Talk:Educational psychology

message: 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)
thread_title: Google Ranking of this Article ("educational psychology")

message: * 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)
thread_title: Goals for this article

message: 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)
thread_title: Article size

message: 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)
thread_title: Featured article

message: The USDOE uses the following definitions.  Would they be useful to double-check content here? Rfrisbietalk 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Department of Education definitions 

message: 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! :-) Rfrisbietalk 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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! :-) Rfrisbietalk 14:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Rfrisbietalk 18:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Rfrisbietalk 05:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Improving the Google ranking 

message: Here's another tool to track "Educational psychology." Rfrisbietalk 17:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search "Educational psychology" 

message: School psychology deals with psychometry while educational psy. deals with curriculum design and related stuff. Right?whicky1978 03:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational psychology vs [[school psychology]]

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Footnoting

message: I could not find the following in text citations: whicky1978 talk 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In text citations missing?

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why educational psychology is distinct from the psychology of learning

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is a vanity edit 

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticisms of intelligence testing

message: :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.
Dbiel (Talk) 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Education 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Steiner model of child development 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Educational best practices 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on 2013 good article nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review

message: 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)
replies: text: I've renamed the article to Intelligence and education. fgnievinski (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to replace Template:Educational research with the Template:Education 

message: — Assignment last updated by PGREEN079 (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English 1101 HY 061

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  "Children's behavior problems" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :School observation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  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)
thread_title:  "School observation" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by MirandaVR (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Women in the United States