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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
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 1 relation 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 | constructivist instruction versus cognitive load 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 | |
| limitations | The author characterises the review of constructivist research as limited in scope. 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 empirical dispute rests on a prior question of naming: whether one label covers the other. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that constructivist teaching is or is not effective: the author argues these approaches cannot be equated with minimally guided instruction, so the two sides of the dispute are not necessarily discussing the same class of teaching | limitations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The contradicting result is about a different outcome from the one the original claim measured. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a comparison of direct instruction against constructivist approaches: the opposing finding concerns robust acquisition and maintenance of knowledge over time, which is not the outcome the efficacy claim was made about | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The theory on the other side of the argument rests on a stated assumption about cognitive architecture. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any prediction drawn from cognitive load theory here: it is based on the assumption that human cognitive architecture can process only a limited amount of information in working memory in a given time | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper argues from other people's studies rather than from evidence gathered for it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the support offered here for constructivist approaches: the author discusses guidance and evidence drawn from published studies to argue these approaches cannot be categorised as minimally guided instruction, rather than reporting a new study | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | constructivism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: constructivism | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | minimally guided instruction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: minimally guided instruction | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | cognitive load theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive load theory | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | scaffolding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scaffolding | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| senses | constructivism vs minimally guided instruction - THE IDENTIFICATION THE WHOLE DISPUTE TURNS ON: one side treats constructivist teaching as an instance of minimally guided instruction and attacks it on that basis, and this author denies the equation, so both sides can be right about different classes of teaching 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 | working memory and long-term memory - TWO DEFINITIONS, BOTH ATTRIBUTED: the first is the memory used for all conscious activities and the only one that can be monitored, the second a large and relatively permanent store, and both are given on the authority of named authors rather than argued for here 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 | scaffolding - DEFINED BY CITATION: the process by which a teacher or more knowledgeable peer alters the learning task so the learner can accomplish what would otherwise be out of reach, attributed to a specific author and year rather than stipulated 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 |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) 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 | builds-on → Hmelo-Silver, Duncan and Chinn (2007) 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 | |
| concept_edges | constructivism —distinct-from→ minimally guided instruction 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: constructivism · minimally guided instruction | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The paper argues that constructivist approaches allow flexible adaptation of guidance and so fit how cognitive structures are organised. 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 | Its concluding claim is that scaffolding is what makes constructivist approaches compatible with human cognitive architecture, because scaffolding reduces working memory load. 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 | Constructivist approaches such as problem-based and inquiry learning supply learners with scaffolding covering both how to do the task and why it should be done that way, so learners are not left to construct everything alone. 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 | Reviewing the evidence, the paper concludes the claim that constructivist approaches do not work is not well supported and that evidence points the other way. 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 | Constructivism is a general theory of learning, while Realistic Mathematics Education is a theory of learning and instruction specific to mathematics. 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 paper does not claim that constructivist approaches are better than other instructional guidance such as direct instruction. 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 | minimally guided instruction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: minimally guided instruction | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | scaffolding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scaffolding | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | long-term memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: long-term memory | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive load theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive load theory | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | intrinsic cognitive load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intrinsic cognitive load | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | extraneous cognitive load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: extraneous cognitive load | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | germane cognitive load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: germane cognitive load | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | constructivist theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: constructivist theory | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | five to nine items — Working memory capacity for not-previously-learned information, the limit the paper reasons from (attributed to Miller, 1994) 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 |
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.