Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., Summers, R., Brunner, J. L., Belarmino, J., & Myers, J. (2024). Development of VAScoR: A rubric to qualify and score responses to the views of nature of science (VNOS) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(7), 1641-1688. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21916
• Ayene, M., Kriek, J., & Damtie, B. (2011). Wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle: Phenomenographic categories of description of tertiary physics students’ depictions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 7(2), Article 020113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020113
• Bitzenbauer, P., & Fösel, A. (2025). Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ mental models of the Higgs boson using the SOLO taxonomy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(10), Article em2706. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17028
• Bitzenbauer, P., & Meyn, J.-P. (2022). Toward types of students’ conceptions about photons: Results of an interview study. In J. B. Marks, P. Galea, S. Gatt, & D. Sands (Eds.), Physics teacher education. Challenges in physics education (pp. 1875-187). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06193-6_13
• Bitzenbauer, P., & Ubben, M. S. (2025). The structure of learners’ perceptions of models (not only) in quantum physics: spotlight on fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. EPJ Quantum Technology, 12, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00316-7
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Chakrabarti, A., & Ghosh, J. K. (2011). AIC, BIC and recent advances in model selection. Journal of the Indian Statistical Association, 49(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51862-0.50018-6
• Cho, G.-H., Hwang, H., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2020). Cutoff criteria for overall model fit indexes. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8(4), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00089-1
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
• Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften [Research methods and evaluation in the social and human sciences] (5th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
• Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3186-4
• Gräber, W., Nentwig, P., Koballa, T., & Evans, R. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific literacy: Der Beitrag der Naturwissenschaften zur allgemeinen Bildung [Scientific literacy: The contribution of the natural sciences to general education]. Leske + Budrich.
• Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280907
• Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315812274
• Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., Pol, H. J., Brinkman, A., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2017). Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13, Article 010109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010109
• Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1435346
• OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematics and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Roser, M. E., Fugelsang, J. A., Dunbar, K. N., Corballis, P. M., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). Dissociating processes supporting causal perception and causal inference in the brain. Neuropsychology, 19(5), 591-602. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.19.5.591
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
• Schmid, J. M., Veith, J., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2026). Cognitive dimensions in students’ mental models of linear light polarization. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 22, Article 010118. https://doi.org/10.1103/hng2-97bk
• Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (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
• Taşlıdere, E. (2016). Development and use of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess high school students’ misconceptions about the photoelectric effect. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 164-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124409
• Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, M., & 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
• Ubben, M. S. (2020). Typisierung des Verständnisses mentaler Modelle mittels empirischer Datenerhebung am Beispiel der Quantenphysik [Typification of the understanding of mental models using empirical data collection using the example of quantum physics]. Logos Verlag. https://doi.org/10.30819/5181
• Ubben, M. S., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2022). Two cognitive dimensions of students’ mental models in science: Fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. Education Sciences, 12(3), Article 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030163
• Ubben, M. S., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). Exploring the relationship between students’ conceptual understanding and model thinking in quantum optics. Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frqst.2023.1207619
• Ubben, M. S., & Heusler, S. (2021). Gestalt and functionality as independent dimensions of mental models in science. Research in Science Education, 51, 1349-1363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09892-y
• Ubben, M. S., Hartmann, J., & Pusch, A. (2022). Mental models of students regarding black holes. Astronomy Education Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.32374/AEJ.2022.2.1.029ra
• Ubben, M. S., Veith, J. M., Merzel, A., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). Quantum science in a nutshell: Fostering students’ functional understanding of models. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1192708
• Veith, J. M., Machisi, E., Ubben, M. S., Hennig, F., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2025). Analysis of high school students’ mental models of angles. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1679857
• Vrieze, S. I. (2012). Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychological Methods, 17(2), 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027127

APA

Witteborn, H., Veith, J., & Ubben, M. S. (2026). General model understanding in physics education: Validating a two-dimensional structure of fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(9), em2911. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19240

Vancouver

Witteborn H, Veith J, Ubben MS. General model understanding in physics education: Validating a two-dimensional structure of fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(9):em2911. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19240

AMA

Witteborn H, Veith J, Ubben MS. General model understanding in physics education: Validating a two-dimensional structure of fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(9), em2911. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19240

Chicago

Witteborn, Henry, Joaquin Veith, and Malte S. Ubben. "General model understanding in physics education: Validating a two-dimensional structure of fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2026 22 no. 9 (2026): em2911. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19240

Harvard

Witteborn, H., Veith, J., and Ubben, M. S. (2026). General model understanding in physics education: Validating a two-dimensional structure of fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(9), em2911. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19240

MLA

Witteborn, Henry et al. "General model understanding in physics education: Validating a two-dimensional structure of fidelity of gestalt and functional fidelity". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 22, no. 9, 2026, em2911. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19240