Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Collective action for social change motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback[edit source]

This chapter is very easy to read and follow. I have made some adjustments in the form of fixed typos, added punctuation, and broken up some long sentences into shorter ones. It is now just after 9am, and I have not finished reviewing and editing your chapter. I wish I got to your chapter sooner, because I don't think any changes made from now on will not count towards your final mark. I will keep going though.

Hope this helps.

Linssen (discusscontribs) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: This is a confusing sentence. I would probably break it up into two sentences. It's not quite clear what you were trying to say here: "Perhaps an indication that these motives are stronger when the disadvantage is not endemic in the social or political structures and that they are more effective because the barrier to change might not be so difficult to overcome."

Linssen (discusscontribs) 22:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: The following sentences: A fact that both studies recognised and aligned with the dynamic nature of social action. Context remains critical to our explanatory power.

It is not quite clear how these two sentences follow on from the previous bits of paragraph. It sounds disjointed from the rest of the paragraph. Also, what fact were you referring to?

Linssen (discusscontribs) 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update Apart from doing some major restructuring of some of your sentences and paragraphs in the section "What about collective action on behalf of others?" (as I could kind of make sense of what you were trying to say, but it was very disjointed and sentences were very long and confusing in places) the following sentences I am unclear of:

A study using non-Muslim Dutch university students examined attitudes to discrimination against Muslim nationals (study 1). Are you talking about the Zomeren, Postmes, Spears and Bettache's (2011) study still? If so, you will have to restate this sentence. You may have to say something like: "In their study, Zomeren et al. examined two particular group situations..... The first study was conducted using non-Muslim Dutch...." or something to that effect, because at the moment it sounds as if you are referring to another study by someone else and the bit in braces needs to read something like (see study 1 in Zomeren et al., 2011).

A finding that is consistent with Thomas, Mavor and McGarty’s (2012) analysis supporting alternative causal pathways for efficacy and injustice. Not sure what you are saying here. Was the previous study's finding consistent with that of Thomas et al. (2012)?? If so you will have to restate this sentence. "Zomeren and collegues' results were however consistent with that of...." Or something like that.

Linssen (discusscontribs) 01:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've just finished reviewing your chapter. I fixed a few minor typos and some punctuation in the last two sections :) It was most definitely a very interesting read and I enjoyed reading it. Overall I think you did a great job! Your layout also looks very clean and neat. Well done!!

Linssen (discusscontribs) 02:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via 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, this is a very informative presentation that is delivered confidently and fluently. Congratulations.

Structure and content[edit source]

Content has been very well selected and is structured in a fluent and logical way. Theory and research are beautifully integrated - well done. Tips on how to get people moving are well-grounded in research, and make the presentation particularly practical. The presentation ran over-time, and only 5 minutes of the content has been taken into consideration. A concluding slide would have been useful.

Communication[edit source]

Communication is good. The voice-over is is slightly too fast, but uses good expression and confidence to increase listener engagement. The slides are generally very good, with a good amount of information provided on each. The use of figures helped to re-enforce the information being provided verbally. More images could be included.

Production quality[edit source]

Basic production tools are used effectively. The audio quality is very good. The visuals are generally clear, with the exception of some slides where the text is a little too small. A link to the book chapter is provided. No copyright licence information is provided.

ShaunaB - Talk

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 chapter would benefit from considerable reworking and rewriting so as to be more accessible and interesting to a layperson. For more feedback, see my copyedits and comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. The focus of the chapter could be better established in the Overview.
  2. The Overview could be improved by providing a clearer outline of the relevant theories to be covered.
  3. Collective action isn't clear defined; thus, the problem/focus of the chapter isn't entirely clear.

Research[edit source]

  1. Several research studies are described; the relevance of each of these studies to the chapter's focus questions could be better explained.
  2. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  3. Some statements were unreferenced - see the [factual?] tags

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression was problematic. It could be improved by simplifying and summarising the academic content - and emphasising the translation of relevant theory and research to practical, every day situations - e.g., What does this mean for the layperson? "If a social identity can be based on something other than experienced disadvantage, then it is conceivable that an altruistic identity might be created by altruistic social and cultural contexts."
    1. The Overview could be improved by establishing some clear focus questions and introducing a case study.
    2. Some paragraphs were overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    3. Some sentences were overly long."
    4. The Reeve (2009) textbook was over-used as a citation; try to use primary sources.
    5. Avoid sections which contain only one paragraph; consider merging short sections; the structure and flow could be removed by reducing the number of different sections.
    6. Some statements could be explained more clearly - see the [explain?] tags
  2. Layout
    1. Tables and/or Figures could be used more effectively.
  3. Learning features
    1. The text could become more interactive by including more interwiki links.
  4. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved - e.g., see the [grammar?] tags
    2. Check/correct comma usage
    3. Check/correct consistent capitalisation
  5. APA style is excellent.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]