___

• Bektasli, B. (2006). The relationships between spatial ability, logical thinking, mathematics performance and kinematics graph interpretation skills of 12th grade physics students. Master’s thesis. The Ohio State University, Ohio. UMI Number: 3226336.
• Beichner, J, R.(1990). The effects simultaneous motion representation and graph generation in a kinematics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 8, 803 – 815.
• Beichner, R. (1994).Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.
• Berg, C. A., & Philips, D.G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 323 – 344.
• Delialioğlu, Ö., & Aşkar, P. (1999). Contribution of students’ mathematical skills and spatial ability to achievement in secondary school physics. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, ,16-17, 34-39.
• Demirci, N., Karaca, D., & Çirkinoğlu, A.G.(2006). Üniversite öğrencilerinin grafik anlama ve yorumlamaları ile kinematik başarıları arasındaki ilişki. VII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi, 7-9 Eylül, 2006, Ankara.
• Douglas, A.L.,& Moenk, S.J. (1999). Using Calculator-Based Laboratory technology: Insights from research. Department of Mathematics, Central MichiganUniversity, , (Erişim tarihi: 26 Eylül, 2006).
• Ergün, M. (2005). İlköğretim okulu öğretmen adaylarının KPSS’deki başarı düzeylerinin bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi (Kastamonu ili örneği). Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 13(2), 311-326.
• Ersoy, A.F. (2004). The effects of calculator based laboratories (CBL) on graphical interpretation of kinematic concepts in physics at METU teacher candidates. A thesis submitted to the graduate school of natural and applied sciences of middle east technical university, Ankara.
• Forster, P.A. (2004). Graphing in physics: processes and sources of error in tertiary entrance examinations in Western Australia. Research in Science Education, 34, 239-265.
• Güzel, H. (2004).Genel fizik ve matematik derslerindeki başarı ile matematiğe karşı olan tutum arasındaki ilişki. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(1), 49-58.
• Hadjidemetriou, C., & Williams, J.S. 2002). Children’s graphical conceptions. Research in Mathematics Education, 4,69-87.
• Hale, P.L. (1996). Building conceptions and repairing misconceptions in student understanding of kinematic graphs-using student discourse in calculator based laboratories. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Oregon State University.
• Hale, P. (2000). Kinematics and graphs: students’ difficulties and CBLs. The Mathematics Teacher,93(5), 414-417.
• Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). An introduction to the profound potential of connected algebra activities: Issues of representation, engagement and pedagogy. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 129–136. Bergen, Norway.
• Kwon, O. N. (2002). The effect of calculator based ranger activities on students’ graphing ability. School Science and Mathematics,102, 2, 57 – 67. McDermott, L.C., Rosenquist, M.L.& van Zee, E.H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 6, 503.
• Mc Dermott, L.C. (1984). Students’ conceptions and problem solving in mechanics. Physics Today, 37, 24-32.
• McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1983). The construction and validation of the Test of Graphing in Science(TOGS). Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.
• McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1984). Effect of the laboratory activities and written simulations of the acquisition of the graphing skills by eight grade students. Paper presented at the 57th meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.
• Murphy, L.D. (1999). Graphing misinterpretations and microcomputer –based laboratory instruction, with emphasis to kinematics. , (Erişim tarihi: 9 Şubat, 2007).
• Roth, W-M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph related practices between high school biology texbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 977-1019.
• Sencar, S. ,& Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Cinsiyetin öğrencilerin elektrik konusunda sahip oldukları kavram yanılgıları üzerindeki etkisi ve görülen cinsiyet farklılıklarının nedenleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 141-147.
• Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2006). Exploring the mathematics of motion through construction and collaboration. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 114-136.
• Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott L. C. (2005). A research based approach to improving student understanding of the nature of the kinematical concepts. American Journal of Physics, 73 (10), 921-931.
• Svec, M.T. (1995). Effect of micro-computer-based laboratory on graphing interpretation skills and understanding of motion. Educational Resources Information Center, No: ED383551.
• Svec, M. (1999). Improving graphing interpretation skills and understanding of motion using micro-computer based laboratories. Electronic Journal of Science education, 3 (4). , (Erişim tarihi: 05. 2007).
• Taşar, M.F., İngeç, Ş. K., & Güneş, P.Ü. (2002). Grafik çizme ve anlama becerisinin saptanması. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, ODTÜ, Ankara.
• Testa, I, Monroy, G., & Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: the case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 235–256.
• Woolnough, J. (2000). How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics?. Research in Science Education, 30 (3), 259-267.
• Yücel, S., Seçken, N., & Morgil, F.İ. (2001). Öğrencilerin lise kimya derslerinde öğretilen semboller sabitler ve birimlerini öğrenme derecelerinin ölçülmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 113-123.