Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Alonzo, A. (2012). Eliciting Students’ Responses Relative to a Learning Progression. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science (pp. 241-254). Rotterdam: Sense.
• Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421.
• Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37-45.
• Besson, U. (2004). Students' conceptions of fluids. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 1683-1714.
• Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges to creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
• Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey and R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 257-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Çepni, S., & Şahin, Ç. (2012). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the 5E instructional model on students’ learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2), 97-127.
• Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152.
• Chiu, M. H., & Wu, W. L. (2013). A novel approach for investigating students’ learning progression for the concept of phase transitions. Educación Química, 24(4), 373-380.
• Cho, B. K., & Lee, E. J. (2011). Understanding among 4 to 5 year-old children about ‘float or sink’ concept. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 31(5), 481-508.
• Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
• Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology, (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
• Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 1–7.
• Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655-674.
• Duschl R. A., Schweingruber H.A., & Shouse A. (Eds.), (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.
• Elmesky, R. (2013). Building capacity in understanding foundational biology concepts: AK-12 learning progression in genetics informed by research on children's thinking and learning. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1155–1175.
• Fulmer, G. W. (2014). Validating proposed learning progressions on force and motion using the force concept inventory: Findings from Singapore secondary schools. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-20.
• Fulmer, G. W., Liang, L. L., & Liu, X. (2014). Applying a force and motion learning progression over an extended time span using the force concept inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2918-2936.
• Furtak, E. M., Morrison, D., & Kroog, H. (2014). Investigating the link between learning progressions and classroom assessment. Science Education, 98(4), 640–673.
• Gang, S. (1995). Removing preconceptions with a ‘‘learning cycle’’. The Physics Teacher, 33(6), 346-354.
• Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013). Validity evidence for learning progression‐based assessment items that fuse core disciplinary ideas and science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 597-626.
• Gunckel, K. L., Covitt, B. A., Salinas, I., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 843-868.
• Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Moller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of "Floating and Sinking". Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307-326.
• Heritage, M. (2008). Learning Progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Paper prepared for the formative assessment for teachers and students (FAST), State Collaborative on Assessment and student standards (SCASS). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
• Heron, P. R. L., Loverude, M. E., Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. Part II: Development of research-based instructional materials. American Journal of Physics, 71, 1188–1195.
• Hokayem, H., Ma, J., & Jin, H. (2015). A learning progression for feedback loop reasoning at lower elementary level. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 246-260.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Howe, C. J. (2016). Conceptual structure in childhood and adolescence: The case of everyday physics. London: Routledge.
• Hsin, C. T., & Wu, H. K. (2011). Using scaffolding strategies to promote young children’s scientific understandings of floating and sinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 656-666.
• Inhelder, B., & Piaget J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
• Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149-1180.
• Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a fine-grained learning progression framwork for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663-1697.
• Johnson, P. & Tymms, P. (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 849-877.
• Johnson, P. (1996). What is a substance? Education in Chemistry, March, 41-45.
• Kariotogloy, P., Koumaras, P., & Psillos, D. (1993). A constructivist approach for teaching fluid phenomena. Physics Education, 28(3), 164-169.
• Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.
• Kennedy, C. A., Brown, N. J., Draney, K., & Wilson, M. (2005). Using progress variables and embedded assessment to improve teaching and learning. American Education Research Association, San Francisco, California.
• Kim, Y. Y., & Kim, J. (2012). Analysis of the Middle School Students' Conceptions about Buoyancy. Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 369-380.
• Krnel, D., Glazar, S. A., & Watson, R. (2003). The development of the concept of matter: A cross-age study of how children classify materials. Science Education, 87, 621-639.
• 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(3), 257-289.
• Ku, J. H. (2002). Elementary school teachers' understanding on conceptions of the weight in the water. Master thesis of Korea National University of Education.
• Kwon, D. H. & Kwon, S. K. (2000). Elementary school students’ conceptions of buoyance related with cognitive levels. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 131-143.
• Lee, J. H., & Kim, S. Y. (2003). Young children's causal explanations for "floating or sinking" objects and the logical consistency of their applications. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 23(4), 169-192.
• Lee, J. S. (2009). Analysis of students' conceptual understanding of gravity and buoyancy. Master's thesis of Dankuk University.
• Lee, S. J., & Park, I. W. (2012). Effect of introducing density concept on science-gifted children's understanding of buoyant force. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 4(1), 79-92.
• Lee, S. J. (2000). An investigation of elementary school teachers' conceptions about buoyancy. Master thesis of Pusan National University of Education.
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (vol. 5, pp. 101-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724.
• Lehrer, R., Jaslow, K., & Curtis, C. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement in the elementary grades. In D.H. Clements and G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement. 2003 yearbook (pp. 100-121). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., & Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance: Modeling material kind. In S. Carver and D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years in progress. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Leuchter, M., Sbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2014). Designing science learning in the first years of schooling. An intervention study with sequenced learning material on the topic of 'floating and sinking'. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1751-1771.
• Loverude, M. E. (2009). A research-based interactive lecture demonstration on sinking and floating. American Journal of Physics, 77(10), 897-901.
• Loverude, M. E., Kautz, C. H., & Heron, P. R. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. I. Research on student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 71(11), 1178-1187.
• Mayes, R. L., Forrester, J. H., Christus, J. S., Peterson, F. I., Bonilla, R., & Yestness, N. (2014). Quantitative reasoning in environmental science: A learning progression. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 635–658.
• Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749.
• Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socioecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698.
• National Research Council. (2012). Framework for K-12 Science Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237-256.
• Nehm, R. H., Beggrow, E. P., Opfer, J. E., & Ha, M. (2012). Reasoning about natural selection: diagnosing contextual competency using the ACORNS instrument. The American Biology Teacher, 74(2), 92-98.
• Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162-188.
• Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 744-777.
• Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2013). Exploring how engaging with reflection on learning generates pedagogical insight in science teacher education. Science Education, 97(3), 410-441.
• Piaget (2005). The child’s conception of physical causality. Oxon: Routledge.
• Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child's construction of physical quantities. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Plummer, J. D. (2014). Spatial thinking as the dimension of progress in an astronomy learning progression. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 1-45.
• Plummer, J. D., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an Earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 768–787.
• Plummer, J. D., & Maynard, L. (2014). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: An exploration of students' reasoning about the seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 902-929.
• Plummer, J. D., Palma, C., Flarend, A., Rubin, K., Ong, Y. S., Botzer, B., McDonald, S., & Furman, T. (2015). Development of a learning progression for the formation of the solar system. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1381–1401.
• Pottenger, F. M. I., & Young, D. B. (1992). The local environment: FAST 1, Foundational approaches in science teaching. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Curriculum Research & Development Group.
• Radovanović, J., & Slisko, J. (2013). Applying a predict–observe–explain sequence in teaching of buoyant force. Physics Education, 48(1), 28-34.
• Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M. L., & Glaser, R. (1998). Why deos it go up? The impact of the MARS Curriculum as revealed through changes in student explanations of a helium balloon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547-567.
• Roseman, J., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kurth, L. A. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
• Schneider, M., & Hardy, I. (2013). Profiles of inconsistent knowledge in children's pathways of conceptual change. Developmental Psychology, 49(9), 1639-1649.
• Seo, H. C. (2004). Characteristics of high school students' response about concepts of hydraulic pressure and buoyancy. Master thesis of Korea National University of Education.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage learning, Mifflin and Company, CA.
• She, H. C. (2005). Enhancing eighth grade students' learning of buoyancy: The interaction of teachers' instructional approach and students' learning preference styles. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 609-624.
• Siegel, D. R., Esterly, J., Callanan, M. A., Wright, R., & Navarro, R. (2007). Conversations about science across activities in Mexican-descent families. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1447-1466.
• Smith, C. L., Solomon, G. E. A., & Carey, S. (2005). Never getting to zero: Elementary school students’' understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter. Cognitive Psychology, 51(2), 101-140.
• Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237.
• Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221–83.
• Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory. (2003). FAST teacher’s guide to the reflective lessons Ver 6 22. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
• Stevens, S., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multidimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687-715.
• Todd, A., & Kenyon, L. (2015). Empirical refinements of a molecular genetics learning progression: the molecular constructs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1385-1418.
• Unal, S. (2008). Changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-on activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(3), 134-146.
• Varelas, M. (1996). Between theory and data in a seventh-grade science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 229-263.
• Weston, M., Haudek, K. C., Prevost, L., Urban-Lurain, M., & Merrill, J. (2015). Examining the Impact of Question Surface Features on Students’ Answers to Constructed-Response Questions on Photosynthesis. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-12.
• Wilkening, F., & Huber, S. (2002). Children’s intuitive physics. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 349-370). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring Progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716-730.
• Wiser, M., Smith, C., Doubler, S., & Asbell-Clark, J. (2009). Learning progressions as a tool for curriculum development: Lessons from the inquiry project. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
• Wright, B. D. and Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
• Yin, Y., Tomita, K. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions about “sinking and floating.” Science Scope, 31, 34–39.
• Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2014). Using formal embedded formative assessments aligned with a short-term learning progression to promote conceptual change and achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 531-552.

APA

Paik, S., Song, G., Kim, S., & Ha, M. (2017). Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4965-4986. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00976a

Vancouver

Paik S, Song G, Kim S, Ha M. Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(8):4965-86. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00976a

AMA

Paik S, Song G, Kim S, Ha M. Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(8), 4965-4986. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00976a

Chicago

Paik, SeoungHey, Geuron Song, Sungki Kim, and Minsu Ha. "Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2017 13 no. 8 (2017): 4965-4986. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00976a

Harvard

Paik, S., Song, G., Kim, S., and Ha, M. (2017). Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), pp. 4965-4986. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00976a

MLA

Paik, SeoungHey et al. "Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 13, no. 8, 2017, pp. 4965-4986. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00976a