<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Conceptual knowledge OR Procedural knowledge OR Conceptual knowledge AND Procedural knowledge:Why the conjunction is important for teachers</title>
        <author>Hurrell</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Conceptual knowledge OR Procedural knowledge OR Conceptual knowledge AND Procedural knowledge:Why the conjunction is important for teachers</title>
          <date>2021</date>
          <publisher>Australian Journal of Teacher Education</publisher>
          <idno type="DOI">10.14221/ajte.2021v46n2.4</idno>
          
          <idno type="record">hurrell2021-conceptual-knowledge-or-procedural</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">hurrell2021-conceptual-knowledge-or-procedural.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">fbd2a85cf97d21a23a47d8e8ea93c21ec9514e7f</note>
          <note type="rights">open-access</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>education</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">
        <label>critique</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t1" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">
        <label>conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics teaching</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t2" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">
        <label>review</label>
        <term>review</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t3" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>once procedures have been memorised and practised without understanding, students lose the motivation to look for their meaning, which is why a procedure-first sequence blocks the conceptual half of the iteration</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t4" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>acquiring procedural knowledge reduces the load on working memory, and the freed capacity can then be spent on building conceptual knowledge</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t5" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>a powerful earlier understanding (e.g. reading the equals sign as &#x27;give me an answer&#x27;) obtrudes into later learning and obfuscates the teaching that follows</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t6" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The paper&#x27;s claim that misunderstanding of the two knowledge forms is widespread among teachers rests on anecdote rather than on collected data.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t7" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The paper concedes that the concept-first iterative approach it endorses has little empirical evidence behind it.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t8" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>The dichotomy the paper&#x27;s title turns on is reported as having been declared fundamentally unsound, on the ground that procedures are conceptual in nature.</label>
        <note>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</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t9" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>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.</label>
        <note>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</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t10" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>Two cells of Star&#x27;s own matrix have no worked exemplars - the paper reports that deep-procedural and shallow-conceptual knowledge are hard even to illustrate.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t11" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[0]" resp="#paper">
        <label>conceptual knowledge</label>
        <term>conceptual knowledge</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t12" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[1]" resp="#paper">
        <label>procedural knowledge</label>
        <term>procedural knowledge</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t13" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[2]" resp="#paper">
        <label>concept</label>
        <term>concept</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t14" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[3]" resp="#paper" cert="0.9">
        <label>Relational Knowledge</label>
        <term>Relational Knowledge</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t15" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[4]" resp="#paper" cert="0.9">
        <label>routine expertise</label>
        <term>routine expertise</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t16" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[5]" resp="#paper" cert="0.9">
        <label>adaptive expertise</label>
        <term>adaptive expertise</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t17" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[6]" resp="#paper" cert="0.9">
        <label>CRA</label>
        <term>CRA</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t18" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[7]" resp="#paper" cert="0.9">
        <label>CPA</label>
        <term>CPA</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t19" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[8]" resp="#paper" cert="0.85">
        <label>Declarative</label>
        <term>Declarative</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t20" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[9]" resp="#paper" cert="0.9">
        <label>Instrumental</label>
        <term>Instrumental</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t21" type="unhoused_relations" ana="#unhoused_relations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>conceptual knowledge → procedural knowledge</label>
        <note>THE DISTINCTION ITSELF IS DECLARED UNSOUND, and no type can say that. Kieran (2013) &#x27;declared the dichotomy between them to be fundamentally unsound&#x27;. &#x27;distinct-from&#x27; 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.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t22" type="unhoused_relations" ana="#unhoused_relations[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>procedures → concepts</label>
        <note>THE CATEGORIES INTERPENETRATE RATHER THAN RELATE: &#x27;Quotation withheld&#x27;. Not &#x27;is-a&#x27;, not &#x27;part-of&#x27;, not &#x27;same-as&#x27; - a claim that membership is temporary and phase-dependent, which no edge type carries.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t23" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>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</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t24" type="senses" ana="#senses[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>procedural knowledge - characterised by some researchers as the capacity to follow steps in sequence to reach a mathematical goal</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t25" type="senses" ana="#senses[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the conceptual/procedural relation - bi-directional but NOT always symmetrical, with conceptual knowledge at times the stronger support</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t26" type="senses" ana="#senses[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>conceptual/procedural - a single distinction carrying eight different name pairs across eight traditions (Skemp&#x27;s instrumental/relational, Tulving&#x27;s episodic/semantic, Anderson&#x27;s procedural/declarative...), which the paper asserts are the same division</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t27" type="senses" ana="#senses[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>deep - in Star&#x27;s matrix a property that BOTH knowledge types can have, not a property of conceptual knowledge alone</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t28" type="senses" ana="#senses[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>adaptive expertise - both knowledge types deep AND applicable to unfamiliar situations; routine expertise is the same knowledge without the transfer</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t29" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>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</label>
        <note>note: The paper&#x27;s target is a belief held by practitioners rather than a published claim, and it is quoted from the author&#x27;s own observation of them.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t30" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>conceptual knowledge —renamed-across-fields→ Relational Knowledge</label>
        <term>conceptual knowledge</term>
        <term>Relational Knowledge</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: An in-text renaming attributed to a named source: &#x27;notably characterised by Skemp, 1978, as Relational…&#x27;.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t31" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>conceptual knowledge —renamed-across-fields→ Declarative</label>
        <term>conceptual knowledge</term>
        <term>Declarative</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 0.8 · about this quote: PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE &#x27;evidence&#x27; QUOTE - the journal&#x27;s page footer and a page number, between the sentence and Table 1: &#x27;Vol 46, 2, February 2021 60 Australian Journal of Teacher…&#x27;. 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&#x27;S THESIS WITH A TABLE. Eight research traditions across 1976-1984 - Skemp, Piaget, Gelman &amp; Gallistel, Resnick, Tulving, Anderson, Van Lehn, Baroody - each name the SAME two categories differently, and the paper says so outright: &#x27;regardless of the labels, the divisions regarding the types…&#x27;. The claim of sameness is the paper&#x27;s, not the tagger&#x27;s.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t32" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>procedural knowledge —renamed-across-fields→ Instrumental</label>
        <term>procedural knowledge</term>
        <term>Instrumental</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 0.8 · about this quote: PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE &#x27;evidence&#x27; QUOTE - the journal&#x27;s page footer and a page number, between the sentence and Table 1: &#x27;Vol 46, 2, February 2021 60 Australian Journal of Teacher…&#x27;. 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&#x27;S THESIS WITH A TABLE. Eight research traditions across 1976-1984 - Skemp, Piaget, Gelman &amp; Gallistel, Resnick, Tulving, Anderson, Van Lehn, Baroody - each name the SAME two categories differently, and the paper says so outright: &#x27;regardless of the labels, the divisions regarding the types…&#x27;. The claim of sameness is the paper&#x27;s, not the tagger&#x27;s.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t33" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>CRA —same-as→ CPA</label>
        <term>CRA</term>
        <term>CPA</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: &#x27;also referred to as&#x27; - one instructional sequence, two acronyms live in the same literature.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t34" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.9">
        <label>adaptive expertise —contrasted-with→ routine expertise</label>
        <term>adaptive expertise</term>
        <term>routine expertise</term>
        <note>differs in: whether the knowledge transfers to unfamiliar situations - routine expertise applies to familiar ones only · strength of the relation: 0.8</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t35" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>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.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t36" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Procedural and conceptual knowledge both matter and each strengthens the other.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t37" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Either procedural or conceptual knowledge can be shallow or deep.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t38" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The synthesis endorses teaching conceptual knowledge before procedural knowledge in most cases.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t39" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[4]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Students are likelier to develop conceptual knowledge if they begin with it and then move to procedural knowledge.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t40" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[5]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The empirical support for concept-first is that students taught conceptually and then procedurally outperform students taught procedurally and then conceptually.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t41" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[6]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Sequencing arithmetic problems to expose conceptual relationships was efficacious; in random order the effect was not seen.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[7]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The conceptual-procedural relationship is bi-directional but not always symmetrical: at times conceptual knowledge supports procedural knowledge more strongly than the reverse.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t43" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[8]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The paper&#x27;s answer to its own title is that teachers need conceptual AND procedural knowledge, with the timing and placement left to the teacher&#x27;s professional judgement.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t44" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[9]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Kieran (2013) declared the conceptual-procedural dichotomy fundamentally unsound.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t45" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>concept</label>
        <term>concept</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t46" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>conceptual knowledge</label>
        <term>conceptual knowledge</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t47" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>procedure</label>
        <term>procedure</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t48" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>procedural knowledge</label>
        <term>procedural knowledge</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t49" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[4]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>routine expertise</label>
        <term>routine expertise</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t50" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[5]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>adaptive expertise</label>
        <term>adaptive expertise</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t51" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[6]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>cognitive interference</label>
        <term>cognitive interference</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t52" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[7]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>attitudinal interference</label>
        <term>attitudinal interference</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t53" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[8]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>iterative view</label>
        <term>iterative view</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
      <p><note type="rights">The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is
      not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its
      grounding status remain. The article itself is at https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n2.4.</note></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
