Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2019/Sense of coherence

Heading casing

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 10:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

SOC and Pain

Hey, have you thought about mentioning how low SOC can be a predictor of poor pain management and lower pain threshold, this can then be linked to negative emotions. I have left a link to a useful website that might give you some extra ideas. --U3160677 (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 31 August 2019 (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.

Title and sub-title Good User page Created, with description about self and link to book chapter Used effectively Social contribution One summarised with link to evidence Section headings Well developed 2-level heading structure, with meaningful headings that directly relate to the core topic. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings. See earlier comment about Heading casing. Sections which include sub-sections should also include an overview paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings. Key points Many sections are incomplete. Remove generic template material Image Provided, with an APA style caption Cite each figure at least once in the main text. References 2 provided Use APA style Resources None provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:15, 27 September 2019 (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 UCLearn Canvas, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is an insufficient chapter. A basic overview of relevant theory and research is provided, but there is a lack of sufficient detail. For additional feedback, see following comments and these copyedits. The chapter could benefit from further development of the Overview and Conclusion - it should be possible to only read these sections and get a good sense of why the topic is important and what is known/recommended. This chapter is well under the maximum word count - there is room for further development. Theory Basic SOC theory is described. There is a lack of overall depth (e.g., connecting the three SOC components to similar, related theory and research). Examples or case studies would be helpful. Research Basic SOC research is described. When describing important research findings, consider including a more detail about the methodology and indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful. Written expression Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic. The chapter would benefit from a more developed Overview and Conclusion, with clearer focus question(s) (Overview) and take-home self-help message for each focus question (Conclusion). Some of the bullet-points should have been in full paragraph format. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences. Avoid exaggeration and colloquialism (e.g., "massive", "huge"). Instead provide factual detail (e.g., effect size). Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences. Use third person perspective rather than first person (e.g., "we") or second person (e.g., "you") perspective[1]. Layout See earlier comments about heading casing. Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings. Learning features 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. No use of embedded links to related book chapters. Embedding links links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project. Basic use of images. No use of tables. No use of feature boxes. No use of quizzes. No use of case studies or examples. Grammar The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags). Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[2]. APA style Direct quotes need double quotation marks and page numbers. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10). Figures and tables Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1). Citations are not in full APA style. For example: A serial comma is needed before "&" or "and" for citations involving three or more authors. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets. References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of capitalisation. Check and correct use of italicisation. See new doi format. Social contribution ~1 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:46, 24 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.

Overall Overall, this is a basic presentation. This presentation makes effective use of simple tools. Structure and content An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little. The last question is not addressed: How can SOC be developed? The presentation could be strengthened by adding a Conclusion slide with practical, take-home messages. There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to do a small amount well than a large amount poorly. Communication The presentation is easy to follow and interesting to watch and listen to. The presentation makes effective use of text and animated image based slides with narrated audio. Well paced. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images. Production quality 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. Audio recording quality was good/a bit quiet. Visual display quality was very good. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided. A link to the book chapter is not provided. A link from the book chapter is provided. A written description of the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have edited your chapter following some of the feedback given by the tutor! --U3160224 (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)