Anam, R. S., Gumilar, S., & Widodo, A. (2023). The Use of the Constructivist Teaching Sequence (CTS) to Facilitate Changes in the Visual Representations of Fifth-Grade Elementary School Students: A Case Study on Teaching Heat Convection Concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10358-x
Archila, P. A. (2020). Introducing Undergraduates to the Nature of Science Through the Co-construction of Evolutionary Trees Evidence from a University Biology Course. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 1917–1942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9758-z
Atakan, M., & Akçay, B. (2024). Representation of Changes about Nature of Science in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks. Science & Education, 33(3), 551–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00403-6
Barth-Cohen, L., Dobie, T. E., Gutiérrez, J. F., Carlsruh, R., & Greenberg, K. (2024). Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Knowledge Resources for Blending Arguments and Representations in Science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2023.2283662
Campos, E., Zuza, K., Guisasola, J., & Zavala, G. (2023). Recognition and conversion of electric field representations: The case of electric field lines. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(2), 020117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020117
Fricke, K., & Reinisch, B. (2023). Evaluation of Nature of Science Representations in Biology School Textbooks Based on a Differentiated Family Resemblance Approach. Science & Education, 32(5), 1583–1611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00444-5
Ivanjek, L., Morris, L., Schubatzky, T., Hopf, M., Burde, J.-P., Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., Dopatka, L., Spatz, V., & Wilhelm, T. (2021). Development of a two-tier instrument on simple electric circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 020123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020123
Kapici, H. O. (2023). From Symbolic Representation to Submicroscopic One: Preservice Science Teachers’ Struggle with Chemical Representation Levels in Chemistry. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3122
Koca, N. O. (2022). Assessing the concepts of electricity and magnetism of science and engineering students. Physics Education, 57(4), 045026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ac57bd
Lestari, I. N. M., Suyana, I., & Jauhari, A. (2018). PENGEMBANGAN ELECTRICITY CONCEPT TEST BERFORMAT FOUR-TIER TEST. WaPFi (Wahana Pendidikan Fisika), 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17509/wapfi.v3i1.10943
Matta, C. (2014). Scientific Representation and Science Learning. Open Review of Educational Research, 1(1), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2014.989900
Moodley, K., & Gaigher, E. (2019). Teaching Electric Circuits: Teachers’ Perceptions and Learners’ Misconceptions. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9615-5
Nitz, S., Prechtl, H., & Nerdel, C. (2014). Survey of classroom use of representations: Development, field test and multilevel analysis. Learning Environments Research, 17(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-014-9166-x
Onder-Celikkanli, N., & Tan, M. (2022). Determining Turkish high school students’ misconceptions about electric charge imbalance by using a four-tier misconception test. Physics Education, 57(5), 055010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ac68c1
Pierson, A. E., Keifert, D. T., Lee, S. J., Henrie, A., Johnson, H. J., & Enyedy, N. (2023). Multiple Representations in Elementary Science: Building Shared Understanding while Leveraging Students’ Diverse Ideas and Practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(7), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2143612
Saputro, D. E., Sarwanto, S., Sukarmin, S., & Ratnasari, D. (2018). Students’ conceptions analysis on several electricity concepts. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1), 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012043
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning Electricity with NIELS: Thinking with Electrons and Thinking in Levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-009-9144-z
Suparman, A. R., Rohaeti, E., & Wening, S. (2024). Development of Computer-Based Chemical Five-Tier Diagnostic Test Instruments: A Generalized Partial Credit Model. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 17(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2024.170108
Taban, T., & Kiray, S. A. (2022). Determination of Science Teacher Candidates’ Misconceptions on Liquid Pressure with Four-Tier Diagnostic Test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(8), 1791–1811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10224-8
Türkoguz, S. (2020). Investigation of Three-Tier Diagnostic and Multiple Choice Tests on Chemistry Concepts with Response Change Behaviour. International Education Studies, 13(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n9p10
Volkwyn, T. S., Airey, J., Gregorcic, B., & Linder, C. (2020). Developing representational competence: Linking real-world motion to physics concepts through graphs. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1750670