Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Parent relocation after separation motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey! It may be interesting to make a note the factors that would make a person NOT want to relocate after separation (if there are any) maybe they have had their job for quite some time or if they want to stay close with the children - or if they have obligations to the children (shared custody). I know this is against your argument however if it is within the scope of the topic I suppose it is relevant --Sebastian Kelly (discusscontribs) 02:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image ideas[edit source]

Hi. I tried to find some images for you from wiki commons. Hope it helps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seth_Singleton.jpg I also thought that domestic violence is probably a great motive to want to relocate so found this one too: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20081123120727-violencia-de-genero.jpg Good luck with the chapter. It's a very interesting topic. --U113403 (discusscontribs) 11:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different perspective?[edit source]

Hi. I know you have probably submitted your chapter already, but I had a few thoughts for improvements that may help you, or others who decide to add to this chapter. I notice that you have taken the perspective of a mother relocating with the child for what seems like positive reasons (for her anyway). I wonder if it would help to look at negative reasons she may have for moving? AS suggested above, perhaps there were domestic violence issues, perhaps they are unable to coparent effectively, perhaps even the father has visitation rights but chooses not to exercise them and so it is hard to justify staying if he doesn't take the opportunity to exercise his parental rights? Or, you could consider the situation where the primary caregiver parent remains but the other parent (in your case study, the father) decides to move away? There could be more motivational issues related to that - perhaps low self-efficacy, tendency toward avoidance orientation etc. Although there is a lack of research, it may help to hypothesise a broader range of potential reasons/motivations and then discuss the theories around those hypotheses? Just a thought. Here a couple more references if anyone chooses to continue work on this topic. Glennon, T. (2008). Still partners? The consequences of post-dissolution parenting. Gpsolo, 25(2), 12-46.

Saini, M., Allan-Ebron, D., & Barnes, J. (2015). A critical review of relocation research specific to separation and divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 56(5), 388-408. doi:10.1080/10502556.2015.1046797

Tough topic - well done for finding the evidence you did! --U944295 (discusscontribs) 11:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heading casing[edit source]

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Overall[edit source]

  1. This is a promising, novel, applied topic. However, the application of motivational theory and research is minimal/weak. This has nothing to do with the lack of research directly about the topic. What is needed, then, is a more comprehensive consideration of potentially applicable motivational theories and related evidence to help facilitate understanding and research directions going forward.
  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. Basic motivational theory is suggested and applied, but this could be more in-depth and involve a wider range of theoretical perspectives.
  2. Use of incentive theories is reasonable (this relates to extrinsic motivation) e.g., Case study interpretation: Belinda may be anticipating pleasure (from what exactly?) in Orange but, probably also hoping to experience less pain/suffering (e.g., loneliness).
  3. For instrinsic motivation, perhaps consider the extent to which the three SDT basic psychological needs are being met - Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness.
  4. Relocation may occur as part of a broader strategy for self-renewal and personal growth e.g., http://www.wilderdom.com/psychology/articles/PersonalAccountsOfSuccessfulVsFailedLifeChange.html
  5. The Overview doesn't outline in sufficient depth the theoretical perspectives that will be considered.
  6. The Conclusion is weak - lacks take-home messages.
  7. Consider following up the case study with the outcomes - how did things turn out for each of the people involved - and how does this reflect relevant motivational theory?

Research[edit source]

  1. Demographic trends are well covered as are some of the broader reasons for relocation.
  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 reasonably good.
    1. Write for an international, not just an Australian, audience (i.e., avoid getting too legally specific to particular jurisdictions).
    2. The chapter addresses the topic and book theme but lacks practical take-home messages.
  2. Layout
    1. There is minimal use of images or tables.
  3. Integration with other chapters
    1. There is minimal integration with other chapters.
  4. Learning features
    1. Add more Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
  5. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  6. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.
    2. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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. Great Overview - sets up and establishes the problem and its importance in a clear and understandable way.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Very well structured.
    2. Theory was well covered.
    3. Being selective about theory was necessary (and better to err on the simple side), but the explanation of the roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation could be more nuanced - e.g., there are probably a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators involved in a real-world decision to relocate, but that it is important to understand these, as the relocation is probably more likely to be beneficial if its for intrinsic reasons.
    4. Research was covered/integrated as appropriate - but probably point out the lack of research in this area.
    5. Include citations about evidence for claims.
    6. Excellent use of example/case study.
  3. Conclusion
    1. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is very clear, easy to listen to, and well-paced.
    2. Present in the third person (i.e., avoid "I", "my", "we" etc.) because the presentation should be about the topic, not the presenter.
  2. Video
    1. Visuals are clear and easy to read.
    2. The combination of images and text is effective.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, very well produced.
  2. Meta-data
    1. The title is correct (accurately reflects the book chapter).
    2. Excellent use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Image and video recording quality
    1. Excellent
  4. Audio recording quality
    1. Excellent
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is shown.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]