Talk:Children's use of information

Afd

We are addressing these issues, several of which we also identified. Can you be specific about the issue with the citation system? Thanks DrKimWriter (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are summaries of what reliable sources have to say about a subject. The subject of the article is Children's Use of Information. You need to provide sources to support that the topic Childrens use of information is notable. What you currently have is an essay on childhood learning techniques, which would probably be better added to Child education. The term "Childrens use of information" isn't notable. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Flat Out. We'll work on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKimWriter (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have received some advice that my nomination was premature so I have withdrawn my nomination. Good luck with your efforts to improve the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I rejigged the children's judgments about ignorant and ambiguous sources and metacognition sections. Since metacognition is a large umbrella topic, I included all the other subsections within it as they are all distinct yet prerequisite subskills that children need to acquire before they can be metacognitive learners. Luciaz (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Luciaz

I think this is an excellent subject field to have on Wikipedia. I also feel that if we revamped the outline to include the cyclical mechanics of information processing in a child age, gender chart, we can rely on good sources to give a cited experience. Also, I would like to add that as any cognition learning from a child should be cited as having experience to the subject field ie, if a child has never seen a frog, asking a child what a frog is will not show that he is dysfunct in information processing, but the lack of general experience to what a frog is.Michellesumrall (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary at Beginning

Incorporating the "Source Monitoring" section into the beginning of the page summary may better highlight what the page is about as much of it stems from source monitoring. I also added why it's important which alludes to the content of the page. What do you think? Ssengsav (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This summary serves as a good introduction to the page content. Perhaps more could be added to further encompass elements from each section? Jpand15 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the introductory summary should explicitly state each section of the page (it is not included now) when the table is directly under it listing the various sections and subsections.Ssengsav (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Originally I had the same thought -- that intro should include elements from each section. But I agree that it wouldn't be necessary given the proximity to the table of contents. D depas (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the example of a "parent whose child has been diagnosed with hyperactivity" is completely relevant to the topic of Children's use of Information because it relates to the parent's use of information rather than the child's.Maddie35 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The relevancy of the topic sentence should actually include the cycle in which a child learns language and uses that information to enhance his/hers life by the inclusion of such information. It should also include cognitive learning in regards to understanding expressive and receptive language. It should include more aspects of the information cycle a child potentially learns on a daily basis in regards to his age and age.Michellesumrall (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)174.17.253.128 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Development of Source Monitoring

This section is very well written. I just found one typo I corrected (...that may required reasoning to ...that may REQUIRE reasoning). Other than that, great job. The language is easily understood and the theories are clearly described. I wouldn't change anything else. Luciaz (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few of my suggestions for this section. Overall I thought this section was really well done.

• I added links to other wiki pages for the following words: Episodic memory, Encoded, Reconstructed, Storage, Retrieval (recall)
• I feel like the intro paragraph ends abruptly (when it leads into the theories). Can a few more sentences be added here to introduce a bit of background and maybe compare/contrast of the different theories? Just a bit of information that puts these theories into perspective. Ex. Is there evidence/research that suggests one theory over another? I don't mean that we take a specific position or opinion, just that we provide more detail about how these theories are viewed/represented in actual practice.
• The "Schema Theory" paragraph was a little confusing for me. Here is a suggested possible rewording of it. "Schema Theory, as a derivative of Script Theory, states that after repeated exposure to similar events, individuals form a general representation of what typically happens (a script).[6] “Slots” represent details within a script that vary from instance to instance. Each “slot” contains a list of possible variations for that specific detail. Errors in source monitoring occur when the incorrect detail variation is selected from the list, in other words, a detail from a different instance is retrieved. This framework allows for…"
• I know it would increase the length, but would there maybe be some value in adding some simple examples to each of the theories just to help explain the theories more clearly.

Aurelius01 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes/Citations

According to APA guidelines, all footnotes should be placed at the end of a passage/sentence and after the period. FYI for editing purposes. Jpand15 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

References number 42 and 44 under the Metacognition section needs to be fixed. D depas (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Metacognition

I made a few edits throughout this section and the Forensic Application section. D depas (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Within the Metacognition section one sentence in the beginning paragraph, "Knowledge of one’s thinking process is not enough to regulate an individual's behaviour, and are required to use specific strategies to help them regulate their behaviour”, needs rewording. D depas (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Forensic Applications

I made a few minor edits; some typos, some clarifications, and I also reordered a sentence to clarify the content. Language is quite accessible and the grammar is good. However, I find that the structure can be slightly improved. Specifically, I think the sections should be reordered so that the description of the structured interview comes before the improper interviewing techniques. That would allow the reader to more clearly understand the structured interview as well as the recommendation for why it should be used. In addition, I would also add the last paragraph of the improper interview techniques to the recommendations for forensic interviewing section as they are both suggestions for improvement. However these are just suggestions. I didn't want to make the edits myself as I was unfortunately not able to attend this lecture and I wish to leave the author to consider whether these suggestions should be implemented. Other than that I think the content is good. There is a lot of information in this section but I think it is justified. I think this section provides a great summary of the research. Good job. Luciaz (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The forensic section is really weak. There is more than one accepted forensic protocol. I recognize one discussed here. There maybe one other discussed, but the rest of the so called forensic practices are techniques more than protocols. This is based on training I have received from the National Child Advocacy Center, child abuse investigative training from others and other research I have done related to interviewing children of abuse. I agree with Luciaz about reordering the paragraphs so readers receive best practice information first. Skip Watson (talk)Watson, S Skip Watson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Judging the Credibility of Sources and Understanding of Trust

I think it might be beneficial to merge the section on adult credibility judgment and children's credibility judgment. If we're trying to compare and contrast, to highlight the differences, then that should be the focus of the section rather than have two sections. The part on adult's credibility judgments needs some references. Some of the writing is still very colloquial, e.g. "on the other hand" is used several times. Also, are the deontological view and the utilitarian view really on a continuum, or are the more diametrically opposed? I know that the article cited uses the label "trickers," but would it not be beneficial to reword this to use a more generally acceptable word, such as deceivers/deception? I made a few edits to try and improve article flow... Martyr 79 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would also be beneficial to take out phrases like " on the other hand" because it seems somewhat bias and the article is not as neutral as it could be. Changing some terms could make the article better. Maddie35 (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Overly Long and Complex

Personally, I find this article very long which makes it hard to digest the information that you are reading. I found myself reading the same sentence over and over again because I just kept spacing out. I think it would be a better tactic to make an outline for this article detailing the the most important key concepts that need to be communicated and making it a simple and easy to read. Meghan.DeLoera (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)