Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Coping with stigma

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 a basic chapter.
  2. It is well under the maximum word count.
  3. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  4. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.

Theory[edit]

  1. Reasonably solid Overview.
  2. Consider possibly including focus questions and/or a case study.
  3. Basic theory is well described, with a critical, balanced view.
  4. Several helpful examples or case studies were provided.
  5. The Conclusion provides a good summary. It could be improved by providing some more concrete, take-home messages.

Research[edit]

  1. Minimal review and description of relevant research.
  2. A lot of statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  4. 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]

  1. Written expression is OK, but more proofreading and polish to be of professional standard.
    1. Some paragraphs are overly long. Paragraphs should communicate a single key idea in about three to five sentences.
    2. The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., see where clarification templates such as [Rewrite to improve clarity], [explain?], [say what?], and [vague] may have been added to the page).
    3. Obtaining (earlier) comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. Each section should start with at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.
    2. The chapter is well-structured.
  3. Layout
    1. There is minimal use of images or tables.
    2. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. No integration with other chapters is evident. Frowny.svg
  5. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Spelling
    1. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  7. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of semi-colons.
  8. APA style
    1. Use APA style for table and figure captions.
    2. The reference list is not in full APA style.
    3. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:18, 28 November 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.
  2. Well over the 3 minute maximum time limit.


  1. Overall, this is a simple, effective presentation.
  2. Overall, this is a solid presentation.
  3. Overall, this is a well prepared and executed presentation.
  4. Overall, this is a very well prepared and executed presentation.
  5. Overall, this is an excellent all-round presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. OK
    2. An example could help to set the scene and engage the viewer.
    1. Too brief
    2. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    3. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
    4. Excellent
    5. Great - establishes the problem and its importance in a clear and understandable way.
  1. Selection and organisation
    1. A brief description of stigma (with examples) is probably needed before going into maladaptive and adaptive coping.
    2. Theory rich; research poor.
    3. What is behavioural therapy?
    4. Include citations.
    5. Addresses a self-help theme.
    6. Consider using more illustrative examples.
  2. Conclusion
    1. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit]

  1. Audio
    1. Well narrated.
    2. Audio is reasonably clear and well-paced.
    3. Varied intonation added interest and engagement.
  2. Visuals
    1. Basic - approximately half a dozen text-based slides with some images.
    2. Consider including images, figures, and/or tables.
    3. Visuals are clear and easy to read.

Production quality[edit]

  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. Expand the description field (e.g., provide a brief description of the presentation).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Good, clear
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Good, clear
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)