Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company. Inc.
Bloom, P., & Markson, L. (1998). Intention and analogy in children's naming of pictorial representations. Psychological Science, 9(3), 200-204.
Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing, visualisation and young children's exploration of "big ideas". International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319-341.
Bucat, R. (2004). Pedagogical content knowledge as a way forward: Applied research in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 215-228.
Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Windschitl, M. A. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(12), 1658.
Chang, S. N. (2007). Externalizing students' mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107-112.
Cook, M. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.
De Jong, O., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947-964.
Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton & Co.
DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71(2), 329-338.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695.
Gilbert, J. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In J. Gilbert, & M. Nakhelh (Ed.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 3-24). The Netherlands: Springer.
Gilbert, J., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: a review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183-210.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(01), 1-19.
Hesslow, G. (2002). Conscious thought as simulation of behaviour and perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 242-247.
Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701.
Jones, L., Jordon, K., & Stillings, N. (2005). Molecular visualization in chemistry education: the role of multidisciplinary collaboration. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(3), 136-149.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205-226.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and Understanding: Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949-968.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100.
Mallinson, G. G., Sturm, H. E., & Mallinson, L. M. (1952). The reading difficulty of textbooks for high-school chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 29(12), 629.
McKendree, J., Small, C., Stenning, K., & Conlon, T. (2002). The role of representation in teaching and learning critical thinking. Educational Review, 54(1), 57-67.
Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for Understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education.International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281-1299.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, L. M., Macnab, J. S., & Norris, S. P. (2010). Models and modeling in science education: Visualization in mathematics, reading and science education (vol. 5). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Rapp, D. N., & Kurby, C. A. (2008). The ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of learning: Internal representations and external visualizations. In J. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (3 ed., pp. 29-52): Springer Netherlands.
Reiner, M. (1999). Conceptual construction of fields through tactile interface. Interactive Learning Environments, 7(1), 31-55.
Reiner, M. (2008). Seeing through touch: The role of haptic information in visualization. In J. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (3 ed., pp. 73-84): Springer Netherlands.
Rundgren, C.-J., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Schönborn, K. J. (2010). Students' conceptions of water transport. Journal of Biological Education, 44(3), 129-135.
Rundgren, C.-J., Hirsch, R., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Tibell, L. E. (2012). Students' communicative resources in relation to their conceptual understanding - The role of non-conventionalized expressions in making sense of visualizations of protein function. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 891-913.
Rundgren, C.-J., & Tibell, L. E. (2010). Critical features of visualizations of transport through the cell membrane: An empirical study of upper secondary and tertiary students meaning-making of a still image and an animation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 223-246.
Ryoo, K., & Linn, M. C. (2012). Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students' understanding of energy in photosynthesis? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 218-243.
Sanger, M., Greenbowe, T. (1997). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 34(4), 377-398.
Schönborn, K. J., Bivall, P., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Exploring relationships between students' interaction and learning with a haptic virtual biomolecular model. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2095-2105.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Simpson, B. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain. Illinois Journal of Home Economics, 10(4), 110-144.
Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 48(10), 1137-1158.
Svensson, H., & Ziemke, T. (2004). Making sense of embodiment: Simulation theories and the sharing of neural circuitry between sensorimotor and cognitive processes. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago.
Tasker, R. F., & Dalton, R. M. (2008). Visualizing the molecular world - Design, evaluation, and use of animations. In J. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 103-131). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tibell, L. A. E., & Rundgren, C.-J. (2010). Educational challenges of molecular life science: Characteristics and implications for education and research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 25-33.
Tomasello, M., Striano, T., & Rochat, P. (1999). Do young children use objects as symbols? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 563-584.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information (Vol. 2). Cheshire, CT: Graphics press.
Tversky, B., Zacks, J. M., Lee, P. U., & Heiser, J. (2000). Lines, blobs, crosses, and arrows. In M. Anderson, P. Cheng & V. Haarslev (Eds.), Theory and application of diagrams (pp. 221-230). Edinburgh: Springer.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 313-331.
Uttal, D., & O' Doherty, K. (2008). Comprehending and learning from 'visualizations': A developmental perspective. In J. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (3 ed., pp. 53-72): Springer Netherlands.
van Driel, J. H., de Vos, W., Verloop, N., & Dekkers, H. (1998). Developing secondary students' conceptions of chemical reactions: The introduction of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 379-392.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
Vavra, K. L., Janjic-Watrich, V., Loerke, K., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Macnab, J. (2011). Visualization in science education. Alberta Science Education Journal, 41(1), 22-30.
Velazquez-Marcano, A., Williamson, V., Ashkenazi, G., Tasker, R., & Williamson, K. (2004). The use of video demonstrations and particulate animation in general chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 315-323.
Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521-534.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Wu, H.-K., Lin, Y.-F., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2013). Effects of representation sequences and spatial ability on students' scientific understandings about the mechanism of breathing. Instructional Science, 41(3), 555-573.
Wu, H.-K., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754-767.
Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2004). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954-958.