Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Empowerment motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heading casing[edit source]

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic chapter which could be improved by using more primary, peer-reviewed academic sources and paraphrasing less textbook material and making more use of the interactive features of a wiki environment.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. A basic, cognitive description of empowerment is provided.
  2. The description of self-efficacy could be improved and clarified.
  3. In the Overview, perhaps a clear example of empowerment could be provided; as it is, it seems a bit wishy-washy, particularly with the lack of in-text citations.
  4. More extensive use of examples and case studies could help to improve the explanation of theory.

Research[edit source]

  1. The Reeve (2015) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources.
  2. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. Did you consult Ozer and Bandura (1990)? If not, don't cite it. I'm guessing that you didn't consult the original source and that the description of this study is paraphrased from the description in Reeve (2015).
  4. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the sample and possibly cultural context.
  5. When discussing 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. Add an Overview and Conclusion.
  2. Some of the text appears to be somewhat repetitive.
  3. Layout
    1. Use default heading styles; remove bold
    2. No figure, tables, links, or quizzes were used.
  4. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  5. APA style
    1. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for seriated journals.
    2. Put in-text citations in alphabetical order.
    3. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a very basic text-based slide presentation with recorded audio in a ppt file.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. The presentation could be improved by offering a more cogent description of empowerment, perhaps with examples. Without such information, it is difficult to much sense of the theoretical perspectives.
  2. The definition provided of self-efficacy is somewhat different from typical descriptions.
  3. Add more examples.
  4. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio is hesitant in places.
  2. No images are used.
  3. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The presentation should be playable online, without having to download and manually click throughout slides and audio icons.
  2. There is no obvious meta-data at the target URL to indicate the title, description, license, link back to the book chapter etc. Poor publication.
  3. Audio has some white noise - review microphone set-up.
  4. Slides are text-heavy; consider reducing text volume and increasing use of images.
  5. No link is provided back to the book chapter.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]