Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Music and exercise motivation

Comments

Great topic! I always use music to motivate and push myself, without it I know I won't work as hard. Would be interesting to see if certain music genres are more likely to motivate than others? --JessicaClareHunt (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

i think your topic sounds really interesting. i found some articles that may help you, this one talks about the intensity of music in relation to ht intensity of the workout, it also mentions differences between athletes preferred music intensity and just normal people http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=1ba90004-0dee-424a-94ff-34cf50c1c5fa%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4101&bdata=#db=pdh&AN=2013-43359-001. this article looks at the effects on music and exercise if you have the choice to listen to the music you want and like http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=17&sid=1ba90004-0dee-424a-94ff-34cf50c1c5fa%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4101&bdata=#db=s3h&AN=82210840. hope this helps --Hynes08 (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Interactive Activity Error Fixed

Thanks for the feedback and great resources. im just letting everyone know that the poll to see which genre people like most to use when exercising is fixed with an external link.

--irwin13 (discuss • contribs) 06:00, 27 October 2014

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 08:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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 Overall, a good presentation. Well done. Structure and content This appears to be the strongest element of the presentation. The structure is good. Research and theory are well integrated. The flow is logical, however the transition from one idea to the next could be more fluid (i.e. using linking sentences, rather than reading out each slide title). Less detailed content could be covered so as to more carefully emphasise and illustrate the key points. Communication Communication is clear. The voice-over is too fast throughout, making the presentation feel rushed. Text on slides could have been larger. The presentation could be improved by writing a voice-over script which is separate to text on the slides. This would make it much more engaging. Incorporating more images would also be beneficial. Production quality Image quality is good. Audio quality is good, but there is a slight echo. Improving on some of the above points would help to give the presentation a more professional feel. No indication of copyright licence was 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.

Overall Overall, this is a solid, interesting chapter, which also has several areas for potential improvement. For more feedback, see my copyedits and comments below. Theory Considerable coverage is provided of different theoretical perspectives. The discussions about CET and SDT lacked precision/clarity in relation to music. There is a lack of considering about how music influences cognitive evaluations and self-determination. There is no Conclusion. Research Several relevant research studies, but more details could be presented. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Some statements were unreferenced - see the tags Written expression The written expression is often problematic. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences. The chapter would benefit from a more developed Overview and Conclusion, with clearer focus question(s) (Overview) and take-home self-help message for each focus question (Conclusion). Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences. The quality of written expression could be improved where clarification templates have been added to the page. Layout Headings could be more descriptive e.g., "Theory" See earlier comments about heading casing There was limited use of Tables and/or Figures. Captions were not in APA style. Learning features The text could become more interactive by including interwiki links. Spelling, grammar and proofreading Some colloquialisms could be reworded e.g., "look at" -> "examine" Check/correct use of ownership apostrophes e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals' Check/correct use of semi-colons The grammar for some sentences could be improved - see the tags APA style Direct quotes need page numbers. Check/correct APA style for in-text citations; The reference list is not in APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)