• Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262-268. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113.
• Barak, J., Gorodetsky, M., & Chipman, D. (1997). Understanding energy in biology and vitalistic conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190102.
• Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20227.
• Black, P., & Solomon, J. (1983). Life world and science world: Pupils’ ideas about energy. In G. Marx (Ed.), Entropy in the school. Proceedings of the 6th Danube Seminar on Physics Education (pp. 43–455). Budapest: Roland Eoetvoes Physical Society.
• Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College.
• Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Bonham, S. W., Deardorff, D. L., & Beichner, R. J. (2003). Comparison of student performance using web and paper-based homework in college-level physics. Journal of Research in science teaching, 40(10), 1050-1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10120.
• Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1990). Misunderstandings of ‘‘law’’ and ‘‘conservation’’: A study of pupils’ meanings for these terms. School Science Review, 72(258), 51–57.
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Mind brain, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.0001.
• Cheng, K., Thacker, B. A., Cardenas, R. L., & Crouch, C. (2004). Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 72(11), 1447-1453. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1768555.
• Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. The journal of the learning science, 14(2), 161-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Crisp, V., & Ward, C. (2008). The development of a formative scenario-based computer assisted assessment tool in psychology for teachers: the PePCAA project. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1509–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.02.004.
• de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179.
• de Klerk, S., Veldkamp, B. P., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Psychometric analysis of the performance data of simulation-based assessment: A systematic review and a Bayesian network example. Computer & Education, 85, 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.020.
• diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008.
• diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47637-1_2.
• diSessa, A.A., Gillespie, N.,& Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2806_1.
• Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology and Society 4(1), 61–74.
• Driver, R., & Warrington, L. (1985). Students’ use of the principle of energy conservation in problem situations. Physic Education, 20, 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/20/4/308.
• Duit, R. (2012). Towards a learning progression of energy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis, IN.
• Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development and Application of Three-Tier Heat and Temperature Test: Sample of Bachelor and Graduate Students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 40, 53-76.
• Geban, O., Askar, P., & Ozkan, I. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem solving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941821.
• Gelman, R. (1990). First principles organize attention to and learning about relevant data: number and the animate-inanimate distinction as examples. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 79-106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_5.
• Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.
• Goldring, H., & Osborne, J. (1994). Students’ difficulties with energy and related concepts. Physics Education, 29(1), 26 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/29/1/006.
• Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730650308.
• Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a.
• Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1316-1325. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18376.
• Huppert, J., Lomask, S.M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049150.
• Hynd, C., Alvermann, D., & Qian, G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptual change about projectile motion: refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199701)81:1<1::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-M.
• Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5–61.
• Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer Simulations in Physics Teaching and Learning: A Case Study on Students’ Understanding of Trajectory Motion. Journal of Computers & Education, 36, 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00059-2.
• Linacre, J. M. (2014). WINSTEPS (version 3.81) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com.
• Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10086.
• Liu, X. (2010). Essentials of Science Classroom Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483349442.
• Mackey, J. (2009). Virtual learning and real communities: online professional development for teachers. In E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic (Eds.), Effective blended learning practices: evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education (pp. 163–181). Hershey: Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-296-1.ch009.
• Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272.
• McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
• Moharreri, K., Ha, M., & Nehm, R. (2014). EvoGrader: an online formative assessment tool for automatically evaluating written evolutionary explanations. Evolution Education and Outreach, 7(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-014-0015-2.
• Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640009527052.
• Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20400.
• Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.
• Ozdemir, G. & Clark, D. (2009). Knowledge structure coherence in Turkish students’ understanding of force. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 570-596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20290.
• Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54, 715–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.032.
• Park, M., & Liu, X. (2016). Assessing understanding of the energy concept in difference science disciplines. Science Education, 100(3), 483-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21211.
• Park, M., & Liu, X. (2019). An investigation of item difficulties in energy aspects across biology, chemistry, environmental science, and physics. Research in Science Education. Published online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9819-y.
• Park, M., Liu, X., Smith, E., & Waight, N. (2017). The effect of computer models as formative assessment on student understanding of the nature of models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 572-581. http://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00018a.
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Penn, J., Nedeff, V. M., & Gozdzik, G. (2000). Organic chemistry and the internet: a web-based approach to homework and testing using the WE_LEARN System. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 227−231. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p227.
• Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., & Wieman, C. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44, 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2150754.
• Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D.F., & Garnet, P. (1989). Development and application of diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260404.
• Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21005.
• Redish, E. F. (2017). Analysing the competency of mathematical modelling in physics. In: Greczyło, T., & Dębowska, E., (Eds.), Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning (pp. 25-40). Chum: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_3.
• Richards-Babb, M., Drelick, J., Henry, Z., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2011). Online homework, help or hindrance? What students think and how they perform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 81–93.
• Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017.
• Smetana, L., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182.
• Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021.
• Srisawasdi, N., & Kroothkeaw, S. (2014). Supporting students’ conceptual learning and retention of light refraction concepts by simulation-based inquiry with dual-situated learning model. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 49–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0005-y.
• Srisawasdi, N., & Panjaburee, P. (2015) Exploring effectiveness of simulation-based inquiry learning in science with integration of formative assessment, Journal of Computers in Education, 2(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0037-y.
• Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093.
• Tao, P-K., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<859::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-J.
• Tatar, E., & Oktay, M. (2007). Students’ misunderstandings about the energy conservation principle: a general view to studies in literature. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2(3), 79-81.
• Treagust, D. F. (1998). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204.
• Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485.
• Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.012.
• Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20097.
• Zacharia, Z., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618-629. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1566427.

APA

Park, M. (2019). Effects of Simulation-based Formative Assessments on Students’ Conceptions in Physics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(7), em1722. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586

Vancouver

Park M. Effects of Simulation-based Formative Assessments on Students’ Conceptions in Physics. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(7):em1722. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586

AMA

Park M. Effects of Simulation-based Formative Assessments on Students’ Conceptions in Physics. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(7), em1722. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586

Chicago

Park, Mihwa. "Effects of Simulation-based Formative Assessments on Students’ Conceptions in Physics". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 7 (2019): em1722. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586

Harvard

Park, M. (2019). Effects of Simulation-based Formative Assessments on Students’ Conceptions in Physics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(7), em1722. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586

MLA

Park, Mihwa "Effects of Simulation-based Formative Assessments on Students’ Conceptions in Physics". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 7, 2019, em1722. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586