Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Self-consciousness and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Use of Subheadings / Theories[edit source]

Hey, based on the headings you've put up so far it looks like you haven't included any theories in your chapter, keep in mind that this is an important part of the chapter, in the author guidelines it's outlined that you need to "Provide a theoretical framework for the topic. Explain the relevance of one or more psychological theories and/or models. In general, aim to consider a small handful of relevant theories, although this will depend on the topic. Avoid relying on too few theories (e.g., being overly focusing on one theoretical approach) or too many theories (e.g., using lots of different theories, but with little depth)."

In regards to 'the self-conscious emotions' section, instead of having each emotion as a new heading list them as subheadings as this just makes it look more neat (use heading Level 3 for the 4 emotions).

U3083776 (discusscontribs)

Response to Moodle post[edit source]

In response to this Moodle post:

  1. Feel free to propose a different sub-title.
  2. Consider broadening the focus to self-awareness as self-consciousness can be considered as acute self-awareness. This may provide a broader theoretical and literature that can be drawn on. You can also focus on understanding the specific emotions related to self-consciousness. Each of these emotions could warrant (and may already have) their own chapters, so there should be ample material.
  3. Case studies can be real or hypothetical, based on previous descriptions e.g., from psychological literature or news stories, or from person experience or be constructed. They aren't necessary, but they are one example of an additional learning feature that can help to address the written expression component of the marking criteria.
  4. This paper may be of interest - http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=8810782236033565500&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

Let me know if I can do anything else. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:21, 24 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit source]

A good presentation. Well done!

Structure and content[edit source]

The flow of the presentation is good. The structure is generally good, but feels a bit stagnant in sections (i.e. spending most of the time defining concepts, rather than exploring more deeply). Self-awareness and self-consciousness are well defined.

Communication[edit source]

A level of mastery over the content is demonstrated. It was nice to see you presenting the information - the presentation became more engaging as a result. Despite that, it would still have been beneficial to provide some more text on the slides to re-enforce the verbal information.

Production quality[edit source]

Quality of audio and images are good. The presentation had a professional feel.

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 was an ambitious chapter, with a lot of interesting/useful theory, but lacking in relevant research. The topic was changed without consultation. For more feedback, see my copyedits and comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Considerable philosophical and psychological theory is considered. The nature of the topic, however, made it difficult to integrate theory and practical recommendations.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research was covered, but could be further emphasised.
  2. 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 was reasonably good. It could be improved by simplifying the language and concepts for a layperson audience.
    1. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
  2. Learning features
    1. A few images were used; more could be included.
    2. The text could become more interactive by including interwiki links.
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading were generally good.
  4. References were not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)