Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Video game addiction motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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]

  1. Overall, this is an impressive book chapter which tackles a novel, contemporary topic and successfully integrates theory and research to address the motivational causes of video game addiction. The chapter is well written, although it could be improved through more proofreading, providing more interwiki links, and making use of images. See comments below and my copyedits for further feedback.

Theory[edit]

  1. Theory is particularly well explained and integrated with research and practical recommendations.

Research[edit]

  1. Research is well covered. The critical approach is excellent.
  2. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  3. Research statements were well cited.

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression
    1. The chapter is well structured and written - it makes is very readable and interesting for a self-help audience.
    2. Title and link to multimedia presentation were missing.
    3. Excellent overview and conclusion.
    4. Proofreading could be improved - see my copyedits.
    5. Avoid directional referencing e.g., "As previously mentioned"
  2. Learning features
    1. Adding interwiki links would make the text more interactive.
    2. More images would make the chapter would interesting and help to provide examples.
  3. Spelling, grammar and proofreading
    1. Use Australian spelling e.g., recognize -> recognise
    2. The grammar for some sentences could be improved - see the [grammar?] tags
    3. Semi-colons are over-used
    4. Check grammar for singular and plural in the same sentence e.g., "an individual" and "they" (should be s/he)
    5. individuals that -> individuals who
  4. APA style
    1. Did you consult the original sources such as Maslow (1943) and Csikszentmihalyi (1975)? If not, don't cite them.
    2. In-text citations should be in alphabetical order - e.g., Poels, Cock & Malliet, 2012; Olson, 2010; Yee, 2006
    3. When there are three or more authors, subsequent citations should use et al. e.g., Smith, Bush and Western (2001) and then in the next paragraph cite Smith et al. (2001).

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:03, 11 November 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]

Overall, this is a well structured presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

The structure is clear. Four important theories are put forward. Research is presented throughout. It would be useful to refer to specific researchers; particularly those who are prominent within the field. Well done for including some 'solutions', based on the literature. Some illustrative examples could have also been included.

Communication[edit]

Communication is quite good. The voice-over is well paced, with good intonation and pauses between sentences and slides. The slides are basic. It may have been useful to include one slide per theory. Including images and figures would also be beneficial.

Production quality[edit]

Basic production tools are used effectively. The audio quality is good, although perhaps slightly too quiet. The visuals are clear. No copyright license information is provided. A link back to the chapter is not provided.

ShaunaB (discusscontribs) 08:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)