Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Punishment as a motivator

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 good presentation - well done.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. A well designed and organised presentation. The multimedia presentation does a competent job of informing the viewer about punishment and about motivation, however, the link between what punishment and motivation (what motivates people to punish?) could be made clearer. The presentation spends a lot of time discussing a detailed overview of punishment and not enough time discussing relevant theory and research on what motivates people to punish. Drawing on more of the theory and research from the book chapter would have improved the presentations content. The content itself is somewhat dry (academic) and could be improved by including case studies and other examples. A both overview and conclusion slides are provided. 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 basic but good. The audio component is well-paced. There is good usage of images and colour on slides to engage the viewer. Additional usage of illustrative examples, interactive slides and questions posed to the audience would improve the presentation some more. There was quite a lot of verbal audio material compared to visual material in the slides, more of a balance (e.g., slightly less audio material spoken more slowly with richer use of visual aids) would also improve the presentation.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The presentation had good picture quality and demonstrated good use of a basic production tool (screenr) to communicate ideas. Audio quality, however, could have been improved significantly by using a clearer voice at a bigger distance from the microphone as there is a significant vibration throughout the audio that occurs after speaking – this is very distracting. A creative commons license is provided. A reference list is provided. A link is provided from the book chapter to the presentation, however, no link is provided to the book chapter from the presentation.

RenaeLN (discusscontribs) 02:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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 06:19, 8 December 2014 (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.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

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 argued and well covered.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research is reasonably well covered, although explaining key studies in more detail would be helpful.
  2. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., above, below, as previously mentioned)
    2. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
  2. Layout
    1. Images and boxes are well used.
  3. Learning features
    1. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added as external links - these should be changed to interwiki links
  4. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences needs improvement (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
    2. Use abbreviations such as "e.g." inside brackets and "for example" outside brackets
  5. APA style
    1. Add APA style captions to tables and figures.
    2. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
    3. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)