Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/MDMA and emotional empathy

Heading casing

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use: ==Cats and dogs== rather than ==Cats and Dogs== -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is a reasonably informative chapter which could be improved by abbreviating the theoretical background about empathy and MDMA as separate constructs, and expanding the theory and research about the effect of MDMA on empathy. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements. Theory Overview is missing Explain why the topic is important. Consider including focus questions. Consider including an example or case study. Body Abbreviate the general theoretical material about empathy and MDMA and provide references and links to further information. This will allow more space to apply the theories to the specific topic (MDMA+empathy which currently gets ~750 words) in more detail. Examples or case studies would be helpful. Expand critical aspect of theory review. Well integrated with discussion of research. Conclusion is missing. Offer a succint summary and emphasise take-away messages that relate to the book theme. Provide some concrete, take-home messages. Could be improved by providing take-home self-help message which address the chapter's focus questions. Address self-help theme. Research Good review and description of relevant research. Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the tags) When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Consider possibly reporting on meta-analytic findings. Written expression Written expression Some clarification templates have been added to the page. Some paragraphs are overly long. Paragraphs should communicate a single key idea in about three to five sentences. Structure and headings See earlier comments about heading casing Use default heading styles; remove bold and underline. Avoid sections with only one sub-section. A section should have no sub-sections or at least two sub-sections. Each section should start with at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections. Add External links section. Layout Figure captions could be improved by making them more explanatory. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text. Integration with other chapters Some integration with other chapters is evident. Learning features Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles e.g., empathy) to make the text more interactive. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement. Spelling Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour). Grammar and proofreading The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags). APA style The reference list is not in APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.

Overall Well over the 3 minute maximum time limit. Overall, this is a basic, sufficient presentation. Structure and content MDMA isn't mentioned until ~ 2 mins 30 secs! :( Overview Too brief Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter). Selection and organisation Probably too much content is presented - be more selective - e.g., work backwards from 3 take-home messages to work out what content needs to be presented - and then focus on only that which is essential to conveying these messages. Theory rich; research poor. Somewhat addresses a self-help theme. Include citations. Conclusion Too brief/general - drill down to some practical, take-away messages. Communication Audio Audio narration is too fast to easily comprehend - consider slowing down. See this article for more information about speaking rates. Leave longer pauses between sentences. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1] Visuals The animated combination of images and text is effective in attracting and sustaining viewer attention. Production quality Overall, reasonably good production. Meta-data The title of the presentation differs from the book chapter - rename/retitle the presentation so that it includes the same title and subtitle as the book chapter. Description field used effectively. Audio recording quality Medium low due to distortion - review microphone set-up. Image/video recording quality Good, clear Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons. The copyright licenses and sources of the images used are not indicated.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)