Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Compersion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Additional Information[edit source]

Hi! This is a super interesting topic, I love the idea of polyamory and I think you've decided to research great ideas and concepts. I found a super cute video that you might be able to externally link that gives a really basic explanation of compersion. U3189449 (discusscontribs) 09:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply[edit source]

Thank you! Super informative and helpful video, I have included it in my external links. U3202026 (discusscontribs) 09:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Excellent - used effectively
  2. Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence.
  2. Note that the way you've done the direct link for no. 4 is ideal/preferred - it is the easiest to follow to direct evidence.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Overly complicated 3-level structure - consider simplifying to a 2-level structure.
  2. Maybe rethink the wording for the top level of heading - it should be possible to just read these headings and get a reasonably good idea about what is in the chapter - the headings could be more informative.
  3. Perhaps consider - what are the similarities and differences between compersion and jealousy/envy?
  4. Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections.
  5. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Overall, very well developed.
  2. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. a description of the problem and what will be covered
    2. an image
    3. an example or case study
  3. Use peer-reviewed sources. Other material could be in external links.
  4. Avoid providing too much background information (e.g., about emotion). Briefly summarise general concepts and provide internal wiki links to other book chapters and/or Wikipedia pages for further information. Then focus most of the content of this chapter on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.
  5. Interesting question about whether compersion can be learned - will draw on theory and research.
  6. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  7. Consider including more examples/case studies.

Image[edit source]

  1. Excellent
  2. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. Good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. dois should be active hyperlinks
  3. None

Resources[edit source]

  1. Excellent

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Interim feedback[edit source]

@U3202026: Great to see this resource developing. Some suggestions:

  1. The main feedback is to keep developing the sections which directly address the sub-title question and eep other sections minimal or even remove if they are not directly addressing the question.
  2. I copyedited the Overview - might give some ideas for tweaks elsewhere (e.g., use active rather than passive expression)
  3. Consider moving the first case study to the beginning of its section. Consider breaking the case study into two parts - e.g., perhaps initially a jealous scenario that later develops to become less jealous, with greater compersion
  4. The theoretical background about emotion is really only useful to the extent that it is subsequently applied to discussion about compersion - e.g,. is compersion natural or learned? is it biological or cognitive? etc.
  5. If there is a lack of info about developing compersion (likely), then provide critical comment about what is not known - what would be interested to know, that perhaps we know about other emotions, but don't yet know about compersion etc.
  6. APA style for citations - use "and" in main text and "&" in parentheses
  7. Refer to each figure at least once in the main text
  8. Quiz questions - consider splitting up so that each question appears at the end of the corresponding section
  9. Provide in-text wiki links to related book chapters e.g., for jealousy, polyamory etc. Those links are in see also, which is great, but where relevant also include as in-text links.
  10. References
    1. check and correct capitalisation
    2. dois should be active hyperlinks

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:21, 15 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 applying psychological theory and research to a real-world problem.
  2. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theory is reasonably well explained.

Research[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter provides a basic overview of relevant research.
  2. 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.
  3. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good.
    2. 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.
    3. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead:
      1. it is, most often, not needed at all, or
      2. use section linking.
    4. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"; similarly "participants" is preferred to "subjects".
  1. 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.
  2. Learning features
    1. Format bullet-points and numbered lists, per Tutorial 1.
    2. Good 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. See example.
    3. 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.
    4. Good use of image(s).
    5. No use of table(s).
    6. No use of feature box(es).
    7. Excellent use of quiz(zes).
  3. Grammar
    1. Use serial commas[2] - it is part of APA style and generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's a 1 min. explanatory video.
    2. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[3].
    3. Check and correct use of that vs. who.
    4. Abbreviations
      1. Abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.) should only be used inside parentheses.
  4. 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. 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).
    3. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    4. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Multiple citations in parentheses should be listed in alphabetical order by first author surname.
      2. 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 use correct APA style.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~15 logged, useful, social contributions with somewhat direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:56, 19 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 an excellent presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little.
  2. This presentation doesn't adequately address the topic.
  3. The presentation is well structured.
  4. The presentation makes excellent use of theory.
  5. The presentation makes little use of research.
  6. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.
  7. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is easy to follow, and interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. The presentation makes effective, basic use of animated slides.
  3. 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.
  4. Excellent intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  5. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is well produced using simple tools.
  2. The wording of the title/sub-title is inconsistent between the name of the video, the opening slide, and/or the book chapter.
  3. Audio recording quality was excellent.
  4. Visual display quality was excellent.
  5. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data.
  6. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  7. An active link to the book chapter is not provided.
  8. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  9. A written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)