Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2013/Rumination

Heading casing

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use: ==Cats and dogs== rather than ==Cats and Dogs== -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, your chapter looks really good overall. Just a few things that got me:

• in your overview it says this book focuses on treatment on negative rumination and I wonder if you meant just your chapter within the wider context of the self help book looks at treatment
• Metacognitive doesn't seem right to me, for me i believe it should be meta-cognitive but this might be subjective
• You need to decide whether to use z or s in words which can have either as we are in australia with the usual s but i understand that american website (wiki) and research things might squew this
• Be sure to go back and put that reference in where you have () in the text :)
• I think the rumination scale table is a good inclusion but needs a bit more explaining
• Within the text a reference with multiple names need and not the & sign, that only goes in the brackets and reference list
• I'm not sure if the sentences being indented and then not in the self help section was purposeful but to me it looks much neater being all lined up, if this is not in accordance to APA formatting and it was supposed to be like that Im sorry
• I have also made some minor changes to the grammar
• Also 1 last thing, you are way over the word limit like 1600 words over

This was very good to read as I have no previous knowledge on rumination and as a university student it was easy enough to understand, not so sure about general public Kari2515 (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 1 November 2013 (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.

Overall Well done for producing an interesting chapter! The word limit has been exceeded. Theory Theory was well identified and explained in a way that demonstrated appropriate understanding of the concepts. The section on alternative explanations did cause some confusion, and may have been better excluded. To improve further, include some evidence of critical thinking. Research Research was presented at a level appropriate for the target audience. Some more research on some of the psychological treatments would be beneficial. Written expression The chapter is readable for an intelligent layperson. The strucutre could be improved, as it does not logically progress through ideas in some sections. Also, please try to remain within the word limit. ShaunaB (discuss • contribs)

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 Structure and content Key concepts are well identified, but could be described in more detail. Theory and research are well integrated. The flow of information is logical. Content appears to be accurate, and is of academic quality. Communication Verbal communication of ideas is clear and confident. Communication via visuals is unclear as a result of switching between screens. This also made the presentation less engaging. Inclusion of illustrative examples would benefit the chapter. Production quality Sound and picture quality are both good. Evidence of proficiency in visual production is not clearly demonstrated. Improvement in this area would increase professionalism of the presentation. ShaunaB (discuss • contribs)