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).

• Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2006). Model Analysis: Representing and Assessing the Dynamics of Student Learning. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 2, 010103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010103
• Battaglia, O. R., Bonura, A., & Sperandeo-Mineo, R. M. (2009). A pedagogical approach to the Boltzmann factor through experiments and simulations. European Journal of Physics, 30(5), Article 1025. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/30/5/011
• Battaglia, O. R., Di Paola, B., Persano Adorno, D., Pizzolato, N., & Fazio, C. (2019). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Modelling-Oriented Workshops for Engineering Undergraduates in the Field of Thermally Activated Phenomena. Research in Science Education, 49(5), 1395-1413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9660-0
• Besson, U. (2010) Calculating and Understanding: Formal Models and Causal Explanations in Science, Common Reasoning and Physics Teaching. Science & Education, 19, 225-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9203-9
• Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
• Çalik M., Kolomuc A., & Karagolge Z., (2010). The effect of conceptual change pedagogy on students’ conceptions of rate of reaction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 422-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9208-9
• Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing and analyzing mental models. Social Forces, 70, 601. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579746
• Corpuz, E. D., & Rebello, N. S. (2011). Investigating students’ mental models and knowledge construction of microscopic friction. I. Implications for curriculum design and development. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 7, 020102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020103
• De Regt, H. W., & Dieks, D. A. (2005). Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding. Synthese, 144, 137-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-5000-4
• Dieks, D. (2019). Mechanisms, Explanation and Understanding in Physics. In B. Falkenburg & G. Schiemann (Eds.), Mechanistic Explanations in Physics and Beyond (pp. 47-64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10707-9_4
• Engel-Clough, E., & Driver R. (1986). A study of consistency in the use of students’ conceptual frameworks across different task contexts. Science Education, 70, 473-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700412
• Fazio, C., Battaglia, O. R., & Di Paola, B. (2013). Investigating the quality of mental models deployed by undergraduate engineering students in creating explanations: The case of thermally activated phenomena. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 9(2), Article 020101, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020101
• Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Vol. I). Addison-Wesley.
• Geller, B. D., Gouvea, J., Dreyfus, B. W., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C., & Redish, E. F. (2019). Bridging the gaps: How students seek disciplinary coherence in introductory physics for life science. Physical Review Physics Education Researh, 15, 020142. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020142
• Griffiths, D. J. (1988). Introduction to Electrodynamics. Prentice-Hall.
• Hrepic, Z., Zollman, D. A., & Rebello, N. S. (2005). Eliciting and representing hybrid mental models. In J. Shymansky, J. Tillotson, J. Staver and G. Richmond (Eds.), Proceedings of the NARST 2005 Annual Meeting. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
• Karam, R., Cyrino de Mello Forato, T., & Pietrocola M., (2011). Explanation versus Description: Philosophical Debate and Implications for Physics Teaching. In D. Raine, C. Hurkett, & L. Rogers (Eds.), Physics Community and Cooperation: Selected Contributions from the GIREP-EPEC & PHEC 2009 International Conference (pp. 171-179). Lulu / The Centre for Interdisciplinary Science.
• Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
• Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. A. (2008). What Needs to Develop in the Development of Inquiry Skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 512-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802391745
• Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Séréc, M. G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: the consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10, 497-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00013-X
• Maloney, D. P., & Siegler, R. S. (1993). Conceptual Competition in Physics Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150306
• Marton, F. (1986) Phenomenography - A research approach investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(2) 28-49.
• Nottis, K., Prince, M., & Vigeant, M. (2010). Building an understanding of heat transfer concepts in undergraduate chemical engineering courses. US-China Education Review, 7(2), 1-8.
• Phillips, A., Watkins, J., & Hammer, D. (2017). Problematizing as a scientific endeavor. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 020107. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020107
• Redfors, A. (2003). University physics students’ use of explanatory models. In P. Zetterberg, T. Brage, G. Jonsson, & E. Nilsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the GIREP 2002: Physics in New Fields and Modern Applications. Teach support.
• Redfors, A., & Ryder, J. (2001). University physics students’ use of models in explanations of phenomena involving interaction between metals and radiation. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1283-1301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038620
• Reese, H. W. (1999). Explanation is not description. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 8(1), 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100524
• Richardson, O. W. (1921). The Emission of Electricity from Hot Bodies. Longman Green.
• Sikorski T. R., & Hammer, D. (2017). Looking for coherence in science curriculum. Science Education, 101(6), 929-943. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21299
• Sperandeo-Mineo, R. M., Fazio, C., & Tarantino, G. (2006). Pedagogical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: A case study. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 235-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9004-3
• Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. S. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00979.x
• Supasorn, S., & Promarak, V. (2015). Implementation of 5E inquiry incorporated with analogy learning approach to enhance conceptual understanding of chemical reaction rate for grade 11 students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00190G
• Târziu, G. (2018). Can we have mathematical understanding of physical phenomena? Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 33(1), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.18108
• Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners. Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin.

APA

Battaglia, O. R., Di Paola, B., & Fazio, C. (2021). Exploring the Coherence of Student Reasoning when Responding to Questionnaires on Thermally Activated Phenomena. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(7), em1977. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10937

Vancouver

Battaglia OR, Di Paola B, Fazio C. Exploring the Coherence of Student Reasoning when Responding to Questionnaires on Thermally Activated Phenomena. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(7):em1977. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10937

AMA

Battaglia OR, Di Paola B, Fazio C. Exploring the Coherence of Student Reasoning when Responding to Questionnaires on Thermally Activated Phenomena. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(7), em1977. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10937

Chicago

Battaglia, Onofrio Rosario, Benedetto Di Paola, and Claudio Fazio. "Exploring the Coherence of Student Reasoning when Responding to Questionnaires on Thermally Activated Phenomena". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2021 17 no. 7 (2021): em1977. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10937

Harvard

Battaglia, O. R., Di Paola, B., and Fazio, C. (2021). Exploring the Coherence of Student Reasoning when Responding to Questionnaires on Thermally Activated Phenomena. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(7), em1977. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10937

MLA

Battaglia, Onofrio Rosario et al. "Exploring the Coherence of Student Reasoning when Responding to Questionnaires on Thermally Activated Phenomena". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 17, no. 7, 2021, em1977. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10937