What You Don’t Know Won’t Hurt You, Unless You Don’t Know You’re Wrong

References

• Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X032008010
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st Century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313–337. doi: 10.2307/1163312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, P. A., Sperl, C. T., Buehl, M. M., Fives, H., & Chiu, S. (2004). Modeling domain learning: Profiles from the field of special education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 545–557. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allwood, C., & Granhag, P. (1996). Considering the knowledge you have: Effects on realism in confidence judgments. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 235–256. doi: 10.1080/095414496383077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Gromoll, E. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6(2), 99–158. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0602_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Johansen, R., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Effects of different ways of introducing a reading task on intrinsic motivation and comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 17–36. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, A., Rouet, J. F., & Durik, A. M. (2017). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation effect: An investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), 407–423. doi: 10.1080/00220670903383101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtenay, B. C., & Weidemann, C. (1985). The Effects of a “don't know” response on Palmore’s Facts on Aging quizzes. The Gerontologist, 25(2), 177–181. doi: 10.1093/geront/25.2.177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diakidoy, I. N., Mouskounti, T., Fella, A., & Ioannides, C. (2016). Comprehension processes and outcomes with refutation and expository texts and their contribution to learning. Learning and Instruction, 41, 60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186. doi: 10.2307/1170673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fancsali, C., Abe, Y., Pyatigorsky, M., Ortiz, L., Chan, V., Saltares, E., … Jaciw, A. (2015). The impact of the reading apprenticeship improving secondary education (RAISE) project on academic literacy in high school: A Report of a randomized experiment in Pennsylvania and California Schools. Research Report. Empirical Education Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fincher-Kiefer, R., Post, T., Greene, T., & Voss, J. (1988). On the role of prior knowledge and task demands in the processing of text. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 416–428. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90065-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2005). Summary Street®: Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 53–80. doi: 10.2190/DH8F-QJWM-J457-FQVB
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Shanahan, C, …. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Snow, C., & Vaughn, S. (2016). Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: Lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(3), 255–264. doi: 10.1002/jaal.586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 44(4), 339–387. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The knowledge revision component (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. Rapp, & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA:MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2016). Prior knowledge: Acquisition and revision. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 151–163). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235–245. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. (Research Branch Report 8–75). Memphis, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station.
   Google Scholar
• King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13–17. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top2201_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In J.P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 21–38). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kucer, S. B. (2011). Going beyond the author: What retellings tell us about comprehending narrative and expository texts. Literacy, 45(2), 62–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2010.00568.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaRusso, M., Kim, H. Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T., Jones, S., … Snow, C. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 201–222. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassonde, K. A., Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2016). Refutation texts: Overcoming psychology misconceptions that are resistant to change. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(1), 62–74. doi: 10.1037/stl0000054
   Google Scholar
• Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the Changing Nature of Literacy, Instruction, and Assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., McCrudden, M. T., Rouet, J. F., & Sabatini, J. (2018). The modern reader: Should changes to how we read affect research and theory? In M. Schober, M.A. Britt, & D. Rapp (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 519–536. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00092-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229–241. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (Eds.). (2011). Text relevance and learning from text. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M., Anderson, J., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 494–513. doi: 10.1080/09541440701326154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (1997). Comprehension skill: A knowledge-based account. In M.G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 508–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 55(1), 51–62. doi: 10.1037/h0087352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopfer, E. (2005). How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biology Education, 4(3), 235–248. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-09-0049
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. doi: 10.1002/asi.20672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B., & Ray, M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127–152.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). A Web-based tutoring system for the structure strategy: Theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–374). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Muijtjens, A. M., van Mameren, H., Hoogenboom, R., Evers, J., & van der Vleuten, C. (1999). The effect of a “don't know” option on test scores: Number-right and formula scoring compared
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K., & Alexander, P. (2002). What counts? The predictive powers of subject-matter knowledge, strategic processing, and interest in domain-specific performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 197–214. doi: 10.1080/00220970209599506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, T., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 338–368. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90266-2
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). PISA 2018 reading literacy framework. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/PISA-2018-draft-frameworks.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570. doi: 10.1598/RT.39.6.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “high stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 161–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2013). Reading for Understanding: How Performance Moderators and Scenarios Impact Assessment Design (Research Report No. RR-13-31). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., Deane, P., & Sabatini, J. (2015). Building and Sharing Knowledge Key Practice: What Do You Know, What Don’t You Know, What Did You Learn? (Research Report No. RR-15-24). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., & Steinberg, J. (2014). Designing Reading Comprehension Assessments for Reading Interventions: How a Theoretically Motivated Assessment Can Serve as an Outcome Measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26, (3), 403–424.
   Google Scholar
• Özgür, S. (2013). The persistence of misconceptions about the human blood circulatory system among students in different grade levels. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(2), 255–268. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2013.206a
   Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 399–438. doi: 10.1080/07370000701632371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228–242. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, H. R., Pachana, N. A., & Coyle, S. L. (2001). Use of the facts on aging quiz in New Zealand: Validation of questions, performance of a student sample, and effects of a don't know option. Educational Gerontology, 27(5), 409–416. doi: 10.1080/03601270152053438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radmacher, S., & Latosi-Sawin, E. (1995). Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 113–115. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top2202_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravesloot, C. J., Van der Schaaf, M. F., Muijtjens, A. M. M., Haaring, C., Kruitwagen, C. L. J. J., Beek, F. J. A., … Cate, T. J. T. (2015). The “Don't Know” option in progress testing. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(5), 1325–1338. doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9604-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recht, D., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16–20. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.80.1.16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2016). Assessing Comprehension in Kindergarten through Third Grade. Topics in Language Disorders, 36(4), 334–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., & O’Reilly, T. (2013). Rationale for a New Generation of Reading Comprehension Assessments. In Miller, B., Cutting, L., & P. McCardle (Eds), Unraveling Reading Comprehension: Behavioral, Neurobiological, and Genetic Components, (pp. 100–111). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Deane, P. (2013). Preliminary Reading Literacy Assessment Framework: Foundation and Rationale for Assessment and System Design. (Research Report No. RR-13-30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L., & Bruce, K. (2014). Broadening the scope of reading comprehension using scenario-based assessments: Preliminary finding and challenges. Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 693–723.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, P. (1973). The ‘don't know’ option in MCQ examinations. British Journal of Medical Education, 7(1), 25–29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance: A comparison of high- and low aptitude children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 306–312. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scoboria, A. & Fisico, S. (2013). Encouraging and clarifying “don’t know” responses enhances interview quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 72–82. doi: 10.1037/a0032067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159–189. doi: 10.3102/00028312041001159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. M. (2016). A review of evidence presented in support of three key claims in the validity argument for the TextEvaluator text analysis tool (ETS Research Report No. RR-16-12). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12100
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, R., & Zamboanga, B. (2004). Academic aptitude and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in introduction to psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 778–784. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobias, S., & Everson, H. T. (1996). Assessing metacognitive knowledge monitoring (College Board Report No. 96-01). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, S., & Everson, H. T. (2009). The importance of knowing what you know: A knowledge monitoring framework for studying metacognition in education. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C. Graesser, (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 107–127). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Lorch, Jr., R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087. doi: 10.3758/BF03206376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husebye-Hartman, E. (1995). The role of the reader’s standards of coherence in the generation of inference during reading. In R. F. Lorch, Jr., & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353–373). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and on-line construction of a memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• van Loon, M. H., Dunlosky, J., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. G., & de Bruin, A. H. (2015). Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrection of misconceptions held with high confidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4239, 48. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, J., & Silfies, L. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 45–68. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakabayashi, T., & Guskin, K. (2010). The effect of an ‘‘Unsure’’ option on early childhood professionals’ pre- and post-training knowledge assessments. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(4), 486–498. doi: 10.1177/1098214010371818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youjia, H., Woods-Groves, S., Ford, J. W., & Nobles, K. A. (2014). Effects of the paraphrasing strategy on expository reading comprehension of young adults with intellectual disability. Education & Training in Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 49, 429–439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar