
  • Greenbowe, T. J., & Meltzer, D. E. (2003). Student learning of thermochemical concepts in the context of solution calorimetry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(7), 779800.
  • Griffiths, A., & Preston, K. (1992). Grade-12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 629632.
  • Hesse, J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277299.
  • Johnson, P. (2002). Children's understanding of substances, Part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science, 24(10), 10371054.
  • Kennedy, C. A., Wilson, M. R., Draney, K., Tutunciyan, S., & Vorp, R. (2006). GradeMap v4.2 user guide home page, Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research Center. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu/GradeMap/.
  • Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248294.
  • Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M.Glynn, R. H.Yeany, & B. K.Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glazar, S. A. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of “matter.” International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 257289.
  • Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674689.
  • Landauer, T. K. (1991). Let's get real: A position paper on the role of cognitive psychology in the design of humanly useful and usable systems. In J.Caroll (Eds.), Designing instruction (pp. 6073). Boston: Cambridge University Press.
  • Larkin, J. H. (1989). What kind of knowledge transfers? In L. B.Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 283306). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Liu, X. (2001). Synthesizing research on students' conceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 5581.
  • Lythcott, J. J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 248252.
  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741749.
  • Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93127.
  • Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. B.Resnick & L. E.Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (Chapter 7, pp. 129149). Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In K.Crowley, C. D.Schunn, & T.Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications for professional, instructional, and everyday science (pp. 415443). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Minstrell, J., Anderson, R., Minstrell, J., & Kraus, P. (in press). Bridging from practice to research and back.
  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191196.
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Nielsen, J., & Mack, R. L. (1994). Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley.
  • Nurrenbern, S., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508510.
  • Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (1988). Item bundles. Psychometrika, 53, 349359.
  • Samarapungavan, A., & Robinson, W. (2001). Implications of cognitive science research for models of the science learner. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107.
  • Scalise, K. (2001). A mini-survey of conceptual change literature in chemistry. Berkeley, CA: Education 205 Instruction and Development, University of California, Berkeley.
  • Scalise, K. (2004). BEAR CAT: Toward a theoretical basis for dynamically driven content in computer-mediated environments. Dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
  • Scalise, K., Claesgens, J., Krystyniak, R., Mebane, S., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2004). Perspectives of chemists: Tracking conceptual understanding of student learning in chemistry at the secondary and university levels. Paper presented at the Enhancing the Visibility and Credibility of Educational Research, American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
  • Scalise, K., Claesgens, J., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2006a). ChemQuery: An assessment system for mapping student progress in learning general chemistry. Paper presented at the NSF Conference for Assessment of Student Achievement, Washington, DC.
  • Scalise, K., Claesgens, J., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2006b). Contrasting the expectations for student understanding of chemistry with levels achieved: A brief case-study of student nurses. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 7(3), 170184.
  • Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1 and 2), 198.
  • Stavy, R. (1991). Children's ideas about matter. School Science and Mathematics, 91(6), 240244.
  • Teichert, M., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 464496.
  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1992). Mental models of the Earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535585.
  • Watanabe, M., Nunes, N., Mebane, S., Scalise, K., & Claesgens, J. (2007). “Chemistry for all, instead of chemistry just for the elite:” Lessons learned from detracked chemistry classrooms. Science Education, 91(5), 683709.
  • Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Wilson, M., & Adams, R. J. (1995). Rasch models for item bundles. Psychometrika, 60(2), 181198.
  • Wilson, M., & Berenthal, M. (2005). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy.
  • Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2002). A technique for setting standards and maintaining them over time. In S. Nishisato, Y. Baba, H. Bozdogan, & K. Kanefugi (Eds.), Measurement and multi-variate analysis (pp. 325–332). Proceedings of the International Conference on Measurement and Multivariate Analysis, Banff, Canada, May 12–14, 2000. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
  • Wilson, M., & Scalise, K. (2003). Reporting progress to parents and others: Beyond grades. In J. M.Atkin & J. E.Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 89108). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  • Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181208.
  • Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.
  • Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465492.
  • Wu, M., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. (1998). The generalised Rasch model. In ACER ConQuest. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER.
  • Yarroch, W. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Teaching, 22(5), 449459.