Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Weight loss motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback[edit source]

Hey Jess, this is a fantastic chapter! You obviously put a lot of hard work into it. I think I need to get my SMART TIME happening for my motivation in general! :) It would certainly be useful for a lot of things. - Jus Jaybay 12:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent information (I needed it) - the statistics were also interesting - your research was great - Magnolia28

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 an impressive chapter. It conveys a very readable and well constructed self-help message around the motivational aspects of weight-loss, and makes effective use of theory and research. The main area for improvement are some aspects of written expression.

Theory[edit source]

  1. The theoretical problem is well established.
  2. A mini-theories approach is used; focusing on SDT and incentives.
  3. Perhaps some initial overview of the theoretical perspective to be examined could be added.
  4. A nuanced, practical understanding of the theoretical implications is evident through useful tips and advice.

Research[edit source]

  1. The weight-loss problem is well demonstrated via prevalence statistics.
  2. Research is effectively used in relation to theories.
  3. Studies are well described and work particularly well as practical examples of the possibilities and challenges in motivating weight-loss.
  4. Size of effects is indicated for most studies.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. The chapter benefited from a well developed Introduction and particularly from a top-class Summary section Smiley.svg.
    2. Getting comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to further improve the chapter.
    3. Some paragraphs were overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
  2. Learning features
    1. Limited use of interwiki links
    2. Some, but limited use of images, tables, quiz etc.
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. Generally, well-written, easy to read style, but some aspects of grammar and proofreading could be improved (see my edits).
  4. APA style
    1. In-text citations were in good APA style.
    2. The reference list is close to APA style. Check spaces between initials and italics.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:58, 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, this is a solid, basic presentation, using text slides with narrated audio. The emphasis on the problem and take-home messages is excellent, with very well researched content. Perhaps be more selective about which content to cover, to allow for slower narration and perhaps the inclusion of some examples e.g., case study?

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Structure of content was well-organised e.g., establishment of problem and take-away messages, inclusion of book chapter link
  2. Content is well-researched and contains good advice, based on peer-reviewed research and theory.
  3. Perhaps use more examples.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Take longer pauses between sentences and slides to allow the information to sink on. This would also mean being more selective about what content to cover.
  2. Images could also be used.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Basic, but effective production quality, with text-slides, narrated audio, using Screenr
  2. Presentation is well-titled/labelled
  3. Also include a license for the presentation - would you consider using Creative Commons Attribution?

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)