Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Goal conflict and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi, I read through your text and think you're off to a good start. Your paragraph is a little bit confusing for me, but this may simply be a case of missing a comma or two. It would be good if you could rephrase and make it a little clearer for your audience. All the best, and look forward to reading more of your chapter as you build it up U3083503 (discusscontribs) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

APA style captions for images and tables[edit source]

I recommend using APA style captions i.e., Figure 1, Figure 2 etc. for all images, graphs etc. and Table 1, Table 2 etc. for all tables. The caption text should not be in italics. For more detail and examples, see -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:16, 28 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]

  1. Overall, this was an interesting presentation - well done.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. A well designed and organised presentation. The content provides a good overall coverage of goal conflict and related research, but it could be improved by integrating more theory and by focusing more directly on the impact of emotions and affective consequences. Perhaps an overview slide or initial explanation of the presentation's structure would be helpful to the viewer who isn't sure what will be covered. The relationship between goal conflict and goal setting (slide towards the end) wasn’t clear. A conclusion slide with take-home messages could have been useful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Communication is good and the visual presentation is basic but effective. Vocal intonation is good; the voice is easy and interesting to listen to, and is generally well-paced. There was a tendency to read out the text on some slides. The presentation displayed good use of illustrative examples but a more engaging presentation style could have been used. More use of images could help to make the presentation more interesting.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The presentation had clear picture and audio quality and demonstrated effective use of a basic screencast to communicate ideas. The presentation could have been improved in quality if the script had been mistake free (rehearsed some more). No copyright license is provided for the presentation. No image attributions are provided. No link is provided to the book chapter. A link is provided from the book chapter to the presentation. No reference list was provided.

RenaeLN (discusscontribs) 01:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[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.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter provides basic, but sufficient theory and research; written expression is below acceptable professional standard.
  2. For more feedback, see these copyedits and comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Sufficient coverage.
  2. The detail about the limbic brain structures is unnecessary. Abbreviate, link to more information, and emphasise how this relates to the topic (i.e., goal conflict and emotion)

Research[edit source]

  1. Sufficient coverage
  2. Avoid dictionary definitions; use primary, peer-reviewed sources
  3. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  4. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Avoid first person (e.g., "we"); use third person
    2. The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., where clarification templates have been added to the first one third or so the page).
    3. More examples or case studies could help to illustrate key points.
  2. Layout
    1. A couple of images were used; their size could be increased to aid viewability.
    2. More Tables and/or Figures could be added.
  3. Learning features
    1. The text could become more interactive by including interwiki links.
  4. Spelling
    1. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags
  5. Grammar and proofreading
    1. Proofreading needed; e.g., some spaces are missing (e.g., "response(Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2007)")
    2. The grammar of some sentences need to be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
  6. APA style
    1. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    2. Check/correct APA style for in-text citations
    3. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numbers (e.g., 10)
    4. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]