The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Realizing That You Don't Understand: Elementary School Children's Awareness of Inconsistencies
Abstract
2 factors were proposed to affect awareness of one's comprehension failure: the inferential processing requirements, and the kind of standards against which comprehension is evaluated. These studies investigated elementary school children's awareness of their own comprehension failure when presented with inconsistent information. Study 1 showed that children were more likely to notice explicit than implicit contradictions. However, even 12-year-olds judged as comprehensible a sizable proportion of essays with seemingly obvious inconsistencies. Yet, the children had good probed recall of the information, the logical capacity to draw the inferences, and were not generally reluctant to question the experimenter. In subsequent studies children were (a) asked to repeat sentences in order to guarantee that the 2 inconsistent propositions were concurrently activated in working memory, and (b) warned about the existence of a problem in order to promote more careful evaluation. Taken together, the results suggest that to notice inconsistencies children have to encode and store the information, draw the relevant inferences, retrieve and maintain the (inferred) propositions in working memory, and compare them. Third through sixth graders do not spontaneously carry out those processes that they are capable of carrying out.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach
Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., & Franks, J. J. (1972) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90003-5 · Cited by 908
Cited by
Wimmer, H. (1983) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 · Cited by 6,305
Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 · Cited by 5,186
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31 · Cited by 1,496
The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1 · Cited by 1,032
Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students' Learning from Text
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1013176309260 · Cited by 873
Metadata
- Authors
- Markman, E. M.
- Venue
- Child Development
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1979-09-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 643-643
- ISSN
- 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019246912
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.