Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2018/Self-perception theory and motivation for positive change

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback[edit source]

Youtube video and article[edit source]


I really like your book chapter ideas so far, I actually started doing this topic last year but unfortunately couldn't continue the unit in 2017. There was one interesting video I came across on youtube: The video discusses an important study in the self-perception domain, such that implementing self-perception exercises can reduce hetero-social anxiety (hence relating to the 'positive change' aspect of your chapter).

I dug a little deeper and found the research article: A discussion on this article could potentially go under your heading 'Psychotherapy', as the results of the study suggest that perhaps self-perception theory can be utilised as a treatment to reduce anxiety in other domains.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions regarding the topic, I may be able to help further.

--Ju3141393 (discusscontribs) 06:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)u3141393[reply]

Hi Jessica! Thank you so much for your advice, I really appreciate it. This is super helpful :) --Emily Ewart (discusscontribs) 22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emily, just wanted to shoot an idea for another complimentary/contrasting theory your way. I'm also looking at what might happen when contrasting ideas are presented to someone, but am looking at it through transformative theory (developed by Mezirow). I'm not sure how many theories you're wanting to do since you've already got the two but I've found it a good way of looking at things, having already considered using both self-perception and cog dissonance theories - it just made more sense to me. Hope it might be of some help. Cheers, Dot--Foley.d (discusscontribs) 00:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some further insight[edit source]

Hi Emily

I don't know if you're doing Social Psychology as a unit this semester but the week 4 lecture talked about your topic in it. Just thought it'd interest you to check it out if you wanted some more ideas--U3153997 (discusscontribs) 08:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit source]

Hi u3153997! I do, I will definitely go back and re-listen to the lecture. Thank you!

Suggestion[edit source]

Keep it up Em, can't wait to see the final product. I've put your 'picture this' in a box for more emphasis. You can also change the theme number to change the colour, just look at my edit source and copy it :) . --Lauren.ianson (discusscontribs) 06:36, 19 October 2018 (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 09:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic development feedback

The topic development 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 the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title, sub-title, TOC[edit source]

  1. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Very good

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. OK
  2. Links don't go directly to evidence of contributions
  3. See suggestions for how to record social contributions

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Well-developed, logical, 2-level heading structure
  2. The "Motivation" and "Positive change" top-level headings aren't really needed - cover these concepts briefly within the Overview or other sections, with links to dedicated Wikiversity/Wikipedia resources for more info. This will allow the bulk of the structure to be focused on addressing the core topic (the chapter's sub-title).

Key points[edit source]

  1. Limited development (e.g., some sections don't have any suggested key points)

Image[edit source]

  1. Use APA style
  2. Use caption to explain connection between image and key point(s) in chapter

References[edit source]

  1. OK
  2. Did you consult those 1960s references? If not, don't cite them.
  3. Use APA style
  4. For latest APA style recommended format for dois see

Resources[edit source]

  1. Very good

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter review and feedback[edit source]

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 basic, but sufficient chapter.
  2. For additional feedback, see comments below and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Basic but minimally sufficient coverage of theory is provided.
  2. The description of SPT seems somewhat vague/convoluted - at least I didn't get a clear understanding from what I read. For example, this is a rather awkward way of explaining SPT: "Self-percpetion[spelling?] theory is a counterintuitive phenomena which occurs when an individual interprets their own behaviours the same way an observer would due to their attitudes being weak or unclear."
  3. Explaining the similarities and differences between cognitive dissonance and SPT earlier on in the chapter could aid clarity.
  4. Provide an in-text interwiki link for further information about cognitive dissonance.
  5. The Fazio, Zanna, and Cooper (1977) quote at the very end is perhaps the clearest theoretical explanation of SPT - the chapter could be improved by moving this to the Overview or early in the chapter, with relevant explanation and examples.

Research[edit source]

  1. Basic but sufficient coverage of research involving the relation between the target constructs is provided.
  2. Some statements are unreferenced (see the [factual?] tags).

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. This is a roughly written chapter which would need further drafting to be of professional quality.
    2. The chapter could be improved by rewriting to remove awkward expression (e.g., see the [awkward expression?] tags).
    3. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
  2. Layout
    1. Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings.
    2. Avoid having sections with only one sub-section.
  3. Learning features
    1. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words would make the text more interactive.
    2. Basic use of images.
    3. No use of tables.
    4. No use of quizzes.
    5. Limited use of case studies.
  4. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading.
    1. Check and correct use of commas.
    2. Use serial commas.
    3. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect.
    4. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's).
    5. Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags).
    6. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    7. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
    8. Check and correct use of that vs. who.
  5. APA style
    1. Use APA style for Figure captions.
    2. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    3. Citations
      1. A serial comma is needed before "&" or "and" for citations involving three or more authors.
      2. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
    4. References are not in full APA style.

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Canvas 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[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Many of the comments about the book chapter also apply to this section. However, the presentation explains key concepts more clearly and logically.
  2. The presentation's emphasis is on theory - there is little mention of research other than the future research suggestions at the end.
  3. The presentation lacks practical take-home messages about to apply SPT effectively in everyday life.
  4. Well selected and structured content - not too much or too little.
  5. The presentation is reasonably well structured, although an Overview of what will be covered would be helpful, to help the viewer decide whether it is worth continuing to watch.
  6. The opening example is helpful, but perhaps make it even more explicit/obvious what cognitive SPT effects are occurring.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is reasonably interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. The narration is reasonably well paced. Perhaps consider adding slightly longer pauses between sentences to help the viewer to digest the visual and audio information.
  3. Communication is effectively supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The presentation is over the maximum time limit.
  2. The full chapter title and sub-title are not used in the video title and opening slide - doing this would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. Video recording quality was very good (minor: Remove cursor from bottom of screen).
  4. Audio recording quality was good, but a bit crackly at times - review microphone set up.
  5. Images sources and copyright are not acknowledged.
  6. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]