Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Optimism and depression

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feedback[edit source]

  • Fellow users, please feel free to give me ideas and/or feedback on my book chapter below :) thanks!

Hey! I found this news report and video relating to optimism and depression in regards to COVID-19 - might be an interesting read given our current situation! Hope this helps you, good luck :) - U3174181 (discusscontribs) 20:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion from Maddison[edit source]

Hey, this sounds like such an interesting topic. I was looking into it a little bit and found an article that may be helpful to your research. It focuses on optimism and depression among uni students, but also mentions some theoretical frameworks I hope this helps and I look forward to seeing what else you find. --User:Maddison gray1 {{subst:Heading casign}}

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. Good
  2. Sub-title has been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents

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. Summarised with indirect link(s) to evidence.
  2. Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.
  3. Use a numbered list.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Overly complicated 3-level structure - consider simplifying.
  2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
  3. See earlier comment about Heading casing.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. a description of the problem and what will be covered
    2. an image
    3. an example or case study
  2. Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) - more info
  3. Expand theory e.g., consider moving appraisal theory up higher.
  4. Humour is interesting, but not directly part of the topic. Consider abbreviating and linking to further info (e.g., to book chapters or Wikipedia pages about humour).
  5. Basic development of key points for several sections, with some relevant citations.
  6. Consider including more examples/case studies.
  7. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. hasn't been developed
    2. what might the take-home, practical messages be?
    3. 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. Very good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Very good
    2. Also link to relevant book chapters
  2. External links
    1. Very good
    2. Use bullet-points

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Article suggestion[edit source]

I have linked an article that looks at the link between optimism and depression in women with breast cancer. --Jackson McNee (discusscontribs) 23:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Social contribution[edit source]

I noticed you haven't added any interwiki links into your chapter. It may be beneficial to add some into your chapter! If you go into edit mode then select the word you want to add a link to then select the link button and it should come up, if not consider looking at wikipedia and adding some of those links by copying the url :) --User:Maddison gray1

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 theories are well selected, described, integrated, and explained.
  2. Some examples are provided. More examples, especially case studies, could help to illustrate the application of these principles.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.
  2. When describing important research findings, consider 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. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
  2. Layout
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  3. Learning features
    1. Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles.
    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. Very good use of image(s).
    4. No use of table(s).
    5. Good use of feature box(es).
    6. Excellent use of quiz(zes).
  4. 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. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').
    4. Use serial commas[2] - it is part of APA style and generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's a 1 min. explanatory video.
    5. Check and correct use of semi-colons (;) and colons (:).
    6. 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.
    2. Remove unnecessary capitalisation.
  6. APA style
    1. Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    2. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    3. Figures and tables
      1. Refer to each Table and Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation).
      2. Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text.
    4. 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)
      2. Multiple citations in parentheses should be listed in alphabetical order by first author surname.
      3. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
    5. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Remove "Doi: "

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~6 logged, minor, last minute, social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:20, 18 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 a good presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Comments about the book chapter also largely apply to this section.
  2. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little.
  3. The presentation is well structured.
  4. Consider adding and narrating an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered.
  5. The presentation makes very good use of theory.
  6. The presentation makes little use of research.
  7. The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples or case studies.
  8. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is easy to follow.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of text based slides with narrated audio.
  3. Well paced.
  4. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  5. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is reasonably well produced using simple tools.
  2. 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.
  3. Audio recording quality was OK - probably an on-board microphone was used because keyboard clicks were very 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.
  7. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  8. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  9. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)