Talk:Principles of learning

Quick-failed Good Article nomination
Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that lacks references entirely must be failed without an in-depth review or hold period. Though technically there is a references section present, the article does not provide a single inline citation (in either footnote or Harvard reference format). Simply having references is not enough, articles must attribute facts to sources through citations. For more, please read WP:V, WP:CITE, and the Good Article criteria. As a side note: it may be confusing for some to see the fail notice appear as if from thin air. This article was nominated on the WP:GAC page, but the corresponding template was never provided here. Please feel free to renominate when you have corrected this issue. If you feel the decision was in error you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, Van Tucky  Talk 04:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Article was quick-failed for lack of inline citations, but there is no such requirement in either WP:GA? or WP:V. Although inline cites are commonly used, they are not always required. They are only specifically required for: "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" which are not applicable to this article. Many editors object to the overuse of inline cites because they are unnecessarily distracting. This article is a compilation of several public domain sources which are in general agreement on the topic, which is the practical application of the "principles of learning." Each alone supports the entire article (with the minor exception of the Navy source which omits Recency). The text of the article is mostly verbatim transclusion of the best examples and explanations from each, with some minor editing to make the presentation generic. There is no need for inline citations on each sentence to show which of the documents each came from. The article meets WP:V and should be assessed on its merits. Dhaluza 14:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs a significant revision
This article is woefully lacking in a balance view. The principles of learning according to who? The references and approach are from an objectivist perspective - hence the references to Thorndike. I think a better approach to this page would be to outline the principles from the different schools of thought in learning - behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, social constructionism. The principles of learning are very much debated.

=APSWiki= Hello, I am a student working on this article as part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative with my history of psychology course. The article does a good job of applying concepts practically, and I will be adding historical context and relevance. Since the article scope is narrow and most of its content focuses on Thorndike's Laws of Learning, the title should not be Principles of Learning. This will avoid ambiguity and the bias of only presenting one set of theories. I am open to suggestions and comments. Thanks! Lewis.1395 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two possible solutions to this problem.
 * Change the name to something which more accurately describes the content.
 * Change the content to what the title suggests.
 * The second option is generally the preferable one, but this would depend on the practicality of making the changes. It does not have to be done all at once, but it does help if a framewotk of some sort is proposed. Could you do this? You can either propose a new structure on this talk page, which allows comment and input from other editors, and is the least likely to provoke adversarial behaviour from other editors, or go straight ahead and make the changes to the article. If there is no objection to your changes they get to stay, otherwise anything from mild discussion to virulent edit warring could ensue. It depends on how controversial your changes turn out to be.
 * If you think the name change is more appropriate, propose an alternative name. If there is no opposition, or if a consensus is developed, the name will be changed
 * Either way, the sooner you start, the sooner you will get some useful editing done. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

My initial thought is to change the name of the article to "Laws of Learning", adjusting the name to the content, as to not undo the original author's work. If I did this, I would make minor additions that include conclusions from scholarly research that support information given--and cite them--but keep the overall structure of the article. I would also add information about moral and ethical implications toward the end of the article. The second idea is less practical since it would be a much larger project of deciding whether to present the principles of learning from an objectivist perspective, or fairly include all other major perspectives; both of which would require significant edits and revisions. This would mean starting a big project I could not finish due to course time restraints. Lewis.1395 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Dayton supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)