Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Sense of coherence

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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. Incorrect
  2. Sub-title and title have been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents
  3. Page has been moved back to original location
  4. Authorship details removed - authorship is as per the page's editing history

User page[edit source]

  1. Excellent - used effectively
  2. Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks.

Social contribution[edit source]

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

Section headings[edit source]

  1. The Overview and Conclusion should not have sub-headings.
  2. Under-developed heading structure - develop further, including expanding the 2-level structure for the larger planned section(s).
  3. Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections.
  4. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Very limited, incomplete development with no citations Frowny.svg
  2. There is no evidence that theory and research literature has been consulted e.g., no Antonovsky citations.

Image[edit source]

  1. None provided

References[edit source]

  1. 1 out of 3 required references, not in APA style, and not cited
  2. The reference is provided using 2 different styles - APA style and wiki style - decide on one

Resources[edit source]

  1. None provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:37, 20 September 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 03:39, 13 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 an insufficient chapter.
  2. Sub-title was incorrect; now fixed.
  3. Overview lacks sufficient development.
  4. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Basic but sufficient coverage of the overall theory is provided, but there is a lack of sufficient coverage of what is known about each of the three SOC components including how they relate to other psychological theory(ies) and research.
  2. SOC is not really a medical model. A biopsychosocial model is a better description.
  3. The chapter could be improved by providing a more comprehensive overview of the core SOC constructs and related theory and research.
  4. I don't understand the missing parts of the sample measurement items. Explain.

Research[edit source]

  1. Some relevant research is reviewed.
  2. When describing important research findings, consider including a bit more detail (e.g., about the methodology and/or 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 below professional standard.
    2. Use 3rd person perspective rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you")[1].
    3. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead, use section linking.
    4. The chapter would benefit from a more developed Overview and Conclusion, with clearer focus question(s) (Overview) and take-home self-help message for each focus question (Conclusion).
  2. Layout
    1. The chapter lacks structural development (i.e., major headings and sub-headings).
    2. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  3. Learning features
    1. Minimal 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.
    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. Good use of feature box(es).
    7. Good use of quiz(zes).
    8. No use of case studies or examples.
  4. Grammar
    1. Use serial commas[2] - it is part of APA style and generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's a 1 min. explanatory video.
    2. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  5. Spelling
    1. Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags).
    2. Remove unnecessary capitalisation.
    3. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour).
  6. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
    2. Replace double spaces with single spaces.
  7. APA style
    1. In general, do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    2. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10).
    3. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style for Figure captions. See example.
      2. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
    4. Citations use correct APA style.
    5. References uses a mixture of wiki style and APA style. Either is fine, but be consistent. For APA style:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.
      2. Check and correct use of italicisation.
      3. Include hyperlinked dois.
      4. Move non-peer-reviewed sources into external links. Move peer-reviewed sources from external links to references.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. No logged social contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments on resubmitted book chapter

These revisions have been reviewed. Comments:

  1. An introductory paragraph has been added to the Overview
  2. Theory - a stronger introduction to SOC is provided.
  3. A better description of the three components of SOC is provided.
  4. Material on the relationship between SOC and personality has been added.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:43, 13 December 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 mainly because it mainly only addresses what is SOC from a theoretical point of view within the first three minutes. There is little coverage of research, how its developed, or what its effects are within the first three minutes.
  2. The presentation is over the maximum time limit - content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking purposes.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. There is too much content, in too much detail, to be presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to do a small amount well than a large amount poorly.
  2. This presentation doesn't adequately address the topic.
  3. The presentation is poorly planned.
  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 selection of content is poor because it doesn't adequately use the most relevant psychological theory and/or research to address the topic.
  6. The presentation makes basic use of theory.
  7. The presentation makes little use of research.
  8. The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples or case studies.
  9. What are the practical take-home message(s) that we can use to help improve our everyday lives based on the best available psychological theory and research about this topic?

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides with narrated audio.
  2. Some of the font size should be larger to make it easier to read. Less text per slide would also help.
  3. The visual communication could be improved by including some relevant images, although the diagram is helpful.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. 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.
  2. Audio recording quality was OK.
  3. Visual display quality was good.
  4. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.
  5. A link to the book chapter is not provided.
  6. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  7. A written description of the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)