The many faces of high school chemistry

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn 2, Issue , 2014, Pages 457-480

  De Jong, Onno ^a   Taber, Keith S ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943177266     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203097267     Document Type: Chapter

References (128)

1. ACARA. (2012). Chemistry. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.
2. Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Learners' mental models of the particle nature of matter: A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 757-786.
3. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students' understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 305-316.
4. Allen, D., Donham, R., & Tanner, K. (2004). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Lesson study-building communities of learning among educators. Cell Biology Education, 3, 1-7.
5. Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (Eds.). (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
6. Ambrogi, P., Caselli, M., Montalti, M., & Venturi, M. (2008). Make sense of nanochemistry and nanotechnology. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 9, 5-10.
7. Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils' conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53-85.
8. Bachelard, G. (1940/1968). The philosophy of no: A philosophy of the scientific mind. New York: Orion Press.
9. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829-839.
10. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1999). Students' reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 645-665.
11. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (2000). Students' reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1171-1200.
12. Bennett, J., Gräsel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Contextbased and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers' views. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1521-1547.
13. Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching of chemistry: What are they and what are their effects? In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 165-184). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91, 347-370.
15. Blonder, R., & Sakhnini, S. (2012). Teaching two basic nanotechnology concepts in secondary schools by using a variety of teaching methods. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 13, 500-516.
16. Brown, J. R. (1991). Laboratory of the mind: Though experiments in the natural sciences. London: Routledge.
17. Bulte, A., Westbroek, H., De Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1063-1086.
18. Campbell, B., Lazonby, J., Millar, R., Nicolson, P., Ramsden, J., & Waddington, D. (1994). Science: The Salters' approach-a case study of the process of large scale curriculum development. Science Education, 78, 415-447.
19. Cavallo, A. M. L., McNeely, J. C., & Marek, E. A. (2003). Eliciting students' understanding of chemical reactions using two forms of essay questions during a learning cycle. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 583-603.
20. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students' ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 293-307.
21. Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2009). Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research into the use of representative levels in chemical education. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 55-73). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
22. Chiu, M.-H., & Wu, H.-K. (2009). The roles of multimedia in the teaching and learning of the triplet relationship in chemistry. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 251-283). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
23. Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417-452). New York: Routledge.
24. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners' mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 464-486.
25. Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 361-374.
26. De Jong, O., Acampo, J., & Verdonk, A. H. (1995). Problems in teaching the topic of redox reactions: Actions and conceptions of chemistry teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 1097-1110.
27. De Jong, O., Ahtee, M., Goodwin, A., Hatzinikita, V., & Koulaidis, V. (1999). An international study of prospective teachers' initial teaching conceptions and concerns: The case of teaching "combustion." European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 45-59.
28. De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The teaching and learning of electrochemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 317-337). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29. De Jong, O., & Van Driel, J. (2004). Exploring the development of student teachers' PCK of multiple meanings of chemistry topics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 477-491.
30. De Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1985). A new road to reactions, part 1. Journal of Chemical Education, 62, 238-240.
31. Develaki, M. (2007). The model-based view of scientific theories and the structuring of school science programmes. Science & Education, 16, 725-749.
32. diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird's-eye view of the "pieces" vs. "coherence" controversy (from the "pieces" side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35-60). New York: Routledge.
33. Drechsler, M., & Schmidt, H.-J. (2005). Upper secondary school students' understanding of models used in chemistry to define acids and bases. Science Education International, 16, 39-53.
34. Driessen, H. P. W., & Meinema, H. A. (2003). Chemistry between context and concept: Designing for renewal. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.
35. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students' conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
36. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography-students' and teachers' conceptions and science education. Kiel, Germany: Leibnitz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education. Retrieved from www. ipn. uni-kiel. de/aktuell/stcse/stcse. html.
37. Feierabend, T., Jokmin, S., & Eilks, I. (2011). Chemistry teachers' views on teaching "climate change"-An interview case study from research-oriented learning in teacher education. Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 11, 85-91.
38. Fensham, P. J. (1975). Concept formation. In D. J. Daniels (Ed.), New movements in the study and teaching of chemistry (pp. 199-217). London: Temple Smith.
39. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future, Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548-554.
40. Garcia Franco, A., & Taber, K. (2009). Secondary students' thinking about familiar phenomena: Learners' explanations from a curriculum context where "particles" is a key idea for organizing teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1917-1952.
41. George, J., & Lubben, F. (2002). Facilitating teachers' professional growth through their involvement in creating context-based materials in science. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 659-672.
42. Gilbert, J. K. (2007). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9-27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43. Gilbert, J. K., De Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D. F., & Van Driel, J. H. (Eds.). (2002). Chemical education: Research-based practice. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
44. Gilbert, J. K., Justi, R., Van Driel, J. H., De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Securing a future for chemical education. Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 5, 5-14.
45. Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children's science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66, 623-633.
46. Gräsel, D., Nentwig, P., & Parchmann, I. (2005). Chemie im Kontext: Curriculum development and evaluation strategies. In J. Bennett, J. Holman, R. Millar, & D. Waddington (Eds.), Evaluation as a tool for improving science education (pp. 53-66). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
47. Haglund, J., & Jeppsson, F. (2012). Using self-generated analogies in teaching of thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 898-921.
48. 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, 97-127.
49. Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401-435.
50. Harrison, A. G., & Coll, R. K. (Eds.). (2008). Using analogies in middle and secondary science classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
51. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000a). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.
52. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000b). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011-1026.
53. Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 277-299.
54. Jaber, L., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 973-998.
55. Jensen, W. B. (1995). Logic, history and the teaching of chemistry. Keynote lecture, given at the 57th Annual Summer Conference of the New England Association of Chemistry Teachers. Monograph. Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT.
56. Johnson, P. M. (2000). Children's understanding of substances, part 1: Recognizing chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 719-737.
57. Johnson, P. M. (2002). Children's understanding of substances, part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1037-1054.
58. Johnson, P. M. (2012). Introducing particle theory. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Teaching secondary chemistry (2nd ed., pp. 49-73). London: Association for Science Education/Hodder Education.
59. Johnson, P., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance-based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 130-150.
60. Johnstone, A. H. (1989). Some messages for teachers and examiners: An information processing model. In Assessment Subject Group Trust (Ed.). Assessment of chemistry in schools (Vol. Research in Assessment VII, pp. 23-39). London: Royal Society of Chemistry Education Division.
61. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
62. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701-705.
63. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of "the atom." International Journal of Science Education, 22, 993-1009.
64. Karpudewan, M., Ismael, Z., & Roth, W.-M. (2012). The efficacy of a green chemistry laboratory-based pedagogy: Changes in environmental values of Malaysia pre-service teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 10, 497-529.
65. Kern, A. L., Wood, N. B., Roehrig, G. H., & Nyachwaya, J. (2010). A qualitative report of the ways high school chemistry students attempt to represent a chemical reaction at the atomic/molecular level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 165-172.
66. Keys, P. M. (2005). Are teachers walking the walk or just talking the talk in science education? Teachers and Teaching, 11, 499-516.
67. Kortland, K., & Klaassen, K. (Eds.). (2010). Designing theory-based teaching-learning sequences for science education Utrecht, The Netherlands: CDBeta Press.
68. 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, 257-289.
69. Laverty, D. T., & McGarvey, J. E. B. (1991). A "constructivist" approach to learning. Education in Chemistry, 28, 99-102.
70. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.
71. 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, 579-603.
72. Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Taber, K. S. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46, 179-207.
73. Lőfgren, L., & Helldén, G. (2009). A longitudinal study showing how students use a molecule concept when explaining everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1631-1655.
74. Marks, R., Bertram, S., & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on potato crisps, which follows a sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons-a case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 267-276.
75. Meijer, M. (2011). Macro-meso-micro thinking with structure-property relations for chemistry education-an explorative design-based study. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University (Ph. D. thesis). Retrieved from igitur-archive. library. uu. nl/dissertations/2011-0627-200510/Uindex. html.
76. Meijer, M., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2009). Structure-property relations between macro and micro representations: Relevant meso-levels in authentic tasks. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 195-213). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
77. Meijer, M., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2013). Macro-micro thinking with structure-property relations: Integrating "meso-levels" in secondary education. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education (pp. 419-436). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
78. Millar, R. (1990). Making sense: What use are particles to children? In P. Lijnse, P. Licht, W. de Vos, & A. Waarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles (pp. 283-293). Utrecht, the Netherlands: CDß Press.
79. Millar, R. (2006). Twenty-first-century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1499-1521.
80. Mozzer, N. B., & Justi, R. (2011). Students' pre-and post-teaching analogical reasoning when they draw their analogies. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 429-458.
81. Nelson, P. (2002). Teaching chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3, 215-228.
82. Nieswandt, M. (2001). Problems and possibilities for learning in an introductory chemistry course from a conceptual change perspective. Science Education, 85, 158-179.
83. NRC (National Research Council Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
84. Özmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 147-159.
85. Parchmann, I., Gräsel, D., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., Ralle, B., & the ChiK Project Group. (2006). "Chemie im Kontext": A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041-1062.
86. Park, E. J., & Light, G. (2008). Identifying atomic structure as a threshold concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 233-258.
87. Pauling, L. (1960). The nature of the chemical bond and the structure of molecules and crystals: An introduction to modern structural chemistry (3rd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
88. Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high school-level quantum atomic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1075-1088.
89. Prins, G., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2011). Evaluation of a design principle for fostering students' epistemological views on models and modeling using authentic practices as contexts for learning in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1539-1569.
90. QCA. (2007). Science: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment targets. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
91. Ramsden, J. M. (1997). How does a context-based approach influence understanding of key chemical ideas at 16+? International Journal of Science Education, 19, 697-710.
92. Rosenblueth, A., & Wiener, N. (1945). The role of models in science. Philosophy of Science, 12, 316-321.
93. Sadownik, J. W., & Ulijn, R. V. (2010). Dynamic covalent chemistry in aid of peptide self-assembly. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 21, 401-411.
94. Sánchez Gómez, P. J., & Martín, F. (2003). Quantum versus "classical" chemistry in university chemistry education: A case study of the role of history in thinking the curriculum. Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4, 131-148.
95. Scerri, E. R. (2000). Have orbitals really been observed? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 1492-1494.
96. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
97. Solomonidou, C., & Stavridou, H. (2000). From inert object to chemical substance: Students' initial conceptions and conceptual development during an introductory experimental chemistry sequence. Science Education, 84, 382-400.
98. Solsona, N., Izquierdo, M., & De Jong, O. (2003). Exploring the development of students' conceptual profiles of chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 3-12.
99. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 205-221.
100. Stoddart, J. F. (2012). Editorial: From supramolecular to systems chemistry: Complexity emerging out of simplicity. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 51, 12902-12903.
101. Stolk, M., Bulte, A., De Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2012). Evaluating a professional development framework to empower chemistry teachers to design context-based education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1487-1508.
102. Stolk, M., De Jong, O., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2011). Exploring a framework for professional development in curriculum innovation: Empowering teachers for designing context-based chemistry education. Research in Science Education, 41, 369-388.
103. Taber, K. S. (1994). Can Kelly's triads be used to elicit aspects of chemistry students' conceptual frameworks? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Oxford. Retrieved from www. leeds. ac. uk/educol/documents/00001482. htm.
104. Taber, K. S. (1998a). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608.
105. Taber, K. S. (1998b). The sharing-out of nuclear attraction: Or I can't think about physics in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1001-1014.
106. Taber, K. S. (2000). The CERG lecture 2000: Molar and molecular conceptions of research into learning chemistry: Towards a synthesis. Paper presented at the Variety in Chemistry Teaching 2000. Retrieved from www. leeds. ac. uk/educol/documents/00001551. htm.
107. Taber, K. S. (2001a). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 123-158.
108. Taber, K. S. (2001b). When the analogy breaks down: Modelling the atom on the solar system. Physics Education, 36, 222-226.
109. Taber, K. S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5, 43-84.
110. Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89, 94-116.
111. 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, 1333-1358.
112. Taber, K. S. (2009b). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75-108). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
113. Taber, K. S. (2009c). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
114. Taber, K. S. (2012a). Developing models of chemical bonding. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Teaching secondary chemistry (2nd ed., pp. 103-136). London: Association for Science Education/Hodder Education.
115. Taber, K. S. (2012b). Key concepts in chemistry. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Teaching secondary chemistry (2nd ed., pp. 1-47). London: Association for Science Education/Hodder Education.
116. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D. (2007). Exploring learners' conceptual resources: Singapore A level students' explanations in the topic of ionization energy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 375-392.
117. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D. (2011). The insidious nature of "hard core" alternative conceptions: Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students' and pre-service teachers' thinking about ionization energy. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 259-297.
118. Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (1996). The secret life of the chemical bond: Students' anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 557-568.
119. Talanquer, V. (2007). Explanations and teleology in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 853-870.
120. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry "triplet." International Journal of Science Education, 33, 179-195.
121. Tortosa, M. (2012). The use of microcomputer based laboratories in chemistry secondary education: Present state of the art and ideas for research-based practice. Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 13, 161-171.
122. Tsaparlis, G. (1994). Blocking mechanisms in problem solving from the Pascual-Leone's M-space perspective. In H.-J. Schmidt (Ed.), Problem solving and misconceptions in chemistry and physics (pp. 211-226). Dortmund, Germany: International Council of Associations for Science Education.
123. Tsaparlis, G., Kolioulis, D., & Pappa, E. (2010). Lower-secondary introductory chemistry course: A novel approach based on scienceeducation theories, with emphasis on the macroscopic approach, and the delayed meaningful teaching of the concepts of molecule and atom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 107-117.
124. Ünal, S., Çalık, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2006). A review of chemical bonding studies: Needs, aims, methods of exploring students' conceptions, general knowledge claims and students' alternative conceptions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24, 141-172.
125. Vaino, K., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2012). Stimulating students' intrinsic motivation for learning chemistry through the use of context-based learning modules. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 410-419.
126. Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry's lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1635-1651.
127. Van Driel, J. H., & Graeber, W. (2002). The teaching and learning of chemical equilibrium. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 271-292). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
128. Watson, R., Prieto, T., & Dillon, J. S. (1997). Consistency of students' explanations about combustion. Science Education, 81, 425-443.