phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | pre-service science teachers' understanding of scientific models— “Moreover, students found it especially difficult to use a model to correctly generate predictions, which was starkly illustrated with the application of Archimedes’ principle during our unit on floating and sinking.” | |
| claim-type | critique— “We examine the deceptive belief that student success with algorithms and word problems leads to conceptual understanding as well as the conceptual change necessary to understand the relationship between evidence and inference as explored in the nature of science course.” | |
| method — evidence | — “During a five-year period the authors taught over 100 students in a graduate course (The Nature of Science) counting toward teacher certification at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.” | |
| mechanism | years of schooling built on algorithm-centred worksheets and tests instil the belief that the algorithm is what matters in science, so students attend to the algebra rather than to the model behind it— “We suspect that the student histories of worksheets and tests focusing on the use of the algorithm underlie their belief that the algorithm is uniquely important in science.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | expanding state standards make students and teachers accountable for ever more content, which cuts the time available for building conceptual understanding— “which hold students and teachers accountable for increasing amounts of content, which in turn reduces the time available to develop conceptual understandings.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | the failure on the final demonstration is attributed to the difficulty of transferring an idea into a new problem or context— “The final demonstration helped us to recognize that our students had experienced an educational problem of considerable importance – the challenge of transferring ideas to a new problem or context.” | mechanisms[2] |
| builds-on | Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1982) conceptual change framework; Kuhn (1962); Vosniadou (2008)— “Our attempt to clarify this distinction was based upon a long and rich history of education research on promoting conceptual change, beginning with Kuhn’s (1962) exploration of conceptual change among professional scientists, to Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog’s (1982) framework to support conceptual change in students, to decades of… | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Potgieter and colleagues (2012)— “Teachers and curriculum designers might hope that the manipulation of variables in algorithms help students learn to use the model underlying the algorithm; unfortunately, we, like Potgieter and his colleagues (2012), encountered little evidence to support this assumption during the five years we worked with graduate students who completed… | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | McGoey and Ross (1999)— “Our students’ experience clearly illustrated the “theory-practice” problem observed by McGoey and Ross (1999) who found that their science teacher interns were more interested in the mechanics of teaching (“how to”) instead of the theory behind the mechanics (“how come”).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | understanding - AS THE STUDENTS EVALUATED IT: recalling terms, recognising a principle, and demonstrating algebraic competency with mathematical representations— “We were asking them to dismantle the criteria that they had been using for evaluating their understanding (i.e., recalling terms, recognizing a principle, and demonstrating algebraic competency with mathematical representations of principles).” | senses[0] |
| sense | understanding - AS THE COURSE REQUIRED IT: something reachable only by giving up those criteria, so the intervention asks students to change what counts as understanding, not just to learn more— “What we were asking of our students conflicted with what they had been practicing for years.” | senses[1] |
| sense | using a model - distinguished here from knowing one: students with science degrees found it 'especially difficult to use a model to correctly generate predictions', which is the capacity the course tested and the degrees did not— “Moreover, students found it especially difficult to use a model to correctly generate predictions, which was starkly illustrated with the application of Archimedes’ principle during our unit on floating and sinking” | senses[2] |
| sense | evidence - AS THIS PAPER FIXES IT: Nature's behavior itself, the thing a model is about and not any statement about it— “Some conflation is inevitable, but nonetheless, to understand science one must clearly distinguish between evidence (Nature’s behavior) and inference (our models of Nature’s behavior).” | senses[3] |
| sense | inference - AS THIS PAPER FIXES IT: our models of Nature's behavior; the paper's whole teaching problem is that students collapse this into evidence— “Some conflation is inevitable, but nonetheless, to understand science one must clearly distinguish between evidence (Nature’s behavior) and inference (our models of Nature’s behavior).” | senses[4] |
| control | the students' own first-questionnaire answers presented back to them, confirming the degree of agreement on each answer — held — rules out the researchers' reading of a consensus that the students would not recognise - showing them their own answers is the check that the agreement is theirs— “By presenting to students their answers to the first questionnaire we confirmed the high degree to which they agreed on each answer.” | controls[0] |
| audit | algorithms —distinct-from→ conceptual change — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span calls the belief that algorithm success leads to conceptual change deceptive; distinct-from is loose.— “We examine the deceptive belief that student success with algorithms and word problems leads to conceptual understanding as well as the conceptual change necessary to understand the relationship between evidence and inference as explored in the nature of science course.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | algorithms —distinct-from→ conceptual change — THE PAPER NAMES THE INFERENCE IT IS ATTACKING AND CALLS IT DECEPTIVE: 'the DECEPTIVE…'. The record already carries the two readings of 'understanding' as senses - as the students evaluated it, and as the course required it - and this edge is the gap between them stated as a relation the paper denies.— “We examine the deceptive belief that student success with algorithms and word problems leads to conceptual understanding as well as the conceptual change necessary to understand the relationship between evidence and inference as explored in the nature of science course.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | algorithms —distinct-from→ conceptual change — 0.9— “We examine the deceptive belief that student success with algorithms and word problems leads to conceptual understanding as well as the conceptual change necessary to understand the relationship between evidence and inference as explored in the nature of science course.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | evidence —distinct-from→ inference — THE DISTINCTION IS THE PAPER'S SUBJECT AND NOTHING CARRIED IT. The record already held 'algorithms -distinct-from-> conceptual change' and two readings of 'understanding', but the pair those rest on - evidence against inference - had no concept, no sense and no edge. The parenthetical IS the definition: 'evidence (Nature's…'. Weight 1.0 because the sentence is unhedged and the goal statement at @3738 names the same distinction as objective (1) of the course.— “Some conflation is inevitable, but nonetheless, to understand science one must clearly distinguish between evidence (Nature’s behavior) and inference (our models of Nature’s behavior).” | concept_edges[2] |
| relation | evidence —distinct-from→ inference — the paper makes the separation a precondition of understanding science at all, not a nicety— “Some conflation is inevitable, but nonetheless, to understand science one must clearly distinguish between evidence (Nature’s behavior) and inference (our models of Nature’s behavior).” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the reported distributions: TABLE 1 DISPLAYS THE SUMS OF THESE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS ... WE DID NOT RETAIN DATA FROM THE FIRST TWO YEARS— “(Table 1 displays the sums of these distributions for the last three years in which we taught the course. We did not retain data from the first two years.)” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the size of the intervention's effect: OUR APPROACH DID HAVE A POSITIVE BUT LIMITED IMPACT ON DEVELOPING IN SOME STUDENTS A RICHER UNDERSTANDING— “Our approach did have a positive but limited impact on developing in some students a richer understanding of models and NOS.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the motivational premise of this kind of intervention: the students were disturbed and motivated as assumed, but the authors report the interest was often short-lived— “As we had assumed, our students were disturbed by their incomplete understanding, and most were highly motivated to resolve their questions through experimenting. However, to our surprise, their interest was often short-lived” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — designing instruction on Posner et al.'s conditions for conceptual change: this paper quotes the position that the conditions may be necessary but are insufficient, that experiments often fail to generate the requisite data, and that cognitive limitations eclipse experimental evidence— “(a) experiments often fail to generate the requisite data; (b) Posner et al.’s (1982) [first] three conditions may be necessary, but they are insufficient; and, (c) cognitive limitations eclipse the significance of experimental evidence” | limitations[3] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Data from the first two years of the course were not kept, so the reported distributions cover only three of the five years— “(Table 1 displays the sums of these distributions for the last three years in which… | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The intervention's own effect was positive but limited, and only for some students | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The expectation held and then reversed: the motivation the design depended on appeared as predicted and did not last, which the authors report as a surprise. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The conditions the field's standard model of conceptual change rests on are reported as necessary but insufficient, with three named reasons. 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 evidence for the central claim is a teaching observation over five years rather than a measurement: students with undergraduate science degrees failed to generate correct predictions from a model they could otherwise manipulate, illustrated by one worked case (Archimedes' principle, floating and sinking). 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] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Students averaged 91% on Questionnaire I. 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 | Students averaged 49% on Questionnaire II over the course's final three years. 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 | Despite nearly six class hours on Archimedes' principle, nearly all students reverted to other ideas about forces and buoyancy. 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 | Of all the predictions and justifications offered in the final demonstration, exactly one invoked Archimedes' principle. 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 | Almost all the students, despite holding undergraduate science degrees, did not understand the basic structure of science. 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 | Students' interest was often short-lived; many grew frustrated at not closing the algorithm-conceptual gap quickly. 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 | Most students were relieved when the floating-and-sinking unit ended, though they said it raised more questions than answers. 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] |
| quantity | over 100 students — number of graduate students taught in the Nature of Science course over the five-year period 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 | around 20 students — typical class size each year, with roughly equal numbers of women and men 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 | 12 hours — total instruction time of the floating-and-sinking unit: eight 90-minute classes spread over four weeks 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 | 91% — average score on Questionnaire I (density/algorithm items) over the final three years 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 | 49% — average score on Questionnaire II (conceptual floating-and-sinking items) over the final three years 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 | approximately 32% — score that random guessing would have produced on Questionnaire II, i.e. the chance baseline 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 | only one — number of student responses in the final demonstration that referred to Archimedes' principle 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 | Roughly half the class — share of students predicting the glass would go down when a finger was placed in the water 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 | No student — number of students who predicted that the balanced glass would rise 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] |
| variable | kind of knowledge (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 | student predictions (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[2] |
| definition | Archimedes' principle 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 | disequilibrium 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] |
| concept | nature of science 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 | 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[1] |
| concept | measurement error 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 | algorithms 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 | evidence — not defined in this paper's own words; Nature's behavior - what the world does, as against our account of 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. | concepts[4] |
| concept | inference — not defined in this paper's own words; our models of Nature's behavior - the account, not the behavior 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] |
| mean | as written: average score 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] |
| frequency distribution | as written: histogram showing the number of students who had chosen each response 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] |
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