Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2019/Postpartum return to work motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Japan[edit source]

U344461: I'm not sure if you are planning to focus nationally or internationally for this piece, but Japan had a major issue with this a few years ago looking at both the parent and workplaces' motivation to have mothers return after giving birth. Might be a good place to look at differences/similarities between cultures.

Learning features[edit source]

Hi, I think you've made a good start to your chapter. I think it would be really beneficial if you included some colour. It would help break up large areas of text for the reader. These boxes could include key points/real life examples/case studies. This can be done easily with feature boxes. I've included a link here to a really helpful website which shows you different types of boxes and how to put them onto your page. Good luck! Kaylah-3163515 (discusscontribs) 02:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

resource[edit source]

Hi! I thing that you may find this useful : https://cjnr.archive.mcgill.ca/article/viewFile/1459/1459. --U3173638 (discusscontribs) 10:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings (or sentence casing). For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:23, 24 November 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 basic, but sufficient chapter. The chapter is strongest with regard to research. It could be strengthened by adopting an international perspective. The Australian information could be used as an interesting case study.
  2. For additional feedback, see following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of theory.

Research[edit source]

  1. Interesting Australian statistics are cited.
  2. Some broader relevant research is cited, particularly in the second half of the chapter.
  3. The chapter could be improved by reviewing research that is more closely related to the motivations to return to work or stay at home postpartum.
  4. When describing important research findings, consider including a bit more detail about the methodology and indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  5. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Obtaining (earlier) comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
    2. Some paragraphs are overly long (e.g., opening paragraph). Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    3. Internationalise: Write for an international, not just a domestic audience. Australians make up only 0.32% of the world human population.
  2. Layout
    1. Avoid having sections with only one sub-section.
    2. 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. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  3. Learning features
    1. No use of embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive.
    2. No use of embedded links to related book chapters. Embedding links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    3. Good use of images.
    4. No use of tables.
    5. No use of feature boxes.
    6. Very good use of quizzes.
    7. The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than being presented as a set of questions at the end.
    8. No use of case studies or examples.
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[1].
    3. Check and correct use of that vs. who.
    4. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect.
  5. Spelling
    1. Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags).
    2. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour; fulfillment vs. fulfilment).
  6. 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. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
      2. A serial comma is needed before "&" or "and" for citations involving three or more authors.
    3. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of italicisation.
      2. See new doi format.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. No logged social contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Book chapter resubmission feedback[edit source]

These changes were reviewed. Notable improvements were:

  1. Overview has been improved.
  2. A more international perspective is evidence
  3. Theory and research have been strengthened
  4. Grammar has been improved
  5. APA style for reference list has been improved
  6. Social contributions were claimed (these have been moved to User:U3065611), however no links to evidence were provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:17, 23 December 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 insufficient presentation because it does not address the assigned topic.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. This presentation does not address the target topic: "What motivates and what discourages postpartum return to work?"
  2. Address an international rather than Australian audience.
  3. Add and narrate an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered.
  4. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).
  5. What are the practical take-home message(s) based on psychological theory and research that we can use to help improve our everyday lives?

Communication[edit source]

  1. Reduce the amount of text and increase the font size to make the slides easier to read.
  2. Well paced.
  3. The visual communication is supplemented in a basic way by some images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Image sources and their copyright status are/not provided. Either acknowledge the image sources and their licenses in the video description or remove the presentation.
  2. Communicate the chapter title and sub-title in both the video title and on the opening slide - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. Audio recording quality was very good.
  4. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.
  5. An active hyperlink to the book chapter is not provided.
  6. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  7. A written description of the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Multimedia resubmission feedback[edit source]

The new multimedia presentation was reviewed. Points of note:

  1. There is an improved focus on the topic.
  2. Audio doesn't always match the video.
  3. There is no Overview or Conclusion.
  4. Check the last 10 seconds - the audio seems to loop back to the beginning.
  5. Production qualities have improved.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)