Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

• Akaygun, S. (2016). Is the oxygen atom static or dynamic? The effect of generating animations on students’ mental models of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 788-807. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00067c
• Al-Balushi, S. M. (2013). The Effect of Different Textual Narrations on Students’ Explanations at the Submicroscopic Level in Chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.911a
• Andrade, V., Freire, S. & Baptista, M. (2019). Constructing Scientific Explanations: a System of Analysis for Students’ Explanations. Research in science education, 49, 787-807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9648-9
• Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using Static and Dynamic Visuals to Represent Chemical Change at Molecular Level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269-1298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500102284
• Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096-1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153
• Becker, N., Noyes, K., & Cooper, M. (2016). Characterizing students’ mechanistic reasoning about london dispersion forces. Journal of Chemistry Education, 93, 1713-1724. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00298
• Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20449
• Chang, H. Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. (2014). Using Drawing Technology to Assess Students’ Visualizations of Chemical Reaction Processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 355-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9468-2
• Chi, M. T. H., (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12285
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
• Cooper, M. M. (2015). Why Ask Why? Journal of Chemistry Education, 92, 1273-1279. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203
• Cooper, M. M., Stieff, M., & DeSutter, D. (2017). Sketching the invisible to predict the visible: From drawing to modeling in chemistry. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12285
• Hatzinikita, V., Koulaidis, V., & Hatzinikitas, A. (2005). Modeling Pupils’ Understanding and Explanations Concerning Changes in Matter. Research in Science Education, 35, 471-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-8321-2
• Kelly, R. M., & Jones, L. L. (2008). Investigating Students’ Ability To Transfer Ideas Learned from Molecular Animations of the Dissolution Process. Journal of Chemistry Education, 85, 303-309. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2016-1235.ch007
• Kozma, R. B. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science under-standing. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X
• Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121-145). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2
• Krist, C., Scahwarz, C. V., & Reiser, B. J. (2018). Identifying essential epistemic heuristics for guiding mechanistic reasoning in science learning. Journal of Learning Sciences, 28(2), 160-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1510404
• Leenaars, F. A. J., van Joolingen, W. R., & Bollen, L. (2013). Using self-made drawings to support modelling in science education. British Journal of Education and Technology, 44(1), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01272.x
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
• McCain, K. (2015). Explanation and the nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 24, 827-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9775-5
• Merritt, J. D., Krajcik, J., & Schwarz, Y. (2008). Development of a learning progression for the particle model of matter. Proceedings of the ICLS Conference, 2008.
• Ministério da Educação e Ciência (2013). Metas Curriculares do 3.º Ciclo do Ensino Básico: Ciências Físico-Químicas, Lisboa, Ministério da Educação e Ciência.
• Moreira, P., Marzabal, A., & Talanquer, V. (2018). Using a mechanistic framework to characterise chemistry students’ reasoning in written explanations. Chemistry Education Research and practice, 20, 120-131. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00159F
• NRC (National Research Council) (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
• Oliveira, D. K. B. S., Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2015). The use of representations and argumentative and explanatory situations. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1402-1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1039095
• Papageorgiou, G. (2013). Can Simple Particle Models Support Satisfying Explanations of Chemical Changes for Young Students? In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds), Concepts of Matter in Science Education (319-330). Springer: Springer online. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5
• Parnafes, O. (2010). Representational Practices in the Activity of Student-Generated Representations (SGR) for Promoting Conceptual Understanding. Proceedings of the ICLS ConferenceICLS, 301.
• Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple Representation in Learning About Evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787-808. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701824249
• Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: Emergent versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585-1603. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701447405
• Ryan, S., & Stieff, M. (2019). Drawing for Assessing Learning Outcomes in Chemistry. Journal of Chemistry Education, 96(9), 1813-1820, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00361
• Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., …(2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
• Sevian, H., & Stains, M. (2013). Implicit Assumptions and progress variables in a learning progression about structure and motion of matter, In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds), Concepts of Matter in Science Education (69-95). Springer (e-library). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5
• Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200206
• Taber, K. (2018). Representations and visualisation in teaching and learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 405-409, https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp90003e
• Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E
• Taber, K. S., & García-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. Journal of the Learning Science, 19(1), 99-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452868
• Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of “structure of matter”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123-2136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802578025
• Talanquer, V. (2010). Exploring dominant types of explanations built by general chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2393-2412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903369662
• Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry ‘‘ “triplet’’. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
• Talanquer, V. (2018). Exploring mechanistic reasoning in chemistry, in Yeo J., Teo T. W. and Tang K. S. (ed.), Science Education Research and Practice in Asia-Pacific and Beyond, Singapore: Springer, pp. 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5149-4
• Tümay, H. (2016). Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00008h
• Tversky, B., & Suwa, M. (2009). Thinking with sketches. In A. B. Markman & K. L. Wood (Eds.), Tools for Innovation: The science beyond the practical methods that drive new ideas. (pp. 75—84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring Shifts in Middle School Learners’ Modeling Activity While Generating Drawings, Animations, and Computational Simulations of Molecular Diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 396-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9497-5
• Williams, L. C., Underwood, S. M., Klymkowsky, M. W., & Cooper, M. M. (2015). Are noncovalent interactions an Achilles heel in chemistry education? A comparison of instructional approaches. Journal of Chemistry Education, 92, 1979-1987. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00619
• Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 48(10), 1177-1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20443

APA

De Andrade, V. F., Freire, S., & Baptista, M. (2021). Constructing Scientific Explanations for Chemical Phenomena through Drawings among 8th-grade Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1), em1937. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9614

Vancouver

De Andrade VF, Freire S, Baptista M. Constructing Scientific Explanations for Chemical Phenomena through Drawings among 8th-grade Students. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(1):em1937. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9614

AMA

De Andrade VF, Freire S, Baptista M. Constructing Scientific Explanations for Chemical Phenomena through Drawings among 8th-grade Students. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(1), em1937. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9614

Chicago

De Andrade, Vanessa Figueiredo, Sofia Freire, and Mónica Baptista. "Constructing Scientific Explanations for Chemical Phenomena through Drawings among 8th-grade Students". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2021 17 no. 1 (2021): em1937. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9614

Harvard

De Andrade, V. F., Freire, S., and Baptista, M. (2021). Constructing Scientific Explanations for Chemical Phenomena through Drawings among 8th-grade Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1), em1937. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9614

MLA

De Andrade, Vanessa Figueiredo et al. "Constructing Scientific Explanations for Chemical Phenomena through Drawings among 8th-grade Students". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 17, no. 1, 2021, em1937. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9614