Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Emotional self-efficacy

Feedback

Hi, I saw that you were looking for feedback. I don't have much, its looking really good overall. 1. I think the case studies work well and I like how they're linked by all being about the same person. 2. I think that you missed referring to figure 3 in the text. 3. You had quite a few apostrophe mistakes, like individual's where you needed individuals'. I changed all the ones I could find but I may have missed some. I hope this helps! U3170940 (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks so much for your edits and feedback it is much appreciated.

--U3190210 (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

How to improve self-efficacy

Hi! Really liking how it's coming along! May I suggest to look into adding a section on improving self-efficacy? Can't wait to see the rest of your chapter! --U3169316 (discuss • contribs) 07:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Culture and self-efficacy

Hello! This chapter is really interesting, I like the specific topics you have covered about the variations in self-efficacy (gender, culture,etc.)I was wondering if you have found anything about the differences in individualistic and collectivist cultures regarding self-efficacy?--U3188019 (discuss • contribs) 00:54, 30 August 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 Excellent User page Excellent 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 Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence. Section headings Excellent Key points Overview - Consider adding: an image. an example or case study. Key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations. Consider including more examples/case studies. Include APA style citations. Direct quotes need page numbers (APA style) - even better, write in your own words. Image Excellent References Excellent Resources Excellent

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback=

Looks good Amberley!

I made a few minor edits which you can see in the page history. The case study is excellent and really helped me understand what you found when researching.

I did notice some sweeping statements were made as if they were well-known facts, but they didn't have references. Perhaps you could squeeze a reference in if you have words to spare. (eg. In the SES section, you wrote 'ESE is a widely utilised sub-sector of self-efficacy theory and is a pivotal aspect of motivation and emotion theories and concepts.'). That's all I have - it's a really good chapter!

- Tia 03:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Tia, thanks for your feedback. I have definitely taken it on board.

--U3190210 (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Some general suggestions

Hey! Your chapter is looking really well developed and you’ve definitely put a lot of work in to it. I’ve just noticed a couple of things that could be fixed. • Your internal links for self-efficacy are inconsistent. I personally would just internally link the first time you refer to it and remove any following links. • “Synonymous with ESE. Where both terms are viewed as alternative labels for one another.“ – This feels like one sentence split into two. Maybe try using a linking word to begin your second sentence to improve flow. • In your first paragraph in the culture section, I would internally link the first time you mention culture as opposed to the section. Other than those things, your chapter looks great!

--U3190229 (discuss • contribs) 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth feedback. I have utilised them all in my chapter, thanks!

--U3190210 (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Some general suggestions

Hi Amberley, Your chapter is looking really good - it's organised and covered really well and answers the question. I just have a few suggestions

• Your chapter starts with a direct quote from Bandura - this would usually require a page number to be included in APA formatting.
• Your figure 1 has two captions - one within the image and one outside. This is confusing. Did you create this yourself? If so I would edit the image to remove the caption 'figure 5..." and add some details in the caption for figure 1 relating to the source. If you are using someone else's image I would consider re-doing this yourself, or adding a reference in the caption to where you have gotten it from.
• Under Age you have a reference: as (cited in Alessandri et al., 2015), but no information as to who is being cited.
• Where citing multiple references these should be listed in alphabetical order. E.g under learning you have: (Millioni et al., 2015; Alessandri et al., 2009)
• Check the capitalisation of journal titles in your references. For example: Association Between Adolescent Suicide Ideation, Suicide Attempts and Emotional Self-Efficacy

I hope this helps! U3025324 (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your suggestions they were extremely helpful. I have now made these changes to my page. Thanks again! --U3190210 (discuss • contribs) 04:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

{{MEBF/2020 |1=

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. A key strength was that the chapter embraces the Wikiversity platform (e.g., excellent use of in-text links) and provides excellent embedded case study progression to illustrate key points.
3. The main area for potential improvement is in the quality of written expression.
4. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

|2=

1. Relevant theoretical perspectives are well selected, described, integrated, and explained. A key strength of this chapter is its comprehensive theoretical coverage.
2. What was labelled "physiological" I think might be better described as demographic or individual differences - I've changed this in some places.
3. Perhaps the cognitive aspects could be unpacked a bit further because, at the end of the study, SE comes to down to cognitions.

|3=

1. Relevant research is reviewed and discussed in relation to theory, but some key research reviews or studies could be considered in more detail
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.

|4=

1. Written expression
   1. Overall, the quality of written expression is good to very good.
   2. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"; similarly "participants" is preferred to "subjects".
   3. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead, use section linking.
   4. The chapter benefited from a well developed Overview and Conclusion, with clear focus question(s). Some more practical, take-home/self-help messages in the Conclusion could be helpful.
2. Layout
   1. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
   2. Avoid having sections with only one sub-section.
3. Learning features
   1. Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia and Wikiversity articles.
   2. Very good use of image(s).
   3. Good use of table(s).
   4. Very good use of feature box(es).
   5. No use of quiz(zes).
   6. Excellent use of a progressive case study.
4. Grammar
   1. Use serial commas[1] - it is part of APA style and generally recommended by grammaticists.
5. APA style
   1. Use double- rather than single-quote marks for emphasis.
   2. 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. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
   3. References use correct APA style.
   4. References are not in full APA style. For example:

|5=

1. ~30 logged, useful, social contributions with direct links to evidence
2. Thankyou for your excellent social contributions - much appreciated! Bonus marks added {{smile}

}} -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:20, 6 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 Overall, this is an excellent presentation. Structure and content An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little. 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 excellent use of theory. The presentation makes excellent use of research. The presentation makes excellent use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s). Communication The presentation is easy to follow, and interesting to watch and listen to. The presentation makes effective use of animated slides with narrated audio. Well paced. Well spoken. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images and diagrams. Production quality The video is very well produced. 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. 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. 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 written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)