phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | students' conceptual change in science education— “Educational researchers develop instructional approaches that support students’ efforts to restructure their prior knowledge, a process called conceptual change.” | |
| claim-type | critique— “Based on findings, the most noticeable trend in the current literature is that instructional studies in science education used theoretical and methodological frameworks that are now considered outdated.” | |
| method — evidence | — “This systematic review is aimed to explore the researches that established students’ conceptual change process, both studies that facilitate conceptual change and studies that determined learner characters influencing conceptual change.” | |
| mechanism | COVID-19 disrupted teaching and research activity and diverted attention to building online/hybrid learning environments, which is why no conceptual change study appears in the 2020-2021 window— “As an effect of COVID-19 pandemic, academics and researchers have faced unpredicted and continuous disruptions in their teaching and research activities.” | mechanisms[0] |
| builds-on | Randolph (2009) literature-review procedure, as used by Mills, Thomas & Lewthwaite (2016)— “Researchers adapted procedures from Randolph (2009) for reviewing the literature in this investigation as Mills, Thomas, & Lewthwaite (2016) did in their review.” | claim_relations[0] |
| sense | 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— “Conceptual change as a cognitive variable was measured or described in many methods. The most used were using profile of conception/understanding, remediation of misconception and learning gains” | senses[0] |
| sense | 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— “Misconceptions develop when pupils assign concepts to wrong ontological categories, according to one distinction in the classical conceptual change model (Chi, Slotta, & De Leeuw, 1994). Conceptual change, according to this viewpoint, occurs when students alter their perceptions” | senses[1] |
| sense | 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— “Science education researchers have obviously documented that the students enter the classrooms with pre-instructional alternative conceptions (Broughton, Sinatra, & Reynolds, 2010; Diakidoy et al., 2016; Vosniadou & Skopeliti, 2005;). These prior conceptions are often incomplete or incorrect” | senses[2] |
| sense | 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.— “Misconceptions develop when pupils assign concepts to wrong ontological categories, according to one distinction in the classical conceptual change model (Chi, Slotta, & De Leeuw, 1994). Conceptual change, according to this viewpoint, occurs when students alter their perceptions of a concept's nature.” | senses[3] |
| sense | 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.— “Another version considers the influence of affective factors on conceptual change such as motivation, interest and self-efficacy (Pintrich et al., 1993).” | senses[4] |
| sense | 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.— “Lastly, several academics advocate for a multidimensional approach which considers epistemological (classical), ontological and affective aspects when considering conceptual change (Tyson et al., 1997).” | senses[5] |
| sense | 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.— “The transition of conceptual change models from cognitive-only to an understanding of the role of student traits in learning, is possibly the utmost notable contemporary growth in the field of conceptual change research (Sinatra, 2005).” | senses[6] |
| control | 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 — held — rules out 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— “Our two primary criteria in selecting article to review are studies in the field of science education and to use the certain treatments to measure or improve student’s conceptions.” | controls[0] |
| audit | conceptual change —operationalised-as→ learning gains — 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.— “Conceptual change as a cognitive variable was measured or described in many methods. The most used were using profile of conception/understanding, remediation of misconception and learning gains” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | misconception —operationalised-as→ ontological categories — 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.— “Misconceptions develop when pupils assign concepts to wrong ontological categories, according to one distinction in the classical conceptual change model” | concept_edges[1] |
| evidential status | misconception —operationalised-as→ ontological categories — ATTRIBUTED TO A NAMED THEORY, NOT MEASURED: 'Misconceptions develop when pupils assign concepts to wrong ontological categories, ACCORDING TO ONE DISTINCTION IN THE CLASSICAL CONCEPTUAL CHANGE MODEL'. The operationalisation belongs to the model this paper is describing, and 'one distinction in' marks it as one reading of that model among others.— “Misconceptions develop when pupils assign concepts to wrong ontological categories, according to one distinction in the classical conceptual… | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — 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] |
| for which use | limitation — 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] |
| for which use | limitation — the review's claim to be exhaustive: hundreds of documents were discovered by the search and only 50 matched the authors' criteria 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] |
| for which use | limitation — 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 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] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Studies that found a conception and no change were excluded, so the corpus is selected on the outcome the review reports. 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 | The review's own verdict is that one framework across the literature determined how the construct was measured. 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 | The corpus is what a keyword search returned, narrowed by hand from hundreds to fifty. 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 | The selection required an intervention aimed at conceptions, which fixes the kind of study that can appear. 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] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Physics received more attention than other science domains in the reviewed conceptual change research. 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 | Newtonian mechanics was the single most frequently examined physics topic in the reviewed conceptual change studies. 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 | Undergraduate students from a range of majors, not only science education students, were the most common participants in the reviewed studies. 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 | Most reviewed studies used a quasi-experimental design. 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 | Method was dominated by pre- and post-testing of small groups with quantitatively analysed data. 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 | 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 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 | No conceptual change study was found for 2020-2021. 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 | Only five reviewed studies examined pre-service or in-service teachers' 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.findings[7] |
| finding | Affective, metacognitive and other domains were examined through refutation texts, questionnaires or interviews. 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] |
| quantity | 50 studies — number of articles that met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised in the review 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 | only 50 articles — how many of the hundreds of retrieved documents survived screening 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 | 2011 to 2021 — publication window covered by the reviewed studies 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 | 7 weeks — duration of the review/synthesis activity itself (22 September to 3 November 2021) 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 | three studies — number of reviewed studies using a purely qualitative (case study/interview) approach 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 | five studies — number of reviewed studies that examined pre-service teachers' and teachers' 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.quantities[5] |
| quantity | 2018 — peak year for conceptual change publications within the reviewed decade, after which output declined 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] |
| variable | instructional interventions (independent) 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[0] |
| variable | students' conceptual change (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] |
| 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] |
| concept | 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. | concepts[0] |
| concept | misconception 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[1] |
| concept | alternative conception 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[2] |
| concept | learning 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. | concepts[3] |
| concept | ontological categories 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[4] |
| concept | affective factors — not defined in this paper's own words; motivation, interest and self-efficacy, named by Pintrich et al. as constituents of 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. | concepts[5] |
| concept | multidimensional approach — not defined in this paper's own words; the position that epistemological, ontological and affective aspects must be considered together 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[6] |
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