Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Louisiana State University Shreveport/Principles and Theories of Learning (PSYC 706) (Summer 2015)

General Feedback & Important Request
Hey, everyone. We are all new to Wikipedia, so we have to be especially careful to read instructions and use Wikipedia language correctly if we are going to do things correctly. Of course, since we are studying learning we all know that we will not do things correctly, at least not right away. We are all still acquiring our Wikipedia skills. Fluency is probably a ways off for most of us. Is there a Geek in the house that would like to adopt me?

I have observed one relatively significant problem. I see that several of you are working on your article expansions in the Main Space or Talk Page for the selected article (Bandura, Thorndike...). The Article Main Space is not where I need you to work. All expansion work is done, for now, in Your Sandbox. I will clear you to move it to the Main Space for the Article when your work is ready. Working in your Sandbox makes your work readily accessible to all class members and our Wikipedia coaches by clicking on tabs at the bottom of this Course Page. Your Sandbox protects your work from the edits of other Wikipedians until I have seen and recorded your effort. It will prevent the disappointment of making an addition and finding that another Wikipedian changed or removed your work. It also allows me to check the quality of your work before it goes worldwide. Please move all of your work onto Your Sandbox immediately. Then, we may work together, but separately from the rest of Wikipedia until we are ready to show them what you've got. While I have your focus, also be sure that you sign your work with four tildes and make a comment in the editing comment box so we all can follow your thinking more clearly.

If you become confused, or forget something from your training, you can always click on the resources at the top of this Course Page.

Keep up the awesome effort! PsycTeacher (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And remember you can also reach out to for help with your assignment. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Guidlines for Finding and Selecting Appropriate Examples of Evidence-Based Applications of Learning Theories
Once you understand how a specific theorist's work applies to the classroom, you need to provide an example of that application. You do this by locating a scholarly paper that demonstrates the application of one or more elements of the theory as Evidence-Based Practice. An example might be Guthrie's Law of Contiguity which states that if you do something in a given situation you are likely to repeat that something the next time you are in that situation. In the classroom, this might be applied as creating learning environments/routines with strong similarities to how the student will apply the learning in a natural setting. A quick search of the databases returned a potentially useful article that describes learning improvement from providing real-life models of learning number sense.

Yang, D., & Wu, R. (2010). The study of number sense: Realistic activities integrated into third-grade math classes in Taiwan. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 379-392.

Where to Look

The origin of your evidence is a strong indicator of its credibility and utility. Evidence for practice must come from research. Therefore, articles in newsletters, book chapters, Internet sources, and pay-to-publish (not peer-reviewed journals) are not acceptable foundations for evidence-based practice.

Studies must be verifiable, replicable, and peer-reviewed. You will find such articles in peer-reviewed journals. You may use print or electronic format peer-reviewed journals. You will find a great number of suitable studies in the following journals:

There are other journals, but this is a good start. A great starting place to look is in review articles or meta-analyses.

What to Look For

“Intervention” is defined as a case in which, the effects of a procedure (independent variable/treatment) on a socially valid outcome (dependent variable/behavior or academic skill) was compared to baseline or a control condition (that might be a different intervention). This definition reveals the experimental nature of intervention, especially at tier-3. Suitable articles report experimental procedures. A suitable article will have a method section that clearly describes the target participant(s), required instruments, and expected procedure (treatment condition).

As a general rule, an article that presents a single-case/small-n experimental design is likely to be an acceptable resource. Single case design studies are preferred over group designs because they align so closely to professional practice, and generally provide more detail about participants, assessment strategies, and intervention procedures. Most importantly, graphs allow you to “see” what happened – and make it easier to summarize results.

Articles with participants who are infants, toddlers, children, or adolescents (ages 0 – 21) are appropriate as these represent the ages school psychologists will support. Articles with older participants may not generalize to school-age populations and are not suitable for this project.

Studies should focus on the school setting.

Studies must have a dependent variable appropriate to the learning theory slected.

What to Avoid

Do not include articles in languages other than English.

Edit Summary
{{Ping|Tiff1194}        Hey, Wikipedians. You are working busily to modify your content. Your persistence in learning this new tool is laudable. Something that helps me, and others, keep track of what you are doing is the Edit Summary. Just below the text box you edit in is a space labeled Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes). This is kind of like a note in the margins of a draft paper or a comment inserted in a Word document. It is a short description of what you changed. Something like: ‘'modified citation for Smith'’, or '‘added paragraph on SST'’. If you add that information and save it with your changes the activity summary that I follow will contain clues to what you are doing and will improve my ability to support your work. If you are not already leaving edit comments, please do so from now on. Thanks! PsycTeacher (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Final Stretch
Our Wikipedia project is maturing. In preparation for publishing your article expansion, you should have at least two classmates review your work, copy edit, and offer comments. Review these three Wikipedia documents to ensure that you have met requirements: 1) Editing Wikipedia, 2) Editing Wikipedia Articles on Psychology, and 3) Evaluating Wikipedia.

When you believe your work is ready for my review and placement in the article, send me a message body of your message on your Sandbox Talk page, and I will review your work. Do not move your work until I complete my review and you make any required edits.

By the end of Week 8, (7/23) your article expansion must be ready to move. Any article not completed, or not substantially meeting (my judgment) the requirements of Wikipedia and this course will not move and will receive no course credit.

The criteria for readiness are essentially the Elements of Quality Articles identified in The Wikipedia document titled Evaluating Wikipedia. Of course, it goes without saying that your syntax, grammar, organization and other writing mechanics must be strong. Remember, once we move to the main article, you are writing for the World. Keep a copy of your final submission in your Sandbox to preserve your work.

You ar in the final turn and I am sure you are ready for a rest. Keep up the hard work and we will celebrate the finish in two weeks.

Peer Editing
As we approach the completion of your work on the article expansions you should be seeking/providing copy-edit feedback to your colleagues. I see that several of you have signed-on as reviewers to peers, but there are individuals who are not getting or giving support. Please correct this immediately. At the bottom of the course page you can add yourself as a reviewer. PsycTeacher (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Writing Tips
I wish to direct your attention to two important style tips for improving your writing. I am talking about sentence length and active voice.

Several of you are writing unduly long sentences. This practice detracts from readability and often results in loss of clarity. Evaluate your sentences. If you can break a sentence into two or more sentences, each with a single main point, then do so for clarity.

Active voice promotes clarity and brevity. Passive voice sentences are longer and less understandable. Your APA Publication Manual addresses this at 3.18. Of course, Grammar Girl has an easy approach to understanding it too.

PsycTeacher (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding your expansion to the main page
This week you will add your content to the main article and become a Wikipedian. Since, like you, this is my first experience with Wikipedia I sought some feedback before moving us forward. Here are excerpts of what Ian shared about the next step with some added specific instructions for this course:

Since you are not creating a new article, but expanding an existing article, you can just copy material from your sandbox into the existing article. But it's important that the content be added in the right way. Be sure to sign your work with the four tildes.
 * 1) You are adding content that's entirely new to the article, so it's fine to simply add a new SECTION to the article. I have asked you to name this section Theorist'sLastName on Education (e.g., Estes on Education). Do not use the Move tool, as this creates a new main article. Since content is being added that wasn't there previously, you should add a one or two sentence summary of the addition to the lead section of the article. Every attempt should be made to integrate this new section into the existing lead. Of course, I expect you to attend to where in the main article you decide to insert the new section. Make certain that you select a logical placement for your content.
 * 2) The new content should not duplicate what's already in the article. That sounds like common sense, but I have seen students simply drop a short essay (complete with an introduction and a conclusion) into the middle of an existing article. Rather than creating a new section, it may be appropriate to split what was written into more than one existing section.
 * 3) It's important, from the perspective of attributing edits, to include a link to the sandbox where the articles were actually written. This can be handled by adding a link in the edit summary, or with a note on the talk page. It should not (generally) be included in the displayed text in the article.
 * 1) It's important, from the perspective of attributing edits, to include a link to the sandbox where the articles were actually written. This can be handled by adding a link in the edit summary, or with a note on the talk page. It should not (generally) be included in the displayed text in the article.
 * 1) It's important, from the perspective of attributing edits, to include a link to the sandbox where the articles were actually written. This can be handled by adding a link in the edit summary, or with a note on the talk page. It should not (generally) be included in the displayed text in the article.

We should all take a look at Jasperro's Sandbox. She earned a compliment from Ian, and we should understand how her work met or exceeded expectations:

"This is actually quite nice to see, where the student has (what appears to me) separate additions aimed at the lead section: User:Jasperro/sandbox Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC) "

When you are ready, send me a message to review your expansion material and clear you to copy it into the main article. I will review your work one last time and clear you to insert it into the main page or ask you to make revisions if necessary. PsycTeacher (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional Tips from Wiki ED Foundation
I got some additional feedback from the folks at Wiki Ed Foundation. I will paste it below in a section titled Message from Wiki Ed Mentor. I think the core element for us is that when you copy and paste from your Sandbox to the main article YOU MUST COPY FROM THE EDIT WINDOW so the embedded wiki markup code moves with your material. Also be sure to add a couple of lines to the article lead regarding your content. PsycTeacher (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Message from Wiki Ed Mentor

 * Hi . I'm one of Ian's colleagues at the Wiki Ed Foundation. Working on sandboxes for existing articles is a little tricky but it's much like you have laid out above. In many cases--such as those you're describing where the student work is confined to expanding or creating a single section--adding the content from the sandbox to the article requires the student to copy the material from the edit window (the wiki code) and insert it into the article, complete with a section heading (usually ==like this== ). If the work is a bit more comprehensive like an overhaul, the process is still basically the same but you'll want to copy the entire article into the sandbox before you start working (or re-write the article from scratch). When they are done, they would copy over their work, replacing the old article. Does this help? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I replied on their talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I got there five hours late and 2 bullet points short! :P Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)