___

• AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.New York:Ozforld University Press.
• Andersson, B. & Renström, L. (1981). Oxidation of steel-wool. (Report: Elevperspektiv Number 7).Göteborg: Department of Educational Research, University of Göteborg.
• Atasoy, B., Kadayıfçı, H. & Akkuş, H. (2003). Kimyasal bağlar konusundaki yanlış kavramlar.Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1 (1), 61-79.
• Barker, V. & Millar, R. (2000). Students’ reasoning about chemical thermodinamics and chemical bonding: what changes occure during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 22 (11), 1171-1200.
• Barker, V. (1995). A longitidunal study of 16-18 year olds’ understanding of basic chemical ideas. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Department of Educational Studies, University of York.
• Birk, J.P. & Kurtz, M.J. (1999). Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure ve bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 124-128.
• Boo, H. K. & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education 85: 568–585.
• Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetic of chemical reactions.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3 (5), 569 – 581.
• Boujaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understandings about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 689-704.
• Cachapuz, A. F. & Martins, I. P. (1987). High school students’ ideas about energy of chemical reactions.In J. Novak & H. Helm (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics, Vol. III (60-68).
• Can, Ş. & Harmandar, M. (2004). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağlar konusundaki kavramsal yanılgıları. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (8).
• Canpolat, N., Pınarbaşı, T. & Sözbilir, M. (2003). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının kovalent bağ ve molekül yapıları ile ilgili kavram yanılgıları. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2 (25), 66-72.
• Cervellati, R. & Perugini, D. (1981). The understanding of the atomic orbital concept by Italian high school students. Journal of Chemical Education, 58, 568-569.
• Coll, R.K. & Taylor, N. (2002). Mental models in chemistry: senior chemistry students’ mental models of chemical bonding. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3 (2),175-184.
• Coll, R.K. & Treagust, D.F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357-382.
• Çökelez, A. (2004). Molekül içi ve moleküller arası bağlar ve maddenin dönüşümü: Fransız ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin görüşleri. VI. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 9-11 Eylül, Marmara Universitesi, İstanbul.
• Dagher, Z. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change?. Science Education,78(6), 601-14.
• Driver, R., Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A., (1985). Children’s Ideas in Science (6th Ed.). Open University Press: Milton Keynes.
• Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education,75(6), 649-672.
• Duschl, R. (1994) Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (ed), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (New York: Macmillan), 443-465.
• Ebenezer, J.V. & Fraser, M.D. (2001). Şrst year chemical engineering students’ conceptions of energy in solution process: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education 85: 509–535.
• Furio, C. & Calatayud, M.L. (1996). Difşculties with the geometry and polarity of molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(1), 36-41.
• Gabel, D. (1996). The complexity of chemistry: Research for teaching in the 21st century. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Chemical Education. Brisbane, Australia.
• Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V. & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695-697.
• Glynn, S. (1991). Explaining science concepts: Ateaching-with-analogy model. In S. Glynn, R.Yeany & B. Britton (eds.), The Psychology of Learning Science. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 219-240.
• Greca, I.M. & Moreira, M.A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education, 86(1), 106-121.
• Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80, 509-534.
• Johnson, P. (2002). Children’s understanding of substances, Part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (10), 1037-1054.
• Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science is difşcult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
• Kabapınar, F. (2003). Kavram yanılgılarının ölçülmesinde kullanılabilecek bir ölçeğin bilgikavrama düzeyini ölçmeyi amaçlayan ölçekten farklılıkları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 35, 398-417.
• Kozma, R.B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N. & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, R. Glaser, E. DeCorte, & H. Mandel (Eds.), International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale NJ, 41-60.
• Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Areview of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
• Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can şnal examinations amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry?. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 301-325.
• Matthews, M. (1998) The nature of science and science teaching. In B. Fraser and K. Tobin (eds), International handbook of science. London: Kluwer Academic, 881-999.
• Mirzalar Kabapınar, F. & Adik, B. (2005). Ortaöğretim 11. sınıf öğrencilerinin Fiziksel değişim ve kimyasal bağ ilişkisini anlama seviyesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 38 (1), 123-147.
• Nakiboğlu, C. & Benlikaya, R. (2001). Orbital kavramı ve modern atom teorisine ilişkin kavram yanılgıları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 9 (1) 165-174.
• Nakiboğlu, C. (2003). Instructional misconceptions of Turkish prospective chemistry teachers about atomic orbitals and hybridization. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 4 (2), 171-188.
• Nicoll, G. (2001). Areport of undergraduates bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 707-730.
• NRC (National Research Council) (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington. DC: National Academy Press.
• NSTA(National Science Teacher Association) (1992). The content core: A guide for curriculum designers. Washington. DC: NSTA
• Özmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147-159.
• Özmen, H., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S. & Ayas, A. (2002). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının temel kimya kavramlarını anlama seviyelerinin belirlenmesi. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Ankara.
• Peterson, R. & Treagust, D. (1989). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(6), 459-460.
• Peterson, R.F. (1993). Tertiary students’ understanding of covalent bonding and structure concepts. Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 11-15.
• Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F. & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and grade-12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301-314.
• Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (2000). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel, Germany: University of Kiel Institude for Science Education.
• Preira, M.P. & Pestana, M.E.M. (1991). Pupils’ representations of models of water. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 313-319.
• Robinson, W.R. (1998). An alternative framework for chemical bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 1074-1075.
• Robinson, W.R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education. 80, 978-982.
• Ross, K. (1993). There is no energy in food and fuels- but they do have fuel value. School Science Review, 75, 39-47.
• Schollum, B. (1981). Chemical change: A working paper of the Learning in Science Project (no. 27). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
• Stavridou, H. & Solomonidou, C. (1989). Physical phenomena- chemical phenomena: Do pupils make the distinction? International Journal of Science Education, 11 (1), 83-92.
• Taber, K.S. (1993). Stability and lability in student conceptions: some evidence from a case study. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Liverpool.
• Taber, K.S. (1994). Misunderstanding the ionic bond. Education in Chemistry, 31, 100-103.
• Taber, K.S. (1995). Development of student understanding: A case study of stability and lability in cognitive structure. Research in Science and Technological Education, 13, 89-99.
• Taber, K.S. (1997). Students’ understanding of ionic bonding: Molecular versus electrostatic framework. School Science Review, 78, 85-95.
• Taber, K.S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608.
• Taber, K.S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 123-158. [http://www.uoi.gr/cerp]
• Tan, K.C.D. & Treagust, D.F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75-84.
• Tsaparlis, G. & Papaphotis, G. (2002). Quantum-chemical concepts: Are they suitable for secondary students? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 129-144.
• Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and molecular structure in chemical education: A critical analysis from various perspectives of science education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 922-925.
• Ünal, S., Özmen, H., Demircioğlu, G. & Ayas, A. (2001). Lise öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağlarla ilgili anlama düzeylerinin ve yanılgılarının belirlenmesine yönelik bir çalışma. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Ankara.
• Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, C. (1992) Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
• Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning & Instruction, 4, 45-69.
• Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J. & Novak, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.L. Gabel (ed), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan, 177-210.
• White, R.T. & Gunstone, R.F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
• Williamson, V.M. & Abraham, M.R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521-534.
• Yılmaz, A. & Morgil, İ. (2001). Üniversite öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağlar konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20- 172-178.
• Zoller, U. (1990). Students’ misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1053-1065.