Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Vocational motivation and personality

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi there, Great chapter! It is interesting and reads really well. I managed to find a spot where you had missed the 'i' in 'it' and fixed up the typo. Couldn't find anything else to critique. Great work!--U3119842 (discusscontribs) 09:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Your chapter looks fantastic; you've broken up the text really well with images, coloured boxes, and tables. There's a few places I noticed commas were missing, which I have fixed for you.

In apa style, you generally shouldn't use parentheses back-to-back - so where you have "(commonly abbreviated to RIASEC) (a description of each type is provided in Table 2).", the double parentheses should be amalgamated into one. --> (commonly abbreviated to RIASEC; a description of each type is provided in Table 2). I have fixed the places where you have done this in your chapter.


There are a few times where you have written two sentences that appear to be linked; perhaps you could enhance the flow of your text by connecting these sentences by semi-colons, rather than leaving them separated:

E.g., "It is important to also recognise the role that culture plays in shaping personality. Not just in terms of the experiences that we have but also in terms of the values and behaviours that are valued and rewarded within a particular culture (Burger, 2015)." --> change to: "It is important to also recognise the role that culture plays in shaping personality; not just in terms of the experiences that we have but also in terms of the values and behaviours that are valued and rewarded within a particular culture (Burger, 2015)."

E.g., "A meta-analysis by Tsabari, Tziner, and Meir (2005) confirmed that greater person-environment fit is associated with job satisfaction and performance. However, the effect size was small (congruence-satisfaction correlation of .17)." --> change to: "A meta-analysis by Tsabari, Tziner, and Meir (2005) confirmed that greater person-environment fit is associated with job satisfaction and performance; however, the effect size was small (congruence-satisfaction correlation of .17)."

E.g., "Gottfredson, Jones, and Holland (1993) explored the relationship between Holland's VPI and the NEO on a sample of 725 U.S Navy trainees, and found small to moderate correlations. Though they noted that the degree of overlap was too small to substitute one measure for the other." --> change to "Gottfredson, Jones, and Holland (1993) explored the relationship between Holland's VPI and the NEO on a sample of 725 U.S Navy trainees, and found small to moderate correlations; though, they noted that the degree of overlap was too small to substitute one measure for the other."


I feel the "person-environment fit" box should be under the "theoretical explanations for vocational motivation" section, rather than the "what is vocational motivation?" section, as they are talking about the same concept; perhaps you could combine the quote and the information in the box together?


This sentence is a little confusing at first, I had to re-read it to understand what you were saying. "Prediger (1982) offered a reconceptualised model of Holland's theory by demonstrating that two work task dimensions underlie Holland's hexagon: data vs ideas and things vs people". Perhaps you could re-word it, for example: "Prediger (1982) offered a reconceptualised model of Holland's theory, demonstrating the existence of two underlying work task dimensions of Holland's hexagon: data vs ideas and things vs people".


This sentence could also be re-worded, to ensure that it conveys the meaning you want: "They also found Neuroticism to be moderately but negatively correlated with all RIASEC types, a trait which is likely to impact on job satisfaction and work adjustment." --> E.g., change to "They also found Neuroticism, a trait which is likely to impact on job satisfaction and work adjustment, to be moderately, yet negatively, correlated with all RIASEC types."


In your section "Holland's model and the five factor model (FFM) of personality", perhaps you could bold you listing numbers to make this section easier to read. E.g., A meta-analysis of 12 studies conducted by Larson, Rottinghaus, and Borgen (2002), found five substantial and expected correlations for men and women among Holland's personality types and the five factor personality domains. Significant correlations were found for 1) Artistic-Openness (r=.48); 2) Enterprising– Extraversion (r =.41); 3) Social–Extraversion (r =.31); 4) Investigative–Openness (r =.28); and 5) Social–Agreeableness (r =.19).


I hope you find these suggestions useful :) --U3100368 (discusscontribs) 01:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to provide such detailed feedback. Your suggestions were really helpful. It really pays to have another set of eyes review your work. Bec

Some suggestions[edit source]

I took a quick look, Bec - some suggestions:

  1. Merge the "What is personality?" material into "Personality theory" - doesn't need a separate headings.
  2. Mention all theories that are covered in the Overview.
  3. Use bullet points in "See also" and "External links"
  4. Avoid having only one sub-section e.g., remove heading for "5.1.1 Holland's Hexagon"
  5. Review structure/headings and simplify e.g., Overview, Personality, Vocational motivation, Relationship between personality and vocational motivation

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback James, greatly appreciated. Bec


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. Theory is very well covered, with an appropriate emphasis on Holland's work and inclusion of Big 5 and SDT.
  2. The Overview and Conclusion offers a succint summary and emphasises solutions.
  3. Was the Holland (1959) source directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).

Research[edit source]

  1. A good range of research is cited.
  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. The chapter is well written.
    1. Minor: Some clarification templates have been added to the page.
    2. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. The chapter is well-structured.
  3. Layout
    1. Tables and/or Figures are used effectively.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. The chapter provides an excellent range of relevant links to other Wikiversity pages.
  5. Learning features
    1. Excellent use of interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles.
    2. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added as external links - these should be changed to interwiki links.
    3. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading are excellent.
  7. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style for direct quotes.
    2. The reference list APA style is excellent.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:31, 15 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.
  2. Slightly over time

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. OK
    2. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Theory was well covered.
    2. Research was well covered.
    3. Citations and references are included.
    4. Focuses on Holland, but the Conclusion emphasises NEO?
  3. Conclusion
    1. Good attempt at practical, take-home messages, but ...
    2. Emphasises Big 5 / NEO - but this wasn't discussed during the presentation?
    3. How to work out the Holland Code? - explain

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Start audio on first slide
    2. Audio is clear and well-paced.
  2. Image/Video
    1. The combination of images and text is effective.
    2. Full APA style Figure captions aren't really needed (bit distracting) - simplify

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic, effective production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Include subtitle in Youtube video title and/or description
    2. Link to chapter provided.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Some white noise and lowish volume.
    2. Consider using an external microphone to improve audio recording quality.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is shown in the meta-data - also helpful to add into the presentation slides somewhere.
    2. The copyright licenses and sources of the images are indicated - well done.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)