Talk:Schema (psychology)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 October 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JillianWilson13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 25 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lridley097. Peer reviewers: Eternalruler, Chalktalk1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plural form

Hi. Should we change this article to use the plural form "schemata" instead of "schemas"? That's what I have learned in this context, but I'm a bit hesitant to change it, since I'm not an native English speaker and Merriam-Webster says both forms are acceptable. Currently, there is note in the middle of the text that says: "NB: in reality the plural of 'schema' is 'schemata'", which looks a bit silly IMO. /skagedal^... 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That note needs to go. But as for schema, I think the singular has become the standard for article names. As to schemas, that should be changed to schemata. I'll look at it. --DanielCD 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schemas is becoming the standard plural, and is certainly more common in recent writing on this subject. These two articles should definitely be combined; there is no difference between "schema theory" and "schemata theory". Mccajor 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schema is the term used in psychological journals and Wiki should reflect this. Wikiisdangerousfortermpapers 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i saw a comment about the schema page having too much jargon. Just wanted to let you guys know that i really don't think that it does, and i found the page to be very informative and useful. Please do not chnge anything.. thank you. A.Morgan

Hi, my understanding is that when a foreign word is adopted into English, it should be subject to English conventions. Thus, in English, the correct plural of "schema" is "schemas". Rich Corke, USA ESOL Teacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.117.251 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious that "schemata" is plural of "schema". The irregular inflection "schemata" is confusing and serves no useful purpose. There seems to be a majority here that prefer "schemas". Agnerf (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Bartlett (1932) needs a reference to the actual study. The "Rastifarian" example does as well, as I have heard this somewhere before. I'll try to find some refs as I have time, but hope others can assist and add any refs they might know of. --DanielCD 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to throw in that i found the lines on "existentialist theory" frustrating because these are interesting points but I personally have never heard of such ideas associated with existentialism and could have used a source. The person who wrote this only left behind an ip so i can't contact them to request references. My recommendation is thus to remove the reference to existentialism but keep the good points in this pararagraph, and reference perhaps *Narrative Psychology* by Theodore Sarbin. --Yonderboy 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the reference to existentialism should be removed. It is an interesting idea, however it seems to be more an inference relating psychology with philosophy. Given the reference to Bartlett's 1932 publication, the information following is fine, but in that publication he makes no reference to existentialism. Unless there is somewhere good source material, I believe this inference to beyond the scope of the article, and in need of a reference. I am currently working on a way to rephrase this sentence without detracting from the original material. Lridley097 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link

The reference link does not work. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC) still doesn't 30th July[reply]

Minor point: Would someone clarify "OB" in paragraph 4?....

Title sez it all -- I thought OB stood for maybe "operant behaviorism" but Wiki doesn't list any near-such defn for OB. It's in a peripheral (and possibly sarcastic) comment, but if present it ought to contribute to the article, or at least not get in the way? Jjzanath (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Improvement

First off, there's a contradiction in the article: who introduced the term schema, Anderson or Kant? The article says both were first to use it. Second, the "thought" and "background" sections are written in academic discourse and rely too heavily on psychological terminology. I don't mean it should avoid such terms, but the way it's written is too much like a psych term paper or an article in a psychology journal.Elle (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article also - in the introduction - says the first to use the term "Schema" was Piaget. Seems like the article was inspired by Lewis Caroll - "I have told you thrice, what I tell you tree times is true." 85.164.136.1 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put. That said my beef with the article is the lack of gender schema theory, which does link to this page. Gender Schema Theory is one of the most important derivatives of Schema theory and it's mentioned in many textbooks (Some of which include it as their first mention of Schemata) User:TarnishedSteel (Talk) 5:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned above (under the References section of the talk page), that I agree that the portion of existentialism ought to be removed. Additionally, I believe the paragraph itself contains good information on Bartlett and what he contributed. However, the sentence is very long and somewhat difficult to follow. Letting you guys know that I am going to edit this, but am keeping the core of what is discussed the same. My hope is that the edits will make it clearer and easier to read. Lridley097 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under Modification section: Adding some information about subtype formation and a link to the social psychology article. While assimilation is associated with integrating new information into an existing schema, and accommodation is about reframing the initial construction, subtypes are a phenomenon which allow people to avoid both of these by forming a separate category which doesn't violate previous schemata. Feel free to let me know if you disagree or think this would fit better somewhere else. Lridley097 (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add a section

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Hi there, I was going to add a section to this article that contained information about schema in relation to education psychology; I would talk about the definitions of cognitive psychology that they are explain in the article.I am also going to try and make sure all citations are correct and added where they are supposed to be. I would take out all information that is not cited. Gdiblasio (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well.

When it comes to taking out all uncited material, I would urge you to do this with intelligence. Some content can be valuable even though you cannot find a source for it right now. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gdiblasio. I look forward to seeing your contributions. One thought did come to mind though. This is a generalized encyclopaedic article on psychological schema. While for the purposes of explication some examples of the application of this psychological approach would be appropriate, it is not feasible for this article to cover all areas in which this approach has been applied. To attempt this would clutter the article and distraction from the core ideas. Often content dealing with the application of an approach is better suited to articles dealing with the area of application. In this instance that might be the educational psychology article.

You are probably cognisant of this and will be tailoring your contribution suitably, but just in case you were not I thought I would mention it. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the advice! Right now I am just going through each section and adding to it with information that I think is related and builds on what is already there, I will take all of your advice and tailor my editing accordingly Thanks! --Gdiblasio (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let everyone know what I added to in this article, I added to Background Research, Modification, Self-Schemata and Schema therapy. I added most of the content to the end of the paragraphs and towards the middle. --Gdiblasio (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy there guys. I just wanted to say that I think it'd be a good idea if we add a link to both the "War of Ghosts" as well as a link to Frederick Bartlett in the "Background Research" section. Gdally17 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with the reference to Immanuel Kant - there's no summary that pops up

Have a look: Immanuel Kant. I'm going to have a look at the page on Immanuel Kant what's causing it. CU later, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lancemason7 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BrookeCarr01, Gmcph.

— Assignment last updated by Gmcph (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahchaise (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aford4706, Sfatima 12, Mksearcy, Emiell490, Snqadri.

— Assignment last updated by Pmmuab77 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 May 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ddmiller12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zafomby, LaDonna205, AddieGrace, Jkp0103, Corri123, April Sala.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]