Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Asylum seeker motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Additional resources[edit source]

Hi. I saw that you were looking at including Syrian refugees as an example in your chapter, the UNHCR has a web document that may be useful to you in explaining the Syrian refugee crisis. See document: https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/ --Shayley Woodgate (discusscontribs) 11:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Seeking in The Pandemic[edit source]

Hi,
I suggest that under the heading 'asylum seeking in the pandemic', you could discuss how the 1951 convention was developed at a time following WWII where the environment that we are currently living in was not considered, so the four grounds for seeking asylum (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group) don't reflect many of the motivations for seeking asylum today.
--U3201178 (discusscontribs) 07:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of case study[edit source]

Hi. I think it will be beneficial if you make a case study. A place where I found the case study to be particularly necessary was for the section of Maslow's theory. You jotted down an example, but I think it would be better if you use a case study instead. Using real life examples of refugees in your explanations would further strengthen your content. Stories and quotes of refugees talking about why they sought refuge outside their home country, their motivations, struggles and emotional state of mind would refine your book chapter. --Fiddausi Husseini (discusscontribs) 09:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heading casing[edit source]

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for sentence casing. For example, the wikitext should be:

== Cats and mice ==

rather than

== Cats and Mice ==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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[edit source]

  1. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Created
  2. About me
    1. Description about self provided
    2. Consider linking to your eportfolio
  3. Add link to book chapter

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Wiki edits summarised with indirect links to evidence.
  2. Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.
  3. Use a numbered list.
  4. Add your signature to comments on talk/discussion pages.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. See earlier comment about Heading casing.
  2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
  3. Target an international audience; Australians only represent 0.33% of the world population. Asylum seekers motivations for coming to Australia could be used as a case study.
  4. Reduce the number of top-level headings (e.g., "What is motivation?" is not needed). Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclus, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections.
  5. 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[edit source]

  1. Basic development of key points for each section, with relevant citations.
  2. Overview and Conclusion (the most important sections) are yet to be developed.
  3. Direct quotes are over-used. Better to write in your own words. Where quotes are used, need page numbers per APA style.
  4. The research evidence for Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not provide strong support for the model. Has it been applied in asylum seeker research? If not, I suggest digging deeper into the literature - this may not be among the most important theories for the topic.
  5. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  6. Consider including more examples/case studies.

Image[edit source]

  1. An image (figure) is presented.
  2. Caption
    1. does not use APA style.
    2. could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.
  4. Consider how to position the image on the page - usually right align with text wrap works best.

References[edit source]

  1. Provided.
  2. Doesn't use APA style.

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Use bullet-points
    2. Provide links to relevant book chapters
  2. External links
    1. Use bullet-points
    2. Rename links so that they are more user friendly
    3. Peer-reviewed academic sources should be moved into references
    4. Include source in brackets after link

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for seeking asylum[edit source]

Hi, just wondered whether it would be more pertinent to use a case of climate change asylum-seeking as opposed to black lives matter. Not diminishing from the importance of the BLM movement but i haven't seen any examples of it being used as a reason for seeking asylum whereas I believe that in the future climate refugees may be a big problem due to the lack of water and rising sea levels. I've included a possible case study if you would like to use it. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/01/29/un-ruling-climate-refugees-gamechanger-climate-action/

--U3114726 (discusscontribs) 05:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the motivations of asylum seekers?[edit source]

Consider adding a sentence or two in the overview section of your page, that clearly identifies the motivations of asylum seekers. After reading the book chapter, I could not find any clear information that stated the direct motivations of asylum seekers. There are multiple sections such as the social dominance theory and mental health section that discuss the challenges that asylum seekers face and those motivations. However, you may benefit from clearly identifying in a few sentences what motivates asylum seekers. This may help you communicate your ideas clearly and effectively to the reader :) The conclusion does a good job of clearly summarising the motivations, however it could be made a little clearer in the relevant sections even through topic sentences possibly. Overall a great book chapter and very informative. Amin Nazzal ([[User :

    1. talk:Amin Nazzal|discuss]] • contribs) 06:55, 19 October 2020 (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 UCLearn, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an insufficient chapter about the target topic.
  2. The chapter could be improved by:
    1. focusing more directly on addressing the sub-title topic using psychological theory and research and by delving less into background and topics that are not directly about the sub-title question.
    2. reducing the use of direct quotes.
  3. For additional feedback, see following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter makes basic use of theory. More use of psychological theory about motivations of migrants could be useful where they may be a lack of specific info about the motivations of asylum seekers.
  2. There is too much general background/historical material. Instead, cut to the chase - what motivates asylum seeking? (i.e., focus directly on the sub-title question, and only the sub-title question).
  3. The mental health of ASs is also not directly related to the sub-title question. Focus.
  4. The conditions for asylum seekers are also outside of the scope of this chapter. Focus.
  5. Maslow's hierarchy of needs and push-pull motivation are the two main, useful theoretical models provided in the chapter. Also perhaps consider the role of relatedness motivation e.g,. to be with family, friends, others from one's home culture.

Research[edit source]

  1. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).
  2. The research is overly focused on the U.S. - a more international perspective would be ideal e.g., what about Europe? Asia? Pacific? etc.
  3. Some relevant research is mentioned, but in insufficient detail.
  4. When describing important research findings, consider including a bit more detail about the methodology and indicating 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.
  6. Where there may be a lack of information specifically about the motivations of ASs, consider broadening to include what is know about the motivations of migrants.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is basic.
    2. The Overview insufficiently addresses the motivational problem. Only the first focus question is relevant to the topic.
    3. Direct quotes are over-used; it is far more convincing to write original text.
  1. 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. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  2. Learning features
    1. For numbered lists, use Wikiversity formatting per Tutorial 1.
    2. No use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive.
    3. No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    4. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links.
    5. Basic use of image(s).
    6. No use of table(s).
    7. Good use of feature box(es).
    8. No use of quiz(zes).
    9. Basic use of case studies or examples. Ideally, case studies are used to illustrate psychological theory and to demonstrate practical, take-home messages.
  3. APA style
    1. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    2. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10).
    3. Use double- rather than single-quote marks for emphasis.
    4. ibid is not part of APA style - instead, provide the citation.
    5. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style for Figure captions. See example.
      2. Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text.
    6. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year (e.g., Smith et al., 2020)
    7. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
      2. Check and correct use of italicisation.
      3. Include hyperlinked dois.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~5 claimed contributions; only 2 direct links to evidence provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's UCLearn 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 an insufficient presentation because it isn't sufficiently focused on using the best available psychological theory and research about the motivations of asylum seekers. The long quote at the beginning, deviation into the mental health outcomes, and recommended changes to asylum seeker conditions etc. take away from focusing on the primary purpose of the chapter, that is, what are the motivations of asylum seekers?

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Comments about the book chapter also largely apply to this section.
  2. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little - it is the selection of appropriate content that is the main issue.
  3. This presentation doesn't adequately address the topic.
  4. Consider adding and narrating an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered. This can also help to orientate the presenter to stay on track.
  5. The selection of content is poor because it doesn't adequately use the most relevant psychological theory and/or research to address the topic.
  6. The presentation makes basic use of general motivational theory.
  7. The presentation makes no use of research.
  8. The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples or case studies.
  9. The presentation could be strengthened by adding a Conclusion slide with practical, take-home messages.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is easy to follow.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of animated slides.
  3. Well paced.
  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 video is reasonably well produced using simple tools.
  2. The sub-title is missing in both the video title and on the opening slide - this would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. Visual display quality was good.
  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 brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]