Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Stress inoculation

Comment

The basis of your work looks both effective and information. I wondered however if you would consider examining religion as a stress reliever? This might be a different view that you had not previously thought of. Religious coping has various psychological underpinnings that may be of interest. Keep up the great work JacquelineSpence (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Really interesting

I found this a very interesting and easy to understand article. I like the way you have used text boxes to break out key points and definitions. There were some formatting issues with the header, with the header box overlapping with the table of contents box which made the table of contents hard to read so I have fixed this formatting up for you. I did find that with text boxes placed on both the left and the right throughout the article at times I found it a bit hard to follow as my eyes had to jump all over the place - but that may be just me. I liked the way you drew attention to the links to relevant videos. I also wondered whether you wanted to consider inserting some relevant photographs to bring it to life - perhaps even photos of people in stressful situations, and you can use the caption to explain how stress innoculation could assist. I thought the quiz was a good way of reinforcing the main points. Cdrake2014 (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful Book Chapter

I found your work, easy to read and understand and it flows really well. I understand the previous point on images however I was thinking that it looks much neater without then and the little images you have keep your chapter eye catching and visually appealing. I think you have a good about of links however if you read it through and try find key works or ideas that you wouldn't know about without doing this chapter, such as cognitive appraisal theory or even one of the common authors for this subject and make them have a link within the text also. You do have enough, do not get me wrong but for someone that doesn't know anything about the topic it would be so helpful to have all those thinks a click away saving time from googling the things I don't understand. This is such a great chapter and so interesting, wonderful job! --Jessiek86 (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Hey! Just had a read through of your chapter and it looks great! I too, thought it was easy to read and love the 'pit-stops' of info throughout. And I love the amount of interactive components you've got. The only thing I could possibly think of was that you could possibly add in some more hyperlinks if you wanted to for things such as depression and anxiety. Other than that, I think it's really good! --U3072703 (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Great chapter. I really enjoyed the layout and use of multimedia to make it really easy to interact with. I also agree with using links to help define and give added information about some of the terms. Overall great! it has given me some more ideas ;)--Dsalvestro (discuss • contribs) 07:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi

Just a couple of suggestions:

You refer to the chapter as 'article' in one spot, it might be better to refer to it as 'chapter'.

I love the graphics, but are you able to make the ones on the take home points a little smaller? They are great, but they may detract a little.

This sentence: Others, again, view stress in a negative light and consequently experience stress in its destructive form, which often has an adverse effect on the person’s health and well-being (Lazarus, 2006). - I think it may read better if you take the 'again' out.

This sentence: Psychological responses to negative stress events can include..., I think it may read better as either 'Psych responses to stressful events.... If you're going to use 'negative' then you may need to elaborate on negative and positive types of stress.

This sentence: The study further revealed the robust nature of stress inoculation as an intervention, and that as little as one stress inoculation session could have a small-to-moderate beneficial effect. - I wonder if it would read better saying 'as an intervention showing small to moderate beneficial effects with as little as one stress inoculation session.

I wonder if your 'Key Terms' would be better placed higher up. It might give people a 'heads up' about what the chapter is about before they go more in depth, and it would also make sense to give a brief overview of 'stressor' before the box elaborating further.

Other than that (and I really feel like I'm nit picking - because your chapter is awesome) the only thing you could possibly add (if I'm searching for things) would be to outline how it could be used a little more in your conclusion.

Generally, it reads really, really well, the information is provided in an logical and easy to understand manner. Love the graphics and colours. You've done an amazing job!!!

Chels CFD (discuss • contribs) 08:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply Hey Chelsi, Thanks for the feedback. I know what you mean with the key points box, and I did actually try to put it somewhere else initially, but it threw the layout out a bit. At the moment I think the yellow box between the two blue boxes breaks it up a bit ...and if I move it the take-home message 1 and 2 will be too close to each other as well. So I opted to just leave it there for now. Thanks for the input though. Linssen (discuss • contribs) 04:48, 28 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, this is a good presentation - well done. Structure and content The presentation provides a comprehensive explanation of stress inoculation with a strong practical emphasis on how stress inoculation training works and how it can be used. Although the practical focus taken in explaining stress inoculation and how it can be used was very interesting, it meant that there appeared to be little focus on related theory and research (a key purpose/focus of the presentation). In-text referencing would improve the presentation as at times it is difficult for the viewer to establish whether the information is fact or personal opinion. Logical flow between concepts was demonstrated and the treatment and self-help focus was a nice way to end the presentation. Communication Clear communication of ideas using voice and image was displayed. The verbal component of the presentation was well-paced and engaging, however, speaking at a louder volume would have improved communication even more. The presentation displayed good use of pictures, diagrams and tables to build on the verbal content delivered. Additional usage of colour, illustrative examples or a case study could have been more engaging for the viewer. Production quality The presentation had good picture and audio quality and demonstrated effective use of a basic production tool to communicate ideas. The presentation had an element of professionalism about it with minimal mistakes made. A reference list was provided however not as part of the presentation – including the reference list on the last slide rather than as a link would have improved the presentation. A link to and from the book chapter was provided. A standard youtube license was also provided

RenaeLN (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to multimedia feedback

In the section pertaining to production quality it was commented "A reference list was provided however not as part of the presentation – including the reference list on the last slide rather than as a link would have improved the presentation."

This is a valid comment, however, I based my decision to add a link to the book chapter reference list on a reply left by James on moodle, which stated "References could be provided in the presentation, in the presentation description, or a link could be provided to the book chapter references". I chose to do the latter. Did I misunderstand James' comment?

Linssen (discuss • contribs) 02:50, 25 November 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.

Overall Overall, this is an exceptionally good chapter - congratulations. The chapter is particularly well argued, using theory and research to practical ends. The chapter is also very well presented in a wiki format. Theory Theory is well described, with a focus on SIT and its development and application in different formats. Perhaps there is a lack of comment about risks and potential downsides, and/or theoretical argument against or alternatives to a SIT approach (i.e., some devil's advocate) Research Research is well described. Perhaps this could be better summarised in the conclusion. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects (esp. in meta-analyses) in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Perhaps some statements need better referencing e.g., see the tags Written expression Written expression is excellent. The chapter is very well structured and organised and very well presented using Wikiversity. Interwiki links are used effectively. Spelling, grammar and proofreading Use Australian spelling e.g., hypothesize -> hypothesise APA style Do not report issue numbers for seriated journals (i.e., journals with continuous numbering within a volume

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)