Talk:Schema (psychology)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Link

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Add a section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)