Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Competitiveness and happiness

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hello Rednoodles 08:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we both have similar topics and I found an article you might find useful. It's called 'The dark side of competition: How competitive behaviour and striving to avoid inferiority are linked to depression, anxiety, stress and self harm.'Rednoodles 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! I am really looking forward to your take on this topic. I was wondering if you had looked at social media and competitiveness/happiness. Because I remeber hearing somewhere that the more time you spend on sights like facebook the more envious you are of others and the more unhappy you can become. I know its a bit late in the piece to be throwing ideas at you. Good luck!! Claremw 06:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to reading the finished product - keep going - your topic sounds interesting - Magnolia

Chapter review and feedback

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

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, This is a strong chapter on an applied, challenging topic. The chapter really takes the topic, exploring happiness, competitiveness, and theoretical and research aspects of their inter-relation. An area for improvement could be in focusing more on the self-help focus questions in the Introduction and especially the Summary (what are the self-help take-home messages?).

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory was well-covered.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research was well-covered.
  2. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  3. Statements were well referenced.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. The chapter was well-written.
    2. The chapter could have benefited from a more developed Introduction and Summary, with clear focus questions (Introduction) and a clear take-home self-help message for each focus question (Summary).
    3. Getting comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
  2. Learning features
    1. More Interwiki links could be added.
    2. Images captions could be made larger.
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. Only minor errors noted (see copyedits).
  4. APA style
    1. Reference list looks good; italicisation checking needed.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation 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. 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. If you wish to dispute the marks, see the suggested marking dispute process.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid, effective web-cam style multimedia presentation. It's strength is that the communication style is bold (many would rather hide behind the camera and read a script) and thereby demonstrates knowledge and engages the viewer. Perhaps the main area for improvement could to include more examples or creative devices to highlight key points.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. The content follows a logical structure, establishing a problem, leading through basic (good) explanations of concepts, with some examples, and leading to a conclusion with a take-home message.
  2. Perhaps less time could have been spent on definitional aspects, and more time could be spent on theoretical and research findings about competitiveness and happiness.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The talking head communication method worked well, mainly because the content appeared to have been well-prepared and learned by memory, and this was spoken at an understandable pace (many presentations were too fast). The conversational tone worked well compared to some more formally prepared scripts. Facial expressions helped to add interest.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Production quality was simple, but effective.
  2. Audio was clear
  3. Video was a low res etc. but this was not a problem.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]