Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation in athlete doping

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi, Page looks great. Just thought maybe for your overview when you outline the problem you could mention athletes as role models as an ethical concern. Perhaps touch on health risks associated with doping, for the individual, and for the opponents in contact sports like football and combat sports. Regards Brendan u3094046 --B Laurie (discusscontribs) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there.

I've noticed no one has added any contributions to your page and thought I could be of some assistance. Based on your title, I gather that you will focusing quite heavily on intrinsic versus extrinsic forms of motivation. In tutorials a few weeks ago, I remember James saying something about looking at Deci & Ryans (2000) taxonomy of motivation if you were focusing on either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. It is a really good starting point for looking at the continuum of motivation, rather than viewing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as two dichotomous states. I had a quick look through your reference list and noticed that you didn't have it listed as a reference.

Here is the full reference which you can easily access through Google Scholar, or alternatively, through a brief summary and model are provided in the Reeve (2015) textbook

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Hope this helps you somehow. Good luck with the chapter - looking forward to reading further --U3100481 (discusscontribs) 02:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Interesting topic. I have attached an article that uses the self-determination model to predict doping motivation and intention in young athletes. The article attempts to explain the relationship between motivation in a sporting context and motivation and the social-cognitive factors (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention) from the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in an anti-doping context. I hope it helps and look forward to reading your chapter. (discusscontribs) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello I have found an article discussing about psychological (intrinsic motivation, perfectionism) and social factors (eg,being in contact with someone also using doping)correlating with doping. (discusscontribs) 09:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback[edit source]

Good use of images! I love that you straight away explain doping in a very clear way. However, I would consider rephrasing this sentence "Doping is forbidden in majority of professional competitions, as it is a highly unethical practice that leads to unfairness and inequality in the field." I just think it sounds a bit clunky. Maybe you could say something like, "Doping is unethical as it leads to unfairness and inequality, and is thus forbidden in the majority of professional competitions."

I think you should reconsider you box that links to the anti-doping figures. It looks a bit out of place and I think it would work just as well if you included the link within the text.

This sentence "Motivation is described as being eager and activated towards different activities or behaviours." could be changed to sound a little more professional. "Motivation is defined as" sound better, I think.

Otherwise, an excellent chapter!

Cora --Cora.boyle (discusscontribs) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki links[edit source]

Consider adding more wiki links for key terms e.g,. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:26, 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 very well prepared chapter, with only minor areas for improvement.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory is particularly well covered. SDT is well explained, although TPB could be explained more clearly in relation to I-E motivation.
  2. The case study was helpful.

Research[edit source]

  1. Several very useful/relevant research studies are described, but the key studies could be described in more detail, including the method and effect sizes.
  2. Some of the challenges in measuring doping and doping intention might be discussed.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression is generally very good, although it could be improved in some places (e.g., see where clarification templates such as [Rewrite to improve clarity] and [explain?] may have been added to the page).
    1. The Overview and Conclusion are clear and well-written.
  2. Layout is effective.
  3. The chapter is well-structured.
  4. Tables and/or Figures are used effectively.
  5. Learning features
    1. The chapter makes excellent use of interwiki links to other book chapters and to relevant Wikipedia articles.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading are excellent.
    1. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  7. APA style
    1. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:34, 3 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 very well prepared and executed presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Excellent
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Strong focus on theory applied to the specific topic
    2. Research was well covered.
    3. Include citations.
    4. References are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Excellent.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Well scripted and narrated.
  2. Visuals
    1. The combination of images and text is effective.
    2. Increase font size to make text easier to read (minor issue).

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, excellent production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Link to the book chapter provided.
    3. Minimal but sufficient use of the Description field.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Quality OK but could be improved e.g., consider using an external microphone to improve audio recording quality.
  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. Creative Commons.
    2. The copyright licenses and sources of the images are indicated.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)