References
- Treagust DF, Duit R, Fraser BJ. Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press; 1996. ISBN: 9780807734797.
- Gilbert JK. The role of visual representations in the learning and teaching of science: An introduction. Asia-Pac Forum Sci Learn Teach. 2010;11(1):1-19. Available from: https://l1nq.com/EjGmD.
- DeMeo S, Mills P. Looking for linearity: Integrating graphing for first-year chemistry students. Chem Educator. 2001;6(1):2-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00897000446a.
- Picone C, Rhode J, Hyatt L, Parshall T. Assessing gains in undergraduate students’ abilities to analyze graphical data. Teach Issues Exp Ecol. 2007;5:1-54.
- Glazer N. Challenges with graph interpretation: a review of the literature. Stud Sci Educ. 2011;47(2):183-210. DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2011.605307.
- Bowen GM, Roth W-M. Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. J Res Sci Teach. 2005;42(10):1063-88. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20086.
- Burke MC. A Mathematician’s Proposal. Carn Perspect Ser. 2007. Available from: https://l1nq.com/82xlx.
- Bragdon D, Pandiscio E, Speer N. University students’ graph interpretation and comprehension abilities. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol. 2019;11(4):275-90. DOI: 10.1080/19477503.2018.1480862.
- Mzileni T. Exploring the ICT integration in chemistry practical work. Johannesburg: Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand; 2022. Available from: https://encr.pw/jHFUP.
- Nasor A, Lutfi AL, Prahani BK. Science Literacy profile of junior high school students on context, competencies, and knowledge. Int J Res Educ. 2023;4(6):847-61. DOI: 10.46245/ijorer.v4i6.436.
- Dhakulkar A, Nagarjuna G. Analysis of Graphs in School Textbooks. Proc of epiSTEME 4: Intern. Conf. Rev Res. 2011:127-31. MacMillan. Available from: https://l1nq.com/Cnroq.
- Van Rooy WS, Chan E. Multimodal representations in senior biology assessments: A case study of NSW Australia. Res Sci Educ. 2017;15(7):1237-56. DOI: 10.1007/s10763-016-9741-y.
- Bergqvist A, Chang Rundgren S-N. The influence of textbooks on teachers’ knowledge of chemical bonding representations relative to students’ difficulties understanding. Int J Sci Educ. 2017;35(2):215-37. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2017.1295934.
- Tairab HH, Khalaf Al-Naqbi AK. How do secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs? J Biol Educ. 2004;38(3):127-32. DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2004.9655920.
- Klein P, Mülle A, Kuhn J. Assessment of representational competence in kinematics. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2017;13(1):010132. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010132.
- Cooper MM, Stowe RL. Chemistry education research - from personal empiricism to evidence, theory, and informed practice. Chem Rev. 2018;118(12):6053-87. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00020.
- Kaltakci-Gurel D, Eryilmaz A, McDermott LC. Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics. Int J Sci Educ. 2017;35(2):238-60. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094.
- Caleon I, Subramaniam R. Development and application of a three‐tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. Int J Sci Educ. 2010;32(7):931-61. DOI: 10.1080/09500690902890130.
- Espinosa AA, Koperová D, Kuhnová M, Rusek M. Preservice chemistry teachers’ conceptual understanding and confidence judgment: Insights from a three-tier chemistry concept inventory. J Chem Educ. 2024;102(1):53-65. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01146.
- Rusek M, Tóthová M, Chytrý V, Říčan J. Students’ ability to work with the periodic table: The use of three-tier tasks. J Chem Educ. 2024;101(11):4590-602. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00485.
- Efklides A. Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educ Res Rev. 2006;1(1):3-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001.
- Butterfield B, Metcalfe J. The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacogn Learn. 2006;1(1):69-84. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-006-6894-z.
- Frýzková M, Palečková J. Přírodovědné úlohy výzkumu PISA [PISA Study Science Tasks]. Praha: Ústav pro informace ve vzdělávání; 2007. Available from: https://rb.gy/qb3di7.
- Rusek M, Machková V, Koperová D, Bártová I, Sirotek V, Štrofová J. Rozsah a zpracování tématu chemických výpočtů v učebnicích chemie pro střední školy [Extent and Processing of Chemical Calculations in the Chemistry Textbooks for High Schools]. Chem Listy. 2024;118(6):348-53. DOI: 10.54779/chl20240348.
- Harsh JA, Campillo M, Murray C, Myers C, Ngyuen J, Maltese AV. “Seeing” data like an expert: An eye-tracking study using graphical data representations. CBE-Life Sci Educ. 2019;18(3):ar32. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.18-06-0102.
- Škrabánková J, Popelka S, Beitlová M. Students’ ability to work with graphs in physics studies related to three typical student groups. J Baltic Sci Educ. 2020;19(2):298-316. DOI: 10.33225/jbse/20.19.298.
- Liampa V, Malandrakis GN, Papadopoulou P, Pnevmatikos D. Development and evaluation of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess undergraduate primary teachers’ understanding of ecological footprint. Res Sci Educ. 2019;49(3):711-36. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-017-9643-1.
- Tóthová M, Rusek M. “Do you just have to know that?” Novice and experts’ procedure when solving science problem tasks. Front Educ. 2022;7:1051098. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1051098.
- Becker S, Knippertz L, Ruzika S, Kuhn J. Persistence, context, and visual strategy of graph understanding: Gaze patterns reveal student difficulties in interpreting graphs. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2023;19(2):020142. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020142.
- Popova M, Bretz SL. Organic chemistry students’ interpretations of the surface features of reaction coordinate diagrams. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2018;19(3):919-31. DOI: 10.1039/C8RP00063H.
- Sharma SV. High school students interpreting tables and graphs: Implications for research. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2006;4(2):231-68. DOI: 10.1007/s10763-005-9005-8.
- Pallauta JD, Arteaga P, Garzón-Guerrero JA. Secondary school students’ construction and interpretation of statistical tables. Mathematics. 2021;9(24):3197. DOI: 10.3390/math9243193.
- Erceg N, Aviani I. Students’ Understanding of Velocity-Time Graphs and the Sources of Conceptual Difficulties. Croat J Educ. 2014;16(1):43-78. Available from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/120164.
- Lundeberg MA, Fox PW, Brown AC, Elbedour S. Cultural influences on confidence: Country and gender. J Educ Psychol. 2000;92(1):152-9. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.152.
- Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-5. DOI: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
- de Winter JCF, Gosling SD, Potter J. Comparing the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: A tutorial using simulations and empirical data. Psychol Methods. 2016;21(3):273-90. DOI: 10.1037/met0000079.
- Burton RF. Do item-discrimination indices really help us to improve our tests? Assess Eval High Educ. 2001;26(3):213-20. DOI: 10.1080/02602930120052378.
- Dewi FC, Parlan P, Suryadharma IB. Development of four-tier diagnostic test for identifying misconception in chemical equilibrium. 3rd International Conference on Mathematics and Sciences Education (ICoMSE 2020); 2020. AIP Conf Proc. 2020;2268(1):060005. DOI: 10.1063/5.0016934.
- Putica KB. Development and validation of a four-tier test for the assessment of secondary school students’ conceptual understanding of amino acids, proteins, and enzymes. Res Sci Educ. 2023;53(3):651-68. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-022-10075-5.
- Tóthová M, Rusek M. Eye Tracking in Science Education Research: Comprehensive Literature Review. Sci Educ. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-025-00644-1.