Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Habit versus addiction

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hello! I stumbled upon this journal article that could be useful to you! It also contains many references that could be utilised if you need them: https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0747563219301931 --U3160224 (discusscontribs) 05:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tidying up[edit source]

Hi! This looks like a great start to a very interesting topic. Just a few things I noticed which will hopefully help you get a higher grade. I noticed in you 'See Also' and 'References' you still had the template instructions, as well as your own work. Perhaps you should delete these just to make it easier to see what you've done already. I've also found a video that discussion addiction as a neurological disease/neuroscience. Hope this helps! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZcPwlRRcc U3189449 (discusscontribs) 09:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Recommendation for topic discussion[edit source]

Hi!

Under the "Similarities and differences between a habit and an addiction" section, I think it would be beneficial if you clarify that addiction has a negetive connotation. This is because, any habit can be termed an addiction. Therefore, mentioning that an addictive behaviour is any that is done impulsively and is bad for the wellbeing of the individual, is a vital distinction. There is a sentence mentioning that in brief. But I think it should be explained properly, as that is the main question of the topic. You should properly distinguish between what is classified as a habit and what is an addiction. An important distinction is that addictive behaviours are hard to stop. Habits can be ceased by the individual. It becomes an addiction when an individual cannot help themselves but to execute that behaviour, whether they enjoy it or not.

Here are some resources to help you: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210595/ https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/HealthyLiving/Addiction https://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/what-is-addiction.htm


An idea for your quiz: You could list a couple behaviours and ask viewers to pick the addiction from the options. Eg:

Which of the following is classified an addiction: 1. watching sci-fi documentaries 2. baking cookies every evening 3. refusing to eat more than a certain amount of calories

Hope I was of help. Good luck. Fiddausi Husseini (discusscontribs) 09:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Fiddausi Husseini


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 13:44, 14 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 is a very good chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  2. The main areas for potential improvement are closer citation to support claims and quality of written expression could be improved by correcting grammatical errors.
  3. This chapter is well under/over the maximum word count.
  4. Overview is very good, but could be improved by using focus questions rather than key points.
  5. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, integrated, and explained.
  2. Did you consult Freud (1913), Hull (1943) etc.? If not, they should be cited as secondary sources.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.
  2. Many claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).
  3. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.
  4. When describing important research findings, consider indicating the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is good to very good, but is undermined in several places by poor grammar.
    2. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    3. "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. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
  3. Learning features
    1. 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.
    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. Minimal use of image(s).
    4. No use of table(s).
    5. Good use of feature box(es).
    6. Excellent/Very good/Good/Basic/No use of quiz(zes).
    7. The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than being presented as a set of questions at the end.
    8. Excellent/Very good/Good/Basic/No use of case studies or examples.
    9. Use bullet-points and numbered lists, per Tutorial 1.
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect.
    3. Check and make correct use of commas.
    4. Check and correct use of that vs. who.
    5. Abbreviations
      1. Abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.) should only be used inside parentheses.
  5. 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 double quotation marks and page numbers.
    3. In general, do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    4. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10).
    5. Figures and tables
      1. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
    6. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Do not include author first name.
      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)
    7. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
      2. Move non-peer-reviewed sources into the external links section.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. No logged social contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:43, 15 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 an excellent 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 excellent use of theory.
  4. The presentation makes good use of research.
  5. The presentation makes excellent use of one or more examples or case studies.
  6. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides with narrated audio.
  3. Well paced.
  4. Consider using greater intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  5. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read. Perhaps some slides could have slightly less text.
  6. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.

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 good/a bit quiet - probably an on-board microphone was used because keyboard clicks were audible. Consider using an external microphone.
  4. Visual display quality was very good.
  5. Image sources and their copyright status are provided.
  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 written description of the presentation is provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)