Talk:Schema (psychology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Link

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)