Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Feedback and motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Excellent - used effectively
  2. 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.
  3. Link provided to book chapter

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence.
  2. Use a numbered list.

Headings[edit source]

  1. Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development.
  2. The 4.1 sub-sections could be brought up one level.
  3. Separate theory and research sections may work - but also consider providing integrated theory and research sections based on key themes/topics.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Overview is friendly/accessible. Consider adding:
    1. focus questions
    2. an image
    3. an example or case study
  2. Write using 3rd person perspective.
  3. Promising use of case studies.
  4. As the chapter plan goes on, there is less detail.
  5. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  6. 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 in the sub-title?

Figure[edit source]

  1. A figure is presented.
  2. Caption
    1. for APA style, Figure # should be italics.
    2. explains how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation

Resources[edit source]

  1. Use sentence casing
  2. See also
    1. Good
    2. Also link to relevant book chapters
  3. External links
    1. Excellent

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie and feedback[edit source]

Suggested references: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hattie+feedback -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit source]

Hey! really interesting topic, I personally understand this as I am someone who really needs something to remind me that my hard work is getting results, like at the gym. Anyway I was doing some reading and this article really made sense to me, see what you think https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215000527 --U3202984 (discusscontribs) 11:47, 15 October 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 chapter does a reasonably good job of applying psychological theory and research to a real-world problem.
  2. Theory is reasonably well covered, research much less so.
  3. Less focus on general background (e.g., about motivation) and more focus on research about the impact of different types of feedback on motivation could strengthen the chapter.
  4. Addressing the topic development feedback could have helped to improve this chapter.
  5. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Overview[edit source]

  1. Engaging.
  2. Useful image as an example.
  3. Use third person perspective, although first person can work well for examples.
  4. Focus questions could be more focused on the topic. 1st and 2nd focus questions probably not needed - just summarise and provide links to more indepth chapters on these topics. Focus on the sub-title.

Theory — Breadth[edit source]

  1. There is too much general theoretical material (e.g., about motivation). 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).
  2. There is some promising material about the role of negative feedback. What about positive feedback? What about the combination of positive and negative feedback (e.g., see theory and research about the "feedback sandwich"). Ideally, expand more about how the quality of feedback impacts on motivation.
  3. Perhaps consider how the feedback-motivation relationship is affected by related concepts such as growth (vs. fixed) mindset and failure tolerance. There are related chapters on these topics. So, the current chapter could be enriched by embedding links to related concepts. Other useful related concepts which could be incorporated include goal setting theory and cognitive dissonance.


  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, and explained.
  2. The chapter doesn't wander off into discussion of irrelevant theory.
  3. Relevant theory is reasonably well explained.
  4. Basic but sufficient coverage of relevant theory is provided.

Theory — Depth[edit source]

  1. Appropriate depth is provided about the selected theory(ies).
  2. Key citations are well used.
  3. Tables and/or lists are used effectively to help clearly convey key theoretical information.
  4. Some useful examples are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts.
  5. More examples could be useful to illustrate key concepts.
  6. Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of relevant psychological theory.
  7. Did you consult ? If not, this should be cited as a secondary source.
  8. The Reeve (2018) textbook is overused as a citation - instead, utilise primary, peer-reviewed sources.

Research — Key findings[edit source]

  1. Overall, this chapter provides a basic overview of relevant research.
  2. Age and gender are mentioned as moderating variables, but there is little review of the research. Had a more indepth review of key research been conducted, other, more important aspects of feedback may have been identified.
  3. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful (e.g., a Hattie reference was suggested on the talk page, but not incorporated).

Research — Critical thinking[edit source]

  1. There is little in the way of critical review of research.
  2. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).
  3. Critical thinking could be further evidenced by: considering the strength of relationships.
  4. When describing important research findings, include more detail about the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) and results (e.g., size of effect or relationship).

Integration[edit source]

  1. The chapter places more emphasis on theory than research, making it difficult to provide a balanced integration.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. The Conclusion provides a basic summary of the chapter.
    1. Add practical, take-home messages.

Written expression — Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is good to very good.
    2. A conversational tone is used, which is good (makes the chapter readable), up to a point, but is probably overdone in that the chapter primarily needs to provide a cogent synthesis of the best available psychological theory and research about how feedback impacts motivation.
    3. 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.
    4. Direct quotes should be embedded within sentences and paragraphs, rather than dumped holus-bolus. Even better, communicate the concept in your own words.
  2. Layout
    1. Sections which branch into sub-sections should include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections.
    2. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  3. Grammar, spelling, and proofreading are excellent.
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour).
  4. APA style
    1. 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).
    2. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    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. Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    5. Figures are well used.
    6. Tables are not used.
    7. Citations use correct APA style.
    8. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of italicisation.

Written expression — Learning features[edit source]

  1. Good use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles.
  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. Good use of image(s).
  4. Very good use of feature box(es).
  5. Excellent use of quiz(zes).
  6. Promising use of case studies or examples. This could be improved by the case studies being more focused on the topic (the effect of feedback on motivation). So, for example, the soccer examples could be rewritten to illustrate a key point about feedback.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Love the user page profile - great insight into you and your journey etc.
  2. Big fan of the snake reaction post on the discussion forum.
  3. ~12 logged, useful, mostly minor to moderate social contributions with direct links to evidence.
  4. Contributions made across three platforms.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added image[edit source]

Hi mate, I've just added an image which suits your soccer 'case study' pretty well! I've also adjusted the figure numbering accordingly. --U3204330 (discusscontribs) 13:23, 30 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.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a very good presentation.
  2. The presentation is over the maximum time limit - content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes.

Overview[edit source]

  1. An opening slide with the title and sub-title is presented and narrated - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. Briefly explain why this topic is important.

Content[edit source]

  1. The presentation addresses the topic.
  2. The presentation is well structured.
  3. The presentation makes very good use of relevant psychological theory.
  4. The initial material about types of motivation could be skipped or more briefly summarised.
  5. The presentation makes good use of psychological research.
  6. The presentation makes excellent use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit.

Audio[edit source]

  1. The audio is easy to follow and interesting to listen to.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of narrated audio.
  3. Audio communication is clear.
  4. Consider 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.
  5. Very good intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  6. Audio recording quality was very good.

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is excellent.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of video.
  3. Consider supplementing some video with display of key words.
  4. The video is very well produced.

Meta-data[edit source]

  1. The chapter title and sub-title are used in the name of the presentation - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. A written description of the presentation is provided.
  3. Links to and from the book chapter are provided.

Licensing[edit source]

  1. Image sources and their copyright status are presumably from Storyblocks, but this is not explicitly communicated.
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested journal articles for future edits and enhancements[edit source]

--U3211603 (discusscontribs) 13:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Following journal articles could be used in future to enhance the book chapter. (1) Experimental Evidence of Performance Feedback vs. Mastery Feedback on Students’ Academic Motivation (2) Feedback that works: a realist review of feedback interventions for written tasks (3) How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game[reply]