Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2019/Motivational intensity theory

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 05:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[]


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. Link doesn't go directly to evidence of contribution
  2. See suggestions for how to record social contributions

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Some development, but underdone
  2. Consider possibly 3-5 top-level headings between Overview and Conclusion

Key points[edit source]

  1. Some development
  2. Expand on the key sections, especially Overview (e.g. focus questions? case studies/examples?) and Conclusion before fleshing out too far

Image[edit source]

  1. Expand image display size so that it is easier to read

References[edit source]

  1. Good
  2. Use APA style
  3. For latest APA style recommended format for dois see http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2017/03/doi-display-guidelines-update-march-2017.html

Resources[edit source]

  1. Excellent

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[]

Feedback 2019[edit source]

Hi Josh - looking great so far. ---- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[]

Hi, edited your reference list to put journal sources in italics. --U3170393 (discusscontribs) 10:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Hey, found an interesting journal article that may be useful for your book chapter: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/spc3.12007 --Matthewshats97 (discusscontribs) 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Hey if you're looking for another theory to connect your article too, I think the Fraud Triangle could be an interesting theory to look at. In a way it adds another element to the motivational intensity theory and is more specific in its action direction. --Jackmccann021 (discusscontribs) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Hi! Great book chapter. Just a quick suggestion before you submit your book chapter: Consider using interwiki links :) - Good luck! --U3145293 (discusscontribs) 09:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[]


Topic development feedback[edit source]

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 and sub-title[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. Authorship details removed - authorship is as per the page's editing history

User page[edit source]

  1. Created, with description about self and link to book chapter
  2. Used effectively

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Excellent

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Basic, 2-level heading structure - perhaps could benefit from further development (e.g., sub-headings within "Development of motivational intensity theory")
  2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings

Key points[edit source]

  1. Key points are reasonably well developed for each section, with relevant citations.
  2. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles.
  3. Consider including more examples/case studies.
  4. Consider embedding one quiz question per major section rather than having one longer quiz towards the end.
  5. Conclusion?

Image[edit source]

  1. Provided, with an APA style caption
  2. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. Good.
  2. For full APA style:
    1. Use correct capitalisation

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Use bullet-points
    2. Rename links so that they are more user friendly
    3. Also link to past relevant chapters
  2. External links
    1. Use bullet-points
    2. Rename links so that they are more user friendly

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Remove full-stops from headings[edit source]

@Joshgrain: Suggestion: Remove full-stops from headings. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[]


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 UCLearn Canvas, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a moderately good chapter that uses psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  2. How does the Overview case study illustrate MIT? Explain.
  3. For additional feedback, see comments below and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theory is selected, described, and explained.
  2. More examples would be helpful.
  3. Some of the explanation is convoluted. Try providing some simple summaries at the beginning and end of major sections.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.
  2. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good.
    2. Use third person perspective rather than first person (e.g., "we") or second person (e.g., "you") perspective.
    3. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    4. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned").
    5. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in 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.
  3. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and make correct use of commas.
    3. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect.
  4. APA style
    1. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10).
    2. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    3. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style to refer to each Table and each Figure (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation).
    4. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Select up to a maximum top three citations per point (i.e., avoid citing four or more citations to support a single point).
      2. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
    5. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~13 logged, useful, social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[]


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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent presentation that makes effective use of animation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. I'm not sure the opening example clearly explains MIT? Wouldn't it make more sense the other way around (e.g., I would go to see the band if 5 mins away but less likely if 10 hours away?).
  2. The rest is excellent - clear explanations with examples.
  3. The presentation is well structured.
  4. The presentation could be strengthened by adding an Overview slide and a Conclusion slide with practical, take-home messages.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is fun, easy to follow, and interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. Well paced. Excellent pauses between sentences. This helps the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point.
  3. Consider slowing down and leaving longer pauses between sentences. This can help the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point.
  4. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  5. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The chapter title and sub-title are used on the opening slide - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. Also use this title and sub-title for the video title.
  2. Audio and video recording quality was excellent.
  3. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided.
  4. A copyright license for the presentation is provided.
  5. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  6. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  7. A very brief written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[]