Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Psychological resilience

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey! Guys thankyou so much for the feedback! Yes the BattleSMART article I referenced in the one you are talking about. Although I didn't get it from the same source... I was not entirely sure if we were meant to talk about specific studies as it is a 'self help' book, but if that will help my page I will see what I can do. Thankyou! 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I work on the BattleSMART program and the LASER-Resilience program! There's an article that Andrew Cohn wrote with Steph Hodson and Monique Crane (I think last year) that has some pretty good stuff regarding resilience. It might be the one you referenced... was it from inPsych? If not I'm more than happy to send a copy your way if you need it. JayAr 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cat, the chapter is looking good so far! I think some of your ideas tie in well with Jude's chapter on meaning making, particularly the section on resilience and growth after trauma. Maybe you could offer some links to that page? I look forward to reading more as you progress! Shauna ShaunaB 09:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! great page, you have a fantastic variety of information!! It would be interesting to see some studies on psychological resilience if there are any? great work!! 08:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that was Courtney.reis 08:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the quote from Dead Letter Circus at the beginning! It's very fitting! :) In your first sentence (The term 'psychological resilience' is a difficultly hard term to define.) you need to take the 'ly' off difficulty! :) Look great!! Nice worrrrrk! A-bryant 14:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Really fantastic information - the ADF have special psychological tests to ascertain if an individual can "take it" - very well done - Magnolia

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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 reasonable overview of resilience, but seems to lack somewhat in overall cohesion and to struggle with offering a clear, self-help conceptualisation and practical strategies towards self-development of resilience. Several good ideas are offered, but the overall synthesis and coordinated structure could be improved. Written expression could be improved with regard to paragraph length and APA style of in-text citations.

Theory[edit source]

  1. The chapter struggles to offer a clear conceptualisation of resilience. It is appropriate to point out the difficulties/challenges, but one of the key aims of the chapter is to help bring clarity to the topic/problem. My sense is that there is too much "problematising" of the definition (in order to service the goals of an accessible self-help chapter). Whilst there are different definitions, and there are individual and group differences, there is also some also general consensus that takes account of cultural variation etc.
  2. Drawing a distinction between traditional views of resilience as experiencing risk factors without manifesting pathology could be contrasted with more views which is that resilience is not just about surviving, but also thriving on, and growing through, challenges.
  3. The chapter would benefit from a more developed introduction which develops clear focus questions (Tutorial 1)
  4. What are the key theories covered? (These could be made more explicit, and be foreshadowed in the Introduction, and reinforced in the Summary.
  5. The connection between positive emotions and resilience was excellent, and included practical suggestions. Smiley.svg

Research[edit source]

  1. The chapter makes good use of relevant research studies.
  2. The ADF BATTLESmart program provides a useful practical example; it could be compared and contrasted with related programs for other countries.
  3. It would be helpful, for key studies, to explain some more about the methodology (e.g., sample size, measures) and results (e.g., effect size).

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. This chapter seems to have struggled to embrace the self-book style and the wiki environment and probably is suited better to a traditional academic essay style.
    2. The chapter could have benefited from a more developed Introduction and Summary, with clear focus questions and answers to the focus questions respectively, to help address the self-help book theme and motivation or emotion.
    3. Getting further comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft and addressing those comments could have helped to improve the chapter.
    4. Many paragraphs were overly long. Aim for each paragraph to communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    5. Avoid directional referencing e.g., "As previously mentioned"
    6. Linkages between sections could be made more logical or better explained. This is where a more developed Introduction could help - to establish clear focus questions and outline the chapter contents.
    7. The summary was a little disappointing - I was hoping for a richer synthesis of the key take-home self-help messages for how to build resilience.
  2. Heading structure
    1. Avoid sections with one sub-heading - I've re-jigged the heading structure in this respect.
  3. Learning features
    1. The made limited use of additional learning features.
    2. I converted the initial quiz into self-reflection questions as part of an Introduction, since there are no right and wrong answers.
    3. In-text interwiki links could be added (I've added some)
    4. No images?
  4. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. This aspect was generally well done; only minor typos found.
  5. APA style
    1. In-text citations should not include author initials
    2. In-text citations alphabetical order
    3. Images were not captioned using APA style.
    4. When there are six or more authors, use et al.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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, the presentation had solid content, but could have been improved by focusing on less content (just key points and examples) and going slower.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Lots of content covered too fast for a listener to stay engaged and take it in.
  2. Use some more examples to illustrate concepts.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Take a pause, slow down - this was a machine gun of spoken text! Pause longer between sentences and take a long pause between slides.
  2. Ideally, increase range of intonation, to emphasise particular words, phrases, and concepts.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Audio production quality was quite 'tinny'.
  2. Slides and text were clear.
  3. Images were attributed, but was permission gained to use the images?
  4. License for the presentation?
  5. Link back to the chapter?

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)