Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2010/Student motivation theories

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback from Louise Wheeler 2018[edit source]

Your chapter looks great and covers a lot of theories. I am doing a related topic in 2018 and I referenced some of the same theories. One theory that I have found particularly relevant is Goal Setting Theory [1]. Also, here is a link to my chapter --Louise Wheeler (discusscontribs) 09:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on rough plan[edit source]

This looks well on the way - I've wikified the plan a bit - I'd suggest perhaps adding some Level 3 headings and perhaps step the content out into bullet points (or level 3 headings). But in general, I like this way this is taking shape. My main other suggestion is to check over the structure of some student motivation chapters in educational psychology textbooks. Let me know if the library doesn't have sufficient textbooks in this area. Also, one of the top journals to check is Review of Educational Research. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think your plan is well constucted, its clear and has flow. However, are you studying all students in general or are you focusing on a particular student body, ie., early childhood, primary, secondary, uni, etc., because developmental stages would influence student motivation. Also, what about student motivation in students from different cultures? socio-economic background? private or public school systems? Do these influence student motivation? Also, you could further break down each section and write out more questions that you aim to answer in those sections. However, your plan is good!AlEdwardson 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I read through yor plan and find it very well structured and very clear to understand. As Al said above, are you planning on looking at motivation in different cultures or groups? Other than that lovely work!! 11:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your plan looks really good, I really liked your section "to begin with". I also liked the theories you are planning to use. Well done! See you in the next tut, hopefully it won't be raining!AlEdwardson 15:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Your page looks amazing! I love it! You've covered so much stuff, and your tables and pictures look great. You should be really proud of this! WELL DONE! M.Sell 09:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you so much for your feedback. Your chapter is very good. The content is great. The pictures look good and makes the whole chapter so appealing. Its amazing what you have done! The only thing I could suggest is keeping your paragraphs in either past or present tense. For example, was coined extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is defined.... and I also noticed that figure 7, practical reasons students give for failure depending on their attributional style, says: too sick hand in my paper. (But these are just minor things). I loved your timeline! Very good!AlEdwardson 11:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have to correct myself in regards to my comment about tense. Apparently, James is looking for studies to be written in past tense and all other content written in present tense, if it so applies, i.e., definitions. So please don't take any notice of my suggestion. I obviously got it wrong. Sorry about that. 06:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that this will vary depending on the context e.g., if talking about previous studies and thinking, then it would be past tense. If talking about the ideas as they exist now, present tense. For discussions about the future, future tense.

Inter-wiki links[edit source]

I just had a very quick look over your chapter and did some wiki-tweaks. It looks very impressive and I look forward to reading it in more detail. The one aspect I noticed that could be improved is to add some links to key relevant wikipedia articles e.g., Socrates. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Chapter feedback

This textbook chapter has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via login to the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to see what editing changes I have made whilst reading through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below or continuing to improve the chapter if you wish. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener. If you wish to dispute the marks, see the suggested marking dispute process.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a strong chapter which demonstrates considerable effort in conceptualising and researching the content, as well as in writing and expressing the ideas in an interesting, interactive, wiki-format.
  2. The main areas for improvement are probably in providing a clear orientation to what will be covered, more emphasis on research and some relatively minor aspects of written expression.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theories were well covered in particular because the chapter was directly focused on theories.
  2. If anything, the chapter may have been overly focused on theory!? (e.g., relatively more on practical implications and research findings could have been helpful).
  3. Perhaps some further up-front explanation about which theories were chosen for the focus of this chapter (and why) could have been helpful.
  4. The distinction between pedagogy and androgogy was interesting and promising, although I did not fully grasp the motivational similarilities/differences.
  5. The historical structure worked well.
  6. Summary:
    1. I didn't understand this: "There are practical ramifications which propel behavioural process theories for both adult and child learners."

Research[edit source]

  1. This was probably the weakest section. The initial sections on theory-testing and research methods was useful and promising, but it wasn't really carried through and applied to specific student motivation research.
  2. Research discussion about Maslow's hierarchy of needs was limited (I struggled to understand in the last paragraph of this section).
  3. Excellent description of Grolnick and Ryan (1987) in relation to research about self-determination theory.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. This was generally very good. See my minor corrections (via the chapter history) for some suggested minor adjustments.
    2. The summary points were valuable - perhaps some similar up-front explanation of what would be covered in the chapter (or focus questions) would be helpful.
  2. The use of tables and diagrams were excellent. You clearly mastered this aspect of wiki editing. Congratulations.
  3. APA style
    1. Generally good, with some relatively minor areas for improvement.
    2. Subsequent citations within a paragraph do not require the year.
  4. Citations/References
    1. Did you really consult Freud (1922) and Tolman, Hall & Brenall (1932) or did you consult later editions or should these have been secondary citations?
    2. Numbers
      1. 91 instead of ninety-one (for numbers 10 and over)
      2. 1800s instead of "eighteen hundred’s"
    3. Use spaces between author initial abbreviations e.g., Amabile, T.M. -> Amabile, T. M.
  5. Wiki-links
    1. Well done on including relevant links to other textbook chapters as as well as to Wikipedia.
    2. Written expression
      1. "Researchers have argued it is difficult" -> "Researchers have argued THAT it is difficult"
      2. Singular vs. plural e.g., "if a student thinks they lack" -> "if a student thinks he/she lacks"

Multimedia feedback

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


Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid DI-level presenation.
  2. Engaging opening!
  3. Some focus questions/problems could be established - what will I learn by listening to this presentation?
  4. Remove the background music from main presentation (distracting)
  5. Some slides weren't up for long enough to read (or less text needed)
  6. Some pauses/stumbles (a script may have helped)
  7. Voice was clear and understandable, well paced
  8. Greater voice tone variation could be used
  9. 2nd last slide hard to read
  10. Well done on getting onto Wiki commons!

Communication[edit source]


Production quality[edit source]

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)