Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Validation seeking 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 08:11, 23 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 source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid 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. Overview
    1. Excellent
    2. Was the Murray (1938) source directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).
    3. Explains why the topic is important.
    4. Includes focus questions.
    5. Engaging example.
    6. Clear and well-written.
  2. Body
    1. Rich consideration of relevant theory
    2. Well-selected, critical focus on a range of relevant theories.
    3. Limited integration with discussion of research.
  3. Conclusion
    1. A basic summary; could be improved by providing some more concrete, take-home messages.

Research[edit source]

  1. Some coverage of research, but this aspect could be further developed.
  2. The Reeve (2015) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources.
  3. Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  4. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  5. 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. Overly wordy in several places; see my copyedits for some suggestions about where the text could be simplified.
    2. Some clarification templates have been added to the page.
    3. 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.
    4. Use an active rather than a passive voice.
    5. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
    2. Add External links section.
  3. Layout
    1. Some images are used, but the chapter could be improved by adding more images.
    2. Figure captions could be improved by making them more explanatory.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Limited integration with other chapters is evident.
  5. 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.
  6. Spelling
    1. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  7. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (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 use of commas (e.g., "For example" -> "For example, ").
  8. APA style
    1. Check and correct the use of "&" vs. "and" (Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets).
    2. The reference list is not in APA style.
    3. Multiple citations should be in alphabetical order.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:55, 1 December 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 source]

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

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Excellent example
    2. Perhaps also include something like the conclusion slides to help outline the presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Probably too much content is presented - 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. Theory rich; research poor.
    3. Somewhat addresses a self-help theme.
    4. Uses meaningful examples.
    5. Citations and references are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Very good.
    2. What are the simple, take-home, self-help messages?

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio narration is too fast to easily comprehend - consider slowing down. See this article for more information about speaking rates.
    2. Leave longer pauses between sentences.
  2. Visuals
    1. Clear and easy to read.
    2. Visuals are well prepared.
    3. The animated combination of images and text is effective in attracting and sustaining viewer attention.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, very well produced.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
    2. Link to and from the book chapter provided.
    3. Excellent use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Good, clear, and reasonably consistent between slides.
    2. Consider removing the background music - it arguably makes it more difficult to concentrate on the narration and visuals.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Excellent
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.
    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 05:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)