Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and psychological measurement, 33(3), 613-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447303300309.
• Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago University Press, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.26-2103.
• Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3186-4.
• Gu, M. Y. (2013). Influence of traditional Chinese culture on Chinese education. In Cultural Foundations of Chinese Education (pp. 89–127). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004263161.
• Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290307.
• Irribarra, D. T., & Freund, R. (2014). Wright Map: IRT item-person map with ConQuest integration, R Package “WrightMap”. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/WrightMap/WrightMap.pdf.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21051.
• Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a fine-grained learning progression framework for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663–1697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.782453.
• Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002a). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modeling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052045.
• Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02296272.
• Miller, H. K., Johnson, W. R., Freed, A. W., Doherty, J. H., & Anderson, C. W. (submitted, 2017). Crosscutting concepts for re-orienting science education. Submitted to Science Education.
• Mohan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Teaching experiments and the carbon cycle learning progression. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
• Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20314.
• Mohan, L., Chen, J., Baek, H., Anderson, C. W., Choy, J., Lee Y. S. (2009). Validation of a multi-year carbon cycle learning progression: a closer look at progress variables and processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Garden Grove, CA.
• National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.
• National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625.
• National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
• National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18409.
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AllDCI.pdf.
• Qi, L. (2004). Has a high-stakes test produced the intended changes? In L. Cheng, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 171-190). Mahwah, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum & Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609731.
• Schmitz, R. (2011). The downside of exam-based education in China. Marketplace. Retrieved from http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/07/pm-thedownside-of-exambased-education-in-china/.
• Stern, L., & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students’ assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10050.
• Thomas, J., Kim, J. H., & Draney, K. (2018). Machine scoring and IRT analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Atlanta, GA.
• Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M., Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1-58. Retrieved from https://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=19366.
• Toulmin, S. (1961). Foresight and understanding. Great Britain: The Anchor Press.
• Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M., Gustafsson, J. E., & Martin-Loff, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370. Retrieved from https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt83b.htm.
• Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., Haldane, S.A. (2007). ACER ConQuest 2.0 Manual [computer program]. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER.
• Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T. (2015). Exploring third-grade student model-based explanations about plant relationships within an ecosystem. International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 2942–2964. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1118772.
• Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., Schwarz, C. V. (2015). Exploring the effect of embedded scaffolding within curricular tasks on third-grade students’ model-based explanations about hydrologic cycling. Science & Education, 24, 957–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9771-9.

APA

Zhao, P., Anderson, C. W., Scott, E., Draney, K., & Kim, J. (2019). How Chinese and American Students Construct Explanations of Carbon-Transforming Processes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(6), em1688. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103067

Vancouver

Zhao P, Anderson CW, Scott E, Draney K, Kim J. How Chinese and American Students Construct Explanations of Carbon-Transforming Processes. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(6):em1688. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103067

AMA

Zhao P, Anderson CW, Scott E, Draney K, Kim J. How Chinese and American Students Construct Explanations of Carbon-Transforming Processes. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(6), em1688. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103067

Chicago

Zhao, Pingping, Charles W. Anderson, Emily Scott, Karen Draney, and Jinho Kim. "How Chinese and American Students Construct Explanations of Carbon-Transforming Processes". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 6 (2019): em1688. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103067

Harvard

Zhao, P., Anderson, C. W., Scott, E., Draney, K., and Kim, J. (2019). How Chinese and American Students Construct Explanations of Carbon-Transforming Processes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(6), em1688. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103067

MLA

Zhao, Pingping et al. "How Chinese and American Students Construct Explanations of Carbon-Transforming Processes". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 6, 2019, em1688. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103067