Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Urgency bias and productivity

Heading casing

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 22:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

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 Excellent User page Excellent Social contribution Summarised with direct link(s) to evidence - however the 2nd and 3rd links do not go to accurate comparison pages Section headings Basic, 2-level heading structure - where's productivity? could benefit from further development, perhaps using a 2-level structure. Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclus, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections. Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development by expanding the structure. Well developed 2-level heading structure, with meaningful headings that directly relate to the core topic. Overly complicated 3-level structure - consider simplifying. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings. See earlier comment about Heading casing. 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 No or minimal development Image An image (figure) is presented. Caption uses APA style. explains how the image connects to key points being made in the main text. Cite each figure at least once in the main text. References Good For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation italicisation Resources See also Use bullet-points Include source in brackets after link Also link to relevant book chapters External links Excellent

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammar, flow, references

Hey Emma!

I just did some last minute edits for you, they were just:

• Minor grammatical fixes
• Fixing the flow of some sentences
• Italicising and fixing the capitalisation of references.

Hope this helps!

--U3190229 (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback

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 Overall, this is a promising but insufficient chapter. The main areas for potential improvement are: Expanding the theoretical connection between UB and related concepts. Since there is somewhat limited information about UB per se, it is necessary to provide a broader theoretical context. Expanding the review of research about UB and its effects. The quality of written expression can be improved. More examples/case studies and practical suggestions could be provided. Relatively few peer-reviewed references are currently used. This chapter is well under the maximum word count. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits. Theory Basic explanation of UB is provided. More examples/case studies of UB, and how to overcome it, would be useful. Some of the examples provided are not clear. More connections with related concepts would be beneficial to provide a broader theoretical context. Did you consult Eisenhower (1954)? If not, this should be a secondary citation. Some other theoretical aspects that could be considered in relation to UB: delay discounting negative urgency positive urgency salience bias time management etc. Research Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of research. 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. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful. Written expression Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic. Some sentences are overly long; consider splitting them into shorter, separate sentences. Layout Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings. Learning features Table 1 and Figure 1 seem to be somewhat redundant; consider integrating into a single, more comprehensive figure or table. 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. One use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding more in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project. One use of image(s). One use of table(s). Basic use of feature box(es). Basic use of quiz(zes). Abbreviations Check and correct grammatical formatting for abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.). Abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.) should only be used inside parentheses. Grammar The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags). Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals'). Check and make correct use of commas. Check and correct use of that vs. who. APA style Direct quotes need page numbers. In general, do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc.. Figures and tables Refer to each Table and Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics or full-stop). Citations are not in full APA style. For example: If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either: in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020) References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of capitalisation. Check and correct use of italicisation. Include hyperlinked dois. Social contribution ~3 logged, minor, social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:06, 11 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 Overall, this is a simple, effective presentation. Structure and content An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little. The presentation is well structured. The presentation makes good use of theory. The presentation makes little use of research. The presentation makes good use of one or more examples or case studies. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s). Communication The presentation is easy to follow. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides with narrated audio. Well paced. Excellent pauses between sentences. This helps the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point. The audio communication is hesitant in places - could benefit from further practice. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images. Production quality The video is well produced using simple tools. The video is poorly produced and lacks the polish that comes with practice. The sub-title is missing from the video title. Audio recording quality was good. Visual display quality was excellent. Image sources and their copyright status are/not provided. Either acknowledge the image sources and their licenses in the video description or remove the presentation. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data. A link to the book chapter is provided. A link from the book chapter is provided. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)