SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 10961097.
  • American Chemical Society. (2013). ACS examinations institute. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from http://chemexams.chem.iastate.edu/
  • Barke, H., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education. Berlin: Springer.
  • Bodner, G. (1991). I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 385.
  • Boo, H. K. (1998). Students' understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569581.
  • Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61682). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cooper, M. M., Grove, N., Underwood, S. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2010). Lost in Lewis structures: An investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(8), 869874.
  • Cooper, M. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2012). Chemistry, life, the universe and everything. Retrieved June 29, 2012 from http://besocratic.colorado.edu/CLUE-Chemistry/index.html
  • Cooper, M. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2013). The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 306312.
  • Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., & Hilley, C. Z. (2012). Development and validation of the implicit information from Lewis structures instrument (IILSI): Do students connect structures with properties? Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 195200.
  • Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., Hilley, C. Z., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2012). Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(11), 13511357.
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 321.
  • Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence based approach to reform. College-Columbia University: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105225.
  • diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 265). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  • diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird's-eye view of the “pieces” versus “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3560). New York: Routledge Taylor, & Francis Group.
  • 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), 843900.
  • Duis, J. M. (2011). Organic chemistry educators' perspectives on fundamental concepts and misconceptions: An exploratory study. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(3), 346350.
  • Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454459.
  • Genter, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gilhooly, K. J. (2004). Working memory and reasoning. In J. Leighton & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of reasoning (pp. 4977). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK.
  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine Pub., Co.
  • Greenbowe, T. J., Rudd, J. A., & Hand, B. M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic to improve students' understanding of general equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(12), 2007.
  • Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97127.
  • Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, (68), S52S59.
  • Henderleiter, J., Smart, R., Anderson, J., & Elian, O. (2001). How do organic chemistry students understand and apply hydrogen bonding? Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 11261130.
  • Horton, C. (2007). Student alternative conceptions in chemistry. California Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 185.
  • Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 11491180.
  • Johnson, P., & Tymms, P. (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 849877.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64(227), 377379.
  • Johnstone, A. H., & Selepeng, D. (2001). A language problem revisited. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(1), 1929.
  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Models and modelling in chemical education. In J. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice, (pp. 4768). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NewYork: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
  • Linenberger, K. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). A novel technology to investigate students' understandings of enzyme representations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(1), 4549.
  • Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243264). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Maeyer, J., & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students' thinking: Ranking chemical substances. Science Education, 94(6), 963984.
  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1991). Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 979985.
  • Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162188.
  • Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates' bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 707730.
  • Othman, J., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. (2008). An investigation into the relationship between students' conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 15311550.
  • Ozmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147159.
  • Pierri, E., Karatrantou, A., & Panagiotakopoulos, C. (2008). Exploring the phenomenon of'change of phase'of pure substances using the microcomputer-based-laboratory (MBL) system. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 234239.
  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211227.
  • Roberts, M. J., Gilmore, D. J., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Individual differences and strategy selection in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 88(3), 473492.
    Direct Link:
  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D, … Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632654.
  • Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline based education research. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
  • Smith, K. C., & Nakhleh, M. B. (2011). University students' conceptions of bonding in melting and dissolving phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(4), 398408.
  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645665.
  • Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions—prevention, diagnosis and cure: Vol. 1: Theoretical background, London Royal Society of Chemistry. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
  • Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 10271053.
  • Taber, K. S. (2009a). College students' conceptions of chemical stability: The widespread adoption of a heuristic rule out of context and beyond its range of application. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 13331358.
  • Taber, K. S. (2009b). Learning at the symbolic level. In D. F. Treagust & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 27108). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Vázquez, A. V., McLoughlin, K., Sabbagh, M., Runkle, A. C., Simon, J., Coppola, B. P., & Pazicni, S. (2012). Writing-to-teach: A new pedagogical approach to elicit explanative writing in undergraduate chemistry students, Journal of Chemical Education, 89(8), 10251031.
  • Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 334). New York: Routledge.
  • Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716730.