Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Habit theories and behaviour

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey, I cant tell what direction your taking yet but i just thought I would mention that Cloningers, biosocial model of personality and the temperament and character inventory- temperament has been linked with habit formation and maintenance. Here is one journal that talks about it Cloninger, C. R. (1994). Temperament and personality. Current opinion in neurobiology, 4(2), 266-273.. - i hope that helps --U3080948 (discusscontribs) 05:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have found some journal articles the connections between behaviour formation and habit, hope they are going to be helpful. another one with the title "How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world" published in 2010 on European Journal of Social Psychology--U3121927 (discusscontribs) 08:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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 22:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Structure[edit source]

Avoid having a single sub-section within a section; either add another sub-section or merge the content into the higher level section. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Amyreilly, pinging to make sure that you've received this feedback. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit source]

Hi there! Your chapter has a lot of great content so far, can I suggest adding more pictures to break it up a bit? and some pretty boxes! They make it look pretty :). Just watch some of your punctuation and grammar, make sure to proof read everything before you submit! also in your section called video games "I think most of us would be able to relate to hearing our mum's yelling at our younger siblings to "get off the xbox and go and play outside"." this statement is a little too informal, I would advise against using first person. Perhaps try something like [In today's society, most young people can relate to hearing their mothers stern voices to "get off the xbox! go play outside!" as an memorable part of childhood.] Just be weary of statements like these throughout your chapter, but you have covered a lot of great content :) good luck with the rest!--U3100166 (discusscontribs) 11:17, 23 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 solid chapter which could be improved by addressing structural issues and improving the quality of written expression by correcting grammar.
  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. Theory is well covered and explained.
  2. The Overview establishes the scope and importance of the topic.
  3. The case study(ies) is(are) helpful - more could be added.
  4. The Conclusion offers a succint summary and emphasises solutions.

Research[edit source]

  1. Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  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.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression is problematic.
    1. 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.
    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. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. [
    4. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
    2. Avoid sections with only one sub-section. A section should have no sub-sections or at least two sub-sections.
    3. Each section should include at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.
  3. Layout
    1. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
    2. There is minimal use of images and tables.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. The chapter provides several links to other Wikiversity pages.
  5. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of many sentences needs to be improved for the written expression to be of professional standard (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  7. APA style
    1. Check and correct the use of APA style for direct quotes.
    2. Check and correct the use of "&" vs. "and" (Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets).
    3. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:34, 16 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.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Excellent
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Too much informational content is presented - be more selective and use more examples - e.g., work backwards from 3 take-home messages to work out what content needs to be presented - and then focus on only that which is essential to conveying these messages.
    2. Well structured.
    3. Theory rich; basic coverage of research.
    4. Addresses a self-help theme.
    5. Include citations and references.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Well narrated, but gets faster and more monotonous along the way.
    2. Use greater intonation and longer pauses between sentences to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Visuals
    1. Text-based slides; good amount of information on each slide.
    2. Remove italics - will make text easier to read.
    3. Consider including more images, figures, and/or tables.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled - remove colon from prezi title.
    2. Add link to book chapter.
    3. Fill out the description field (e.g., brief description of presentation, link back to the book chapter, license details, and possibly include references, image attributions, and/or transcript).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Sufficient
    2. Some variation in volume/sound between slides
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is not indicated (i.e., in the meta-data or the visual presentation).

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)