Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Attentional bias for emotional stimuli

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  2. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, integrated, and explained.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent.
    2. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead, use section linking.
  2. Layout
    1. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
    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. Learning features
    1. Basic use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive.
    2. No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    3. Very good use of image(s).
    4. No use of table(s).
    5. Very good use of feature box(es).
    6. Very good use of focus questions.
    7. More use of case studies or examples could be helpful.
  4. Grammar, spelling, and proofreading are excellent.
  5. 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. In general, do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    3. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    4. Use double- rather than single-quote marks for emphasis.
    5. 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).
    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. For example, either:
        1. in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or
        2. in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020)
      2. A full stop is needed after "et al" (i.e., "et al.").
      3. Multiple citations in parentheses should be listed in alphabetical order by first author surname.
    7. References use correct APA style.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~4 logged, useful, social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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 a very good presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. The presentation is well structured.
  2. Consider adding and narrating an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered.
  3. The presentation makes excellent use of theory.
  4. The presentation makes very good use of research.
  5. The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice.
  6. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides with narrated audio.
  3. Well paced.
  4. Excellent intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  5. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read - but less text per slide would make them easier to read.
  6. Some of the font size should be larger to make it easier to read.
  7. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is well produced using simple tools.
  2. The chapter title and sub-title are used on the opening slide - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. The chapter title but not the sub-title are used in the video title - the latter would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  4. Audio recording quality was OK. Probably an on-board microphone was used. Consider using an external microphone.
  5. Visual display quality was good.
  6. Image sources and their copyright status are provided.
  7. A copyright license for the presentation is provided.
  8. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  9. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  10. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)