Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Coercive control motivation in relationships

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Coercive control article[edit source]

Check out this article regarding coercive control in intimate relationships - it discusses intention and motivation as well. doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003

--U3194769 (discusscontribs) 04:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting topic! I am not sure what angle you need but I found another source that may be of use by Emma Katz, 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218824998). --U3167879 (discusscontribs) 08:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is such an interesting topic, I really enjoyed reading your chapter! Just a suggestion but I saw you have included one small quiz at the very end of your chapter. I think it might be useful for you to incorporate small quizzes throughout your page to make it more interactive and engaging? Great job through! U3187813 (discusscontribs) 11:38, 17 October 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 07:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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[edit source]

  1. The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted
  2. Wording and capitalisation of the title has been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents

User page[edit source]

  1. Created - minimal, but sufficient
  2. Very brief description about self provided - consider expanding
  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

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Summarised with indirect link(s) to evidence

Headings[edit source]

  1. See earlier comment about Heading casing
  2. Remove colons
  3. Well developed 2-level heading structure, with meaningful headings that directly relate to the core topic
  4. Perhaps consider a heading around what can be done about CC

Key points[edit source]

  1. Basic development of key points for most sections, with some relevant citations
  2. Overview - Promising. Consider adding:
    1. a description of the problem
    2. focus questions
    3. an image
    4. an example or case study
  3. Citations should not include author initials (APA style)
  4. Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research
  5. Note that describing a pattern of behaviour is not the same as explaining the motive(s)
  6. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  7. Consider including more examples/case studies
  8. 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(s) in the sub-title and/or focus questions?

Figure[edit source]

  1. A figure is presented
  2. Caption should include Figure X. ...
  3. Caption could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text
  4. Cite each figure at least once in the main text

References[edit source]

  1. Good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. italicisation

Resources[edit source]

  1. Excellent

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  2. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Overview[edit source]

  1. Well developed Overview.
  2. Clear focus question(s).
  3. Consider introducing a case study or example to help engage reader interest.

Theory — Breadth[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are very well selected, described, and explained.

Theory — Depth[edit source]

  1. Appropriate depth is provided about the selected theory(ies).
  2. Key citations are well used.

Research — Key findings[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed.

Research — Critical thinking[edit source]

  1. Good 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

Integration[edit source]

  1. Discussion of theory and research is very well integrated.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. Clear summary.
  2. Consider adding practical, take-home messages.

Written expression — Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent.
  2. Layout
    1. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
  3. Grammar, spelling, and proofreading are generally very good.
  4. Grammar
    1. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[1].
    2. Use serial commas[2] - they are part of APA style and are generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's an explanatory video (1 min).
  5. APA style
    1. Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    2. Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented or coined expression; use quotation marks only for the first occurrence of the word or phrase, not for subsequent occurrences" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159).
    3. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10).
    4. Direct quotes need page numbers - even better, write in your own words.
    5. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style for Table captions. See example.
      2. Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text.
      3. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
    6. Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). 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.
    7. References use correct APA style.

Written expression — Learning features[edit source]

  1. Overall, the use of learning features is excellent.
  2. Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. # One 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. Very good use of table(s).
  5. Very good use of feature box(es).
  6. Good use of quiz(zes).
  7. Excellent use of case studies or examples.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~2 logged, useful, minor/moderate/major social contributions with direct links to evidence.
  2. ~1 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:07, 4 November 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.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent presentation.

Overview[edit source]

  1. An opening slide with the title and sub-title is presented.
  2. Narrate the title and sub-title - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. This presentation has an engaging introduction to hook audience interest.
  4. A context for the topic is established.
  5. Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages.

Content[edit source]

  1. Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section.
  2. The presentation addresses the topic.
  3. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little.
  4. Check and correct spelling (e.g., Decci -> Deci).
  5. The presentation is well structured.
  6. The presentation makes excellent use of relevant psychological theory.
  7. The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological research.
  8. The presentation makes good use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice.
  9. The presentation provides practical, easy to understand information.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. A Conclusion slide is presented with excellent.

Audio[edit source]

  1. The audio is easy to follow and interesting to listen to.
  2. Audio communication is clear and well paced.
  3. Very good intonation enhances listener interest and engagement.
  4. Audio recording quality was very good.

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is excellent.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of animated slides.
  3. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  4. The amount of text presented per slide makes it easy to read and listen at the same time.
  5. The presentation is very well produced.

Meta-data[edit source]

  1. The presentation uses an accurate combination of the chapter title and sub-title within the maximum 100-character limit for YouTube videos.
  2. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.
  3. Links to and from the book chapter are provided.

Licensing[edit source]

  1. Image sources and their copyright status are communicated.
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the presentation description but not in the meta-data.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]