Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Online shopping motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi I have found a great article online which I think will be very helpful for your online chapter. It is titled: "Beyond buying to shoppers: motivation towards online shopping." I think the article will be very useful for you and can be accessed online on EBSCOhost (through the university library page) here is the libnk just in case: The article discusses the motivation behind online shopping and found that the convenience and ability to search for information were two major impacts on online shopping. It would be a great place for you to start and these two areas will be of huge importance in your chapter. I hope this helps you, good luck! --LeoDean1993 (discusscontribs) 11:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello I just find an article explaining e-shoppers 'demographic, psychographic characters, also mentioned why some people hate online shoppings. Hope it is going to be useful (discusscontribs) 12:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit]

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 12:16, 20 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


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


  1. Overview
    1. Basic but sufficient.
  2. Body
    1. Basic coverage of relevant theory.
    2. Some examples are provided.
    3. Some integration with research.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Could be improved by providing some more concrete, take-home messages.
    2. Could more clearly address the self-help theme.


  1. Overcitation of (Huang & Yang, 2010)
  2. Minimal review and description of relevant research.
  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
    1. The chapter somewhat addresses the topic and book theme but lacks practical take-home messages.
    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).
  2. Structure and headings
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
  3. Layout
    1. There is minimal use of images or tables.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Limited integration with other chapters is evident.
  5. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added as external links - these should be changed to interwiki links.
    3. Quiz questions could be used 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. The reference list is not in APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:34, 7 February 2017 (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.



  1. Overall, this is a basic presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. Too brief
    2. Add an Overview slide.
    3. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    4. An example could help to set the scene and engage the viewer.
    5. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Multimedia content doesn't seem to closely match the chapter?
    2. Probably too much content is presented - be more selective - 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.
    3. Theory rich; research poor.
    4. Doesn't clearly address a self-help theme.
    5. Consider using more illustrative examples.
    6. Include citations and references.
    7. Include citations.
    8. Include citations about evidence for claims.
    9. Include references for citations.
    10. Citations and references are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Good


  1. Audio
    1. Audio narration is too fast and quiet (almost whispered!) to easily comprehend - consider slowing down and speaking louder and more clearly. See this article for more information about speaking rates.
    2. Leave longer pauses between sentences.
    3. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
    4. Some words could be more clearly pronounced.
  2. Visuals
    1. Basic - approximately half a dozen text-based slides.
    2. Consider including images, figures, and/or tables.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Link to and from the book chapter provided.
    3. Minimal but sufficient use of the Description field.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Poor due to distortion and low volume - review microphone set up
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Sufficient
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons.
    2. No images used, so no relevant licenses shown.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)