Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Healthy risk-taking

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Suggestion for research[edit source]

Hi there, I have found a source that you may like to review regarding your topic Current Theories of Risk and Rational Decision Making. All the best with submission

Gday, I've found a source that I think might be useful for your topic :) hope it helps you get started:

 Ewert, A. (1994). Playing the Edge: Motivation and Risk Taking in a High-Altitude Wilderness Like Environment. Environment and Behavior, 26(1), 3–24.

Hope it helps!!

u3175750: 23:03, Sat 29/8/20

Comment[edit source]

Hey ! Just thought I would provided an article that may help you in the development of your chapter! :) It is titled "positive risk taking in adolescence" by Duell & Steinberg (2018). You can find it here: https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdep.12310 Hope this helps ! :)--U3190016 (discusscontribs) 11:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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[edit source]

  1. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Created - minimal, but sufficient
  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.
  3. Add link to book chapter

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. None summarised with link(s) to evidence.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development.
  2. I don't think it makes sense to have the chapter sub-title as the first main heading title - consider how the topic can be broken down into sub-sections.
  3. A focus on adolescent healthy risk-taking could be useful as an example or case study or application - but the topic is not just about adolescents, so be careful not to overly focus on this cohort.
  4. The proposed headings are quite long - consider abbreviating.
  5. 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. Overview - Consider:
    1. merge the two sets of questions
    2. adding a description of the problem and what will be covered
    3. adding an image
    4. adding an example or case study
  2. I'm not convinced that goal setting theory is particularly relevant for this topic, although it could be developed to be useful. Consider, what is the psychological purpose of risk? What functions is it performing? What are its pros and cons? And how can we maximise the pros and minimise the cons? etc. There are some promising answers to these sorts of questions in the adolescent section, so consider bring those up higher and exploring/expanding.
  3. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  4. Consider including more examples/case studies.
  5. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. what might the take-home, practical messages be?
    2. in a nutshell, what are the answer(s) to the question in the sub-title?

Image[edit source]

  1. Excellent
  2. 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
  3. None

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Good
    2. Also link to relevant book chapters
  2. External links
    1. Very good
    2. Target an international audience; Australians only represent 0.33% of the world population

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an insufficient chapter.
  2. Overview is underdeveloped. Merge the sets of questions. Describe the problem. Provide an example etc.
  3. This chapter is well under the maximum word count.
  1. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Definition is problematic. Healthy risk-taking can lead to positive long-term consequences.
  2. It is unclear how/why goal setting theory is selected. I doubt that this is the best/most relevant psychological theory for the topic?

Research[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of research.
  2. Many claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard.
    2. Direct quotes are overused. Direct quotes should be embedded within sentences and paragraphs, rather than dumped holus-bolus. Even better, communicate concepts in your own words.
    3. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"; similarly "participants" is preferred to "subjects".
    4. Reduce use of weasel words which bulk out the text, but don't enhance meaning.
    5. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills to a professional standard.
  2. Layout
    1. 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. 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. Ideally, use in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters. Other links can be moved to the external links section.
    4. Minimal use of image(s).
    5. No use of table(s).
    6. Minimal use of feature box(es).
    7. No use of quiz(zes).
    8. No use of case studies.
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of that vs. who.
  5. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
  6. APA style
    1. Figures and tables
      1. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
    2. 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)
    3. References are not in full APA style.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. No logged social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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 well under the maximum time limit.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. The presentation is poorly structured (lack of Overview and Conclusion).
  2. The content is poorly selected (doesn't adequately use the most relevant psychological theory and research to address the topic).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation makes very basic use of text based slides with narrated audio.
  2. Reduce the amount of text per slide and make the font size larger so that it is easier to read.
  3. The visual communication could be improved by including some relevant images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is poorly produced and lacks the polish that comes with practice.
  2. Communicate the chapter title and sub-title in both the video title and on the opening slide - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.
  4. A link to the book chapter is not provided.
  5. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  6. A written description of the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]