phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | conceptual change through collaborative argumentation— “The current study investigated the value of collaborative argumentation for conceptual change in science education.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “The results revealed that collaborative argumentation had a delayed but long-lasting effect on conceptual change in science education (i.e., conceptual change induced by collaborative argumentation did not immediately indicate a significant improvement at the moments of argumentation but showed a significant improvement during the delay… | |
| method — evidence | — “In the present study, using a controlled experiment, we examined the value of collaborative argumentation for conceptual change in science education while fully considering the roles of argumentative dialogue.” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “In the present study, using a controlled experiment, we examined the value of collaborative argumentation for conceptual change in science education while fully considering the roles of argumentative dialogue.” | |
| mechanism | Misconceptions are robust, so an intervention that does start replacing them needs time before the replacement is measurable - which is why the benefit appears only at the delayed post-test.— “Thus, although a teaching approach or educational intervention could facilitate change from misconception to accurate understanding of scientific concepts, it may also require more time to explicitly show its effectiveness.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | The three dialogue types complement one another - deliberation supplies critical reasoning, consensual co-construction repairs the social damage of disputes - so the productive profile is a mix, not one pure type.— “Thus, deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, and consensual co-construction might supplement each other to promote conceptual change in students.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Hearing group members voice both misconceptions and correct understandings makes a student self-reflect and spot the flaws in their own account, which is the route to conceptual change.— “collaborative argumentation provided opportunities for students to listen to others’ misconceptions and accurate understandings, prompting students to self-reflect and perceive the flaws in their own incomplete ideas” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Hearing others' misconceptions makes a student's own incomplete idea visible to them, which is offered as the route from dialogue to conceptual change— “For example, collaborative argumentation provided opportunities for students to listen to others’ misconceptions and accurate understandings, prompting students to self-reflect and perceive the flaws in their own incomplete ideas.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | Disagreement forces re-examination of evidence that was skipped the first time— “In addition, collaborative argumentation also provided opportunities for students to be trapped in a “tug-of-war” situation, prompting students to re-examine whether key evidence was neglected before.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | Exposure to how others build a concept, not just what they conclude, is what changes the way of thinking rather than the answer— “For example, it provided opportunities for students to be exposed to others’ conceptualization processes of scientific concepts, prompting students to self-reflect and identify flaws in their ways of thinking.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | Disputative dialogue works against learning by converting argument into a contest, which narrows openness to alternatives— “Perceptions of interpersonal competition might not only raise concerns about interpersonal relationships or senses of group belonging (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016 ), but may also reduce cognitive flexibility and a person’s openness to alternative viewpoints (Carnevale & Probst, 1998 ).” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | Misconceptions are robust partly because teaching presents macro, sub-micro and symbolic representations side by side instead of teaching students to move between them— “In current science education, educators and teachers commonly present scientific concepts to students with the three levels of representations, rather than supporting students to develop multileveled ways of thinking (Johnstone, 2000 ; Taber, 2013 ).” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | 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— “This dialogue between discussants showed mere development and consolidation of one-sided arguments, rather than challenging or juxtaposing different alternatives.” | mechanisms[8] |
| builds-on | Asterhan and Schwarz (2016) three-type scheme of argumentative dialogue— “Finally, following a top-down scheme proposed by Asterhan and Schwarz ( 2016 ), initial coding efforts focused on three types of argumentative dialogue, considering whether the discussion could be characterized as deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, and co-consensual construction.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Asterhan & Resnick (2020); McLure et al. (2020); Sampson & Clark (2009, 2011)— “Findings in this study not only echoes the previous studies but also further extends our understanding of the value of collaborative argumentation for conceptual change—the value of collaborative argumentation for conceptual change should be investigated and discussed under the broadened view of long-lasting science learning (Asterhan &… | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | Asterhan and Schwarz (2016), the three-type scheme of argumentative dialogue— “Based on previous psychoeducational studies, Asterhan and Schwarz ( 2016 ) reviewed three types of argumentative dialogue in learning contexts: deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, and consensual co-construction.” | claim_relations[2] |
| supports | Asterhan and Babichenko (2015), that deliberative dialogue beats disputative for conceptual understanding— “The results revealed that individuals who participated in the deliberative dialogue condition outperformed those in the disputative dialogue condition on conceptual understanding test” | claim_relations[3] |
| extends | Chi's definition of conceptual change as restructuring rather than accretion— “Chi ( 2008 ) argued that “conceptual change is not adding new knowledge or gap filling incomplete knowledge; rather, conceptual change is changing misconceptions in existing knowledge structures to an accurate understanding of scientific concepts”.” | claim_relations[4] |
| extends | McLure et al. (2020), the multidimensional framework of conceptual change— “As suggested in Mclure et al. ( 2020 )’s multidimensional framework of conceptual change and previous studies of argumentation, collaborative argumentation might be a promising approach to promote conceptual change through making changes in cognitive, ontological, and intentional dimensions (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016 ; McLure et al., 2020… | claim_relations[5] |
| sense | argumentative dialogue - deliberative: issue-driven rather than position-driven, with concessions made to sound arguments and no interpersonal tension— “(3) this dialogue was not position -driven but issue -driven. Even when there was disagreement between discussants, there were no manifest expressions of discomfort or interpersonal tension in the interaction.” | senses[0] |
| sense | argumentative dialogue - disputative: rich in critical reasoning but aimed at winning, treating argument as a win-lose contest— “The second type of argumentative dialogue refers to disputative dialogue, in which discussants defended a viewpoint and undermined alternative viewpoints to convince opponents to switch sides (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016 ).” | senses[1] |
| sense | argumentative dialogue - consensual co-construction: agreeing and elaborating, which consolidates one side rather than juxtaposing alternatives— “The third type of argumentative dialogue is consensual co-construction, in which discussants transacted on each other’s contributions by agreeing with, elaborating on and expanding on ideas (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016 ).” | senses[2] |
| sense | the effect at immediate post-test - absent: no significant difference between conditions right after the activity— “while there were not statistically significant differences in conceptual understanding in the pre-test and immediate post-test phases (see Fig. 7a )” | senses[3] |
| sense | the effect at delayed post-test - present: the difference appears a month later, which is the whole claim— “conceptual change induced by collaborative argumentation did not immediately indicate a significant improvement at the moments of argumentation but showed a significant improvement during the delay period” | senses[4] |
| sense | conceptual change - as a gain score between two phases, which is what 'substantive conceptual gains' means at group level— “Group 5 was a low-performing group, and group 4 was a high-performing group, according to the mean substantive conceptual gains (i.e., gains from immediate post-test to delayed post-test) at the group level.” | senses[5] |
| sense | conceptual change - as Chi's definition: restructuring misconceptions, explicitly NOT adding or gap-filling knowledge— “Chi ( 2008 ) argued that “conceptual change is not adding new knowledge or gap filling incomplete knowledge; rather, conceptual change is changing misconceptions in existing knowledge structures to an accurate understanding of scientific concepts”.” | senses[6] |
| control | a control group doing the SAME argumentation activity individually, against an experimental group doing it collaboratively — absent-stated-about-other — rules out that the conceptual change follows from doing the argumentation activity at all, rather than from doing it collaboratively— “Twenty-three postgraduate students were each allocated to one of two conditions (individual argumentation [control group] and collaborative argumentation [experimental group]) and participated in two argumentation activities.” | controls[0] |
| edge | deliberative argumentation —is-a→ argumentative dialogue— “Based on previous psychoeducational studies, Asterhan and Schwarz ( 2016 ) reviewed three types of argumentative dialogue in learning contexts: deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, and consensual co-construction.” | concept_edges[1] |
| edge | disputative argumentation —is-a→ argumentative dialogue— “Based on previous psychoeducational studies, Asterhan and Schwarz ( 2016 ) reviewed three types of argumentative dialogue in learning contexts: deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, and consensual co-construction.” | concept_edges[2] |
| edge | collaborative argumentation —contrasted-with→ individual argumentation— “Within approaches in which students construct arguments, there are two main types of argumentation: individual argumentation and collaborative argumentation (Kilinc et al., 2017 ; Walton, 2009 ).” | concept_edges[4] |
| audit | argumentative dialogue —part-of→ collaborative argumentation — 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.— “We need to go further and scrutinize a crucial factor—argumentative dialogue that occurred in the processes of collaborative argumentation.” | concept_edges[5] |
| audit | RETRACTED (PLAIN ASSOCIATION, AND THE EDGE POINTS THE WAY THE SPAN DOES NOT) · U-shaped pattern —causes→ conceptual change — 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.— “Dialogue protocol analysis revealed that long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue (i.e., two high and one low: both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred) in collaborative argumentation.” | concept_edges[6] |
| retracted | RETRACTED (PLAIN ASSOCIATION, AND THE EDGE POINTS THE WAY THE SPAN DOES NOT) · U-shaped pattern —causes→ conceptual change — PLAIN ASSOCIATION, AND THE EDGE POINTS THE WAY THE SPAN DOES NOT. Dialogue protocol analysis revealed that long-lasting conceptual change WAS ASSOCIATED WITH a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue. 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.— “Dialogue protocol analysis revealed that long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue (i.e., two high and one low: both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred) in collaborative argumentation.”— “long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue” | concept_edges[6] |
| weight | RETRACTED (PLAIN ASSOCIATION, AND THE EDGE POINTS THE WAY THE SPAN DOES NOT) · U-shaped pattern —causes→ conceptual change — 0.6— “Dialogue protocol analysis revealed that long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue (i.e., two high and one low: both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred) in collaborative argumentation.” | concept_edges[6] |
| weight | collaborative argumentation —causes→ conceptual change — 0.8— “The findings confirmed that collaborative argumentation had a delayed but long-lasting effect on conceptual change in science education.” | concept_edges[7] |
| audit | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · macro —distinct-from→ sub-micro — 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.— “The first term refers to macro representations of things that can be seen, touched, and smelled, such as substances, chemical reactions, animals, and plants.” | concept_edges[9] |
| retracted | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · macro —distinct-from→ sub-micro — 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.— “The first term refers to macro representations of things that can be seen, touched, and smelled, such as substances, chemical reactions, animals, and plants.”— “The first term refers to macro representations of things” | concept_edges[9] |
| audit | delayed post-test —contrasted-with→ immediate post-test — 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.— “Students in the collaborative argumentation condition showed significantly greater gains from immediate post-test to delayed post-test ( M = 24.67, SD = 13.51, N = 12) compared with students in the individual argumentation condition ( M = 1.09, SD = 22.81, N = 11), t (21) = 3.17, p < .001.” | concept_edges[12] |
| note | deliberative argumentation —contrasted-with→ disputative argumentation — RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the relation was always stated, the endpoint names were not in the span.— “both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred” | concept_edges[15] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — absent-stated-about-other | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the population every result speaks for: THE SAMPLE OF STUDENTS IN THIS STUDY WAS RELATIVELY SMALL, AND 95.65% OF STUDENTS WERE FEMALE— “First, the sample of students in this study was relatively small, and 95.65% of students were female.” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — 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— “Third, the current study was conducted in the context of online learning because of the significant disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — 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— “Finally, although this study indicated that long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue, it was not able to reveal whether the sequential pattern of argumentative dialogue differed in high-performing and low-performing groups.” | limitations[2] |
| duplicate of | limitation — limitations[0]— “First, the sample of students in this study was relatively small, and 95.65% of students were female.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[0] - 23 students, almost all female, one class at one university— “First, the sample of students in this study was relatively small, and 95.65% of students were female.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — 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— “Since the topics for the three argumentation activities were selected by most of the students from a list of topics, students’ topic interests/preferences may be one factor that may drive them to search for more information and resources about the topics and return better prepared for their delayed post-test 1 month later.” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — 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— “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 using different types of argumentative dialogue.” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[2] - the sequential pattern is not recoverable from these data— “Finally, although this study indicated that long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue, it was not able to reveal whether the sequential pattern of argumentative dialogue differed in… | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — 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] |
| for which use | limitation — 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] |
| for which use | limitation — 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] |
| for which use | limitation — the reported sample size, also IDENTIFIED rather than declared: N = 12 here against N = 11 elsewhere for the same condition | limitations[10] |
| replication | untested | |
| no type for this | long-lasting conceptual change → U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | unhoused_relations[0] |
| no type for this | misconceptions → conceptual change — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | unhoused_relations[1] |
| limitation | Small, almost entirely female sample Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Conducted online because of COVID-19, which may have changed the interpersonal tension of argumentation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Cannot say whether the sequential ordering of dialogue types differed between high- and low-performing groups Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Twenty-three students, almost all female, in one class at one university Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The U-shaped pattern is a count of dialogue types, not their order, so nothing is known about sequence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
| limitation | Group-level comparisons rest on two groups per activity in the first two studies, one high-performing and one low-performing Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[8] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[9] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[10] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | The high-performing group showed a U-shaped dialogue profile: more deliberative and more co-consensual argumentation than disputative argumentation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | In the third activity, high- and low-performing groups differed in argumentative dialogue. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Interview coding showed collaborative argumentation opened up change in four aspects of learning - cognitive, ontological, epistemological and intentional. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Collaborative argumentation gave students more openings for cognitive change than individual argumentation did. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | collaborative argumentation beat individual argumentation in the delayed phase of both activities Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | high-performing groups 2 and 3 also showed the U-shaped dialogue pattern Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | a fourth theme, epistemological, had to be added because some interview responses fitted none of the framework's three Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[8] |
| finding | the U-shaped finding was unexpected and a third activity was run specifically to check it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[9] |
| finding | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[10] |
| quantity | n = 23 — postgraduate science-education students who took part, mean age 24.83 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | M = 75.92 ... M = 51.91 — delayed post-test conceptual understanding scores, collaborative vs. individual condition, activity 1 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | M = 24.67 ... M = 1.09 — gain from immediate to delayed post-test, collaborative vs. individual condition, activity 1 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | .82 to .85 — inter-rater agreement (Cohen's k) for coding the three argumentative-dialogue types Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 95.65% — share of the sample that was female, flagged by the authors as a limit on generality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | Twenty-three — the whole sample, one class of second-year postgraduates at one university Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | 95.65% — share of the sample who were female, which interacts directly with the dialogue-type finding Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[8] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[9] |
| quantity | 14 weeks, 32 study hours — the course the study was embedded in Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[10] |
| variable | conceptual understanding (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | argumentation skills (control) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | conceptual understanding score (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[6] |
| variable | type of argumentative dialogue (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[7] |
| definition | conceptual change Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | collaborative argumentation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | individual argumentation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | deliberative argumentation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | disputative argumentation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | consensual co-construction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| definition | substantive conceptual gains Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[7] |
| definition | stimulated recall interview Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[8] |
| definition | collaborative argumentation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[9] |
| definition | consensual co-construction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[10] |
| definition | U-shaped pattern Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[11] |
| key-terms | conceptual change, misconceptions, collaborative argumentation, individual argumentation, argumentative dialogue, deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, consensual co-construction, co-consensual construction, U-shaped pattern, scientific literacy, delayed post-test, stimulated recall interviews |
| concept | symbolic — not defined in this paper's own words; formulae and graphs, the bridge between the other two levels Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[15] |
| concept | cognitive — not defined in this paper's own words; one dimension of the multidimensional conceptual-change framework Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[16] |
| t-test t | as written: paired sample t tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| evidence status note | t-test — 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'. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| chi-squared χ 2 | as written: Chi-square tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .001 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| Cronbach's alpha α | as written: internal reliability was good for pre-test (Cronbach’s α = .79) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| Cohen's kappa (inter-rater reliability) k | as written: Inter-rater reliability was satisfactory, 0.72 < Cohen’s k < 0.79 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality | as written: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| skewness and kurtosis | as written: inspecting skewness and kurtosis (< 1) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| mean M | as written: mean age = 24.83 years, SD = 1.90 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: SD = 10.65 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[8] |
| t-test | as written: paired sample t tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
| evidence status note | t-test — 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'. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
| chi-square test | as written: Chi-square tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[10] |
| p-value | as written: p < .001 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[11] |
| standard deviation | as written: SD Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[12] |
| claim type | existence — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: existence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.claim_type |
| phenomenon | conceptual change through collaborative argumentation — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: conceptual change through collaborative argumentation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.phenomenon |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824