Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Fear of pain

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback[edit source]

Hey there! This topic is truly interesting ! I just thought that it may be helpful to provide a link to a book I found on this topic! The title is "Understanding fear of pain" by Asmundson et al., 2004. You can find it here:

Hi It would have been great to see a photo diagram of one of the pain scales --U3202324 (discusscontribs) 06:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The book itself features a cast amount of content related to your subheadings. I hope this is helpful ! --U3190016 (discusscontribs) 04:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Chapter Book Title

  • Using scientific evidence to understand the Impact of the Fear of pain on our lives --> changed into focus question accordingly

U3187226 (discusscontribs) 09:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Bulleted list item
  • Bulleted list item
  • Possibly have sentences in the overview
  • The titles are worded well just be mindful about the presentation within the table of contents. Just to ensure it isn’t to clutter.
  • There is a syntax error in the chapter recap, not sure what it is meant to be so I couldn’t fix
  • The CBT table is done really nicely and concise
  • Conclusion incomplete


  • Awesome, very informative and interesting
  • Once the conclusion is complete, I’m sure it’ll wrap up the conclusion nicely
  • Possibly less dot points and numbered points and more flowing sentences, could be helpful with the flow of the chapter.
  • Possible lack of referencing

All in all a nice chapter, very informative, I didn’t see any issues with referencing formats and the writing was great. I think it will be helpful for you to look over some of the tips provided and once it’s complete I’m sure it’ll be swell. ! --U3177198 (discusscontribs) 19:26, 18 October 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 08:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Review updates

U3187226 (discusscontribs) 09:28, 9 November 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 ! 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. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Excellent - used effectively

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. Well developed effectively 1-level heading structure, with meaningful headings that directly relate to the core topic. Consider expanding to a more considered 2-level heading structure.
  3. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
  4. See earlier comment about Heading casing.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Decapitalise algophobia
  2. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. an image
    2. an example or case study
  3. Key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations.

Image[edit source]

  1. Excellent

References[edit source]

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

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Expand target page name (fixed)
    2. Also link t

o relevant Wikipedia pages

  1. External links
    1. Move Wikipedia links to the see also section
    2. Include source in brackets after link
    3. Use sentence casing

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:42, 20 September 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. Addressing the topic development feedback could have helped to improve this chapter.
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, integrated, and explained.
  2. A case study of someone who acquires, experiences, and then recovers from algophobia could help to illustrate the concepts in an accessible way.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.
  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. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is basic.
    2. Some of the bullet-points/numbered lists should have been in full paragraph format (e.g., opening paragraph).
    3. Avoid repeating content (e.g., Overview and next section contain repeated material).
    4. Direct quotes should be embedded within sentences and paragraphs, rather than dumped holus-bolus. Even better, communicate the concept in your own words.
    5. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"; similarly "participants" is preferred to "subjects".
  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. Basic use of image(s).
    4. Basic use of table(s).
    5. Basic use of feature box(es).
    6. Basic use of quiz(zes).
    7. No use of case studies.
    8. Overuse of bullet-points and/or numbered lists.
    9. See also - move external links to the external links section; External links - move inter-wiki links to the see also section.
  1. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and make correct use of commas.
    3. Use serial commas[1] - 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').[2].
    5. Abbreviations
      1. Abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.) should only be used inside parentheses.
  2. Spelling
    1. Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags).
  3. Proofreading
    1. Remove unnecessary capitalisation (e.g., Algophobia -> algophobia).
    2. In general, do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    3. Replace double spaces with single spaces.
  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. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style for Table captions. See example.
      2. Refer to each Table and Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation).
    3. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. The citation style use is inconsistent.
      2. Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
      3. Check and correct formatting for et al. When there are three or more authors, use either:
        1. in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or
        2. in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020)
      4. Select up to a maximum of three citations per point (i.e., avoid citing four or more citations to support a single point).
    4. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
      2. Include hyperlinked dois.

Social contribution[edit source]

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

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:55, 12 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 insufficient presentation.
  2. The presentation is over the maximum time limit - content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Consider adding and narrating an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered.
  2. The presentation makes reasonably good use of theory.
  3. The presentation makes little use of research.
  4. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.
  5. The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation makes basic use of text based slides with narrated audio.
  2. Consider slowing down and leaving longer pauses between sentences. This can help the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point.
  3. Consider using greater intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  4. Consider improving articulation to enhance the clarity of speech.
  5. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  6. The visual communication could be improved by including more relevant images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is basically produced using simple tools.
  2. Use the chapter title and sub-title on the opening slide and in the name of the video because this helps to match the book chapter and to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. Audio recording quality was poor (e.g., background noise) - probably an on-board microphone was used because keyboard clicks were audible. Consider using an external microphone.
  4. Visual display quality was basic.
  5. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided. Either acknowledge the image sources and their licenses in the video description or remove the presentation.
  6. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data.
  7. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  8. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  9. A written description of the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)