standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 5 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics teaching Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The paper's claim that misunderstanding of the two knowledge forms is widespread among teachers rests on anecdote rather than on collected data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The paper concedes that the concept-first iterative approach it endorses has little empirical evidence behind it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The dichotomy the paper's title turns on is reported as having been declared fundamentally unsound, on the ground that procedures are conceptual in nature. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the conceptual/procedural split as a sound partition: the paper reports Kieran declaring the dichotomy fundamentally unsound because procedures are conceptual during elaboration | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Treating the two knowledge forms as two ends of a continuum is called false; the paper holds that either can occupy different positions depending on the situation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a placement of a task or a learner at one end of the conceptual/procedural continuum: the paper calls that positioning false, since either can occupy different places depending on the situation | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Two cells of Star's own matrix have no worked exemplars - the paper reports that deep-procedural and shallow-conceptual knowledge are hard even to illustrate. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | conceptual knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual knowledge | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | procedural knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural knowledge | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | concept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: concept | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | Relational Knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Relational Knowledge | concepts[3] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | routine expertise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: routine expertise | concepts[4] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | adaptive expertise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: adaptive expertise | concepts[5] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CRA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CRA | concepts[6] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CPA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CPA | concepts[7] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Declarative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Declarative | concepts[8] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Instrumental Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Instrumental | concepts[9] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | conceptual knowledge → procedural knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE DISTINCTION ITSELF IS DECLARED UNSOUND, and no type can say that. Kieran (2013) 'declared the dichotomy between them to be fundamentally unsound'. 'distinct-from' asserts the two ARE distinct; there is no way to record a cited author denying that the boundary can be drawn - the same gap quine1951 sits in. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | procedures → concepts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE CATEGORIES INTERPENETRATE RATHER THAN RELATE: 'Quotation withheld'. Not 'is-a', not 'part-of', not 'same-as' - a claim that membership is temporary and phase-dependent, which no edge type carries. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | concept - a mental representation embodying the essential features of an object, situation or idea, whose function is to let phenomena be classified as belonging together or not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | procedural knowledge - characterised by some researchers as the capacity to follow steps in sequence to reach a mathematical goal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the conceptual/procedural relation - bi-directional but NOT always symmetrical, with conceptual knowledge at times the stronger support Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | conceptual/procedural - a single distinction carrying eight different name pairs across eight traditions (Skemp's instrumental/relational, Tulving's episodic/semantic, Anderson's procedural/declarative...), which the paper asserts are the same division Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | deep - in Star's matrix a property that BOTH knowledge types can have, not a property of conceptual knowledge alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | adaptive expertise - both knowledge types deep AND applicable to unfamiliar situations; routine expertise is the same knowledge without the transfer Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the belief, held by the experienced teachers the author surveyed, that conceptual and procedural knowledge are mutually exclusive and that conceptual is always the more necessary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. note: The paper's target is a belief held by practitioners rather than a published claim, and it is quoted from the author's own observation of them. | claim_relations[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | conceptual knowledge —renamed-across-fields→ Relational Knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: An in-text renaming attributed to a named source: 'notably characterised by Skemp, 1978, as Relational…'. also in: conceptual knowledge · Relational Knowledge | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | conceptual knowledge —renamed-across-fields→ Declarative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · about this quote: PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the journal's page footer and a page number, between the sentence and Table 1: 'Vol 46, 2, February 2021 60 Australian Journal of Teacher…'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. · note: TABLE 1 IS THIS PROJECT'S THESIS WITH A TABLE. Eight research traditions across 1976-1984 - Skemp, Piaget, Gelman & Gallistel, Resnick, Tulving, Anderson, Van Lehn, Baroody - each name the SAME two categories differently, and the paper says so outright: 'regardless of the labels, the divisions regarding the types…'. The claim of sameness is the paper's, not the tagger's. also in: conceptual knowledge · Declarative | concept_edges[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | procedural knowledge —renamed-across-fields→ Instrumental Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · about this quote: PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the journal's page footer and a page number, between the sentence and Table 1: 'Vol 46, 2, February 2021 60 Australian Journal of Teacher…'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. · note: TABLE 1 IS THIS PROJECT'S THESIS WITH A TABLE. Eight research traditions across 1976-1984 - Skemp, Piaget, Gelman & Gallistel, Resnick, Tulving, Anderson, Van Lehn, Baroody - each name the SAME two categories differently, and the paper says so outright: 'regardless of the labels, the divisions regarding the types…'. The claim of sameness is the paper's, not the tagger's. also in: procedural knowledge · Instrumental | concept_edges[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | CRA —same-as→ CPA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'also referred to as' - one instructional sequence, two acronyms live in the same literature. | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | adaptive expertise —contrasted-with→ routine expertise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the knowledge transfers to unfamiliar situations - routine expertise applies to familiar ones only · strength of the relation: 0.8 also in: adaptive expertise · routine expertise | concept_edges[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Experienced primary and lower-secondary teachers believed that conceptual and procedural knowledge are mutually exclusive and that conceptual knowledge is always the more appropriate thing to teach. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Procedural and conceptual knowledge both matter and each strengthens the other. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Either procedural or conceptual knowledge can be shallow or deep. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The synthesis endorses teaching conceptual knowledge before procedural knowledge in most cases. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Students are likelier to develop conceptual knowledge if they begin with it and then move to procedural knowledge. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The empirical support for concept-first is that students taught conceptually and then procedurally outperform students taught procedurally and then conceptually. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Sequencing arithmetic problems to expose conceptual relationships was efficacious; in random order the effect was not seen. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The conceptual-procedural relationship is bi-directional but not always symmetrical: at times conceptual knowledge supports procedural knowledge more strongly than the reverse. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The paper's answer to its own title is that teachers need conceptual AND procedural knowledge, with the timing and placement left to the teacher's professional judgement. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kieran (2013) declared the conceptual-procedural dichotomy fundamentally unsound. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | concept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: concept | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conceptual knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual knowledge | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | procedure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedure | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | procedural knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural knowledge | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | routine expertise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: routine expertise | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | adaptive expertise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: adaptive expertise | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive interference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive interference | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | attitudinal interference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attitudinal interference | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | iterative view Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: iterative view | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.