Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Stress recovery theory

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey there, The book chapter looks great, have you got an interesting case study you could include?? It might break up the text a little--U3120626 (discusscontribs) 00:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possible topic: optimal stress levels and their effects, how to achieve optimal stress etc. some interactive quizes to add - http://www.stress.org.uk/individual-stress-test/ - http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/quizzes/take_quiz/8 - https://www.psychologistworld.com/stress/stresstest.php--U3166203 (discusscontribs) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit source]

Hey it seems like it's still pretty early days on your page, but for the titles, sub-titles should all be in the form of a question and titles should be in the form of a statement.

title = statement, sub-title = lowercase question

happy wikiversiting :)

--Muzz2016 (discusscontribs) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit source]

Interesting topic! I have attached an article that I found interesting about, exposure to nature sounds facilitating recovery from (PNS) Sympathethic activation after psychological stress. I hope you find it helpful :) http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1036/htm --U3090066 (discusscontribs) 16:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Good start, I think you've chosen an interesting topic for your chapter :) I found an article that may be useful to you called: The view from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization. doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0086. It talks about how people who view nature-dominant views show less stress than people exposed to artifact-dominant views (e.g. buildings, etc.). I hope it helps, Good luck! --U3117275 (discusscontribs) 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit source]

  • I suggest putting the initial quote into the beginning of the Overview.
  • Add Bullet-points to See also and External links.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[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. 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. Whilst quite comprehensive, the chapter arguably wanders off topic bit (at least from SRT per se) and possibly could be strengthened by emphasising a stronger focus on SRT and then linking to Wikipedia articles and/or other book chapters for more information e.g,. about ART.
  2. The Overview and Conclusion are effective and connect to the book theme.
  3. Consider using more case studies or examples.

Research[edit source]

  1. A lot of very useful/relevant research studies are described. There is a tendency to described one after the other. To improve, look to describe patterns and themes and try to synthesise the findings in order to convey a greater depth and breadth of understanding.
  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 is generally very good.
    1. Some clarification templates have been added to the page.
    2. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme although perhaps some more practical take-home messages could be added.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. Each section should include at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.
  3. Layout is very good.
    1. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Little integration with other chapters is evident.
  5. Learning features
    1. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added as external links - these should be changed to interwiki links.
    2. Add more Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
  6. Grammar and proofreading
    1. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  7. Spelling is excellent.
  8. APA style
    1. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for paginated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a well prepared and executed presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Engaging, creative opening scenario
    2. State the generic problem and what will be covered more clearly
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Be more selective - e.g., no need to cover attention restoration theory
    2. Good coverage of theory and research.
    3. Citations and references are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Engaging, creative opening scenario
    2. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is clear and well-paced.
    2. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Image/Video
    1. Effective combination of video examples and screencast slides
    2. Consider using smaller font size for citations to help the main points stand out whilst still including citations.
    3. The combination of images and text is effective.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, creative and well produced.
  2. Meta-data
    1. The title is correct (accurately reflects the book chapter).
    2. A link to the presentation was not provided from book chapter (a link has now been added).
    3. Link to chapter provided.
    4. Good use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Good; effective use of simple tools.
    2. Remove the background music from the main content - just use it at the beginning and the end - it makes it more difficult to concentrate on the narration and visuals.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Excellent
  5. Licensing
    1. Acknowledge the actors?
    2. The stated license in the description doesn't match the selected youtube license.
    3. Partial information about the copyright licenses and sources of the images used is provided - provide more detail e.g., the direct links to the sources.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]