Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Sexting motivation

Comments

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01926187.2011.635134 hi there! this article discusses sexting motivations in the realm of relationships! thought you might find it helpful. U3117451 (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Me again! I found this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735813001372 not only does it discuss the prevalence of sexting, but there is a large portion dedicated to reviewing literature related to it's motivations. Hopefully it is of use to you!U3117451 (discuss • contribs) 05:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Hey, Interesting topic. I have attached links to two journal articles, one discusses the case for sexting being included in the DSM as a deviant behavior and the second looks at sexting as an act of coercion between young people. Both offer an alternate perspective and hopefully are of some benefit to you. Good luck with your chapter :) http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/03/03/bjc.azu075.short http://zh9bf5sp6t.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=BK&aulast=Wiederhold&atitle=Should+adult+sexting+be+considered+for+the+DSM%3F&id=doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.1522&title=Cyberpsychology,+behavior+and+social+networking&volume=14&issue=9&date=2011&spage=481&issn=2152-2715 --U3090066 (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading casing

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use: ==Cats and dogs== rather than ==Cats and Dogs== -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:04, 20 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.

Overall Overall, this is a basic chapter. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements. Theory Overview Clear and well-written. Body Reasonably good, balanced theoretical explanation which is somewhat brief, so could be improved by providing more detail. More examples or case studies would be helpful. Lack of detail about relevant research studies. Conclusion Brief, balanced, sensible. Could be improved by providing take-home self-help message which address the chapter's focus questions. Research Minimal review and description of relevant research. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Written expression Written expression is reasonably good. Structure and headings See earlier comments about heading casing Layout There is minimal use of images or tables. Integration with other chapters No integration with other chapters is evident. Learning features Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added as external links - these should be changed to interwiki links. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement. APA style Use APA style for table and figure captions. Direct quotes need page numbers. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:57, 29 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 Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation. Well under the 3 minute maximum time limit. Structure and content Overview Very good. Selection and organisation Too little content is presented - expand on the theory and especially the main research findings. Well structured. Theory rich; research poor. Consider using more illustrative examples. Include citations. References are included. Conclusion Simple, effective. Take-home messages? Communication Audio Audio is reasonably clear and well-paced. Visuals Visuals are well prepared, clear, and easy to read. Production quality Overall, basic, effective production. Meta-data Well titled. Link to and from the book chapter provided. Excellent use of the Description field to provide relevant information. Audio recording quality Reasonable Image/video recording quality Effective use of simple tools. Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons. The copyright licenses and sources of the images are indicated.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Hello! I fixed up the formatting of your references. --U3160224 (discuss • contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)