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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| 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 |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| 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 |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| 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 9 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | Collaborative argumentation among postgraduate students, and the argumentative dialogue inside it, as a route to durable conceptual change in science. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence 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 change through collaborative argumentation 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 | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | 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 | |
| mechanisms | Hearing others' misconceptions makes a student's own incomplete idea visible to them, which is offered as the route from dialogue to conceptual change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Disagreement forces re-examination of evidence that was skipped the first time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Exposure to how others build a concept, not just what they conclude, is what changes the way of thinking rather than the answer Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Disputative dialogue works against learning by converting argument into a contest, which narrows openness to alternatives Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Misconceptions are robust partly because teaching presents macro, sub-micro and symbolic representations side by side instead of teaching students to move between them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Consensual co-construction alone consolidates a one-sided argument, which is why the productive pattern needs it together with deliberation rather than instead of it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Small, almost entirely female sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the population every result speaks for: THE SAMPLE OF STUDENTS IN THIS STUDY WAS RELATIVELY SMALL, AND 95.65% OF STUDENTS WERE FEMALE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Conducted online because of COVID-19, which may have changed the interpersonal tension of argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the argumentation findings specifically: THE CURRENT STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CONTEXT OF ONLINE LEARNING BECAUSE OF THE ... COVID-19 PANDEMIC, which may change the interpersonal character of argumentation | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Cannot say whether the sequential ordering of dialogue types differed between high- and low-performing groups Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about the ORDER of the dialogue types: IT WAS NOT ABLE TO REVEAL WHETHER THE SEQUENTIAL PATTERN OF ARGUMENTATIVE dialogue differed between high- and low-performing groups - the U-shape is a count, not a sequence | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Twenty-three students, almost all female, in one class at one university Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - 23 students, almost all female, one class at one university | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The authors' own confound for the headline result: students picked the topics themselves and had a month before the delayed post-test, so they may simply have gone and read more Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the headline conceptual-change result: THE TOPICS FOR THE THREE ARGUMENTATION ACTIVITIES WERE SELECTED BY MOST OF THE STUDENTS FROM A LIST OF TOPICS, so STUDENTS' TOPIC INTERESTS/PREFERENCES MAY BE ONE FACTOR THAT MAY DRIVE THEM TO SEARCH FOR MORE information | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Conducted entirely online because of COVID-19, which the authors think may itself have softened the interaction and so shaped the dialogue types observed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the argumentation behaviour that was measured: THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT MAY HAVE RELIEVED THE TENSION THAT OFTEN EXISTS IN FACE-TO-FACE INTERPERSONAL INTERACTIONS, PROVIDING A MORE RELAXED ATMOSPHERE FOR STUDENTS TO ARGUE WITH GROUP MEMBERS | limitations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The U-shaped pattern is a count of dialogue types, not their order, so nothing is known about sequence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - the sequential pattern is not recoverable from these data | limitations[6] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The gender imbalance interacts directly with the finding, since the cited literature holds that women argue more deliberatively and men more disputatively - the very contrast the result rests on Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the dialogue-type outcome specifically, which is the paper's dependent variable: FEMALES ARE MORE INCLINED TO EXHIBIT DELIBERATIVE BEHAVIORS DURING SOCIAL INTERACTIONS, WHEREAS MALES ARE MORE INCLINED TO EXHIBIT DISPUTATIVE BEHAVIORS DURING SOCIAL INTERACTIONS | limitations[7] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Group-level comparisons rest on two groups per activity in the first two studies, one high-performing and one low-performing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every group-level comparison in the first two studies: they rest on two groups per activity, one high-performing and one low-performing | limitations[8] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The tests are named as paired-sample t tests but compare two independent groups of different people, and the reported degrees of freedom (21) are those of an independent-samples test on 12 and 11 participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the inferential statistics, and this is an IDENTIFIED DEFECT rather than an author concession: COMPARISONS WERE CONDUCTED WITH PAIRED SAMPLE T TESTS while the groups compared are independent | limitations[9] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The reported N for the collaborative condition in the second activity is 11 in one sentence and 12 in another, within the same paragraph Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the reported sample size, also IDENTIFIED rather than declared: N = 12 here against N = 11 elsewhere for the same condition | limitations[10] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | a control group doing the SAME argumentation activity individually, against an experimental group doing it collaboratively Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the conceptual change follows from doing the argumentation activity at all, rather than from doing it collaboratively · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): absent-stated-about-other · would have ruled out, had it been run: argumentation itself - and the time spent on it - as the explanation of conceptual change, which isolates the collaborative element as the only difference between the two groups | controls[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | symbolic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: symbolic | concepts[15] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cognitive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive | concepts[16] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | long-lasting conceptual change → U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. ASSOCIATION FOUND BY PROTOCOL ANALYSIS, direction not established: two high and one low - deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| unhoused_relations | misconceptions → conceptual change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RESISTANCE, NOT PRODUCTION: many misconceptions are ROBUST AND RESISTANT to educational interventions and teaching approaches, which is what makes conceptual change difficult. No edge type can say a relation is an OBSTACLE, so the nearest available move asserted the opposite of what the sentence says. | unhoused_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | argumentative dialogue - deliberative: issue-driven rather than position-driven, with concessions made to sound arguments and no interpersonal tension 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 | argumentative dialogue - disputative: rich in critical reasoning but aimed at winning, treating argument as a win-lose contest 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 | argumentative dialogue - consensual co-construction: agreeing and elaborating, which consolidates one side rather than juxtaposing alternatives 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 | the effect at immediate post-test - absent: no significant difference between conditions right after the activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the effect at delayed post-test - present: the difference appears a month later, which is the whole claim Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | conceptual change - as a gain score between two phases, which is what 'substantive conceptual gains' means at group level Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | conceptual change - as Chi's definition: restructuring misconceptions, explicitly NOT adding or gap-filling knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: conceptual change through collaborative argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: conceptual change through collaborative argumentation — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Asterhan and Schwarz (2016) three-type scheme of argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Asterhan & Resnick (2020); McLure et al. (2020); Sampson & Clark (2009, 2011) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Asterhan and Schwarz (2016), the three-type scheme of argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | supports → Asterhan and Babichenko (2015), that deliberative dialogue beats disputative for conceptual understanding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Chi's definition of conceptual change as restructuring rather than accretion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → McLure et al. (2020), the multidimensional framework of conceptual change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | deliberative argumentation —is-a→ argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: deliberative argumentation · argumentative dialogue | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | disputative argumentation —is-a→ argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: disputative argumentation · argumentative dialogue | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | collaborative argumentation —contrasted-with→ individual argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | argumentative dialogue —part-of→ collaborative argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span speaks of argumentative dialogue occurring IN the processes of collaborative argumentation; part-of is loose. | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | RETRACTED (PLAIN ASSOCIATION, AND THE EDGE POINTS THE WAY THE SPAN DOES NOT) · U-shaped pattern —causes→ conceptual change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: PLAIN ASSOCIATION, AND THE EDGE POINTS THE WAY THE SPAN DOES NOT. Dialogue protocol analysis revealed that Quotation withheld. The subject is conceptual change and the association is symmetric; the edge asserts that the U-shaped pattern CAUSES the change. WHAT THE SPAN DOES SAY: housed below. — strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says conceptual change was ASSOCIATED WITH the U-shaped pattern; an association typed as cause. also in: U-shaped pattern · conceptual change | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | collaborative argumentation —causes→ conceptual change 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 also in: collaborative argumentation · conceptual change | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · macro —distinct-from→ sub-micro Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span defined 'macro' alone. This sentence names both and asserts the distinctness geometrically - 'a triangle with THREE APICES labeled macro, symbolic…' - three named corners of one figure. Same shape as Ress2013's 'functionally distinct subdivisions': A LIST CAN ASSERT DISTINCTNESS WHEN IT SAYS SO. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'The first term' = the first of 'macro', 'symbolic' and 'sub-micro' (previous sentence); distinct-from is loose. | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | delayed post-test —contrasted-with→ immediate post-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span reports gains FROM the immediate TO the delayed post-test; contrasted-with is loose. also in: delayed post-test · immediate post-test | concept_edges[12] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | deliberative argumentation —contrasted-with→ disputative argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the relation was always stated, the endpoint names were not in the span. | concept_edges[15] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: This quote ends with the stray word 'The', the first word of the next sentence. It is not trimmed, because the quote without it occurs more than once in the paper's text and could not be tied to one place. The claim is carried by the sentence before 'The'. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-squared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cronbach's alpha Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Cronbach's alpha | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cohen's kappa (inter-rater reliability) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | skewness and kurtosis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: skewness and kurtosis | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: This quote ends with the stray word 'The', the first word of the next sentence. It is not trimmed, because the quote without it occurs more than once in the paper's text and could not be tied to one place. The claim is carried by the sentence before 'The'. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-square test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-square test | content_tags.statistics[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Collaborative argumentation beat individual argumentation on conceptual understanding only at the one-month delayed post-test (75.92 vs 51.91), with no difference at pre-test or immediate post-test. 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 | Conceptual gains kept accruing after the activity ended: collaborative students gained 24.67 points between immediate and delayed post-test while individual students gained 1.09. 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 | The high-performing group showed a U-shaped dialogue profile: more deliberative and more co-consensual argumentation than disputative argumentation. 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 | In the third activity, high- and low-performing groups differed in argumentative dialogue. 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 | Interview coding showed collaborative argumentation opened up change in four aspects of learning - cognitive, ontological, epistemological and intentional. 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 | Collaborative argumentation gave students more openings for cognitive change than individual argumentation did. 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 | collaborative argumentation beat individual argumentation in the delayed phase of both activities 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 | high-performing groups 2 and 3 also showed the U-shaped dialogue pattern 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 | a fourth theme, epistemological, had to be added because some interview responses fitted none of the framework's three 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 | the U-shaped finding was unexpected and a third activity was run specifically to check it 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 | students in the individual condition reported finding no new usable information and staying with what they already knew - a category with no counterpart in the collaborative condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conceptual change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual change | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | collaborative argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: collaborative argumentation | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | individual argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: individual argumentation | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | deliberative argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: deliberative argumentation | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | disputative argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: disputative argumentation | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | consensual co-construction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: consensual co-construction | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | substantive conceptual gains Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: substantive conceptual gains | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | stimulated recall interview Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulated recall interview | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | collaborative argumentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: collaborative argumentation | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | consensual co-construction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: consensual co-construction | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | U-shaped pattern Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: U-shaped pattern | content_tags.definitions[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conceptual understanding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual understanding | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | argumentation skills Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: argumentation skills | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conceptual understanding score Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual understanding score | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | type of argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type of argumentative dialogue | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | n = 23 — postgraduate science-education students who took part, mean age 24.83 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | M = 75.92 ... M = 51.91 — delayed post-test conceptual understanding scores, collaborative vs. individual condition, activity 1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | M = 24.67 ... M = 1.09 — gain from immediate to delayed post-test, collaborative vs. individual condition, activity 1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | χ 2 [1, 2] = 14.962, p = .001 — dialogue-profile difference between high- and low-performing groups in the confirmatory third activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | .82 to .85 — inter-rater agreement (Cohen's k) for coding the three argumentative-dialogue types Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 95.65% — share of the sample that was female, flagged by the authors as a limit on generality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Twenty-three — the whole sample, one class of second-year postgraduates at one university Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 95.65% — share of the sample who were female, which interacts directly with the dialogue-type finding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 1 month later — the delay at which the effect appears and the window in which students could have read more on their own Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | M = 75.92, SD = 10.65, N = 12 versus M = 51.91, SD = 22.81, N = 11 — delayed post-test conceptual understanding, collaborative versus individual, first activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 14 weeks, 32 study hours — the course the study was embedded in Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 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.