Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Jealousy as a motivator for sexual monogamy

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 is a basic but effective presentation - well done.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. A well designed and organised presentation. The presentation provides good overall coverage of what motivates sexual jealousy as well as a solid critique of the two related evolutionary and social theories/perspectives. However, it could be improved by simplifying the first half of the presentation and having a stronger focus on the research and theory behind the topic as this section appears rushed. As there is quite a lot of content covered, perhaps an overview slide or initial explanation of the presentation's structure would be helpful to the viewer. An important conclusion slide with a take-home messages about sex and love was included. In-text referencing to match the end of text reference list would improve the presentation as it is difficult for the viewer to establish whether the information is fact or personal opinion.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Communication is good and the visual presentation is basic yet effective. The presentation is generally well-paced however monotone at times – this could be improved by changing the tone of voice and expressions used when reading the slides aloud. The use of illustrative examples in the beginning of the presentation were extremely effective – continuing to use these throughout subsequent slide could have made the presentation more engaging.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The presentation had clear picture and audio quality and demonstrated effective use of a basic production tool to communicate ideas. The presentation was well read/rehearsed. No copyright license is provided for the presentation. No image attributions are provided. A link is provided to the book chapter on the first slide however the link is not clickable. A link is provided from the book chapter to the presentation. A reference list was provided.

RenaeLN (discusscontribs) 01:57, 21 November 2014 (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]

  1. Overall, this is a solid chapter.
  2. For more feedback, see these copyedits and comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory is well covered, with a critical examination of evolutionary theories.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research is reasonably well covered.
  2. Relevant studies could be described in more detail.
  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 directional referencing (e.g., above, below, as previously mentioned)
  2. Layout
    1. Tables and/or Figures were not used.
  3. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize -> hypothesise)
  4. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences needs improvement (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
  5. APA style
    1. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]