Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2013/Transactional model of stress and coping

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 05:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

I was just having a glance at your book chapter and it looks great. Although just some minor feedback. The sentence I have pasted below is a little bit 'wordy' and difficult to understand. You may like to consider rephrasing it or breaking it into two sentences to make it easier to read/ understand :)

"The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping is a framework which emphasises appraisal to evaluate harm, threat and challenges that assists the process of coping with stressful events (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) and this theory was first published by Richard Lazarus in 1996."

U3037401 (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent feedback. Thank you, much appreciated. I have made changes. Miss Lyn 12 (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Psychopathology and stress

Hey,

You probably don't have room now, but I'm sure I remember reading that maladaptive stress patterns have been linked to mental illnesses. If you're striving for a couple of hundred words and need a quick fix, check the DSM-V. GerardeC (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 2 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 Overall, this is a solid chapter which succeeds in providing a thorough summary and overview of L&F's transactional model. Theory Theory is well explained and covered. Perhaps more examples could help to bring the theory to life. Perhaps a visualisation of the transactional model could help to convey the theory? Research Relevant research is cited, although the reference list seems somewhat short - are all citations included? What about more recent research? Written expression The chapter is well-written, with relatively minor areas for improvement (see below for suggestions and my copyedits). The self-help focus perhaps could be extended further to encourage self-reflection and take-home messages. The info about CBT is helpful - but how can a reader apply this to their own life? Several in-text wiki-links are provided. More in-text wiki-links could be added e.g., to emotions such as anxiety. Image captions could provide more detail. Sometimes shorter sentences could be used. In-text citations are used appropriately, with close referencing of work by Lazarus and Folkman. Use ampersand in brackets. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. More examples might help to bring the model to life? Some extra features are added e.g., link to a stress test, but perhaps more could be added.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:26, 3 December 2013 (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 Overall, this is an effective presentation which makes good use of basic tools. Structure and content Excellent introduction - engaging, with practical examples. Perhaps an overview of the presentation structure would be helpful. Theory is mentioned (e.g., transactional model, but also briefly CBT/therapy). No mention of research? Individual differences is considered/respected. Self-help focus was good. What were the take-home messages/tips? Communication Communication in text and voice was clear. Speaking voice was well-paced, with varied intonation. Production quality Each slide contained a relatively small amount of text (good) which was easy to read, with large font and highlight of keywords. Perhaps some diagrammatic presentation of the model could be useful. Audio was loud (good) and reasonably clear. There was perhaps a slight muffle (mic too close?). Effect use was made of screen. The copyright license for the presentation isn't clear.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)