Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Fairness and emotion

Heading casing

Hello again. I have provided a draft version of your introduction. Your words, but proof read (spelling and grammar) and shortened slightly as I felt that while your ideas/thoughts were good, they were a little long. I would also suggest finding a reference to go with the definition in the introduction to help add weight to your statements. Please feel free to let me know if you would like me to proof read again once you are closer to finishing. It is always hard when you are immersed in it to see small errors! I also coded a quiz box for you, to help break up all the text and add a point of difference.I would reconsider the wording in the quiz though. I found it a little hard to understand. Hope this helps.--U3167879 (discuss • contribs) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I thought you introduction could start with something that would make it stand out, so I have provided a different way to do a quote and correct the spelling of 'Lincoln'. Hope it helps. --U3167879 (discuss • contribs) 04:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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 12:23, 6 September 2021 (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 Excellent User page Excellent - used effectively Created - minimal, but sufficient Description about self provided, with link(s) to professional profile(s) Link provided to book chapter Social contribution Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing. Basic, 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development, perhaps expanding the top-level and the second level structure (e.g., to reflect a focus on psychological theory and research). What is fairness should probably come before History of fairness - or consider merging these sections Key points There is a lot of promising content development. However, there are also two key areas for improvement: There are a lot of spelling and grammar errors, so the quality of written expression is below a professional standard. I recommend seeking support with proofreading (e.g., have you tried Studiosity?). Avoid providing too much background information. Briefly summarise general concepts (e.g., what is emotion) 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. Overview: the proposed chapter doesn't appear to be based on psychological theory and research the most relevant focus question is #3 - expand on this consider including an image Some paragraphs are overly long. Try writing paragraphs that are 3 to 5 sentences in length: Sentence 1: Introduction (and connection to previous paragraph). Sentences 2-4: Explain the concepts. Sentence 5: Conclusion (and connection to next paragraph). Use APA style 7th edition for citations with three or more authors (i.e., use FirstAuthor et al., year). Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters. Write using 3rd person perspective. Conclusion (the most important section): hasn't been developed what might the take-home, practical messages be? in a nutshell, what are the answer(s) to the question(s) in the sub-title? Figure A figure is presented. Caption uses APA style. The caption should explain how this image is connected to the topic (fairness and emotion). include Figure X. ... Cite each figure at least once in the main text. References OK For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation italicisation doi formatting Resources See also Good Sources in brackets have been corrected External links Good Use bullet-points Include source in brackets after link Academic articles should go in References

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:23, 6 September 2021 (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. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is an insufficient chapter. The main areas for potential improvement are: The quality of written expression is below professional standard. The main issues are: Poor grammar Poor spelling Poor proofreading Over the maximum word count. There is feedback about the topic development that has been ignored, so it is not repeated in these book chapter comments. This chapter "beats around the bush" for ~1800 words (i.e., too much preamble) before starting to directly tackle the target topic in the section titled "What is the relationship between fairness and emotion". For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits. Overview The Overview is underdeveloped. Explain the problem or phenomenon in more detail. Add focus questions in a feature box to help guide the reader and structure the chapter. Consider introducing a case study or example or using an image to help engage reader interest. Theory — Breadth Insufficient use of psychological theory about this topic. There is too much general theoretical material (e.g., about fairness and emotion as separate constructs). 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 which is about the relation between fairness and emotion). Theory — Depth Basic depth is provided about the selected theory(ies). The Reeve (2018) textbook is overused as a citation - instead, utilise primary, peer-reviewed sources. More examples could be useful to illustrate key concepts. Insufficient use of relevant psychological theory. Research — Key findings Basic overview of relevant research. The most useful and relevant cited research for this topic was the study by Baumard and Nicholas (2001) because it clearly shows a relationship between fairness and emotion. The studies about fairness in academic settings were also useful. The take-home messages refer to research conducted in the workplace. But the chapter doesn't summarise such research. So, these take-home messages are not logically derived. More detail about key studies would be ideal. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful. Research — Critical thinking Insufficient critical thinking about research is evident. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the tags). Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by: considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations suggesting specific directions for future research Integration There is basic integration between theory and research. Conclusion Insufficient summary. Consider reminding the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest. Address the focus questions. Promising take-home message(s). Written expression — Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is well below professional standard. Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") perspective[1] in the main text, although 1st or 2nd person perspective can work well for case studies or feature boxes. Layout See earlier comments about heading casing. Headings should use default wiki style (e.g., remove additional bold). Grammar The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the 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. Use serial commas[2] - they are part of APA style and are generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's an explanatory video (1 min). Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[3]. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect. 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. Proofreading is poor. For example: Remove unnecessary capitalisation (e.g., Psychometric -> psychometric). Replace double spaces with single spaces (APA style). APA style Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc.. 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). Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10). Direct quotes need page numbers - even better, write in your own words. Figures and tables Table captions should use APA style. See example. Figure captions should use this format: Figure X. Descriptive caption in sentence casing. See example. Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text. Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example: Check and correct formatting of citations. For example, "( Broome, (1990)" -> "(Broome, 1990)". Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses. 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[4] Check and correct use of italicisation Page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Include hyperlinked dois Written expression — Learning features Overall, the use of learning features is good. Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. # 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. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links, per Tutorial 1. Basic use of image(s). Basic use of table(s). Very good use of feature box(es). Excellent use of quiz(zes). Basic use of case studies or examples. Social contribution ~1 logged, minor social contributions of dubious value (capitals not needed) with direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:09, 13 November 2021 (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 an insufficient presentation. Overview Add and narrate an initial title/sub-title slide, to help the viewer understanding the focus and goal of the presentation. Briefly explain why this topic is important. Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. Content Comments about the book chapter also apply to this section. Check and correct typographical errors (e.g., studnets -> students). This presentation doesn't adequately address the topic. There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of well-targetted content than a large amount of poorly selected content. The selection of content is poor because it doesn't adequately use the most relevant psychological theory and/or research to address the topic. The presentation makes basic use of psychological theory. The presentation makes basic use of psychological research. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies. The presentation does not provide practical, easy to understand information. Conclusion The presentation could be strengthened by adding a Conclusion slide with practical, take-home messages. Audio The narrated audio is difficult to understand and follow partly because so much content is presented so quickly. Consider slowing down and leaving longer pauses between sentences. This can help the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point. Consider using greater intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement. Consider improving articulation to enhance the clarity of speech. Audio recording quality was poor (e.g., quiet, tinny, white noise, keyboard clicks audible). Probably an on-board microphone was used. Consider using an external microphone. Video Overall, visual display quality is basic. The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides. Remove the PowerPoint tools from the screen by using fullscreen presentation mode. The presentation makes basic use of text-based slides. The visual communication is supplemented by images, but there is insufficient explanation (e.g., what does the ultimatum game image mean?). The usability of the presentation could be improved by exporting to a commonly used video hosting platform such as YouTube or Vimeo. Meta-data The correct chapter title and sub-title are not used in the name of the presentation - this would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. A written description of the presentation is not provided. If the presentation is uploaded to a video hosting platform, as recommended, then this will be possible. A link to the book chapter is not provided. If the presentation is uploaded to a video hosting platform, as recommended, then this will be possible. A link from the book chapter is provided. Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are incorrectly communicated. For example, the last slide provides links but the first two are searches, not direct links to the source of the images. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Book chapter resubmission feedback

These changes were reviewed. Comments:

1. The chapter is now even further over the maximum word count, so the additional content has been ignored for marking purposes, however written feedback follows.
   1. There remains far too much background material about fairness and about emotion as separate concepts. Instead, summarise these sections and concentrate the chapter on the relationship between these concepts.
   2. Where material about fairness and emotion was been added, there was a notable lack of sufficient citation to relevant psychological theory and research. Where citations were added, they weren't always added in the References (e.g., Roadevin).
   3. There is a lot of new content about guilt, shame, and embarrassment but it is unclear how this is related to the topic (i.e., the relationship between fairness and emotion).
2. The quality of written expression for the additional content is below professional standard. For example, this sentence is not grammatically correct: "Furthermore, a theoretical perspectives explaining the manner in which fairness have relationship with emotions.". Professional assistance with writing (e.g., through UC's Study Skills and/or Studiosity) is strongly recommended.
3. The additional content appears to be largely philosophical, rather than psychological and based on psychological science (i.e., psychological theory and psychological research).
4. Some external links have been embedded. Instead, these should be either citations or added to the external links section. Embedded links to Wikiversity or Wikipedia articles were not added.
5. Gender-biased language is used (e.g., him). Instead, use gender-neutral language.
6. Use APA 7th edition style for citations (e.g., check and correct use of et al.).

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)