Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Time management

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey, You could put in something about Zimbardo's Time Perspective. Goodluck with it.Mlac 11:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 11:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

looks like you figured out your boxes, congrats!Yapp84 21:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very interesting information - good research - 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 basic chapter about time management. It uses a single, but useful theoretical model. Little research is cited. The style is friendly and easy to read, but many claims are unreferenced and may be personal opinion, rather than advice based on empirical support. Layout is good, basic, with little use made of the learning features possible in a wiki environment.

Theory[edit source]

  1. The theoretical structure worked well for a self-help chapter.
  2. However, there was a lack of deep reading of a variety of time management theories. Instead, personal opinion seems to be used.

Research[edit source]

  1. Little research is cited.
  2. Some statements were unreferenced - see the [factual?] tags
  3. 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 source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Some paragraphs were overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    2. Some sentences were overly long e.g., "Grouping similar tasks is also helpful with time management as it allows your brain to continue on a certain wave length (Merchant, et. al., 2008), for example if you have two psychology papers due and one law paper, it would be wise to do the two psychology papers together as referencing, structure and sources are the same then to switch back and fourth from psychology to law back to psychology."
    3. Some statements could be explained more clearly - see the [explain?] tags
    4. The chapter could have benefited from a more developed Introduction or Overview, with clear focus questions relating to the self-help book theme and motivation or emotion.
    5. Getting comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
  2. Learning features
    1. There was little in the way of additional learning features - the time management log is one useful addition
    2. Add relevant interwiki links?
    3. Add images?
    4. Wiki-links?
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. Use Australian spelling e.g., hypothesize -> hypothesise
    2. Check use of ownership apostrophes e.g., individuals -> individual's
    3. In this case, use a comma instead of semi-colon: "Technology; including mobile phones,"
    4. Only use abbreviations such as etc. in brackets, otherwise spell out as ecetera.
    5. The grammar for some sentences could be improved - see the [grammar?] tags
    6. Check when to use commas - several were missing.
  4. APA style
    1. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
    2. For in-text citations, comma not needed e.g., for "Strickland and Galimba, (2001)"

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:37, 27 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 solid, basic, narrated voice-over with bullet-point text presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. In the general introduction, explain the self-improvement questions that guide the chapter.
  2. Focusing on a smaller amount of content would allow slowing down and illustrating a smaller number of key points.
  3. Content is interesting and well-oriented towards self-help / self-improvement.
  4. Recap is excellent.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Overall, an effective, personable communication style is used.
  2. Voice-over could slow down, to allow information to sink in.
  3. Concepts could be further illustrated e.g., with examples, images, or via a scenario or character.
  4. Offer some linking/connection between the slides/topics?

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, production quality is simple but effective.
  2. Provide a more detailed, informative title
  3. Provide a link back to the chapter in the description
  4. Excellent job on attributions for images
  5. Thanks for releasing under a Creative Commons license

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]