American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.

Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Challenges in the transition to large-scale reform in chemical education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.008

Bain, K., & Towns, M. H. (2016). A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00176E

Barlia, L. (2016). Patterns of conceptual change process in elementary school students’ learning of science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(2), 49–60.

Barnea, N., Judy, Y., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories : Reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1039/C005471M

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2012). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Routledge.

Boone, B., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4

Bradley, K., Peabody, M., Akers, K., & Knutson, N. (2015). Rating scales in survey research: Using the Rasch model to illustrate the middle category measurement flaw. Survey Practice, 8(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2015-0001

Broman, K., Bernholt, S., & Parchmann, I. (2018). Using model-based scaffolds to support students solving context-based chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1176–1197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470350

Broman, K., & Parchmann, I. (2014). Students’ application of chemical concepts when solving chemistry problems in different contexts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 516–529. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp00051j

Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., & Bursten, B. E. (2000). Chemistry: The central science (9th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Cakmakci, G., Leach, J., & Donnelly, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1795–1815. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600823490

Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students' understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130

Celik, S. (2014). Chemical literacy levels of science and mathematics teacher candidates. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n1.5

Chairam, S., Klahan, N., & Coll, R. K. (2015). Exploring secondary students' understanding of chemical kinetics through inquiry-based learning activities. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 937–956. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1365a

Cigdemoglu, C., Arslan, H. O., & Cam, A. (2017). Argumentation to foster pre-service science teachers’ knowledge, competency, and attitude on the domains of chemical literacy of acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00167J

Cigdemoglu, C., & Geban, O. (2015). Improving students’ chemical literacy level on thermochemical and thermodynamics concepts through context-based approach. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00007F

Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2009). Exploring international perspectives of scientific literacy: An overview of the special issue. International Journal of Environmental Science Education, 4(3), 197–200.

Creswell, J. W. (2006). Choosing a mixed method design. In J. W. Creswell & V. L. P. Clark (Eds.), Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 58–89). Sage Publications.

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6%3C582::AID-TEA5%3E3.0.CO;2-L

De Jong, J. H. (2012, March). Framework for PISA 2015: What 15-years-old should be able to do [Paper presentation]. 4th Annual Conference of Educational Research Center. Broumana, Lebanon.

Dijk, E. M. V. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20458

Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., & Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1198–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351

Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., & Technion, S. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20197

Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Lai, S. M., & Perera, S. (2003). Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The stroke impact scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 950–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2

Englehard, G. (2013). Invariant measurement, using Rasch models in the social, behavioral and health sciences. Routledge.

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education multiple representations in chemical education. Springer.

Herrmann-abell, C. F., & Deboer, G. E. (2016, April 8-12). Using Rasch modeling and option probability curves to diagnose students’ misconceptions [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC.

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549

Holman, J., & Hunt, A. (2002). What does it mean to be chemically literate? Education in Chemistry, 39(1), 12–14.

Johnstone, A. H., Macdonald, J. J., & Webb, G. (1977). Misconceptions in school thermodynamics. Physics Education, 12(4), 248–251. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/12/4/011

Khine, M. S. (2020). Objective measurement in psychometric analysis. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Rasch measurement applications in quantitative educational research (pp. 3–7). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1800-3_1

Kingir, S., & Geban, O. (2012). The effect of conceptual change approach on students’ understanding of reaction rate concepts. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43, 306–317.

Kubiatko, M. (2015). Is chemistry attractive for pupils? Czech pupils’ perception of chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(4), 855–863. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1444a

Li, C., Romero, S., Bonilha, H. S., Simpson, K. N., Simpson, A. N., Hong, I., & Velozo, C. A. (2016). Linking existing instruments to develop an activity of daily living item bank. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 41(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278716676873

Linacre, J. M. (2006). Data variance explained by Rasch measures. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(1), 1048-1051.

Linacre, J. M. (2011). A user’s guide to Winsteps & Ministep Rasch-Model computer programs. Winsteps. http://www.winsteps.com/a/winsteps.pdf

Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 301–311.

Liu, X. (2010). Using and developing measurement instruments in science education: A Rasch modeling approach. Information Age.

Liu, X., & Boone, W. J. (2006). Introduction to Rasch measurement in science education. In X. Liu & W. J. Boone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in science education (pp. 1–22). JAM Press.

Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017

Mcclary, L. M., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students’ alternative conceptions related to acid strength. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2317–2341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.684433

Miller, J. D. (1983). The American people and science policy. Pergamon.

National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Talking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. The National Academies press.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066

Pabuccu, A., & Erduran, S. (2016). Investigating students’ engagement in epistemic and narrative practices of chemistry in the context of a story on gas behavior. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00011H

Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralled, B. (2006). “Chemie im kontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach, International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041-1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702512

Preczewski, J. P., Mittler, A., & Tillotson, W. (2009). Perspectives of German and US students as they make meaning of science in their everyday lives. International Journal of Environment & Science Education, 4(3), 247–258.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327

Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: What we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470346

Shwartz, Y., Ben-zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90011A

Shwartz, Y., Dori, Y. J., & Treagust, D. (2013). How to justify formal chemistry education, to outline its objectives and to assess them, in teaching chemistry – a studybook: A practical guide and textbook for student teachers, teacher trainees and teachers. Sense Publishers.

Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20324

Suminto, B., & Widhiarsho, W. (2015). Aplikasi pemodelan Rasch pada assessment pendidikan [Application of Rasch modelling in educational measurement]. Trim Komunikata.

Tal, T., & Dierking, L. D. (2014). Learning science in everyday life. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21142

Talanquer, V., & Sevian, H. (2013). Chemistry in past and new science frameworks and standards: Gains, losses, and missed opportunities. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(1), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400134c

Tsaparlis, G. (2000). The states-of-matter approach (SOMA) to introductory chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1039/A9RP90017A

Turanyi, T., & Toth, Z. (2013). Hungarian university students’ misunderstandings in thermodynamics and chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp20015e

Witte, D., & Beers, K. (2003). Testing of chemical literacy (Chemistry in context in the Dutch national examination). Chemical Education International, 4(1), 1–15.

Wu, H. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87(6), 868–891. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10090

Xie, Q., Zhong, X., Wang, W., & Lim, C. P. (2014). Development of an item bank for assessing generic competences in a higher-education institute: A Rasch modelling approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4), 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.863847

Yalçınkaya, E., Taştan-Kırık, O., Boz, Y., & Yıldıran, D. (2012). Is case-based learning an effective teaching strategy to challenge students’ alternative conceptions regarding chemical kinetics? Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2012.698605

Yapicioglu, A. E., & Aycan, S. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ decisions and types of informal reasoning about the socioscientific issue of nuclear power plants. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.137.2