Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Attachment type and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi there, I found this resource regarding a developmental-functionalist theory of emotions in attachment type. Here is the link: hope you find this helpful U3117451 (discusscontribs) 02:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, interesting topic... During my research on Emotional intelligence for my chapter I came across a couple of journal articles that relate to attachment styles and EI. I think they would be helpful if you wanted to go that way with your chapter. Best of luck with your chapter :) (discusscontribs) 19:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, just had a look through your chapter: "Whichever suggested definition one selects, Zemach (2001) suggests that many theorists will fall into one of two opposing groups" this sentence is a little bit vague; perhaps you might consider rewording the first section to add some clarity? CheersU3117451 (discusscontribs) 01:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, You have a good outline of content but I think adding images will break up the text and make it easier and more inviting to read. You can do this going onto the wiki commons site simply search what you want an image of e.g hugging (to symbolise attachment), click on the image, copy the file name, go to your wikiversity book chapter, click insert>media>paste the file name>give it an APA style figure name. Hope this helps. :) I added one as an example. Hope this is okay U3115468 (discusscontribs) 02:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Good start to your chapter, can't wait to see the end result. I completed some minor spelling and grammatical errors, best of luck with the rest of the chapter! --U3090066 (discusscontribs) 17:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, I have re-read through your chapter and it is looking good. I fixed a few more grammar errors. One thing I would suggest is not to start sentences with things like "in which" as these are generally used mid-sentence and may confuse the reader. For example you have written "In which he identified five emotions; Enjoyment, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust." as a sentence on its own but it sounds incomplete. Just minor editing things. U3117451 (discusscontribs) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"He also argued a difference between biologically inherent processes and learned processes." I would consider the relevance of this sentence as there is no follow up on why this is important information or how it relates to the rest of the content.

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:25, 21 October 2016 (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.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient chapter which could be improved by reducing general background theory, focusing more on the specific problem, synthesising rather than describing theory and research, improving the quality of written expression, and making greater use of the potential of the Wikiversity editing environment.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  3. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Basic but sufficient.
    2. Explain why the topic is important.
    3. Consider including focus questions.
    4. Consider including an example or case study.
    5. Engaging example.
  2. Body
    1. Abbreviate the general theoretical material (e.g., about emotion and about AT) and provide references and links to further information. This would allow more space to apply the theories to the specific topic (AT and emotion) in more detail. As it is, the section "Attachment type's influence on emotion" starts about half through the chapter - it should be the focus earlier.
    2. More examples or case studies would be helpful.
    3. Somewhat integrated with research.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Weak; could be improved by succintly summarising the key points and providing take-home self-help message which address the chapter's focus questions.

Research[edit source]

  1. Several very useful/relevant research studies are described. They tend to be described one after the other. To improve the review of research, look for patterns and themes and try to synthesise the findings in order to convey a greater depth of understanding.
  2. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  3. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  4. Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  5. Was the Bowlby (1958) source directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Some paragraphs are overly long. Paragraphs should communicate a single key idea in about three to five sentences.
    2. Some sentences are overly long.
    3. Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless this information is particularly pertinent. Instead, provide the citation at the end of the sentence.
    4. Some clarification templates have been added to the page.
    5. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., above, below, as previously mentioned).
    6. For academic writing in psychology, such as this book chapter, write in third person rather than first (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our") or second (e.g., "you", "your" etc.) person perspective.
    7. The chapter somewhat addresses the topic and book theme but lacks practical take-home messages.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. The chapter is well-structured.
  3. Layout
    1. Add bullet-points for See also and External links.
    2. Some images are used, but the chapter could be improved by adding more images and/or tables/feature boxes.
    3. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
    4. Some Figure captions could be improved by making them more explanatory.
    5. Each section should start with at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Some integration with other chapters is evident.
  5. Learning features
    1. Some use of interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles - more could be added.
    2. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of commas (e.g., "For example" -> "For example, ").
  7. APA style
    1. Check and correct the use of "&" vs. "and" (Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets).
    2. Check and correct the APA style for how to report numbers (Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numbers (e.g., 10)).
    3. Put in-text citations in alphabetical order.
    4. The reference list is not in APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:09, 1 December 2016 (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[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.
  2. Overall, this is a simple, effective presentation.
  3. Overall, this is a solid presentation.
  4. Overall, this is a well prepared and executed presentation.
  5. Overall, this is a very well prepared and executed presentation.
  6. Overall, this is an excellent all-round presentation.
  1. The Multimedia topic differs from the Book Chapter topic. Frowny.svg
  1. Well over the 3 minute maximum time limit.
  2. Well under the 3 minute maximum time limit.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Too brief
    2. Add an Overview slide.
    3. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    4. An example could help to set the scene and engage the viewer.
    5. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Describe attachment types more briefly, so that most of the presentation can be focused on content related to AT and emotion.
    2. Like the book chapter, the content focused too heavily on describing AT; the presentation starts to address the target topic at 1:45.
    3. Theory rich; research poor.
    4. Doesn't clearly address a self-help theme.
    5. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Too brief/general - drill down to some practical, take-away messages.
    2. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Well narrated.
    2. Audio is reasonably clear and well-paced.
    1. Basic - approximately half a dozen text-based slides with some images.
    2. Increase font size to make text easier to read; reduce the amount of text.
    3. Consider including images, figures, and/or tables.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic, effective production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled - consider including subtitle in the youtube video title (helps users who are searching to decide on its relevance).
    2. Link to and from the book chapter provided.
    3. Good use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Good, clear
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.
    2. No images used, so no relevant licenses shown.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)