Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge

Carey, Susan, Smith, Carol·1993·Educational Psychologist

Abstract

One important goal of science education is to help students understand the nature of the scientific enterprise itself. We review data from several sources, indicating that middle school and high school students have a common sense epistemology of science at variance with the constructivist epistemology we advocate as the appropriate curricular goal. We sketch the student epistemology and discuss two attempts to induce changes in it through science education.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15326985ep2803_4

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 377

Metadata

Authors
Carey, S., & Smith, C.
Venue
Educational Psychologist
Published
1993-06
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
235-251
ISSN
  • 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6985
OpenAlex
W2066294578
Cited by
377
References
22
FWCI
27.11
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15326985ep2803_4
The paper
Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2803_4

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.