MEMORIZATION OF CLASSICAL CHINESE
Open accessAbstract
Subjects were asked to learn passages in literary style or colloquial style Chinese which were relatively more difficult or easy, with rote learning or meaningful learning instructions.It was found that those with rote learning set were superior in verbatim reproduction and equally good in understanding, compared to those with meaningful learning set.The significance of difficulty and learning set was discussed, particularly with reference to the habit of memorization in learning classical Chinese.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Hoosain concluded that the traditional practice of memorising classical Chinese texts does have a cognitive basis.
“Hoosain concluded the traditional practice of memorising classical Chinese texts does have a cognitive basis.”
From Assimilating complex information (2002) · cites this paper as Hoosain (1983)
Hoosain (1983) found that the rote group performed significantly better on verbatim recall but the rote and main-ideas groups could not be distinguished on passage comprehension.
“the rote group performed significantly better on verbatim recall of the passage but surprisingly, the performance of the rote and main ideas groups in terms of passage comprehension could not be distinguished.”
From Assimilating complex information (2002) · cites this paper as Hoosain (1983)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- King, D.J. & Russell, G. W. 1966. A comparison of rote and meaningful learning of connected meaningful material. Journal qf Verbal Learning and Verbal BehavioT, 5, 478-483.
- Reed, H. B. 1946a. Factors influencing the learning and retention of concepts, I, The influence of set. Journal qf Experimental Psychology, 35, 71-87.
- Reed, H. B. 1946b. The learning and retention of concepts, 4, The influence of the complexity of the stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 252-261. (Manuscript received September 3, 1982)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assimilating complex information
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00016-0 · Cited by 692 · see citing works
- Authors
- HOOSAIN, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- HOOSAIN, Rumjahn
- Venue
- PSYCHOLOGIA
- Publisher
- Psychologia Society
- Published
- 1983
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 193-197
- ISSN
- 0033-2852 (ISSN-L)
- 1347-5916
- OpenAlex
- W7162247386
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- PSYCHOLOGIA (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- classical Chinese, memorization, rote learning, meaningful learning, comprehension, learning difficulties, literary style, colloquial style, Chinese as a second language
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
