Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Reward dependence and motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit]

Hello! I've just read your chapter, it looks really good. I did notice that there was a few spelling/grammar mistakes - so I have made changes to them. All the best! U3081523 (discusscontribs) 07:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey,

I notice you've yet to get started, But from looking at your question I think a good place to start would maybe be looking into Self-determination theory. Perhaps you can demonstrate how different levels of internal and external motivations differently impact our motivation and how rewards change these motivations. Try looking at these links for some basic information.

http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/publications/ Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American psychologist, 55(1), 68. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self?determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University Rochester Press. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.

Good Luck Bee Taylor (discusscontribs) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Figure and Table captions[edit]

Add APA style captions to Figures and Tables. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback[edit]

Hi Kodi,

Great job on the chapter! I just have a bit of feedback for you :)

  • The opening questions in the overview section are a little much. There are also a few grammatical errors there that I've fixed up.
  • Your second sentence in your second paragraph in the "personality and motivation" section doesn't make sense. Maybe try breaking it up into 2 sections to make it read a little better :)
  • The "Figure #" sections in your pictures should be italicised according to APA formatting. I have fixed this up for you.
  • References need to have a hanging indent to adhere to APA formatting. I have put this in your source code and they are now fixed :)
  • Great use of tables and colours to break things up!

Hope this helps :) --Qt3141 (discusscontribs) 05:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for the great feedback. :) I will take a look at the personality and motivation section :) Again thanks :) U3080948 (discusscontribs) 05:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi there! Chapter is looking really great, very engaging and eye catching. There are a few minor things I have picked up on that you could improve on: Overview: I feel like the second paragraph explaining briefly what motivation is definitely needs a reference, even if its all from your own head, still needs a reference Headings: I don't think some of your subheadings need to be so small, making them all size 1 subheading would be suffice I believe, even if you need to make some headings into new page titles to further break it up if you need Reference: Some of your references aren't in italics where it should be, markers are VERY pedantic about this. Just refer back to your apa formatting to see exactly where commas, full stops and italics need to be.

But overall your chapter is look awesome! Well done :)--U3100166 (discusscontribs) 04:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

--Jazznicol (discusscontribs) 06:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Hi!

Chapter is looking great! I like how you've set the page out by placing summaries in different coloured boxes - it makes the page more readable!

My only concern was that a few of the sections had almost complete paragraphs without in-text references. I would consider putting a few in. Additionally, I'm not too sure about the wording of the conclusion. I realise that you are trying to link back to what was in the Overview section, but I think maybe putting the conclusion in more of a paragraph form may be more appropriate. Hope this helped, and good luck with the rest!

Structure[edit]

Avoid having only one sub-section - drop it and integrate into a higher level - or add another sub-section. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki links[edit]

In the see also section, convert the external links into internal wiki links. And use bullet-points. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:06, 21 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

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is a solid chapter which could be improved by focusing in more depth on the relation between reward dependence and motivation and the quality of written expression.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit]

  1. Theory is reasonably well covered (considerable breadth) and explained.
  2. However, broader aspects of personality and motivation theorys are overemphasised, to the detriment of a more indepth focus on the relation between reward dependence and motivation.

t of the title/subtitle, so is a tangential topic.)

  1. Clarify the role of heritability in the conceptualisation of reward dependence. This chapter states that is is heritable; the linked Wikipedia article says that it is moderately heritable. Heritability is raised in the Overview, but not subsequently followed through.
  2. Case studies or additional examples could be helpful.

Research[edit]

  1. Research is reasonably well covered.
  2. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  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 and the direction of the relationship.
  5. Did you directly consult some of the older citations? If not, don't cite it (or use secondary citation).

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression was reasonably in most places, however lacked polish, with several grammatically incorrect sentences and poor punctuation especially when using citations.
    1. Some places where the quality of written expression could be improved have been indicated (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. The Overview and Conclusion are clear and well-written.
  2. Layout
    1. Simple but effective structure and layout.
    2. Tables and/or Figures and/or coloured boxes are used effectively.
    3. Some images are used.
    4. Figure captions could be more explanatory.
  3. Learning features
    1. The chapter makes good use of interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles and book chapters.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  4. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.
    2. Put in-text citations in alphabetical order.
    3. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:24, 25 October 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. Too brief
    2. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    3. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Probably too much content/too detailed - 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.
    2. Reward dependence coverage doesn't start until ~1 min; tackling the question doesn't start until ~2 min.
    3. Theory rich; research poor.
    4. Doesn't clearly address a self-help theme.
    5. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.
    6. Include citations.
    7. References are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. None provided.

Communication[edit]

  1. Audio
    1. Reasonably well narrated.
    2. Audio is slightly too fast - consider slowing down. See this article for more information about speaking rates.
    3. Intonation added interest and engagement.
  2. Visuals
    1. Basic - approximately half a dozen text-based slides with some images.
    2. Consider including more images, figures, and/or tables.
    3. Use larger font size.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Link to the book chapter provided.
    3. Minimal but sufficient use of the Description field.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Good
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. 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 - there may have been copyright violation unless you own the copyright to the images used.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)