Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Defense mechanism motivation

References

Hi, Looking good so far! I just thought I'd let you know, in your reference list, textbooks are considered a secondary rather than primary source of information therefore they are usually not acceptable to use as a reference. This is my understanding anyway, you probably already know this, I just thought I'd mention it. :) Good luck with the rest of you chapter! Tigeralee (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Represssion and denial

Hello, I just had a look at your chapter and it looks like it is coming together quite well. Just a few suggestions. Could you focus more on the defence mechanisms of repression and denial? From what I remember of the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theories is that repression is the cornerstone of defence mechanisms as it attempts to stop or alleviate neurotic anxiety. I might be wrong, but as it is important maybe it could be focused on. Also denial is according to Freud and Anna Freud is one of the first defence mechanisms? Maybe focus on how an individual develops their mechanisms in a temporal explanation? Your examples with the classifications of defence mechanisms are also great and make sense. Except I don't the the example of regression completely fit. As regression is moving to an earlier state, your example more fit with denial or fantasy I thought. Maybe an example of regression is a young adult feeling high neurotic anxiety over the responsibilities of adulthood so regresses to teenager behaviour as his parents looked out for him more? Or something like that if that makes sense. Going really well though, good luck! :) Ccgmjb (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Defense vs. defence

Also isn't the Australian spelling of 'Defense' Defence? As the assessment page says to use Australian spelling, should your page title conform to that? :) Ccgmjb (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

I made a few grammatical changes that can be viewed here. I agree that you could use some more empirical literature (rather than the textbook) to support your statements. Also, when you list the different defense mechanisms you refer to ‘they’ – this may need a reference? Your use of figures as examples of defence mechansims is excellent; however, you still need to change these to APA formatting (Figure 1. etc). U3083676 (discuss • contribs) 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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 22:45, 12 November 2015 (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 a reasonable chapter which could be improved by more closely addressing the question (what motivates use of DMs?) and drawing on more primary sources (over-reliance on the textbook). For more feedback see [ these copyedits] and the comments below. Theory Theory was reasonably well explained, although more could be said about why defense mechanisms are employed at all. When the levels of DM are described, several DMs are listed without any definition/explanation/or link to further information. Some examples or case studies could be a helpful addition (e.g., to the discussion of the 4 levels). Research Research review was somewhat minimal, although a couple of relevant studies are described. To improve the chapter, this material could be expanded. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the sample and possibly cultural context. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the tags) The Reeve (2015) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources. Written expression Written expression The overall quality of written expression was reasonable, but there was also room for improvement (e.g., see the copyedits by myself and others and the clarification templates that have been added to the page). Layout The chapter was well presented. Several useful Figures were included; APA style figure captions should be added. See earlier comments about heading casing Learning features The chapter makes basic use of interwiki to some relevant Wikipedia articles; linkage to other book chapters could be provided. Quiz questions were used to encourage reader engagement. Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize -> hypothesise) Grammar and proofreading The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals') Use abbreviations such as "e.g." inside brackets and "for example" outside brackets Check and correct the use of abbreviations (such as "e.g.," and "i.e.,") Check and correct the use/non-use of ownership apostrophes. APA style Direct quotes need page numbers. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:11, 13 November 2015 (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 see the 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.

Overall Overall, this is a solid presentation. Structure and content Theory is well explained. No review of research is presented. More concrete take-home messages could be offered. The presentation doesn't necessarily address the relationship between motivation and DMs (it more about DMs in general). Communication Audio is clear and well-paced, with varied intonation. Visuals are clear and easy to read. Consider including more images. The one diagram that is presented is too small to read. Production quality Overall, well produced using simple tools. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter). Expand the description field (e.g., brief description of presentation, link back to the book chapter, license details, and possibly include references and image attributions). The copyright licenses and sources for the images used is not indicated - there may have been copyright violation unless you own the copyright to the images used or these were public domain images. A copyright license for the presentation is not indicated (i.e., in the description or in the presentation slides). No link is provided back to the book chapter.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)