Chapter review and feedback
- Overall, this is a solid chapter which could be improved by paying greater attention to the quality of written expression.
- For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
- Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.
- It would be helpful to distinguish Dweck's mindsets from other theoretical conceptualisations of mindsets (e.g., the ones described in Reeve (2015).
- The growth vs. fixed mindset is well explained.
- The Overview and Conclusion are clear and focused to theory and research and the book theme.
- Table 1 is a helpful summary.
- The case study(ies) and/or examples is(are) helpful.
- A good range of studies are cited, but the results for some key studies could be described in more detail.
- 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.
- Written expression is reasonable but could be significantly improved in many places.
- Obtaining (earlier) comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
- Write in third person rather than first person (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our", "your" etc.).
- The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., see where clarification templates such as , , , and may have been added to the page).
- The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
- Structure and headings
- Avoid sections with only one sub-section. A section should have no sub-sections or at least two sub-sections.
- No images and 1 tables was used - the chapter could be improved by adding more images.
- Integration with other chapters
- No integration with other chapters is evident .
- Learning features
- Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
- Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
- Spelling could be improved - see the tags.
- Grammar and proofreading
- The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags).
- APA style
- Use APA style for table and figure captions.
- Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.
- When there are three or more authors, subsequent citations should use et al. (e.g., Smith, Bush and Western (2001) first and and then Smith et al. (2001) subsequently).
- 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)).
- The reference list is not in full APA style.
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.
- Overview sets up the problem to be solved.
- Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
- Selection and organisation
- Basic coverage of theory and research.
- Include key citations and references.
- OK, but summarise the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.
- Audio is well-paced, with good intonation.
- Visuals are minimal, basic, and text-based.
- Overall, basic production.
- Well titled.
- Add a link to the book chapter.
- 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).
- Audio recording quality
- Poor due to distortion and low volume.
- Consider using an external microphone to improve audio recording quality.
- Image/video recording quality
- Effective use of simple tools.
- A copyright license for the presentation is not indicated (i.e., in the meta-data or the visual presentation).
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)