Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Postpartum return to work motivation

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 22:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki links[edit source]

This chapter could be improved by linking the first mention of key words to corresponding Wikipedia articles e.g., anxiety. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure[edit source]

User:Sebastian Kelly, avoid having a single sub-section within a section; either add another sub-section or merge the content into the higher level section. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:53, 23 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 basic, but sufficient chapter.
  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. Theory coverage is basic - applying general/common motivational theories.
  2. The Overview suggests application of a range of generic motivation theories to postpartum return to work - but isn't there any psychological theory or research work specifically in this area? (at least comment, if there isn't).
  3. Maslow's hierarchy - hmmmm - returning to work, yes, might be part of putting bread on the table (lower-level need) - but mightn't it also be about fulfilling higher needs (e.g., for self-esteem, intellectual stimulation, connecting to a higher purpose etc.)? (This point in indicated more strongly, later on, but the theoretical connection isn't made)
  4. Hormones - how does this relate to return to work motivation??

Research[edit source]

  1. Research is described in basic terms.
  2. Was the best research about this topic reviewed?
  3. Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  4. The Reeve (2015) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources.
  5. Possible reference:
  6. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  7. 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 problematic.
    1. Write for an international, not just an Australian, audience - the chapter needs some significant rewriting to appropriately address a wider audience.
    2. For academic writing in psychology, such as this book chapter, write in third person rather than first (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our") or second (e.g., "you", "your" etc.) person perspective.
    3. Some paragraphs are overly long. Paragraphs should communicate a single key idea in about three to five sentences.
    4. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
  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.
    2. Each section should start with at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.


    1. Add bullet-points for See also and External links.
    2. Some images are used.
  1. Integration with other chapters
    1. Some integration with other chapters is evident.
  2. Learning features
    1. Some use of interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles - more could be added.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
      1. Address an international audience
      2. Not covered in the chapter
  3. Spelling
    1. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  4. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences needs to be improved for the written expression to be of professional standard (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
    3. Check and correct the use of abbreviations (such as "e.g.," and "i.e.,").
  5. APA style
    1. Check and correct the use of APA style for direct quotes.
    2. 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)).
    3. Use APA style for table and figure captions.
    4. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for paginated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:07, 18 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 an excellent, creative all-round presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Excellent
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Well selected content - not too much or too little.
    2. Well structured.
    3. Combines theory and research.
    4. Includes examples.
    5. Addresses a self-help theme.
    6. Include citations.
    7. References are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. (Voice synthesised) audio is clear and well-paced.
    2. Varied intonation and different voices add interest and engagement.
  2. Visuals
    1. ## The animated combination of images and text is effective in communicating the message and attracting and sustaining viewer attention.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The presentation was not made publically available.
  2. Otherwise, excellent.
  3. Meta-data
  4. The presentation was not made publically available.
    1. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
    2. Add a link to the book chapter.
    3. URL would be
    4. Some inclusion of additional, relevant information in the description.
  5. Audio recording quality
    1. Excellent
  6. Image/video recording quality
    1. Excellent
  7. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons.
    2. The copyright licenses and sources of the images used are not indicated.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]