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 2021 student-authored book chapters. Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on its talk page.

Overall[edit | edit source]

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

Overview[edit | edit source]

  1. Generally good to very good.
  2. A case study or example or image to help engage reader interest.
  3. Provide focus questions in a feature box.

Theory[edit | edit source]

Breadth[edit | edit source]

  1. Usually a good range of theory was considered.
  2. Sometimes very general theories were used (e.g., Maslow's hierarchy of needs) when more specific theories would have been better.

Depth[edit | edit source]

  1. Usually theories were explained in good depth.
  2. More examples would have been useful to explain the theories in practice.

Research[edit | edit source]

Key findings[edit | edit source]

  1. Usually relevant research was summarised.
  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. Conclusions were generally very good.
  2. Greater emphasis on take-home messages would be helpful.

Style[edit | edit source]

Written expression[edit | edit source]

  1. The quality of written expression varied widely.
  2. The most common problems were grammatical, including:
    1. in psychological science, write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person
    2. serial commas[1] should be used
    3. correct use of ownership apostrophes
  3. The main spelling problem was using American instead of Australian spelling.
  4. APA style was generally good. The main areas for improvement were:
    1. Citations were generally very good
      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 very good.
  2. Embedded interwiki links to Wikiversity book chapters were very poor. This chapter provides some good examples:
    1. "The impacts of COVID-19 on people's motivation have resulted in widespread societal uncertainty ..."
    2. "One theory explaining emotional processes for vaccine uptake is protection motivation theory ..."
    3. "Fear can also serve as a motivator ..."
  3. Images were reasonably well used.
  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]