Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2019/Prototype willingness model

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heading casing[edit source]

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings (or sentence casing). For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Chapter review and feedback[edit source]

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 UCLearn Canvas, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter provides a solid description of the PWM and related research, with a sound structure.
  2. Sub-title missing; title template incorrect (now fixed)
  3. This chapter is well under the maximum word count.
  4. For additional feedback, see comments below and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, and explained.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.
  2. When describing important research findings, consider including a bit more detail about the methodology and indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing.
    2. Once an abbreviation (PWM) is established, use it - don't chop and change (now fixed).
    3. Overall, the chapter is well written.
    4. The chapter benefited from a well developed Overview and Conclusion, with clear focus question(s) and take-home messages.
    5. Obtaining (earlier) comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
  2. Layout
    1. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
    2. Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings.
  3. Learning features
    1. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words would make the text more interactive.
    2. Embedding interwiki links links to other book chapters would help to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    3. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links.
    4. Basic use of images.
    5. No Figure 1?
    6. Cite each Figure at least once in the written text.
    7. Good use of a quiz.
    8. Basic, good use of case study and feature box.
  4. Grammar
    1. Overall, grammar is excellent.
    2. Use serial commas[1] - it is part of APA style.
  5. Spelling
    1. Overall, spelling is excellent.
  6. APA style
    1. In-text citations should be in alphabetical order.
    2. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of italicisation.
      2. See new doi format.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. 3 minor, useful, social contributions in last 24 hours with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply


Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Canvas 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[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic presentation.
  2. This presentation makes effective use of simple tools.
  3. I'm curious about the voice synthesisation - how was this generated and recorded? (Consider adding this info to the video description).

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. A basic, somewhat dry description of the PWM is provided.
  2. Consider adding more examples or a case study to help bring the presentation to life.
  3. Add and narrate an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered.
  4. Ideally, provide a clearer description of the model. The description is quite broad and general. How can the two differences between the two pathways be illustrated?
  5. Why is this model being applied to adolescent risk-taking? (Explain/justify - adolescent risk-taking could be used as an example, but the focus of the question is broader).
  6. What are the practical take-home message(s) that we can use to help improve our everyday lives?

Communication[edit source]

  1. The voice synthesisation is interesting to listen to - clear and well-paced.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of text based slides with narrated audio.
  3. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  4. The visual communication could be improved by including some relevant images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Communicate the chapter title and sub-title in both the video title and on the opening slide this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. Audio recording quality was clear.
  3. Visual display quality was basic but clear.
  4. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data.
  5. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  6. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  7. A brief written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply


Topic development feedback[edit source]

The topic development 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 the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Title and sub-title[edit source]

  1. Not provided

User page[edit source]

  1. Not provided

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. None summarised with links to evidence.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Basic, underdeveloped structure. It appears that more headings might be planned - use heading formatting so that they appear in the table of content.
  2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
  3. See earlier comment about Heading casing.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Basic development of key points for each section, with relevant citations.
  2. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  3. Consider including more examples/case studies.
  4. Consider embedding one quiz question per major section rather than having one longer quiz towards the end.

Image[edit source]

  1. An image (figure) is presented.
  2. Caption uses APA style. Check grammar.
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. Not all were cited.
  2. For full APA style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. italicisation
    3. the new recommended format for dois

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. None provided
  2. External links
    1. None provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply