Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response and emotion

Heading casing

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 21:45, 19 September 2020 (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 Very good - minor corrections made User page Excellent - used effectively Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks. Link provided to book chapter Social contribution None summarised with link(s) to evidence. Section headings Basic, 1-level heading structure - could benefit from further development Consider where/how theory and research will be covered - these are two main marking criteria See earlier comment about Heading casing. Key points Basic, incomplete development of key points for each section. Overview - Consider adding: a description of the problem and what will be covered. an image. an example or case study. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters. Consider including more examples/case studies. Include APA style citations. Conclusion (the most important section): hasn't been developed what might the take-home, practical messages be? Image An image (figure) is presented. Caption uses APA style. could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text. Cite each figure at least once in the main text. References Excellent Resources See also Also link to relevant Wikipedia pages External links Move this link to See also Use this section to link to external resources (outside of the Wikiversity/Wikipedia system)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:45, 19 September 2020 (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, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is an insufficient chapter. I suspect that the recommended 5 topic development hours and 45 book chapter hours were not invested in preparing this chapter. This chapter is well under the maximum word count. Overview Spell out the abbreviation before using it. Vague - an example could be helpful. Good focus questions. The Conclusion is general/vague and lacks practical, take-home messages. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits. Theory Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of relevant psychological theory. The Reeve (2017 - should be 2018) textbook is overused as a citation - instead, utilise primary, peer-reviewed sources. Research Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of relevant psychological research. 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. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the tags). Written expression Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills to a professional standard. Use 3rd person perspective rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you")[1] in the main text, although 1st or 2nd person perspective can work well for case studies or feature boxes. Layout Sections which branch into sub-sections should include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections. Learning features 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. See example. 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. Use in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters. Basic use of image(s). No use of table(s). Basic/No use of feature box(es). Basic/No use of quiz(zes). No use of case studies or examples. Grammar The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags). Grammar-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. Abbreviations Spell out an abbreviation before using it (e.g., POV). APA style Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc.. Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented or coined expression; use quotation marks only for the first occurrence of the word or phrase, not for subsequent occurrences" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159). References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of capitalisation. Check and correct use of italicisation. Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section. Social contribution No logged social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments on resubmitted book chapter

1. Overall, minor improvements have been made.
2. There are minor improvements to the Overview.
3. Grammar and spelling has been improved.
4. Explanation of James-Lange theory has been improved.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

[ These revisions] have been reviewed. Comments:

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 Overall, this is a reasonably good presentation. The presentation is under the maximum time limit, so there was room for more detail (e.g,. a summary of research and perhaps an example?). Structure and content Comments about the book chapter also apply to this section. The presentation is well structured. Consider adding and narrating an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered. The presentation makes good use of relevant theory. The presentation makes little to no use of relevant research. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies. The presentation could be strengthened by adding a Conclusion slide with practical, take-home messages. Communication The presentation is fun, easy to follow, and interesting to watch and listen to. The presentation makes effective/basic use of animated slides with narrated audio. 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. Excellent intonation and articulation enhances listener interest and engagement. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read. Production quality The video is well produced. The wording and/or formatting/grammar of the title/sub-title is inconsistent between the name of the video, the opening slide, and/or the book chapter. Audio recording quality was excellent. Visual display quality was excellent. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided. A copyright license for the presentation is provided. A link to the book chapter is provided. A link from the book chapter is provided. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)