Hey! Your chapter is amazing! I made a very minor change - added 'in this chapter' to the paragraph that states what will be investigated. You have made your chapter very interactive and there are a great amount of visuals. Additionally, the information you've included is extremely practical and applicable to the real world. I found your segment on nature deficit disorder really interesting! Good job! U3081523 (discuss • contribs) 06:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
It is unclear what the relevance of Hull's drive theory is to ART - this section could be skipped or significantly reduced.
The link between Maslow's hierarchy of needs and ART is weak/limited - this section could be skipped or significantly reduced.
No need to explain Stress Reduction Theory in so much detail - summarise more briefly. Although there are some similarities (they both focus on the positive psychological effects of nature), they are quite different theories and this chapter is about ART.
The biophilia hypothesis is discussed, but not linked to ART.
Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
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.
Did you directly consult Hull (1951), Cherry (1953), Olmsted (1865), James (1892) etc.? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).
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.
Incredibly well selected content and structured such that all theory, research, examples, and take-home messages that fit with the self-improvement theme are covered in a simple, easy to follow, interesting manner.
Citations and references are included.
Conclusion
Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.
