Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Disgust

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikipedia links[edit source]

That's great that relevant links are being provided to Wikipedia articles - this helps to add interactive depth. To improve these links, make them internal rather thane external - see example changes - http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Motivation_and_emotion%2FBook%2FDisgust&action=historysubmit&diff=818780&oldid=818616 Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I tried doing that but it kept saying the the article in question didn't exist, so I opted for the external links. I'll try just handwriting the code into the text. I also want to thank you for the continued feedback, it's been very helpful. :) - Callum

A really interesting chapter - well done - 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.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall comments
    1. This is a solid, basic chapter that situates disgust within prominent emotion theories and uses images and multimedia links to great effect; however, it could be expanded to include a greater range of research and requires revision in accordance with APA style.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory comments
    1. The work of major theorists (e.g., Ekman and Plutchik) is described, and some criticisms are evident.
    2. The discussion includes basic and derivative emotions, with disgust correctly identified as a basic emotion.
    3. The biological and cognitive approach, and their integration in the two-systems theory, are outlined.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research comments
    1. Studies that were mentioned were well-described.
    2. Propositions made in text should be supported with references.
    3. A self-help application in managing emotion could be provided to assist readers.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression comments
    1. The chapter demonstrates great use of wiki features, including images that illustrate disgust perfectly, tables, and multimedia links to other resources, which were expertly done.
    2. Try to avoid contractions, one-sentence paragraphs and repetitive phrasing (e.g., “dangers that may be dangerous”.)
    3. Some textual and factual errors are noted; “11 more emotions”, should be “11 emotions” or “5 more emotions”, “In 1972 devised a list of six basic emotions” is missing Ekman’s name.
    4. APA style seems to be largely ignored; correct use of the referencing system and wider research would really strengthen the chapter.


Rfoster 07:22, 10 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 very rudimentary multimedia presentation via a screencast of the chapter (in small text - difficult to read) with ad-libbed audio.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. What are the self-help focus questions?
  2. Structure and content does not differ from the chapter itself; no particular effort made to shape and present the content for a multimedia presentation.
  3. No summary?
  4. No take-home messages?

Communication[edit source]

  1. Communication could have benefitted by being scripted and with some development of relevant accompanying visual display.
  2. Overly casual for an effective education presentation (scripting could really help here).

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Production quality was rudimentary.
  2. Audio was clear.
  3. Video was low resolution and text was not readable.
  4. Thanks for releasing under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
  5. Further takes could be used to create a smoother presentation (e.g., fewer ums)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]