Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Performance enhancing drug usage motivation in elite athletes

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi, very well structured and thought through chapter. Makes reading very interesting. References all look good - well done. The only value I can add is that you may want to look at the table title - I restructured mine so that they aligned with APA format. However, I will leave that with you to consider. U109993 (discusscontribs) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I've just added a couple "wiki-links" to your page and another one in the "see also" section, just to help out with the "interactive learning" criteria of the assessment. Hope you don't mind. Regards, Dana--U3096943 (discusscontribs) 09:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The definitions for use in the chapter are a nice touch! i feel like some general edits are needed in the overview section :) well done! HomerIncognito (discusscontribs) 06:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This chapter looks great so far! I've just added to my watch list as my topic is also drug related, so I thought we may be able to exchange some ideas later down the track. You look like you've made a great start though and I look forward to seeing more to come. --U3100481 (discusscontribs) 02:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heading formatting[edit source]

Just use the standard formatting for headings (e.g., no italics or bold), to help ensure consistency across the chapters. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image contribution[edit source]

Hi I added an image of Lance Armstrong at the Tour de France, in the Risk taking section. Thought it might be useful. Cheers, --Muzz2016 (discusscontribs) 07:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Muzz2016 It fits in well with that section. U3115468 (discusscontribs) 01:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overview[edit source]

The Overview presents a single case-study, which is helpful, but more importantly the Overview needs to describe the problem and how psychology theory/research is relevant to addressing the problem. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure[edit source]

Are all these sections meant to be within the Theories section?

  • Self-determination theory
  • Achievement goal theory
    • Task-oriented (mastery) goals
    • Ego-oriented (performance) goals
  • Motivational climate
  • Theory of planned behaviour

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a strong chapter which incorporates a balanced, critical overview of relevant theory and research and makes effective use of the wiki environment.
  2. The chapter is over the maximum word-count.
  3. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  4. 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. Balanced, indepth consideration of relevant psychological theory.
  2. Helpful examples or case studies were provided.
  3. The Conclusion offers a succint summary and emphasises solutions.

Research[edit source]

  1. A good range of relevant research is cited.
  2. The Reeve (2015) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources.
  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 source]

  1. Written expression is excellent.
    1. Some paragraphs are overly long. Paragraphs should communicate a single key idea in about three to five sentences.
    2. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. The chapter is well-structured.
  3. Layout
    1. Add bullet-points for See also and External links.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Integrate interwiki links links to a wider range of other relevant chapters.
  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.
  6. Grammar and proofreading
    1. Check and correct the use of abbreviations (such as "e.g.," and "i.e.,").
    2. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  7. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[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 basic, but sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. OK
    2. What motivated Armstrong to use PEDs? Perhaps find a quote that illustrates the reasons why.
    3. Explain what will be covered.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Good coverage of theory
    2. Incorporate more coverage of research e.g., pick one key study and summarise it.
    3. Reasonably well structured.
    4. Citations and references are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. A little bit vague - "many reasons" - what are they? (reinforce/synthesise) and what can be done? (examples?)

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is clear and generally well-paced. Perhaps slow down a little and leave slightly longer pauses between sentences - it helps to let the reader process the information.
    2. Good intonation.
  2. Image/Video
    1. Font size reasonably good (no smaller) - diagram text a bit small
    2. Visuals are clear and easy to read.
    3. The combination of images and text is effective.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, reasonably good production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Include title and subtitle
    2. Link to chapter provided.
    3. Excellent use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Excellent
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is shown.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]