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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
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 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| 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 | students' conceptual change in science education 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 | systematic-review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic-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 | |
| limitations | Studies that found a conception and no change were excluded, so the corpus is selected on the outcome the review reports. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any characterisation here of what conceptual-change research has found: studies that merely identified students' alternative beliefs, without testing whether those beliefs were changed by a specific intervention, were excluded from the review | limitations[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The review's own verdict is that one framework across the literature determined how the construct was measured. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any figure or trend reported from this literature: the review states nearly all the studies observed conceptual change from a cognitive-only framework, which led to examining conceptual change quantitatively | limitations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The corpus is what a keyword search returned, narrowed by hand from hundreds to fifty. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the review's claim to be exhaustive: hundreds of documents were discovered by the search and only 50 matched the authors' criteria | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The selection required an intervention aimed at conceptions, which fixes the kind of study that can appear. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the range of designs represented here: the two primary selection criteria were that a study be in science education and use certain treatments to measure or improve students' conceptions | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | two stated selection criteria - the study must be in science education, and must use a treatment intended to measure or improve student understanding - against which 50 of the candidate articles matched Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a review whose conclusions come from whatever the search happened to return - the two criteria are stated before the screening and the surviving count is reported · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | 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 | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | misconception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: misconception | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | alternative conception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: alternative conception | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | learning gains Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: learning gains | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | ontological categories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ontological categories | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | affective factors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: affective factors | concepts[5] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | multidimensional approach Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multidimensional approach | concepts[6] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| senses | conceptual change - AS A COGNITIVE VARIABLE WITH A MEASUREMENT MENU: what the reviewed studies actually recorded was a profile of conception or understanding, remediation of misconception, or learning gains, nearly always from a pre- and post-test 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 | misconception - AS A CATEGORY ERROR: on the classical model a misconception is a concept assigned to the wrong ontological category, so change means altering what kind of thing the student takes the concept to be - a definition that makes some disagreements invisible 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 same object under several names - students arrive with prior ideas called alternative conceptions here, alternative beliefs in the exclusion rule, and misconceptions in the classical model, with no statement anywhere that the three are the same thing 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 change - THE ONTOLOGICAL READING (Chi, Slotta & De Leeuw 1994): change in what KIND OF THING the student takes the concept to be. On this reading a misconception is a concept filed under the wrong ontological category, so the change is a recategorisation. 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 | conceptual change - THE AFFECTIVE READING (Pintrich et al. 1993): motivation, interest and self-efficacy are not conditions FOR the change but factors IN it. The paper calls this `another version`, i.e. a rival account of the same term. 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 - THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL READING (Tyson et al. 1997): epistemological (classical), ontological AND affective aspects together. This one is defined by UNION of the other readings, which is why it cannot be scored on the same instrument as any of them. 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 - THE EXTENSION WIDENED OVER TIME, and the paper says so as its own finding: from cognitive-only to including student traits. A study from before the shift and one from after are not measuring the same construct, which is what makes the review's 50-study pooling a definitional question and not only a methodological one. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Randolph (2009) literature-review procedure, as used by Mills, Thomas & Lewthwaite (2016) 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 | |
| concept_edges | conceptual change —operationalised-as→ learning gains 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 lists learning gains as ONE of the most used measures of conceptual change; operationalised-as is loose. also in: conceptual change · learning gains | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | misconception —operationalised-as→ ontological categories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: ATTRIBUTED TO A NAMED THEORY, NOT MEASURED: 'Quotation withheld, Quotation withheld'. The operationalisation belongs to the model this paper is describing, and 'one distinction in' marks it as one reading of that model among others. · strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but misconceptions arise from assigning concepts to wrong ontological categories; operationalised-as is loose. also in: misconception · ontological categories | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Physics received more attention than other science domains in the reviewed conceptual change research. 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 | Newtonian mechanics was the single most frequently examined physics topic in the reviewed conceptual change studies. 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 | Undergraduate students from a range of majors, not only science education students, were the most common participants in the reviewed studies. 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 | Most reviewed studies used a quasi-experimental design. 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 | Method was dominated by pre- and post-testing of small groups with quantitatively analysed data. 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 | Nearly all reviewed studies framed conceptual change from a cognitive-only perspective, which in turn pushed them to measure conceptual change quantitatively - the review's main theoretical criticism of the field. 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 | No conceptual change study was found for 2020-2021. 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 | Only five reviewed studies examined pre-service or in-service teachers' conceptual change. 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 | Affective, metacognitive and other domains were examined through refutation texts, questionnaires or interviews. 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 | 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 | instructional interventions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: instructional interventions | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | students' conceptual change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: students' conceptual change | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 50 studies — number of articles that met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised in the review 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 | only 50 articles — how many of the hundreds of retrieved documents survived screening 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 | 2011 to 2021 — publication window covered by the reviewed studies 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 | 7 weeks — duration of the review/synthesis activity itself (22 September to 3 November 2021) 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 | three studies — number of reviewed studies using a purely qualitative (case study/interview) approach 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 | five studies — number of reviewed studies that examined pre-service teachers' and teachers' conceptual change 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 | 2018 — peak year for conceptual change publications within the reviewed decade, after which output declined 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 |
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.