prior knowledge

The study aimed to analyze the impact of implementing instructional sequences on strengthening the teaching of Spanish Language and Social Sciences at the primary level in Regional 02, San Juan, Dominican Republic. A quantitative approach was adopted, using a non-experimental, cross-sectional, descriptive design. The participants comprised 498 individuals, including 463 teachers and 35 district-level educational specialists. Structured questionnaires were administered, and the data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. The results revealed a favorable assessment of the implementation of instructional sequences, particularly regarding the progressive organization of activities, activation of prior knowledge, student participation, oral and written production, and learning monitoring. Teachers also perceived improvements in lesson planning, organization, and assessment practices. However, district-level specialists identified areas requiring further consolidation, particularly the alignment between planning and classroom practice, the correspondence between activities and learning evidence, the use of educational resources, and pedagogical support. Challenges related to available instructional time and the need to make adaptations during implementation were also identified. It is concluded that instructional sequences have a favorable impact on strengthening teaching, although their consolidation requires systematic monitoring, teacher training, and contextualization of instructional proposals.

This study assessed the reading comprehension skills and academic performance in English of Grade 3 learners in selected public elementary schools in the Albuera District, Department of Education (DepEd), Schools Division of Leyte, Region VIII, during School Year 2025–2026, as a basis for developing interactive reading activities. A descriptive-quantitative research design was employed, involving six teachers and 90 learners from six public elementary schools. The learners were selected through simple random sampling. Data were gathered using a structured paper-and-pencil questionnaire covering respondents’ profiles, learners’ performance in five reading comprehension strategies, academic performance in reading comprehension, vocabulary, and storytelling, and the issues and concerns encountered in implementing reading comprehension activities. Frequency counts, percentages, and weighted means were used to analyze the data, together with a test of association to examine the relationships between instructional strategies and learners’ academic performance. The findings revealed that the strategies used in reading comprehension obtained an overall average weighted mean of 3.26, interpreted as Highly Effective. Story mapping and the use of photographs received the highest ratings, with weighted means of 3.30 each, followed by activating prior knowledge at 3.23 and monitoring and clarifying at 3.20. In terms of academic performance, learners demonstrated a lack of mastery in noting details (M = 2.20), decoding (M = 2.23), phonics (M = 2.40), vocabulary (M = 2.30), and storytelling (M = 2.40). The findings further revealed that monitoring and clarifying and the use of photographs had statistically significant associations with selected academic competencies, whereas activating prior knowledge and story mapping did not demonstrate significant associations with the measured competencies. The specific association coefficients and p-values were not available in the supplied results. These findings highlight the need to strengthen learners’ foundational reading skills, particularly identifying details, decoding words, applying phonics, developing vocabulary, and organizing narratives. Based on the findings, interactive reading activities are proposed for consideration and implementation by the concerned school officials, in collaboration with teachers, parents, and the DepEd Schools Division of Leyte, to address learners’ literacy needs and improve their reading comprehension and academic performance.

Elementary school is the first place where children systematically encounter questions about what it means to know, where knowledge comes from, and how a claim comes to count as true. Yet the epistemological assumptions underpinning everyday elementary teaching are seldom made explicit. This article examines the nature of children’s knowledge in elementary education practice by analysing two competing images of the child: the passive recipient (tabula rasa) and the active constructor of knowledge. Using conceptual-philosophical analysis of classical and contemporary works in epistemology, developmental psychology, and educational theory, the study finds that (a) the tabula rasa image persists in practice through initiation-response-evaluation talk, reliance on rote memorisation, and the treatment of error as failure; (b) constructivist traditions position the child as a builder of knowledge but are frequently misread as the absence of guidance; and (c) the two poles are better understood as a continuum than as a dichotomy. The article proposes an epistemological framework for simple learning built on five principles: prior knowledge as a starting point, simplicity as intellectual honesty, error as epistemic data, justification through dialogue, and graduated guidance. The framework is intended to help teachers, teacher educators, and curriculum designers examine the epistemological assumptions behind their practice.

مدرسه ابتدایی نخستین مکانی است که کودکان به طور نظام‌مند با پرسش‌هایی درباره معنای دانستن، منشأ دانش و چگونگی اعتبار یافتن یک ادعا به عنوان حقیقت مواجه می‌شوند. با این حال، مفروضات معرفت‌شناختی که زیربنای آموزش روزمره در مدارس ابتدایی هستند، به ندرت به طور صریح بیان می‌شوند. این مقاله با تحلیل دو تصویر رقیب از کودک—گیرنده منفعل (لوح سفید) و سازنده فعال دانش—به بررسی ماهیت دانش کودکان در عمل آموزش ابتدایی می‌پردازد. با بهره‌گیری از تحلیل مفهومی-فلسفی آثار کلاسیک و معاصر در حوزه معرفت‌شناسی، روان‌شناسی رشد و نظریه آموزش، این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که (الف) تصویر لوح سفید از طریق گفت‌وگوی آغاز-پاسخ-ارزیابی، اتکاء به حفظ طوطی‌وار و تلقی خطا به عنوان شکست، همچنان در عمل باقی مانده است؛ (ب) سنت‌های ساخت‌گرایانه کودک را به عنوان سازنده دانش معرفی می‌کنند، اما اغلب به اشتباه به عنوان فقدان راهنمایی تفسیر می‌شوند؛ و (ج) این دو قطب بیش از آنکه دوگانگی باشند، باید به عنوان یک پیوستار درک شوند. این مقاله چارچوبی معرفت‌شناختی برای یادگیری ساده بر اساس پنج اصل پیشنهاد می‌کند: دانش پیشین به عنوان نقطه آغاز، سادگی به عنوان صداقت فکری، خطا به عنوان داده معرفتی، توجیه از طریق گفت‌وگو و راهنمایی تدریجی. این چارچوب با هدف کمک به معلمان، مربیان معلم و طراحان برنامه درسی برای بررسی مفروضات معرفت‌شناختی زیربنای عمل آن‌ها ارائه می‌شود.

This theoretical and analytical study examines pedagogical approaches to developing critical thinking among primary school pupils. Drawing on foundational accounts of reflective thinking, sociocultural learning and critical-thinking skills, it identifies age-appropriate components of critical thinking and systematises six instructional approaches: problem-based learning, purposeful questioning, comparison and classification, discussion and collaborative work, graphic organisers, and reflective exercises. The analysis specifies the classroom conditions required for these approaches and proposes a five-stage instructional model encompassing activation of prior knowledge, a problem question, information analysis, justified conclusions and reflection. A classroom illustration concerning responsible water use demonstrates how the model may be implemented. The outcomes are a conceptual synthesis and practical recommendations rather than findings from an intervention study; the effectiveness of the model has not yet been empirically tested

این مطالعه نظری و تحلیلی به بررسی رویکردهای آموزشی برای توسعه تفکر انتقادی در دانش‌آموزان دبستانی می‌پردازد. با اتکا به دیدگاه‌های بنیادی درباره تفکر تأملی، یادگیری اجتماعی‌فرهنگی و مهارت‌های تفکر انتقادی، مؤلفه‌های متناسب با سن تفکر انتقادی را شناسایی کرده و شش رویکرد آموزشی را نظام‌مند می‌کند: یادگیری مبتنی بر مسئله، پرسشگری هدفمند، مقایسه و طبقه‌بندی، بحث و کار گروهی، سازمان‌دهنده‌های تصویری و تمرین‌های تأملی. تحلیل انجام‌شده شرایط لازم کلاس درس برای اجرای این رویکردها را مشخص ساخته و یک الگوی آموزشی پنج‌مرحله‌ای شامل فعال‌سازی دانش پیشین، طرح پرسش مسئله‌محور، تحلیل اطلاعات، نتیجه‌گیری مستدل و تأمل را پیشنهاد می‌کند. یک مثال کلاسی درباره استفاده مسئولانه از آب نشان می‌دهد که این الگو چگونه می‌تواند اجرا شود. نتایج این پژوهش، ترکیبی مفهومی و توصیه‌های عملی است و یافته‌های حاصل از یک مطالعه مداخله‌ای نیست؛ اثربخشی این الگو هنوز به طور تجربی آزمون نشده است.

Science education seeks not only to expand learners' knowledge but also to develop scientific ways of explaining natural phenomena. This requires more than transmitting disciplinary information. Learners must recognise why scientific concepts become necessary, how they extend or revise existing explanations, and under what conditions they provide meaningful accounts of the physical world. The educational challenge therefore concerns not only which concepts should be taught, but also the instructional reasoning surrounding their introduction.Science education research has generated substantial knowledge through conceptual change, inquiry-based learning, model-based instruction, learning progressions, productive preparation, and related traditions. These approaches have shown the importance of engaging prior ideas, recognising explanatory limitations, refining representations, and applying knowledge across contexts. Yet one decision connecting many of these processes often remains implicit: the introduction of formal scientific concepts (Duit and Treagust, 2012;Méheut and Psillos, 2004;Steenhof et al., 2020;Minner et al., 2010;Campbell et al., 2015).In this article, formal concept entry refers to the point at which a scientific construct is presented in an explicit disciplinary form, for example as a named concept or definition, symbolic or mathematical representation, law, model, or related formal structure. Such constructs frequently enter instruction through curricular sequence, textbook organisation, or teaching convention. These arrangements may be appropriate, but the educational justification for formal concept entry is seldom examined directly: not whether the construct belongs in the curriculum, but whether its formal presentation is coordinated with the explanatory work Commented [S[1]: 'U' was missing in '.edu'. Now that is included learners are expected to perform. This issue has renewed practical importance as learners increasingly encounter completed definitions, derivations, simulations, and explanations through digital platforms and generative artificial intelligence before instruction has established their explanatory significance. Greater access to formal scientific information does not itself establish when a construct becomes meaningful within learners' developing understanding (Kumar et al., 2026). This Opinion therefore argues that formal concept entry deserves explicit consideration as an instructional decision. The central question is not whether formal scientific concepts should be introduced early or late, but whether their introduction is instructionally justified by the explanatory work learners are expected to perform.To support reflection on this question, I propose the Concept Genesis Framework (CGF). CGF is an instructor-facing conceptual architecture for examining how formal scientific concepts are prepared, introduced, interpreted, and integrated within learning. It neither replaces established educational theories nor prescribes a universal teaching sequence. Its contribution is to provide a coherent language for considering the instructional justification of formal concept entry.CGF does not arise from a single theory of learning. Its design draws on several established traditions that converge on a common instructional concern: learners interpret new scientific ideas through prior understanding, may need to recognise limitations in existing explanations, and require representational and explanatory support to integrate new disciplinary constructs.Conceptual-change scholarship provides one foundation through its attention to existing conceptions, explanatory inadequacy, and the restructuring of understanding (Strike and Posner, 1982;Duit and Treagust, 2012). Nersessian (1989) adds a representational perspective by emphasising that scientific understanding involves the construction and coordination of conceptual and mathematical representations rather than the reception of completed definitions alone. Inquiry and teaching-learning sequence research further situate such conceptual development within deliberately organised instructional activity (Sandoval and Reiser, 2004;Méheut and Psillos, 2004).CGF does not depend on a single philosophical doctrine. Its orientation is epistemic and instructional: scientific concepts are treated as disciplinary resources for explanation, representation, and prediction rather than as isolated verbal or symbolic entities. ThisReviewer comment 1 has been addressed Paragraph beginning -Concepts, equations------and ending (Kumar et al., 2026), has been replaced with the new paragraph-starting -In this article---------and ending (Kumar et al., 2026).orientation is compatible with constructivist perspectives insofar as it recognises prior understanding and active meaning-making. CGF is not, however, proposed as a constructivist theory of learning, nor does it assume that learners independently rediscover disciplinary knowledge. Its narrower concern is whether the instructional conditions surrounding formal concept entry allow a scientific construct to perform meaningful explanatory work within a learning situation.The ten elements of CGF are consequently described as instructional functions rather than whether it can be used across related contexts (Disciplinary Transfer); and how it supports subsequent learning (Forward Linkage). The framework does not claim that these ten functions are empirically invariant or that all must occur in a fixed order. Depending on the concept, discipline, learners, and instructional purpose, they may overlap, recur, be compressed, or be unnecessary.Scientific concepts are not merely definitions, symbols, or equations. They are intellectual tools developed to explain, organise, and predict phenomena. Although learners often encounter them in completed disciplinary form, instruction must determine how they can become meaningful explanatory resources rather than isolated information.CGF organises ten instructional functions around this problem. The number ten reflects this analytical differentiation of instructional work surrounding formal concept entry rather than an assumed set of invariant cognitive stages. These functions describe a flexible educational logic, not fixed learner stages or a mandatory sequence. Depending on the concept, discipline, learners, and instructional purpose, they may overlap, recur, be compressed, or be unnecessary. (Sandoval and Reiser, 2004;Rea-Ramirez et al., 2009). Its educational value lies in orienting learners towards a meaningful explanatory objective.As learners attempt to address the question, they may recognise that their current explanations or reasoning strategies are insufficient. CGF describes this recognition as Cognitive Tension.It is neither required nor sufficient for conceptual change, but it can help learners recognise the limits of their existing explanatory resources (Strike and Posner, 1982;Rea-Ramirez et al., 2009).: correction of the wording in Figure 1 from "comprises of ten instructional functions" to "comprises ten instructional functions." Minor typographical errors identified within the figure have also been corrected.Recognition of these limitations may generate Epistemic Need: an appreciation that an additional scientific construct is required to explain, organise, or predict observations more adequately. Epistemic need differs from curiosity alone because it concerns the perceived explanatory necessity of a new concept. It may emerge spontaneously or through instructional guidance (Lee et al., 2021).Instruction may then examine the boundaries, assumptions, or inadequacies of existing explanations. A model may fail under new conditions, conflict with evidence, or prove too limited for a broader domain (Rea-Ramirez et al., 2009;Sommeillier et al., 2021).Identifying such limitations does not require rejecting earlier explanations entirely. Scientific understanding often develops through extension, refinement, and specification rather than complete replacement.Historical reconstruction can show why concepts emerged, but it is only one route to explanatory necessity. The need for a concept may also become visible through experimental anomalies, engineering constraints, mathematical inconsistency, model comparison, simulation, or unresolved disciplinary questions (Matthews, 1992). The objective is not to reproduce scientific history, but to clarify the explanatory conditions that justify introducing a formal scientific concept.Concept Genesis denotes the instructional point at which the formal scientific construct is explicitly introduced, stabilised, or recognised as an appropriate response to the identified explanatory problem. It does not imply that learners independently reinvent disciplinary knowledge or experience a single moment of discovery. Terminology or representations may appear earlier, but Concept Genesis marks the point at which they acquire coherent disciplinary meaning (Stamovlasis et al., 2005;Cook, 2006).Concepts gain precision through equations, symbols, graphs, diagrams, models, or other disciplinary representations. CGF defines formalisation broadly because representationalPeriod is included, which was missing practices differ across scientific fields. Concept Genesis and Formalisation are analytically distinct but educationally interconnected and may develop recursively.Correctly manipulating a representation does not necessarily indicate understanding (Stamovlasis et al., 2005). Scientific Interpretation connects formal constructs with their explanatory meaning, assumptions, domains of applicability, predictive capacity, and disciplinary significance. It therefore links procedural use with conceptual understanding.Understanding becomes educationally valuable when learners can extend it beyond the immediate instructional setting. Disciplinary Transfer involves applying a concept across related problems, conditions, contexts, or scales. Transfer should not be assumed from success on familiar tasks but treated as an outcome requiring instructional design and observation (Lobato and Hohensee, 2021).Through Forward Linkage, a newly acquired concept becomes a resource for subsequent models, explanations, and disciplinary learning. Formal concept entry is therefore not only about introducing an individual construct, but also about supporting the progressive organisation of scientific understanding across a curriculum.Taken together, these functions enable educators to examine how formal scientific concepts are prepared, introduced, interpreted, extended, and connected. CGF does not prescribe a universal route to learning. It provides a structured language for considering whether formal concept entry is instructionally justified within a particular educational context.CGF is a conceptual lens for instructional planning and reflection, not a new theory of learning, a validated instructional model, or a prescriptive teaching method. It does not replace inquirybased learning, conceptual change, model-based instruction, productive preparation, learning cycles, teaching-learning sequences, or related evidence-informed approaches (Méheut and Psillos, 2004;Minner et al., 2010;Duit and Treagust, 2012;Campbell et al., 2015).Instead, it organises instructional functions recognised across these traditions around the specific question of formal concept entry.The framework does not require all ten functions to appear, nor does it prescribe their order. Scientific disciplines differ in conceptual structure, mathematical demands, representational practices, and curricular constraints. Learners also differ in prior knowledge, educational goals, cognitive resources, and learning contexts. The functions may therefore overlap, recur, or be omitted.CGF also does not advocate delayed instruction. Early introduction of terminology, diagrams, notation, or simplified models may sometimes provide necessary scaffolding (Cook, 2006). In other situations, learners may benefit from first recognising an explanatory limitation. The relevant judgement concerns not timing in isolation, but whether a formal scientific concept can support the explanatory work required within the learning situation.The framework may be especially useful for concepts that are abstract, counterintuitive, mathematically constituted, foundational for later learning, or commonly presented only in completed formal form. It may be unnecessary for straightforward factual knowledge, routine procedural skills, directly observable phenomena, or situations in which immediate explicit instruction is clearly appropriate.Its educational value remains an empirical question. CGF should therefore be treated as a conceptual proposition that invites evaluation across disciplines, educational levels, and instructional settings.Learners may reproduce definitions, derivations, or equations while remaining uncertain about why a construct became necessary, what problem it addresses, or where it applies. Procedural competence remains educationally important, but it does not always develop together with explanatory understanding (Stamovlasis et al., 2005). Formal concept entry should therefore be judged not only by what learners can perform, but also by the understanding that the construct is intended to support.Concept introduction is also rarely a single event. Terminology, qualitative descriptions, diagrams, equations, computational procedures, and canonical explanations need not enter instruction simultaneously. Each may serve a different role. Formal concept entry is therefore better understood as a distributed instructional process whose components can be introduced according to their explanatory function.This perspective also refines the idea of learner readiness. Readiness is not simply the completion of prerequisite activities. It concerns the relationship between the explanatory demands of a learning situation and learners' capacity to integrate a new construct meaningfully. Prior knowledge, representational support, cognitive demands, recognition of limitations, and instructional guidance all shape this capacity (Cook, 2006;Steenhof et al., 2020).Learner difficulty alone does not justify introducing a formal scientific concept. Productive struggle is not an educational goal in itself, and immediate explanation does not necessarily prevent understanding. Effective teaching requires judgement about when exploration, representation, explanation, and direct guidance are most educationally useful (Steenhof et al., 2020).Because these judgements vary across thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, biology, engineering, and other disciplines, CGF remains deliberately flexible. Its purpose is not to standardise concept introduction, but to make the reasoning behind it more visible.The principal contribution of CGF is to make explicit an instructional decision often embedded within broader pedagogy: why a formal scientific concept is introduced at a particular point in learning. This perspective complements existing educational research rather than competing with it. Diverse traditions may organise teaching differently, yet many confront the transition from provisional or intuitive explanations to formal scientific concepts. Treating that transition as an object of reflection may create a useful point of dialogue across approaches.The framework also has implications for curriculum design and educational research. Curricula typically specify what should be taught but provide less guidance about the reasoning supporting the introduction of particular concepts, representations, or mathematical formulations (Méheut and Psillos, 2004). Attention to formal concept entry may help educators align curricular expectations, learner preparedness, explanatory demands, and instructional support. In research, it may offer an additional dimension for describing interventions and interpreting differences across learning environments.Its relevance is heightened by contemporary digital learning. Learners may now encounter formal scientific language and representations before an instructional context has established their explanatory significance (Kumar et al., 2026). The educator's role therefore extends beyond providing information towards helping learners understand when and why formal constructs become useful.Several limitations remain. CGF has not undergone systematic empirical validation and does not claim that explicit attention to concept entry will necessarily improve understanding or transfer. Its functions may not operate uniformly across disciplines, learner populations, or educational levels. Instructional decisions also remain shaped by curriculum, assessment, institutional constraints, teacher expertise, available time, and learner diversity.Future studies may investigate how educators currently justify formal concept entry, how such judgements vary across disciplines, and whether making them explicit influences conceptual understanding, transfer, curriculum design, teacher education, or research reporting. These studies would not seek a universal rule for early or delayed instruction. They would examine whether greater transparency regarding the reasoning behind concept entry contributes meaningfully to science education.In conclusion, the educational significance of a formal scientific concept lies not only in its disciplinary content, but also in the instructional judgement governing when it becomes meaningful within learners' developing explanations of the natural world. CGF offers a conceptual architecture for examining that judgement. Recognising formal concept entry as an explicit instructional decision may help clarify how scientific knowledge becomes meaningful during learning.

آموزش علوم نه تنها به گسترش دانش فراگیران می‌پردازد، بلکه هدف آن توسعه شیوه‌های علمی تبیین پدیده‌های طبیعی نیز هست. این امر فراتر از انتقال صرف اطلاعات تخصصی است. فراگیران باید دریابند چرا مفاهیم علمی ضرورت می‌یابند، چگونه این مفاهیم تبیین‌های موجود را گسترش داده یا اصلاح می‌کنند و تحت چه شرایطی می‌توانند تبیین‌های معناداری از جهان فیزیکی ارائه دهند. بنابراین، چالش آموزشی صرفاً به این محدود نمی‌شود که کدام مفاهیم باید آموزش داده شوند، بلکه استدلال آموزشی پیرامون معرفی آن‌ها نیز اهمیت دارد. پژوهش‌های آموزش علوم از طریق تغییر مفهومی، یادگیری مبتنی بر پژوهش، آموزش مبتنی بر مدل، پیشرفت‌های یادگیری، آمادگی مولد و سنت‌های مرتبط، دانش قابل توجهی تولید کرده‌اند. این رویکردها اهمیت درگیر کردن ایده‌های پیشین، شناسایی محدودیت‌های تبیینی، اصلاح بازنمایی‌ها و به‌کارگیری دانش در زمینه‌های مختلف را نشان داده‌اند. با این حال، تصمیمی که بسیاری از این فرایندها را به هم پیوند می‌دهد، اغلب ضمنی باقی می‌ماند: ورود مفاهیم علمی رسمی (Duit و Treagust، ۲۰۱۲؛ Méheut و Psillos، ۲۰۰۴؛ Steenhof و همکاران، ۲۰۲۰؛ Minner و همکاران، ۲۰۱۰؛ Campbell و همکاران، ۲۰۱۵). در این مقاله، ورود رسمی مفهوم به نقطه‌ای اشاره دارد که یک سازه علمی به صورت صریح و تخصصی، مانند یک مفهوم یا تعریف نام‌گذاری‌شده، بازنمایی نمادین یا ریاضی، قانون، مدل یا ساختار رسمی مرتبط ارائه می‌شود. این سازه‌ها اغلب از طریق توالی برنامه درسی، سازماندهی کتاب درسی یا عرف تدریس وارد آموزش می‌شوند. این ترتیبات ممکن است مناسب باشند، اما توجیه آموزشی برای ورود رسمی مفهوم به ندرت به طور مستقیم بررسی می‌شود: نه اینکه آیا سازه باید در برنامه درسی باشد، بلکه آیا ارائه رسمی آن با کار تبیینی که از فراگیران انتظار می‌رود هماهنگ است. این مسئله با توجه به اینکه فراگیران بیش از پیش با تعاریف کامل، استنتاج‌ها، شبیه‌سازی‌ها و تبیین‌ها از طریق بسترهای دیجیتال و هوش مصنوعی مولد پیش از آنکه اهمیت تبیینی آن‌ها در آموزش تثبیت شده باشد مواجه می‌شوند، اهمیت عملی تازه‌ای یافته است. دسترسی بیشتر به اطلاعات علمی رسمی به خودی خود تعیین نمی‌کند که چه زمانی یک سازه درک معناداری در فهم در حال رشد فراگیران پیدا می‌کند (Kumar و همکاران، ۲۰۲۶). بنابراین، این مقاله بر این باور است که ورود رسمی مفهوم شایسته توجه صریح به عنوان یک تصمیم آموزشی است. پرسش اصلی این نیست که آیا مفاهیم علمی رسمی باید زود یا دیر معرفی شوند، بلکه این است که آیا معرفی آن‌ها با کار تبیینی که از فراگیران انتظار می‌رود، توجیه آموزشی دارد یا خیر. برای حمایت از تأمل در این پرسش، چارچوب تکوین مفهوم (CGF) پیشنهاد می‌شود. CGF معماری مفهومی برای مدرسان است تا بررسی کنند که چگونه مفاهیم علمی رسمی آماده، معرفی، تفسیر و در یادگیری ادغام می‌شوند. این چارچوب جایگزین نظریه‌های آموزشی موجود نیست و توالی تدریس جهان‌شمولی را تجویز نمی‌کند. سهم آن ارائه زبانی منسجم برای تأمل درباره توجیه آموزشی ورود رسمی مفهوم است. CGF از یک نظریه واحد یادگیری نشأت نمی‌گیرد. طراحی آن مبتنی بر چند سنت تثبیت‌شده است که بر یک دغدغه مشترک آموزشی تمرکز دارند: فراگیران ایده‌های علمی جدید را از طریق فهم پیشین تفسیر می‌کنند، ممکن است لازم باشد محدودیت‌های تبیین‌های موجود را شناسایی کنند و برای ادغام سازه‌های تخصصی جدید به حمایت بازنمایی و تبیینی نیاز دارند. پژوهش‌های تغییر مفهومی با توجه به تصورات موجود، ناکافی بودن تبیین‌ها و بازسازی فهم، یکی از بنیان‌ها را فراهم می‌کنند (Strike و Posner، ۱۹۸۲؛ Duit و Treagust، ۲۰۱۲). Nersessian (۱۹۸۹) با تأکید بر اینکه فهم علمی مستلزم ساخت و هماهنگی بازنمایی‌های مفهومی و ریاضی است و نه صرفاً دریافت تعاریف کامل، دیدگاه بازنمایی را می‌افزاید. پژوهش‌های یادگیری مبتنی بر پژوهش و توالی تدریس-یادگیری نیز این تحول مفهومی را در فعالیت آموزشی سازمان‌یافته قرار می‌دهند (Sandoval و Reiser، ۲۰۰۴؛ Méheut و Psillos، ۲۰۰۴). CGF به یک مکتب فلسفی خاص وابسته نیست. رویکرد آن معرفت‌شناختی و آموزشی است: مفاهیم علمی به عنوان منابع تخصصی برای تبیین، بازنمایی و پیش‌بینی تلقی می‌شوند، نه صرفاً موجودیت‌های لفظی یا نمادین منفرد. این رویکرد با دیدگاه‌های سازنده‌گرایانه تا جایی سازگار است که فهم پیشین و ساخت فعال معنا را به رسمیت می‌شناسد. با این حال، CGF به عنوان نظریه سازنده‌گرای یادگیری پیشنهاد نمی‌شود و فرض نمی‌کند که فراگیران به طور مستقل دانش تخصصی را بازکشف می‌کنند. دغدغه محدودتر آن این است که آیا شرایط آموزشی پیرامون ورود رسمی مفهوم اجازه می‌دهد یک سازه علمی در یک موقعیت یادگیری کارکرد تبیینی معنادار ایفا کند یا خیر. به همین دلیل، ده عنصر CGF به عنوان کارکردهای آموزشی توصیف می‌شوند، نه اینکه آیا می‌توان آن را در زمینه‌های مرتبط به کار برد (انتقال تخصصی) و چگونه از یادگیری بعدی حمایت می‌کند (پیوند رو به جلو). این چارچوب ادعا نمی‌کند که این ده کارکرد به طور تجربی ثابت یا همه باید به ترتیب مشخصی رخ دهند. بسته به مفهوم، رشته، فراگیران و هدف آموزشی، ممکن است این کارکردها همپوشانی، تکرار، فشرده یا غیرضروری باشند. مفاهیم علمی صرفاً تعاریف، نمادها یا معادلات نیستند. آن‌ها ابزارهای فکری هستند که برای تبیین، سازماندهی و پیش‌بینی پدیده‌ها توسعه یافته‌اند. اگرچه فراگیران اغلب آن‌ها را به صورت کامل و تخصصی دریافت می‌کنند، آموزش باید تعیین کند که چگونه می‌توانند به منابع تبیینی معنادار تبدیل شوند، نه اطلاعات منفرد. CGF ده عنصر را سازمان می‌دهد.

Background: The Philippines faces a persistent literacy crisis that extends beyond the primary grades. National and international indicators show that many learners enter secondary education without secure reading foundations, while senior high school courses demand increasingly complex disciplinary reading and writing. Objective: This narrative review synthesized contemporary evidence on reading remediation for adolescents and translated that evidence into a context-responsive framework for Grades 11 and 12 in the Philippines. Methods: A structured narrative review prioritized peer-reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized and quasi-experimental studies, evidence-based practice guidance, and Philippine policy and curriculum documents. Literature published mainly from 2019 to 2025 was examined across decoding and morphology, fluency, vocabulary and background knowledge, comprehension, motivation, intervention intensity, and disciplinary literacy. Results: Meta-analytic evidence showed positive effects for adolescent reading comprehension interventions (g = 0.63), broader comprehension interventions for struggling readers (g = 0.59), and targeted fluency intervention (effect size = 0.46). Motivation-focused interventions also produced gains in reading comprehension (d = 0.27). Across sources, effective remediation was explicit, diagnostically matched, multicomponent, sufficiently intensive, progress-monitored, and connected to meaningful text. Evidence also showed that gains can diminish after intervention and that fluency practice alone rarely transfers reliably to comprehension. Conclusion: Senior high school literacy recovery should combine protected foundational remediation for learners with persistent word-level or fluency deficits with subject-embedded instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, and disciplinary reading. This two-layer model preserves curricular rigor while addressing unfinished foundational learning.

زمینه: فیلیپین با بحران مداوم سوادآموزی مواجه است که فراتر از پایه‌های ابتدایی ادامه دارد. شاخص‌های ملی و بین‌المللی نشان می‌دهند که بسیاری از دانش‌آموزان بدون پایه‌های خواندن مستحکم وارد آموزش متوسطه می‌شوند، در حالی که دروس دبیرستانی نیازمند مهارت‌های پیچیده‌تر خواندن و نوشتن تخصصی هستند. هدف: این مرور روایتی، شواهد معاصر درباره‌ی بازتوانی خواندن برای نوجوانان را تلفیق کرده و آن را به چارچوبی متناسب با زمینه برای پایه‌های یازدهم و دوازدهم در فیلیپین ترجمه کرده است. روش‌ها: یک مرور ساختاریافته‌ی روایتی، فراتحلیل‌های داوری‌شده، مرورهای نظام‌مند، پژوهش‌های تصادفی و شبه‌آزمایشی، راهنمایی‌های مبتنی بر شواهد و اسناد سیاستی و برنامه‌ی درسی فیلیپین را در اولویت قرار داد. ادبیات منتشرشده عمدتاً از سال ۲۰۱۹ تا ۲۰۲۵ در حوزه‌های رمزگشایی و ساختواژه، روان‌خوانی، واژگان و دانش پیش‌زمینه، درک مطلب، انگیزش، شدت مداخله و سواد تخصصی بررسی شد. یافته‌ها: شواهد فراتحلیلی نشان داد که مداخلات درک مطلب برای نوجوانان (g = 0.63)، مداخلات گسترده‌تر درک مطلب برای خوانندگان دارای مشکل (g = 0.59) و مداخله‌ی هدفمند روان‌خوانی (اندازه‌ی اثر = 0.46) تأثیرات مثبتی داشته‌اند. مداخلات مبتنی بر انگیزش نیز موجب بهبود درک مطلب شدند (d = 0.27). در تمامی منابع، بازتوانی مؤثر به صورت صریح، متناسب با تشخیص، چندمولفه‌ای، با شدت کافی، پایش‌شده و مرتبط با متون معنادار بود. همچنین شواهد نشان داد که دستاوردها پس از مداخله ممکن است کاهش یابد و تمرین صرف روان‌خوانی به ندرت به طور قابل اطمینان به درک مطلب منتقل می‌شود. نتیجه‌گیری: بازیابی سوادآموزی در دبیرستان باید بازتوانی پایه‌ای محافظت‌شده برای دانش‌آموزان با مشکلات ماندگار در سطح واژه یا روان‌خوانی را با آموزش درون‌موضوعی در واژگان، درک مطلب و خواندن تخصصی ترکیب کند. این مدل دو‌لایه، سخت‌گیری برنامه‌ی درسی را حفظ می‌کند و در عین حال به یادگیری پایه‌ای ناتمام می‌پردازد.