Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Love

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey CowboyDan, I am really liking your topic so far especially the media comparisons. Perhaps you could go into more detail regarding Lee and his different love styles. good luck with the rest of your topic. --EssDubz 10:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback EssDubz. As per your request I went into detail regarding Lee's love styles thoery. Thanks Cowboy Dan 11:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CowboyDan, looks really good. I like how you have looked at the origins of love, made me think about how we percive love. EamesA 12:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Cowboy Dan - a really good chapter - you did a great job - interesting quiz - but were't Romeo & Juliet just a couple of spoilt brats who had no thought for their family? 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 solid, basic chapter which provides a fairly standard overview of the psychological theory about love. Reporting of research was somewhat limited and the quality of written expression could be improved.
  2. The chapter could have benefited from gathering and responding to earlier and wider peer-review.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Good coverage of basic psychological theories about love, including evolutionary theory.
  2. Limited critique.

Research[edit source]

  1. Limited use of research theories to provide critical examination of theory or detailed examples leading to self-help recommendations.
  2. When describing important research findings, try to indicate the size of effects rather than simply whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. The chapter is easy to read.
    2. Several statements could be more carefully referenced - see [factual?] tags.
    3. The chapter could have benefited by a more considered and refined set of focus questions in order to address the self-help aim of the book exercise.
    4. Some paragraphs were overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    5. What are the self-help take-home messages? (Summary)
  2. Learning features
    1. Some images; limited caption text.
    2. Useful quiz
    3. Limited linking to other relevant wiki resources - interwiki linking
    4. The movie references were promising. They could work even better if it was possible to link to more info about the movie or a video clip.
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. The chapter could be improved by more careful proofreading.
  4. APA style
    1. References are not presented in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 simple, narrated audio with bullet-point slide presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. In the initial introduction, establish self-help focus questions and/or explain what will be covered in this presentation.
  2. Content is well-developed overall, with a logical structure.
  3. No summary with take-home messages? Frowny.svg

Communication[edit source]

  1. Slowing down the narration could make for a more effective presentation (allows time for the ideas to sink in).
  2. Consider increasing tonal range in order to enhance interest and attention.
  3. Consider using more examples.
  4. Consider using more images to help illustrate the key points.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, production quality is basic, but effective.
  2. Slide text is generally easy to read
  3. Some slides could contain less text in order to focus on key messages
  4. Some slides contained misspelt text
  5. Perhaps another take could have produced slightly smoother narration.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]