Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Protection motivation theory

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey! Your chapter is looking good so far. I’ve noticed a couple of things that might be worth fixing 😊 • “Protection motivation theory (PMT) is a cognitive psychological process, it is a process…” Maybe rephrase this so you’re not repeating ‘process’ and improve the flow. • Perhaps use an image of cigarette smoking to refer to it in your writing? • “The benefits need to out way the risk and the comforts need to out way the discomfort in some situations.” – The correct word here is outweigh 😊 • After mentioning protection motivation theory in the first sentence, you should continue to use the acronym you’ve specified instead of referring to it in full. • “Smoking for longer periods of time can create the negative association with addition and also create fear” – Did you mean to refer to addiction? • “Severity and vulnerability are to prevent maladaptive such as the negative aspects in smoking then there is an opposing force, the factor of rewards” – Looks like you’ve forgotten a word after maladaptive. • There are quite a few other grammatical errors that need to be looked into – Maybe have a good proofread of your chapter and use the free draft submission offered by Studiosity (It’ll be in the course links for this unit, second from the bottom). • I’ve noticed you’ve consistently referred to the same references throughout your chapter – would it be worth trying to find some more sources to back up what you’re saying. All in all, your chapter is progressing well but I think you should consider some of the things I’ve mentioned to help you improve it a little more!

--U3190229 (discusscontribs) 02:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the recommended Wikiversity heading style uses sentence casing. For example:

Self-determination theory rather than Self-Determination Theory

Here's an example chapter with correct heading casing: Growth mindset development

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:29, 16 November 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 basic, but sufficient chapter.
  2. This chapter is over the maximum word count.
  3. Title adjusted to match the main book table of contents.
  4. The main area for improvement is in the clarity of written expression.
  5. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. PMT is not well explained in the early stages of the chapter. This makes it difficult to understand the rest of the chapter.
  2. Relevant theories are discussed, but in a rather abstract and obtuse manner.

Research[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter provides a basic overview of relevant research.
  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.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. Sentence construction is poor. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills to a professional standard.
  2. Layout
    1. An unnecessarily complicated 4-level heading structure is used. Consider simplifying to a 2-level structure.
    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. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  3. Learning features
    1. Good 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. 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. Basic use of image(s).
    4. No use of table(s).
    5. Good use of feature box(es).
    6. Basic use of quiz(zes).
    7. Basic use of case studies or examples.
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for many or most sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags). A lot of the sentences are poorly constructed and difficult to read, particularly for someone unfamiliar with the topic.
    2. Abbreviations
      1. Abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.) should only be used inside parentheses.
  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. In general, 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 at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
      2. Provide more Figure captions that more clearly connect the figure to the text.
    4. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Do not include author first name or initial(s).
      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)
      3. Multiple citations in parentheses should be listed in alphabetical order by first author surname.
    5. References use a mixture of APA style and wiki style. Instead, use one style or the other; not both.
    6. Reference are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
      2. Include hyperlinked dois.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. No logged social contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:29, 16 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 a basic 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. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little.
  2. The presentation is well structured.
  3. The presentation makes good use of theory.
  4. The presentation makes basic use of research.
  5. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.
  6. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation makes basic use of text based slides with narrated audio.
  2. Well paced.
  3. Consider using greater intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  4. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is produced using simple tools.
  2. 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.
  3. Audio recording quality was OK - probably an on-board microphone was used because background noise was audible. Consider using an external microphone.
  4. Visual display quality was basic.
  5. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.
  6. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  7. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  8. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)