Talk:Educational psychology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lucyc2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lucyc2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marypolatis. Peer reviewers: Brigpaulson15, Kbarlow18, 10658513uvu, Jessica Cragun, Aewlarsen, Killersrampage, MiguelG16, Baysibenwiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Ranking of this Article ("educational psychology")

Note: Different Google users report slightly different search results.

23.5 median rank for January, 2006

18.0 median rank for February, 2006

15.0 median rank for March, 2006

13.0 median rank for April, 2006

11.0 median rank for May, 2006

7.0 median rank for June, 2006

6.0 median rank for July, 2006

5.0 median rank for August, 2006

3.0 median rank for September, 2006

3 Nesbit 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

2 Nesbit 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Goals for this article

• Best ever English encyclopedia article on educational psychology

• Comprehensive coverage of the area: theory, application, research methods, history

• Lots of examples from the research literature to concretely illustrate theory and application

• Thoroughly supported with references

• About one picture per section. Most images orginally created for the article.

• Build up related pages: category:Educational psychology and category:Educational psychologists

• Attain featured article status

• Attain top ranking in google for "educational psychology"

• Scientests are looking at how people work in many different ways and are able to develope on learning more about how Psychology works and how it can affect us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.195.115 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Article size

The article is starting to grow toward the recommended limit for article size. With the current level of detail, it will turn out to be about 60k when the article is finished. The extensive referencing, which has produced a lengthy list of references, is one factor driving up the article size. It would be easy to move the references to another page, as has been done in some other articles. But for now let's keep the reference list in the page because it is at the end of the article and thus doesn't detract from readability. Also, many of the referenced sources are classic works in the area, and would be less prominently presented if moved to another page.

For now let's continue to add content and not work to reduce the size. Possibly we can argue that an article covering a broad academic discipline can properly exceed the generally recommended limits. If, eventually, the size has to be edited down, it will be easier to do so in a balanced way after all sections are completed.

Nesbit 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

I think this article should become a featured article. I've only added the education wikiproject notice at the top of this page to get more people interested in working towards this end. Also, does anyone here agree that this article should be merged with Psychology of learning?. Cormaggio ^@ 11:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should eventually become a candidate for FA. But there is a lot of work left to do before it is ready. Top priority is completion of the instructional design, teaching and history sections. Also need to wikify the referencing system and refine some of the writing. I'll make a to do list later. It should remain separate from psychology of learning. Although there are areas of overlap, they are quite distinct topics. For example, the psychology of learning should include animal learning, and does not deal substantially with individual differences and psychological development of students. Also, educational psychologists form a distinct professional and academic group. Nesbit 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a real challenge here in ensuring that the article does not reflect the perspective of one country and/or group of Educational Psychologists. There are a number of elements within the article that I believe need to be re-worded in order to account for different perspectives and differences in practice. However, I am not sure that changing them (in a direct swap) is appropriate if they are perceived as accurate by some. Does anyone else have a view on this?

• Geary, D. C. (2005). Folk knowledge and academic learning. In B. J. Ellis & D. F. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind (pp. 493-519). New York: Guilford Publications.

US Department of Education definitions

The USDOE uses the following definitions. Would they be useful to double-check content here? Rfrisbie^talk 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Instructional Programs - Psychology

Educational Psychology. A program that focuses on the application of psychology to the study of the behavior of individuals in the roles of teacher and learner, the nature and effects of learning environments, and the psychological effects of methods, resources, organization and non-school experience on the educational process. Includes instruction in learning theory, human growth and development, research methods, and psychological evaluation.

School Psychology. A program that prepares individuals to apply clinical and counseling psychology principles to the diagnosis and treatment of student behavioral problems. Includes instruction in child and/or adolescent development; learning theory; testing, observation and other procedures for assessing educational, personality, intelligence and motor skill development; therapeutic intervention strategies for students and families; identification and classification of disabilities and disorders affecting learning; school psychological services planning; supervised counseling practice; ethical standards; and applicable regulations.

Improving the Google ranking

I've noticed one way to improve the Google ranking is to expand the list of What links here. I did a quick count of links from here to other articles (about 265) and other articles to here (about 120). With the incoming links at less than half of the outgoing links (45%), it looks like increasing that ratio would help increase the Google ranking as well. At the very least, it should help get the word out about this article to readers of other Wikipedia articles. Keep up the great work! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, keep up the good work. A point though. Ranks are ordinal by nature, and if you want to include any single statistic for a month, the median is better. I'm not sure why such concern with google ranking -- the important thing is the that it's a great piece. Holon 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas and support for the article. I've been laboring on some writing deadlines, but will get back to it soon. Holon, you're right about the median being a more appropriate statistic. I use the google ranking as a way to self-manage my motivation to keep coming back to the article. Or possibly it's just a delusional cheap thrill. :-) Nesbit 11:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think the work you're doing is first class. You're building a great, readable, general resource that is (considering the dogma there can be in education) remarkably balanced. Good stuff. Holon 06:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I once heard someone (don't ask, I don't remember) say that two signs of a "good" website/page are that it's an "authority" and a "hub." Holan's comment that this article is "a great piece" (and I second that) speaks to the authority notion. Working toward making this a featured article covers validating it. Nesbit's obsession (? ;-) with the Google ranking is a good metric for that hub thing. Taken together, these two goals support making this the best Educational psychology e-ncyclopedic article ever! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 14:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I started a page of article links. The first section has 191 unduplicated (?) links from here to other articles. As I putz around with it, I'll add another list that subtracts the "What links here" articles. That leftover list would be a good one to review for potential cross-references to here. Rfrisbie^talk 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the "unmatched" lists to the article links page. About 160 links go from here to other articles that do not link back to here. Around 90 articles link to here that do not have links back to them. Even after throwing out the talk pages, etc., I was suprised at the number of other articles that also might have some potential for links from here to them. Rfrisbie^talk 18:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of links to a page is definitely a main factor in google rankings, but I think they only count links from different websites. Linking from within wikipedia won't help much, unless it indirectly leads to more people linking from outside WP. I think the best approach is just to keep improving the article so that people will want to link to it. Nesbit 20:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen other wikiarticles go up the Google rankings as they grew, so we'll see. Even if it's just for internal cross-referencing, I still think it's a good idea. Anyway, I know you'll keep improving the article regardless. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way Nesbit, how do you determine the Google rank? Even when I ignore the "indented" pages, I get a rank of 27 for today, when you listed 18. I've noticed this type of difference before. Rfrisbie^talk 04:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I enter the title of the article in quotes -- "educational psychology" -- and then I count the hits including indented ones. Google doesn't display the rank number like some other search engines. Of course I don't count advertisements, which are not bona fide search results. You get a different result if you don't use quotes because you pick up pages that are not related to educational psychology. Nesbit 04:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, my count didn't change when I used quotes. I'm still finding it on page 3 at 27. All the pages seemed to say something about "educational psychology." Oh well, no big deal. Rfrisbie^talk 05:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the ninth listed today when I search without quotes, tenth with -- I wonder whether country makes a difference. Holon 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Search "Educational psychology"

Here's another tool to track "Educational psychology." Rfrisbie^talk 17:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Educational psychology: (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

Educational psychology vs school psychology

School psychology deals with psychometry while educational psy. deals with curriculum design and related stuff. Right?whicky1978 03:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The US DoE definitions (earlier in this page) give a fairly clear statement on the distinction. I think educational psychology can be regarded as the study of these matters. Generally (and there are many exceptions), school psychology and instructional design are the practice of the theories developed in educational psychology. Nesbit 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I think educational psychology is a "good article" and I have listed it. See template at the topwhicky1978 21:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnoting

I am footnoting the references, and maintaining APA as best as possible. I have retained the orginal source list on the page as well. I have placed a name in the "<ref name=NAME>" tags so it will be easier to footnote when the same reference might be added elsewhere in the article. I am simply cutting and pasting the sources into the ref tags. I am doing a few at a time, and then saving the work.whicky1978 ^talk 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnoting is basically done.whicky1978 ^talk

Excellent work! This brings the article closer to FA status. My preference is to eventually drop the APA name-date citation, and keep just your bracketed superscripts. Of course, better to keep the full APA format in the reference list as you have done. Nesbit 02:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah,this may be the only article that's using both. I'm cool with it either way. BTW, are some of those citations from online electronic versions of the journal article? If you use the electronic version of an article, you are suppose to up "[electronic version]" after the journal title. That's the official APA format rule incase there was ever any difference between the paper version the electronic version. Nobody will really ever have any way of knowing which you used. They are almost always the same.whicky1978 ^talk 15:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Sometime over the next couple of days I'll go ahead with removing the (name, date) parts of the citations. Nesbit 14:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In text citations missing?

I could not find the following in text citations: whicky1978 ^talk 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-

analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27-61.

*Gronlund, N. E. (2000). How to write and use instructional objectives (6th ed.). Columbus, OH, USA: Merrill.

*Kaluyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579-588.

*Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA, USA: Fearon.

• Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Carroll, A. (2002). A review of the research on interventions for attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder: What works best? Review of Educational Research, 72, 61-99.

*Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2006). Educational Psychology (3rd Canadian ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson.

Why educational psychology is distinct from the psychology of learning

• Educational psychology is an applied discipline, which studies how psychology can be put to work for educational purposes. The psychological study of learning is a theoretical science which seeks understanding of learning for its own sake, and need not justify its efforts in relation to any practical application.

• Educational psychology is solely concerned with humans. Psychological theories of learning often seek to explain learning in other species.

• Educational psychology applies psychological dimensions other than learning, such as developmental psychology, personality theories, individual differences, and social psychology.

• Educational psychology programs are usually administered separately (most often within faculties of education) from programs focusing on the psychology of learning.

• Educational psychology is recognized as a distinct division within the American Psychological Association.

• As somewhat overlapping domains of theory and scholarship, educational psychology and the psychology learning both cover such vast tracts of knowledge that there is more than enough published material to inform distinct articles for these two fields.

Nesbit 03:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

I often see learning and cognition lumped together. Ed. Psy. would be a subdivision of this category. Ed. Psy. relates or is applied to only instutional settings as stated in the 4th bulletwhicky1978 ^talk 05:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a vanity edit

I inherited the abacus shown in the article from my mother, who inherited it from my grandfather, who was a school teacher first at Askø, later in Herritslev, Denmark. He was born around 1900, and died around 1980. I took the picture April 2005 to include it in the article Abacus. It't nice to see it used elsewhere, too - to see one's contributions spread into the world...--Niels Ø 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the photo in the Wikimedia commons and added it to the ed psych article to illustrate a concept. Thanks for your contribution :-) Nesbit 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of intelligence testing

I'm reverting this recent addition:

"...but have been criticized for being ineffective and culturally biased by a number of well regarded professionals."

Although the qualification is certainly correct it seems already covered by the statement earlier in the paragraph that the appropriate ways of measuring intelligence are contested, as is the possibility of measuring it at all. In a survey article of this type there is a need to be quite terse. Nesbit 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Category Education

Category:Education was deleted from the article due to the current policy being followed for Category Education. The title of this article is also the title of a first level sub category Category:Educational psychology as such it does NOT belong in the master category which is reserved for only those articles that do not fit in any of the subcategories. See the following which is found on the top of the Education Category:

This category requires frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few (if any) article pages directly, and should mainly contain sub-categories. Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories where appropriate.

Educational psychology

Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Steiner model of child development

A recent edit by User:Hgilbert added the following about Steiner's model of child development.

Rudolf Steiner's model of child development includes developmental stages similar to those later described by Piaget

* a phase of early childhood in which children learn through imitative activity (ages 0 - 6/7 years) * a middle phase of childhood in which children learn through imaginative representations (ages 7 - 13) * a phase of adolescence in which children learn through rational thinking (ages 12/13 - 20/21)[4] Steiner's model interrelates physical, emotional, cognitive, and moral development[5] and has been put into practice in nearly 1000 Waldorf schools.

It is educationally important, reasonable, encyclopedic content, but it seems to me to belong in a different article, possibly the article on child development. The problem is that there are far more theories about child development and other educationally relevant theories than can be even mentioned in an article surveying the field of educational psychology. There is really only space for those that are most influential within the field of educational psychology, with an emphasis on those that are actually identified with psychology rather than, say, the philosophy of education. I propose to move the content to another suitable article, preferably one that this article links to. Nesbit 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point; Steiner's views are probably more influential than Piaget's in education but certainly less influential in academic educational psychology. I have compressed the content accordingly to what is relevant here. Hgilbert 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Educational psychology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article is far too listy, e.g. the "Influential educational psychologists and theorists" bit, and the inclusion of "See also" lists in individual sections is not common Wikipedia practice. Also, "References" should go above "See also".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are too few references, an entire section like "Individual differences and disabilities" lacks references altogether. This information is not self-evident, and needs to be backed up by reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted, the article does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See 3a above.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that steps have been taken to improve the article over the last week. There are still issues, but I will extend the deadline by another week - until 27 June - to see what might be done. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Lampman (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's faults are still too significant, so I'm now delisting it. Lampman (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Second Opinion

I have requsted 2nd opinion on the GA Nomination page. The article has the same kind of quality as a professional encyclopedia. whicky1978 ^talk 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed sections

I removed the following section because it is an essay expressing opinions about theories whose relationship to educational psychology, the topic of this article, is not made clear. Most of the points made are not supported by specific references. A better way to introduce the ideas of Holzman and Greenberg into Wikipedia would be to create a separate article, or perhaps add to an existing article (Alternative education?), and then link to the article on educational psychology. Nesbit (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

==Criticism==

Criticism of educational psychology theories that underlie traditional educational practices claims there is no need for such a theory. The attempt to comprehend the process of learning through theory construction has created more problems than it has solved. It further claims that in order to make up for the feeling of inadequacy in confronting a process that we don't really comprehend, we label something "learning" and measure it. Then we're comfortable, because at least then we have the feeling that we have a grasp on the problem. We don't really follow the process, but in lieu of a profound understanding of what's going on, we find something and say, "Let's declare that to be learning, by consensus." This is basically what the entire educational system the world over has done: quantify learning by breaking it up into measurable pieces-—curricula, courses, hours, tests, and grades. The assumption is that psychologically one knows enough about the mind to identify aptitudes: the accepted (knowledge-based) conception of learning identifies four assumptions of the accepted view of learning: that (some) one knows what ought to be learned by people, what it ought to be learned, how it ought to be learned, and by whom each thing ought to be learned. Together these assumptions are the lenses through which people have been socialized in our culture to judge whether learning is occurring or not; and a further assumption is that once one knows aptitudes, one also knows how to track a person so he will in fact reach the goal that is being set out for him. The whole approach is the ultimate in pedagogical and psychological technology. The only trouble is that it is humanly absurd. In this society, such a process is exceptionally subtle, because it involves an authoritarian approach within a free culture. By employing a variety of ruses the system produces a process which allows it to inhibit personal freedom without really feeling that this is what is going on. The person doesn't feel that something arbitrary is being done to him—which is in fact what is happening.

References

I removed the following section from the "Developmental Perspective" section; it describes tangentially-related opinions without sufficient references and is political and regional in nature. If deemed relevant in some other portion of this or another article, it needs significant grammatical editing, pruning, and updated and properly-cited sources. Lightforge (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Lightforge

"Unfortunately,education in the U.K. is being compromised by vested interests whose only interest in the general population is as a pool of tractable "human resources" to serve the interests of business interests whose only interest is their profits.This also serves as a facilitation of a limited mindset as consumerof the same goods and services.The main strategem employed is to provide a pseudoeducation consisting of facts rather than processes,Which has a negligable use as the left brain is overloaded with useless data whilst the right brain,which would otherwise be be performing various sorts of more advanced processes,is largely left to wither away from neglect. This is also prformed in an atmosphere of of forcefully disempowering the child,thus affecting the genes affected by interaction with significant others in the child's environment,leaving them dependant and totally inadequate as human beings;with inadequate ego differentiation leaving them prone to manipulation and reliance on others. This broadly correlates with the limbic system,mammalian circuits being engaged,but virtually bereft of useful input from the higher reasoning centres;thus virtually consigning the person to a lifetime of mental retardation,with an effective mental age of around five years. Evidence of this trend can be noted in the vast amount of people incapable of fully conceptualising,and reliant on the use of media-generated "pseudoconcepts" which can be simple buzzwords(often emotive,but nonspecific as to meaning)which are cobbled together cut and paste style.(Cavill A.P. 2011)

The Nature of This Flower Is To Bloom (Alice Walker)

Rebellious.Living. Against the Elemental Crush. A Song of Color. Blooming. For Deserving Eyes. Blooming Gloriously. For it's Self."

Individual differences

I have restored this section as it was blanked without explanation. hgilbert (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Educational best practices

When I came to this page, I was looking for a set up educational best practices, i.e., I wanted to answer the following question: When I'm studying, what does psychology say are the methods that are most effective for learning? Is this because the information is not explicitly here? Is it just because it is not highlighted by a section heading so I didn't look long enough to find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.95.43 (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would argue against including such a section, because this is an encyclopedia page about educational psychology as such. I do not believe the page should be presented as a reference for instructional strategies in the same way some educational psychology textbooks used by teacher cert programs aim to apply research in ed pscyh to classroom practice. Look at the table of contents in the Journal of Educational Psychology, and, by and large, what you won't see is articles on instructional best practices; you see research about learning in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 June 2012

There is a lack of clarity in the following passage, perhaps from mistyped words, perhaps from inadequate explanation.

A problem students run into while reading is called "activation." This is when the student's representations of the text are present during working memory. This causes the student to read through the material without absorbing the information and being able to retain it. When working memory is absent from the readers representations of the working memory they experience something called "deactivation." --Kplh (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on 2013 good article nomination

I surfed by this article today while scanning the good article nominations list for articles to review. I see that this article has gained quite a lot of good content over years of incremental improvements. My immediate suggestion is to review the reliable sources guidelines for the distinction between primary sources (disfavored) and secondary sources (which this article already has, fortunately). The guideline on reliable sources in medicine has especially helpful tips on distinguishing the two kinds of sources. I also welcome editors working on this article to take a look at a source list that I keep in user space that pertains to some aspects of this article's topic, particularly cognitive assessment in schools. I'll do another update of this source list soon to reflect the latest sources I have in my office library, and perhaps come back here to update some references and add some further reading suggestions. I think this article is very close to getting past the stringent current good article criteria. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits added from inactive user sandbox

I stumbled across an abandoned userpage User:Arg152/sandbox where edits to a copy of this article appeared to be sourced and worthwhile, so I pasted them into this article. See [1] for the combined changes. Please would someone knowledgeable in this field check the edits, and leave a note here when that has been done? – Fayenatic London 09:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that one section of the added material was deleted by user:Robotczar on 28 June, stating: This model is not accepted by many educational psychologists (it lacks empirical support) and is specific to Piaget only (e.g., it contradicts Vygotky). It also is too detailed for this article and could be addressed via a link.

The remaining additions from the above sandbox, still needing review, are [2]. – Fayenatic London 11:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think this article gives a great overview of the topic. I was really impressed by the chronological order of the article. It starts out by giving information about the historical aspect, and the people that had an important impact on this topic. After that, it is a great transition into the modern take on educational psychology. There are a few statements that don’t have citations, so I think it is important to look over those and add the necessary sources. Overall, the article as a whole is very informational and easy to read. Brigpaulson15 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

    I would like to thank each of you for taking the time to read my page, I know there are other things you could have been doing.  I really do appreciate the time and effort put forth by each of you that gave me critical feedback.
    I am still planning on making quite a few revisions, especially after getting back such helpful feedback.  One of the reviews I got stated that a lot of my statements don't seem to have citations associated with them.  I do plan on going back and adding the citations to them as well as adding on to the previous research that I have done.  Another reviewer stated, "The only critique I have is the way that it summarized topics. I feel that the overall view and feel is too broad and there needs to be more detailed."  I have thought about that and maybe i can summarize my topics a little bit better, but I would also need a more specific example of how I am too broad?  I have gone over my article to see where I can make those changes, but I don't seem to see where you are coming from.  Another reviewer wanted me to use more imagery, which I understand, I also like to see and visualize things as I read them and become more familiar with the topic.  I plan on coming up with a few more pictures that I can insert into the article to help the reader understand the article more.
    Overall, I believe the article is off to a great start and the feedback has been more helpful than I thought it would be.  I will continue to research and add the odds and ends to the article to make it come more together.

Peer Review

I found this article to be very insightful and since I have a strong interest in this field I found it very interesting. I particularly liked the part where it talked about the different names and people who really influenced educational psychology. The only critique I have is the way that it summarized topics. I feel that the overall view and feel is too broad and there needs to be more detailed. Overall I thought this was a good read, chronologically factual and those who read this who have no idea about the topic will walk away enlightened and knowing better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Cragun (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I would like to thank each of you for taking the time to read my page, I know there are other things you could have been doing. I really do appreciate the time and effort put forth by each of you that gave me critical feedback.

    I am still planning on making quite a few revisions, especially after getting back such helpful feedback.  One of the reviews I got stated that a lot of my statements don't seem to have citations associated with them.  I do plan on going back and adding the citations to them as well as adding on to the previous research that I have done.  Another reviewer stated, "The only critique I have is the way that it summarized topics. I feel that the overall view and feel is too broad and there needs to be more detailed."  I have thought about that and maybe i can summarize my topics a little bit better, but I would also need a more specific example of how I am too broad?  I have gone over my article to see where I can make those changes, but I don't seem to see where you are coming from.  Another reviewer wanted me to use more imagery, which I understand, I also like to see and visualize things as I read them and become more familiar with the topic.  I plan on coming up with a few more pictures that I can insert into the article to help the reader understand the article more.
    Overall, I believe the article is off to a great start and the feedback has been more helpful than I thought it would be.  I will continue to research and add the odds and ends to the article to make it come more together.

Peer Review

I hate to admit this, but I originally was not terribly interested in this topic. However, I found it very interesting and insightful! I did find the history was quite long as opposed to the rest of the article, but as I read through I found that history was where all of this information came to fruition. One critique I had was to add more visual imagery if possible. I think that it can really highlight a topic and it provides us as readers something to look for in our own lives. I think that this is an incredibly important topic and I can't wait for further information to be added and updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10658513uvu (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I would like to thank each of you for taking the time to read my page, I know there are other things you could have been doing. I really do appreciate the time and effort put forth by each of you that gave me critical feedback.

    I am still planning on making quite a few revisions, especially after getting back such helpful feedback.  One of the reviews I got stated that a lot of my statements don't seem to have citations associated with them.  I do plan on going back and adding the citations to them as well as adding on to the previous research that I have done.  Another reviewer stated, "The only critique I have is the way that it summarized topics. I feel that the overall view and feel is too broad and there needs to be more detailed."  I have thought about that and maybe i can summarize my topics a little bit better, but I would also need a more specific example of how I am too broad?  I have gone over my article to see where I can make those changes, but I don't seem to see where you are coming from.  Another reviewer wanted me to use more imagery, which I understand, I also like to see and visualize things as I read them and become more familiar with the topic.  I plan on coming up with a few more pictures that I can insert into the article to help the reader understand the article more.
    Overall, I believe the article is off to a great start and the feedback has been more helpful than I thought it would be.  I will continue to research and add the odds and ends to the article to make it come more together.

Peer Review

Share the Love • First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I really like how this article explains clearly the importance and uses of educational psychology, I was not aware of how important and involved it all was and this article helped me see that so that was well written. I also appreciate how many other links there are from certain vocab words to other articles for further reading in the things connected to the article. • What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I think there are pros and cons to how much information is given in this article. It is helpful for people who want a very in-depth study of educational psychology but is almost too involved for the average every day reader. It gives a lot of information about quite a few people that essentially created educational psychology, but it almost be too much information. It makes it a little difficult to read because it is hard to remember what the article is about while reading about each person, you feel like the article is just about them and not just simply educational psychology. • What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? My suggestion is to take out as much as you can about the creators of educational psychology while still including the essential information about them. It might be helpful to focus on informing the reader what educational psychology entails and not as much about how it got started. Kbarlow18 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to thank each of you for taking the time to read my page, I know there are other things you could have been doing. I really do appreciate the time and effort put forth by each of you that gave me critical feedback.

    I am still planning on making quite a few revisions, especially after getting back such helpful feedback.  One of the reviews I got stated that a lot of my statements don't seem to have citations associated with them.  I do plan on going back and adding the citations to them as well as adding on to the previous research that I have done.  Another reviewer stated, "The only critique I have is the way that it summarized topics. I feel that the overall view and feel is too broad and there needs to be more detailed."  I have thought about that and maybe i can summarize my topics a little bit better, but I would also need a more specific example of how I am too broad?  I have gone over my article to see where I can make those changes, but I don't seem to see where you are coming from.  Another reviewer wanted me to use more imagery, which I understand, I also like to see and visualize things as I read them and become more familiar with the topic.  I plan on coming up with a few more pictures that I can insert into the article to help the reader understand the article more.
    Overall, I believe the article is off to a great start and the feedback has been more helpful than I thought it would be.  I will continue to research and add the odds and ends to the article to make it come more together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.58.79 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 

Merger Proposal

How does everyone feel about merging Psychology_of_education into this article? It pretty much just talks about intelligence, which is somewhat covered here, and googling "psychology of education" leads to this article anyway. The article also it isnt being kept up by anyone. Fonsit (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fonsit: I've renamed the article to Intelligence and education. fgnievinski (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to replace Template:Educational research with the Template:Education

The Template:Educational research box should be removed from this article for the reasons discussed here: Template talk:Educational research#Proposal to replace this with the Template:Education. Sda030 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 1101 HY 061

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 November 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nate Bojkovski (article contribs). Peer reviewers: TheVeils.

— Assignment last updated by PGREEN079 (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"Children's behavior problems" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Children's behavior problems and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Children's behavior problems until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"School observation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect School observation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § School observation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Women in the United States

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MirandaVR (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MirandaVR (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging the stub Psychopedagogy into this article. It seems like "Psychopedagogy" is a synonym for "Educational psychology". Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Roberto Cruz: As the creator of the article Psychopedagogy, your opinion is valued. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected the Psychopedagogy, as it's entirely unreferenced and the links to sources are almost exclusively in other languages; it hence seems to be a neologism in English. I've hence redirected to the most similar topic (the proposed merge target). Klbrain (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)