This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Education Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dear community, we have been working to revise the page to draw on broader sources and develop it so that it would meet the threshold for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia. Of note, the Association for Psychological Science ( APS) contacted the Helping Give Away Psychological Science ( H-GAPS) User Group specifically to ask for support in working on this page. That indicates that the topic is of interest to a society (and APS has a strong emphasis on teaching, with an annual teaching conference that is paired with its scientific convention). We would be glad to make further revisions if anything would be helpful to elaborate this page. The draft is on a page in my user [ sandbox], and I am watching this page. We are likely to be slow responding over the holidays, so please do not interpret any lag as a lack of interest. My user page has additional contact information. Thanks so much, and looking forward to next steps! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

P.S. an afterthought -- the APS is a much larger society than the SPSI one that is a source for many of the sources, so this also helps corroborate that the topic is of broader interest within psychology -- APS and APA are two of the largest in the field, and active in policy, science, and practice (not just teaching!). :-) -- Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom ( talk) 15:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

After not receiving any comments or concerns during the three months that it was in draft, I went ahead and moved the article over to mainspace. I believe that I have done all the formatting correctly (and consulted with a more experienced editor to crosscheck the page). Happy to work with anyone to improve it! Thanks, and best to all! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom ( talk) 21:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi! I’m having trouble understanding why my article draft on Action Teaching is being rejected. A lot of the sources rely on extensive outside peer review (e.g., Journal of Social and Political Psychology, Monitor on Psychology - American Psychological Association’s monthly magazine) and have high visibility in terms of page views and people who know about or participate in action teaching activities (e.g. ActionTeaching.org, Socialpsychology.org) — is that not notable? I can provide data if that would be helpful. Additionally, action teaching has been funded by the National Science Foundation. The latter websites and articles by or tied to Scott Plous are primary sources, but the journals and APA, the BBC and NPR articles, are they not sufficiently reliable? He may have coined the term, but its use has grown beyond him and his creations. Thanks for your help in advance!

Tleclair96 ( talk) 08:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I also wanted to add that the first Wikipedia review didn't question that the term action teaching is used widely, it just wanted reliable secondary sources -- which I seemingly provided. Additionally, Google searches of action teaching without quotes (so, action teaching in comparison to "action teaching") turns up a number of irrelevant results since the terms "action" and "teaching" are so common. If the search is done with quotes, it does yield a number of results, for example: http://www.teachpsych.org/E-xcellence-in-Teaching-Blog/4394183/ https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/54497/ https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/265/html https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/about/editorialPolicies - See Action Teaching Reports

So, is it a matter of digging up these kinds of mentions of action teaching? These are already housed within the ActionTeaching.org links included in the draft, if you simply visit the pages. Should I be extracting these for the draft to be published, and if so how many are required, or when would I know to stop? The reason so many of these examples of action teaching are found on ActionTeaching.org is because the website's function is to act as a repository for action teaching resources. The material submitted, however, is from outside sources.

Tleclair96 ( talk) 09:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Tleclair96. "Mentions" aren't enough. Wikipedia has articles about topics that are notable, that is already well known, shown by having been written about in depth and published by people independent of the originator. None of the references you use in the article show this. This is understandable for a beginning editor but makes it difficult to review a draft. "Action teaching" seems to be Plous's term for combinging teaching with social action and does not seem to be used by people independent of him.

The peer review that Scott Pious's work went through to be published does not make it well-known in the Wikipedia sense. Showing notability for topics in education is tricky. Normally other researchers in a field would write papers in the same area, citing others work. But educators don't work that way. They just go apply things the read about or hear about at meetings. So we need published evaluation of Plous's topic of action teaching to show that it is an accepted term in the field. Plous's website, the Social Psychology Network, gave an "SPN Action Teaching Award" with a monetary award. The papers submitted for the award use the term because they want to be "award-winning examples of action teaching." These papers, used as sources in the article, are published on the website so are not independent of Pious . The Journal of Social and Political Psychology is an occasional journal with very few citations. It has published only two "Action Teaching Reports" since 2014. The Psychology Today article is a press release about the teaching award competition. The only source that goes into any depth on this is the article by Beth Azar; it seems to see the term as unique to him, and you didn't use it as a reference.

Plous himself is notable and influential, but the term seems to be unique to him. He and his work, particularly through his websites, are what is notable and not well-covered in the article about him. Add some of this material to the Scott Plous article in a section on "action teaching" and also add material about his influential websites. His article doesn't mention that he won that Brewer award for just that work. The announcement of the Brewer award has a nice analysis of his influence. StarryGrandma ( talk) 03:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply