Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2013/Needs

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Satisfying needs[edit source]

Hello there! Just thought I could provide you with a reference in terms of satisfying needs :) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s004060170033, it might be useful in comparing needs and satisfaction. Just a few thoughts :) Good luck with your chapter! Pheonix (discusscontribs) 11:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Just found a source to help you with answering 'What types of needs are there?' I think its a straight to the point good document:) It suggest four types of needs; normative need, expressed need, comparative need and felt need. Heres the link, hope it helps: http://www.each.com.au/images/uploads/what_are_the_types_of_needs.pdf Verity Foster-Greenwood (discusscontribs) 01:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, you could also talk about Maslows heirarchy of needs and draw off that, is it outdated? is it completely relevant? Have needs been altered as a result of an evolving society. Would the hierarchy be different in other cultures (individualistic vs. collectivist) Just a few thoughts. Olivia Poscoliero (discusscontribs) 12:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit source]

Hello! Just seeing if you will be covering the basic psyhcological needs of Competence, Relatedness, and Autonomy? If so I will provide a link to your page in my chapter! --Bridgiedidge (discusscontribs) 03:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Overall[edit source]

A good attempt – see comments below.

Theory[edit source]

The chapter covered several models which was great to see. There was some evidence of critical analysis which was lovely – continue working on this skill with all models for future improvement

Research[edit source]

The chapter would benefit from a wider array of research and integration with theory. The chapter would also benefit from an opening and conclusive paragraph to set the scene and tie everything together.

Written expression[edit source]

The chapter could use work on written expression. There were some grammatical and punctuation issues, a thorough edit before submission can help this.

The learning features included some links and figures, well done. For future improvement try adding an interactive feature such as a quiz and some in text links. The APA style could use some work,remember to include APA style for figures, refresh on the in text citation rules and include doi’s or web addresses for each reference, good jobCourtney.reis (discusscontribs)


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]

Overall a great effort, well done!

Structure and content[edit source]

The presentation had good coverage of theory, however it would benefit in the future from inclusion of more of the research and self help applications from the chapter. A conclusion at the end may help the presentation flow better

Communication[edit source]

The presentation made good use of prezi, and was quite creative, good work. The presentation was well paced. For future improvement, include some more interactive features such as images or even a case study to help further engage the viewer.

Production quality[edit source]

The quality of the presentation was sound, well done. The audio quality was quite fuzzy and it seemed to cut out and come back at points. Remember to include references (this slide didn’t come up) and licensing information. Great effort! Courtney.reis (discusscontribs)