Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Physical literacy and affect

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heading casing[edit source]

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 20:25, 12 November 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

Overall[edit source]

  1. Fascinating and promising chapter that is let down somewhat by a lack of proofreading, some structural issues, and that the chapter is over the maximum word-count.
  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. This is a very strong chapter theoretically.
  2. The case study was very helpful.
  3. Excellent section about philosophical aspects of physical literacy.
  4. Heavy reliance on Whitehead - ideally, consult more original sources.
  5. A strength of this chapter is that it considers physical literacy across the developmental lifespan.
  6. A key improvement would be better organised and integrated SDT material.

Research[edit source]

  1. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  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
    1. 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. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    3. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    4. Use gender-neutral language (e.g., man-made -> human-made).
  2. Structure and headings
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
    2. The overall heading structure is probably too complicated (and the text too long), so look to reorganise more efficiently - e.g., the SDT / Autonomy / Competence / Related / Social factors sections could be better organised.
  3. Layout
    1. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
    2. Check and correct Figure numbering
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. The chapter provides a good range of relevant links to other Wikiversity pages in the See also section.
  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. Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour).
    2. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  7. Grammar and proofreading
    1. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
    2. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  8. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style for direct quotes.
    2. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:25, 12 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 very basic multimedia presentation that doesn't quite answer the answer.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Insert a brief Overview which sets up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    2. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Basic coverage of theory, but it needs to be more closely aligned to the topic - What are the affective aspects of physical literacy? - this topic is categorised and intended as an emotion topic (affect) but the presentation seems to focus more on motivations for physical exercise.
    2. No coverage of research.
    3. Include citations about for claims.
  3. References are included.
  4. Conclusion
    1. None provided.
    2. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.
    3. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is OK but 'flat'/monotone. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Image/Video
    1. Very basic text-based slides with screenrecording.
    2. Consider including more images, figures, and/or tables.
    3. Consider using larger font and less text.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
    2. Link to chapter provided.
    3. Good use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Good
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Trim the last few seconds off
    2. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. The stated license in the description doesn't match the selected youtube license.
    2. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.
    3. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons.
    4. The copyright licenses and sources of the images used are not indicated - there may have been copyright violation unless you own the copyright to the images used.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)