Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Beneficence as a psychological need

From Wikiversity
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Lewis.Kusk in topic Suggestions and Comments
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hierarchy of Needs

[edit source]

Hi there. I was just reading through your book chapter and noticed you are discussing Maslow's hierarchy of needs and thought you could include discussion about how this theory is not well supported. Instead you could look into Alderfer's ERG theory, which outlines three main categories of growth, relatedness and existence. In a sense the ERG theory explains faults with Maslow's model, being that a lower level need (food), must be achieved progressing up the pyramid. Here is a quick link to a summary of them: Best of luck with your book chapter! --Anna u3200574 (discusscontribs) 01:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Heading casing

[edit source]
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 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

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.

  1. The title is correctly worded and formatted
  2. The sub-title is correctly worded
  3. Punctuation for the sub-title has been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents
  4. User name has been corrected in the book table of contents
  1. Excellent - used effectively
  2. Description about self provided
  3. 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.
  4. Link provided to book chapter
  1. Summarised with link(s) to evidence
  2. FYI, to add direct links to evidence after adding edits to an existing page, 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.
  1. Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development by expanding the structure
  2. Revise headings such as "Build on literature" to be more specific
  3. Shorten overly long headings
  4. See earlier comment about Heading casing
  1. A lot of effort has been put into the current draft. The two main recommended areas for improvement are:
    1. Focus less on broader/related constructs and focus much more directly on psychological theory and research which is specifically about beneficence.
    2. The quality of written expression
  2. Use APA style for citations (e.g., only use ampersand inside parentheses).
  3. Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) - more info
  4. Remove double spaces
  5. Some sentences are overly long; simplify
  6. Overview - Consider revising in order to:
    1. Explain what beneficence is in simple terms
    2. Provide an illustrative example or case study
    3. Focus more directly on beneficence
    4. Add an image of beneficence in action
    5. Shift detailed content into subsequent section
  7. In general, provide the citation at the end of the sentence - it is usually the least important piece of information. Focus on the message first, citation later.
  8. The quality of written expression is quite awkward. I strongly recommend using Studiosity to help improve a full draft.
  9. Avoid providing too much background information (e.g., about other psychological needs). Briefly summarise general concepts and provide internal wiki links to other book chapters and/or Wikipedia pages for further information. Then focus most of the content of this chapter on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title. At least 90% of the chapter should be directly about beneficence. I estimate that of the current chapter about 10% is about beneficence.
  10. For sections which include sub-section include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings
  11. Expand theory and research about beneficence
  12. Excellent use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters
  13. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters. This is particularly important for this chapter as there are several other chapters about closely related concepts.
  14. Excellent use of examples/case studies
  15. Consider including more examples/case studies
  16. 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(s) in the sub-title?
  1. Three figures are presented; none are related to beneficence
  2. Caption should include Figure X. ... (note italics)
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text
  4. Consider decreasing image size
  1. Very good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
  1. Excellent
  2. Be more selective - i.e., focus on beneficence rather than psychological needs more broadly. Links to resources about psychological needs can be added instead to the Basic psychology need theory chapter.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply


[edit source]

Hello! Very interesting topic you have chosen. I can see a lot of time and effort has gone into your book chapter so far. I just have one suggestion to enhance your book chapter: Perhaps you could use some more interactive content such as quizzes or "did you know" boxes. I can see you have a case study there which is great! I found this article which relates to your topic: It is about how beneficence impacts meaningful work and the relationship between the two. The articles title is What makes work meaningful? Longitudinal evidence for the importance of autonomy and beneficence for meaningful work Hope this helps and keep up the hard work! Cheers. --U3202023 (discusscontribs) 07:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

== Length of chapter

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. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.


[edit source]
  1. Overall, this is an insufficient chapter.
  2. The main areas for potential improvement are:
    1. The quality of written expression is currently below professional standard.
    2. There is too much general theoretical material - and too little focusing directly on theory and research for and against treating beneficence as a basic psychological need.
  3. This chapter is over the maximum word count.
  4. Addressing the topic development feedback could have helped to improve this chapter.
  5. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.
  1. Overly dense and complex, with many grammatical errors.
  2. Focus on beneficence rather than SDT and needs.
  3. A more friendly introduction would be ideal (e.g., explain what beneficence is, in simple terms, with an example and an image).
  4. Only the first focus question is a question.
  1. This chapter's description of beneficence is inadequate. What is it?
  2. There is too much general theoretical material. Instead, summarise and link to further information (such as other book chapters or Wikipedia articles), to allow this chapter to focus on the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question). For example, it is unclear how Maslow's hierarchy of needs, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation etc. relates to beneficence. Instead, focus more directly on beneficence.
  3. Some content may be plagiarised (e.g., "social welfare programs, communal support of health-related research, scholarships for needy and meritorious students, policies to improve the welfare of animals, disaster relief, programs to benefit children and the incompetent, and preferential hiring and admission policies").
  4. This chapter should provide a clearer summary of the arguments for and against the inclusion of beneficence as a basic psychological need.
  5. It is good that the chapter considers both satisfaction and frustration of the need for beneficence.
  1. Overall, this chapter has insufficient direct focus on psychological theory about beneficence.
  2. The case studies are overly long, complex, and fail to clearly illustrate beneficence as a psychological need. Consider using simpler, more direct examples of beneficence.
  3. The information presented in Tables 1 and 2 could probably be more presented more effectively in text. Table 2 could be the basis for a useful, simple list of examples of beneficence. Presenting such a list in the Overview could help to provide some simple illustrations of beneficence to help engage a reader.
  1. Overall, this chapter provides a basic overview of relevant research.
  2. More detail about key studies would be ideal.
  3. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.
  1. Insufficient critical thinking about research is evident.
  2. Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by:
    1. describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies
    2. discussing the direction of relationships
    3. considering the strength of relationships
    4. suggesting specific directions for future research
  1. The chapter places more emphasis on theory than research.
  2. Where research is discussed, it is integrated with theory.
  1. Basic Conclusion.
  2. The chapter would benefit from a more developed Conclusion, with a clearer take-home self-help message for each focus question.
  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills and/or Studiosity and/or peer review assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills.
    2. Some of the written expression is quite abstract, which makes this chapter a difficult read for an unfamiliar reader. Consider ways of simplifying the written expression to make it more accessible to a wider audience. This is the essence of science communication.
    3. Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in parentheses at the end of the sentence.
  2. Layout
    1. Headings should be more descriptive than, for example, "Build on literature".
    2. Headings should use default wiki style (e.g., remove additional bold, increased size etc).
    3. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  3. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags). Grammar-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance.
  4. 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.
  5. APA style
    1. Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    2. Figures and tables
      1. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
      2. Use APA style for Table captions. See example.
    3. Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example:
      1. Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses.
    4. References use correct APA style.
    5. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation[1]
      2. Check and correct use of italicisation
  1. Overall, the use of learning features is basic.
  2. Basic use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts makes the text more interactive. See example.
  3. 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.
  4. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links, per Tutorial 1.
  5. Basic use of image(s).
  6. Basic use of table(s).
  7. Very good use of feature box(es).
  8. Basic use of quiz(zes).
  9. Basic use of case studies or examples. Use simpler, more direct case studies. Consider introducing at least one case study earlier to help engage reader interest.
  1. ~4 logged, useful, minor/moderate/major social contributions with direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)==Reply

Hey there I love your chapter, it feels very interactive with all of the feature boxes and the quiz is a great idea to revise knowledge! I noticed when I did a word count of your chapter (just out of curiosity) that it is about 600 words over the 4000 word limit, so I thought I could provide some suggestions for shortening the chapter.

  • Shorten the length of the case studies: I love the inclusion of these but I think they could be shortened and simplified with dot points at the end instead of the big paragraphs?
  • Do you need the tables for beneficence? I know that is what the chapter is about but I feel as though you have already covered all of those points in previous sections.
  • Remove the "Links" section and instead try to imbed them throughout the sections of the chapter that you have already developed.

I hope these suggestions can be of help as you are revising! --Ashley Sanders01 (discusscontribs) 08:56, 11 October 2021 (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.


[edit source]
  1. Overall, this is an insufficient presentation.
  2. The presentation is over the maximum time limit - content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes.
  1. The opening slide does not display the correct title and sub-title.
  2. Briefly explain why this topic is important.
  3. Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages.
  1. This presentation doesn't adequately address the topic.
  2. Comments about the book chapter also apply to this section.
  3. The presentation fails to provide a basic definition of beneficence.
  4. The presentation focusses on autonomy, competence, and relatedness as psychological needs instead of beneficence.
  5. There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation.
  6. The presentation is poorly structured.
  7. The selection of content is poor because it doesn't adequately use the most relevant psychological theory and/or research to address the topic.
  8. The presentation makes insufficient use of relevant psychological theory.
  9. The presentation makes insufficient use of relevant psychological research.
  10. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.
  1. The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit.
  1. The audio skips / is missing between some slides?
  2. The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio.
  3. Audio recording quality was good.
  1. Overall, visual display quality is basic.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides.
  3. The font size should be larger to make it easier to read.
  4. The amount of text presented per slide should be reduced to make it easier to read.
  5. The presentation is basically produced using simple tools.
  1. The chapter title but not the sub-title is used in the name of the presentation - the latter would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.
  3. A link to the book chapter is not provided.
  4. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  1. Image sources and their copyright status are communicated on the slides, but it is too small to read. It would be better to provide this information in the video description.
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Suggestions and Comments

[edit source]


I enjoyed reading your chapter, it expanded my knowledge on beneficence as it was not really something that I was familiar with. I believe you put in a good deal of effort which was easy for me to see.

I do have a couple suggestions that would improve your chapter if you wanted to work on it. One is in regards to your referencing, there were a couple inconsistencies with not italicising the journal publisher, and with capitalising the wrong words, for example, you capitalised the word of which does not need to be. I also think your quiz could have had some trickier questions, and perhaps additional questions too.

Overall though, I thought you did a nice job.

(~~~ = U3203414) Lewis.Kusk (discusscontribs) 04:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply