Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
General feedback about
book chapters

This page summarises general feedback about the 2022 student-authored book chapters. Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on the respective talk pages.

Overall[edit | edit source]

  1. The overall quality of chapters was good, but there was a wide range.
  2. The best chapters will be tweeted in this thread.

Overview[edit | edit source]

  1. Generally very good.
  2. Consider using a case study or example or image to help engage reader interest.

Theory[edit | edit source]

Breadth[edit | edit source]

  1. Usually a well selected range of theories was considered.

Depth[edit | edit source]

  1. Usually theories were explained in reasonably good depth.
  2. More examples could be useful to explain the theories in practice.

Research[edit | edit source]

Key findings[edit | edit source]

  1. Usually relevant research was summarised, but could have been more indepth.
  2. More emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses would be helpful.

Critical thinking[edit | edit source]

  1. Often there was a lack of sufficient detail about the research reviewed.
  2. Sometimes there was insufficient citation to support claims.

Integration[edit | edit source]

  1. There was typically good integration between theory and research.
  2. Often there was more emphasis on theory than research - strive for balance.

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

  1. Useful summaries were provided.
  2. Good emphasis on take-home messages, but could often be improved and made more explicit.

Style[edit | edit source]

Written expression[edit | edit source]

  1. The quality of written expression varied.
  2. Relatively common problems included:
    1. in psychological science, write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person[1]
    2. serial commas[2] should be used
    3. correct use of ownership apostrophes
    4. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
    5. Reduce use of weasel words which bulk out the text, but don't enhance meaning
  3. The main spelling problem was using American instead of Australian spelling.
  4. APA style was generally good, especially the use of citations. The main areas for improvement were:
    1. For APA style 7th ed., use first author surname et al. when there are three or more authors.
    2. References were rarely perfect. Main areas for improvement:
      1. capitalisation
      2. italicisation
      3. use of hyperlinked dois

Learning features[edit | edit source]

  1. Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were usually very good, but often more could be added.
  2. Embedded interwiki links to related Wikiversity book chapters were rare.
  3. Images were well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!).
  4. Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful.
  5. Feature boxes were well used.
  6. Quizzes were well used.
  7. Case studies were well used.

Social contributions[edit | edit source]

  1. Overall, there were substantial improvements made to past and current chapter by peer authors.
  2. The amount and quality of these contributions varied widely - most were rated as minor (.25), followed by moderate (.50), with some considered to be major (1.00+).
  3. A small number of students contributed across three platforms (Wikiversity, UCLearn Canvas, and Twitter).
  4. Sometimes contributions were claimed, but unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided.
  5. A handful of students received social contribution bonus marks, including:

See also[edit | edit source]