Assessing high school chemistry students’ modeling sub-skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment

Barak, M. & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117–139.

Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High school chemistry students’ performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 257–271.

Barnea, N., Dori, Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: Reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 218–228.

Brosnan, T., & Reynolds, Y. (2001). Students’ explanations of chemical phenomena: Macro and micro differences. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 69–78.

De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 947–964.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and the practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications LTD.

Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4, 61–74.

Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 243–279.

Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems—symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 278–302.

Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 219–250.

Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z., & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9, 1–5.

Gabel, D. L. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). London: Kluwer.

Gabel, D. L., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modeling with magnets—A unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, 59(3), 58–63.

Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 843–851.

Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. (1998). Learning science through models and modeling. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352–381.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29, 45–85.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.

Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37, 403–436.

Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 883–903.

Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.

Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 105–143.

Kozma, R. B., & Russel, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.

Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming Chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Crossing levels and representations: The connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 224–242.

Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge. Science Education, 91, 1–26.

Nicoll, G. (2003). A qualitative investigation of undergraduate chemistry students’ macroscopic interpretations of the submicroscopic structure of molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 205–213.

Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi Study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.

Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 978–983.

Russell, J., & Kozma, R. (2005). Assessing learning from the use of multimedia chemical visualization software. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 299–332). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students’ conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? American Biology Teacher, 63, 104–109.

Sasson, I., & Dori, Y. J. (2006). Fostering near and far transfer in the chemistry case-based laboratory environment. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advance in studying and designing powerful (computer-based) learning environments (pp. 275–286). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175–190.

Small, M. Y., & Morton, M. E. (1983). Research in college science teaching: Spatial visualization training improves performances in organic chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13, 41–43.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.

Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.

Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. New York: Springer.