Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Mindsets and motivation

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 source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid chapter which could be improved by paying greater attention to the quality of written expression.
  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. It would be helpful to distinguish Dweck's mindsets from other theoretical conceptualisations of mindsets (e.g., the ones described in Reeve (2015).
  2. The growth vs. fixed mindset is well explained.
  3. The Overview and Conclusion are clear and focused to theory and research and the book theme.
  4. Table 1 is a helpful summary.
  5. The case study(ies) and/or examples is(are) helpful.

Research[edit source]

  1. A good range of studies are cited, but the results for some key studies could be described in more detail.
  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 reasonable but could be significantly improved in many places.
    1. Obtaining (earlier) comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
    2. Write in third person rather than first person (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our", "your" etc.).
    3. 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).
    4. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. Avoid sections with only one sub-section. A section should have no sub-sections or at least two sub-sections.
  3. Layout
    1. No images and 1 tables was used - the chapter could be improved by adding more images.
  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 are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Spelling
    1. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  7. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  8. APA style
    1. Use APA style for table and figure captions.
    2. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.
    3. 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).
    4. 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)).
    5. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:19, 15 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. Overview sets up the problem to be solved.
    2. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Basic coverage of theory and research.
    2. Include key citations and references.
  3. Conclusion
    1. OK, but summarise the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is well-paced, with good intonation.
  2. Image/Video
    1. Visuals are minimal, basic, and text-based.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Add a link to the 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. Poor due to distortion and low volume.
    2. 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 not indicated (i.e., in the meta-data or the visual presentation).

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)