upvote
its offtopic but that Programmed learning wikipedia article is really bad. It's clearly written by someone with personal stake in it and isn't remotely encyclopedic in tone.

Not sure what to do about it because I don't care enough to learn everything about this topic in order to fix it.

reply
Comparing the opening sentences:

> Programmed learning (or programmed instruction) is a research-based system which helps learners work successfully. The method is guided by research done by a variety of applied psychologists and educators.

I have no idea what programmed learning is, only that it has an alternative name, that it has scientific street cred and that it is effective according to some nebulous definition of successful.

as opposed to:

> Mastery learning is an instructional strategy and educational philosophy that emphasizes the importance of students achieving a high level of competence (e.g., 90% accuracy) in prerequisite knowledge before moving on to new material.

which is gives me a more clear idea of what the core philosophy is behind it.

Can the programmed learning page be marked as low-quality, non-encyclopedic? That is already a good signal to have.

reply