Main Article Content
Copyright © 2012 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (AECT). Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in print or the first screen in digital media. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IJDL or AECT must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. The IJDL site and its metadata are licensed under CC BY-NC-ND. A simpler version of this statement is available here.
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20352
Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. 2013. Augmented reality teaching and learning. In M. J. Bishop & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 735-745). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Grotzer, T.A. (2012). Learning causality in a complex world: Understandings of consequence. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189-212). Springer Netherlands.
Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Anthropomorphism and animism in early years science: Why teachers use them, how they conceptualise them and what are their views on their use. Research in Science Education, 34(3), 291-31.
Kamarainen, A.M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T. & Dede, C. (2016). EcoMOBILE—Designing for contextualized STEM learning using mobile technologies and augmented reality. In H. Crompton & J. Traxler (Eds.) Mobile learning and STEM: Case studies in practice (pp. 98-124). Routledge.
Lin, C. Y., & Hu, R. (2003). Students’ understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1529-1544.
O’Shea, P., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., & Dede, C. (2009). Lessons learned about designing augmented realities. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 1(1), 1-15.
Özmen, H. (2011). Effect of animation enhanced conceptual change texts on 6th grade students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and transformation during phase changes. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1114–1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.004
Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51-66.
Smith, C., Snir, J., & Raz, G. (2002). Can middle schoolers understand the particulate theory of matter as an explanatory model? An exploratory study. In American Educational Research Association meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Smith, C., Wiser, M., & Anderson, C. W. (2004). Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Paper commissioned by the Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Center for Education, National Research Council.1–79.
Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., Krajcik, J., & Coppola, B. (2004). Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Paper commissioned by the Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Center for Education, National Research Council.
Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 205-221.
Stern, L., Barnea, N., & Shauli, S. (2008). The effect of a computerized simulation on middle school students’ understanding of the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 305-315.
Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(6), 538-568.
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(5), 557–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180505
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75(1), 57-67.
Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126
Xie, Q and R. Tinker. 2006. Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. Journal of Chemical Education 83(1), 77-83.