Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback

General feedback about
book chapters

General feedback about the 2025 student-authored book chapters Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on the respective talk pages

Overall

1. The overall quality of chapters was reasonably good, but there was a wide range
2. The main issues were:
   1. Unacknowledged and/or poor use of genAI
   2. Insufficient review and synthesis of the best research about the topic
   3. Lack of social contributions

Overview

1. The best overviews consisted of:
   1. A scenario/case study in a feature box with a relevant image
   2. A simple, evocative description of the psychological problem or phenomenon
   3. Clear and relevant focus questions in a feature box; the focus questions are closely aligned to the top-level headings.

Theory

1. Most chapters used a well selected range of relevant theories
2. Weaker chapters tended to use more general, historical theories; stronger chapters tended to identify more specific, recent theories
3. Theories were generally well explained, but theoretical depth and relevance was a key differentiator between chapters
4. All chapters could be improved by building more strongly on related chapters (i.e., by embedding links from the first mention of key words to related chapters)
5. More practical examples would have been useful to demonstrate how theories work in practice

Research

1. The best chapters provided comprehensive and critical synthesis of the best research
2. Most chapters review some relevant research, but could often the research could have been more relevant and/or indepth
3. Place more emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses
4. Sometimes there was insufficient citation of academic peer-reviewed sources to support claims

Integration

1. The best chapters had excellent integration between theory and research
2. Many chapters emphasised theory more than research — strive for balance

Conclusion

1. Useful summaries of key points were provided
2. The best chapters emphasised explicit take-home messages for each focus question

Style

Written expression

1. Overall, the quality of written expression was reasonably good, but varied widely
2. The most common problems were:
   1. grammar and spelling
      1. poor grammar — there's many ways to get help to develop professional-level written expression
      2. use 3rd person, rather than 1st person, perspective[1]
      3. serial commas[2] should be used (they are part of APA style)
      4. use of ownership apostrophes
      5. Use Australian spelling.
   2. insufficient citation — scientific communication needs evidence to support claims
   3. clarity of written expression
      1. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
      2. Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in parentheses at the end of the sentence.
3. APA style:
   1. Citations with three or more authors should use the first author's surname followed by et al. and the year
   2. Reference formatting areas for improvement:
      1. capitalisation
      2. italicisation
      3. use of hyperlinked dois

Learning features

1. Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles help to connect reader to further information about key concepts
2. Embedded interwiki links to related Wikiversity book chapters were underutilised — network the chapter to related chapters
3. Figures were reasonably well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!)
4. Tables were less commonly used, but usually very useful
5. Feature boxes were generally well used
6. Quizzes were generally well used
7. Scenarios/case studies were reasonably well used, but often more examples would have been helpful

Social contributions

1. There were many valuable improvements made to past and current chapters
2. The amount and quality of contributions varied widely — some students made no contributions whilst some excelled and were awarded bonus marks
3. Unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided

See also

• 2021 feedback
• 2022 feedback
• 2023 feedback
• 2024 feedback
• Book chapter - Guidelines