Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Compassion focused therapy

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Suggestions for subheadings[edit source]

So far your topic development looks really interesting! One thing I would do is possible change some of the subheadings to make them more straightforward and easier to understand. Another suggestion is to possibly add some sort of case study to allow the readers to better understand a topic in a real world example--U3187486 (discusscontribs) 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for internal links in see also[edit source]

Your chapter is looking really interesting, and easy to understand. One thing I would suggest is, if it is possible, trying to find a previous motivation and emotion book chapter that has even the slightest relation to your topic. --U3190522 (discusscontribs) 10:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
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 04:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for quizzes[edit source]

Hey ! i found these helpful flashcards that might be useful for your quizzes. I attempted them straight after reading your page and felt your page was very informative, well done ! https://quizlet.com/39009189/social-psych-chapter-5-flash-cards/ U3177123 (discusscontribs) 21:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this. I'm not too sure how they link into my page though- perhaps you've linked into the wrong page? All the best, Anubhandary (discusscontribs)

Hi, I'm not sure if this is meant for my page either... These quizzes don't seem to relate to my content. Thanks anyway! TaraMaland

Topic development feedback[edit source]

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.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title and sub-title[edit source]

  1. Title casing and sub-title content has been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents

User page[edit source]

  1. Simple, effective
  2. Consider linking to your eportfolio

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Summarised with direct link(s) to evidence.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development by reducing the preliminary material about compassion as a stand-alone concept (instead summarise and link e.g., to other related chapter for more info) and expanding the material on the topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
  2. See earlier comment about Heading casing.
  3. 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. Good development of key points for each section, with relevant citations.
  2. Avoid providing too much background information. Briefly summarise generic concepts and provide internal wiki links to further information. Then focus most of the content on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.
  3. Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) - more info
  4. Incorporate greater linkage with other related book chapters such as compassion and empathy.
  5. Use APA style for citations (e.g., do not include author initials).
  6. Direct quotes need page numbers (APA style) - even better, write in your own words.
  7. The plan provides relatively strong coverage of theory and relatively weak coverage of research.
  8. Conclusion (the most important section) hasn't been developed.

Image[edit source]

  1. An image (figure) is presented.
  2. Caption
    1. uses APA style.
    2. explains how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. OK.
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. italicisation

Resources[edit source]

  1. Good
  2. Formatting adjusted

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Compassion capitalisation[edit source]

Compassion is over-capitalised in the current draft. More info: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Case study[edit source]

Hi, I suggested that the case study can move at the end of the session, because if you put a case study at the beginning of theoretical framework, it is a little bit confusing, and try to give more details in the case study. --U3178984 (discusscontribs) 03:17, 12 October 2020 (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, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter does a reasonably good job of explaining CFT from a theoretical point of view. Some research is included and some description of techniques. Practical application through a case study could help to illustrate CFT in action. Closer citation would be ideal. The quality of written could be improved towards a more professional standard.
  2. This chapter is over the maximum word count.
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, integrated, and explained, but is often lacking sufficient citation.
  2. Did you consult Maslow (1943)? If not, this should be cited as a secondary source.

Research[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter provides a basic overview of relevant research.
  2. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).
  3. 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.
  4. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.
  5. A general critical perspective is evident, but it lacks specificity about the reliability and validity of key studies.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is OK.
    2. Use 3rd person perspective rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you")[1].
    3. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    4. Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in brackets at the end of the sentence.
    5. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead:
      1. It is most often not needed at all, or
      2. use section linking.
  2. Layout
    1. A basic heading structure is provided.
    2. See earlier comments about heading casing.
    3. Remove full-stops from headings. If the heading is a question, it needs a question mark.
  3. Learning features
    1. Minimal 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.
    2. Basic use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding more in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    3. Use in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
    4. Links to non-peer-reviewed sources should be moved to the external links section.
    5. Good use of image(s).
    6. Very good use of table(s).
    7. Very good use of feature box(es).
    8. Basic use of quiz(zes).
  4. Grammar
    1. Check and make correct use of commas.
    2. Check and correct use of semi-colons (;) and colons (:).
    3. Use serial commas[2] - it is part of APA style and generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's a 1 min. explanatory video.
    4. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[3].
    5. Abbreviations
      1. Once an abbreviation is established (e.g., CFT), use it consistently. Don't set up an abbreviation and then not use it or only use it sometimes.
      2. Abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.) should only be used inside parentheses.
  5. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour).
  6. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
    2. Remove unnecessary capitalisation.
  7. APA style
    1. 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).
    2. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    3. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style for Figure captions. See example.
      2. Use APA style for Table captions. See example.
      3. Refer to each Table and Figure using APA style.
    4. 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)
    5. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section.
      2. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
      3. Check and correct use of italicisation.
      4. Include hyperlinked dois.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~11 logged, useful, social contributions. About half with direct links to evidence and about half without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:06, 17 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a good presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little.
  2. The presentation is well structured.
  3. The presentation makes very good use of theory.
  4. The presentation makes no use of research.
  5. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is easy to follow.
  2. Well paced.
  3. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  4. The visual communication is supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is well produced using simple tools.
  2. 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.
  3. Audio recording quality was OK. There was one glitch early on. Keyboard clicks were audible. Consider using an external microphone.
  4. Visual display quality was excellent/very good/good/basic.
  5. Image sources but not copyright status are provided.
  6. A copyright license for the presentation is provided.
  7. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data.
  8. A link to the book chapter is provided but it goes to the mobile version - ideally point to the web version which automatically show as the mobile version when a mobile device is used, but it doesn't work the other way around.
  9. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  10. A written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)