Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Self-determination theory

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit]

This may be a bit off topic but I just wrote an essay about genocide and I thought it was fascinating that theories of genocide as a human rights issue look at autonomy and how the act of genocide takes away a persons autonomy. Obviously not really where you are going with this chapter but I thought it was a great illustration of how significant autonomy is in our world. EamesA 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a nice article on the relationship between self determination theory and work motivation if you're interested:
Gagné, Marylène, and Edward L. Deci. 2005. "Self-determination theory and work motivation." Journal Of Organizational Behavior 26, no. 4: 331-362. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 31, 2011). Jackson997 03:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Great video and presentation - really well done - congratulations - 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]

  1. Overall, this chapter presents a solid overview of the SDT. It relies perhaps too heavily on too few sources (esp. Ryan et al.), but reveals a good understanding of the theory, particularly the I-E motivation spectrum and the role of automony, competence, and relatedness.

Theory[edit]

    1. Good explanation of key elements of SDT.
    2. Heavy reliance on Ryan et al. (2000)

Research[edit]

  1. Well-referenced to research studies, overall.
  2. Perhaps some major studies could be used as more detailed case examples.
  3. More summary of the meta-analysis by Utman (1997) could be useful.
  4. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression
    1. Some paragraphs were overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    2. The chapter could have benefited from a more developed set of focus questions relating to the self-help book theme.
    3. Getting comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
    4. The summary was disappointing - was really looking for synthesised take-home messages in to response to focus questions.
  2. Learning features
    1. Tables and diagrams were useful.
    2. Quiz was useful.
    3. Limited use of interwiki links
    4. Limited use of images
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. Generally good, but more proofreading needed - see examples in my edits.
    2. Consider addition use of commas, e.g., after "however"
  4. APA style
    1. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
    2. APA citation style was good
    3. Reference list was in very good APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:23, 27 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is an engaging, creative presentation of SDT, using the character Barney. The sets and examples bring the concept to life, and the interview explanations from Barney, in particular as well as the rest of the narration indicate a very good level of understanding of the theory and its application.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Content is comprehensive, but probably too indepth; a more effective presentation could cover content in less detail, more slowly, to allow the ideas to be processed by the viewer

Communication[edit]

  1. The creativity certainly added life to the topic
  2. The motify (Barney) as the conduit for demonstrating SDT in action was effective, but theory-heavy despite several illustrative props and settings. More explanation of how SDT connected to these examples could have helped a viewer to implement the principles in his/her life.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Audio and video quality were clear, with some animation and considerable editing
  2. The presentation was over 5 mins Frowny.svg
  3. Copyright information and permission for use of other video material?
  4. Link to chapter?
  5. Thanks for licensing using a creative commons attribution license.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)