Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Healthy risk-taking

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hi, this article may be useful for helping you frame the concept of healthy risk-taking. (The meaning of risk-taking – key concepts and dimensions, 2019 by Jens O. Zinn). It discusses how level of control and motives interact to have an outcome on risk-taking behaviour.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/opn.12151

Another interesting article regarding risk-taking in adolescents due to parenting styles (Retrospective Paternal and Maternal Parenting Styles, Regulatory Self-Efficacy and Adolescent Risk Taking, 2018 by Olivari., et al)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01494929.2017.1403990

Hope this helps, good luck.

--Leeeeanne (discusscontribs) 01:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, very interesting book chapter! I would suggest moving some of your links (those not linking to Wikiversity book chapters or Wikipedia articles) in the " See also" section to a "External link" section. All the best! --U3196787 (discusscontribs) 13:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, your book chapter is really interesting! I am writing about developmental changes in emotion regulation and came across this article which might be of use to you! Specifically in relation to how the presence of a parent can mediate risk taking behaviour in childhood! I have included the full APA reference so you can find the article easily. Hope this helps and good luck!

Martin, R., & Ochsner, K. (2016). The neuroscience of emotion regulation development: implications for education. Current Opinion In Behavioral Sciences, 10, 142-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.06.006 U3187813 (discusscontribs) 01:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[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. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  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

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Direct link(s) to evidence.
  2. Add a brief summary of each contribution.

Headings[edit source]

  1. Basic, 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development as knowledge of the topic expands.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Incomplete
  2. For sections which include sub-section include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings.
  3. Overview
    1. Don't try to do too much in this section
    2. provide a description of the problem and what will be covered
    3. consider adding an image
    4. consider adding an example or case study
  4. You may be interested to use outdoor education as an example/case study (e.g., see OE chapters).
  5. Expand theory and research.
  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. 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. Excellent
  2. A figure is presented.
  3. Caption
    1. uses APA style.
    2. does not use APA style.
    3. explains how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  4. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.
  5. Consider decreasing Figure 1 image size.

References[edit source]

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

Resources[edit source]

  1. Excellent
  2. Use alphabetical order

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[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. The main for improvement is in proofreading to correct grammatical and spelling errors.
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Overview[edit source]

  1. Well developed Overview.
  2. Clear focus question(s).

Theory — Breadth[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, and explained.
  2. The chapter doesn't wander off into discussion of irrelevant theory.

Theory — Depth[edit source]

  1. Appropriate depth is provided about the selected theory(ies).
  2. Tables and/or lists are used effectively to help clearly convey key theoretical information.
  3. Useful examples are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts.

Research — Key findings[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed.
  2. Overall, this chapter provides a basic overview of relevant research.
  3. Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of relevant psychological research.
  4. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Research — Critical thinking[edit source]

  1. Critical thinking about research is excellent.

Integration[edit source]

  1. Discussion of theory and research is well integrated.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. Well developed.
  2. Clear take-home messages.

Written expression — Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is good. Many aspects are excellent, but more thorough proofreading is needed to fix grammatical errors, in particular.
    2. Reduce use of weasel words (e.g., "is said to") which bulk out the text, but don't enhance meaning.
    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 brackets at the end of the sentence.
    4. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
  2. Layout
    1. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
    2. Sections which branch into sub-sections should include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections.
    3. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
  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.
    2. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[1].
    3. Use serial commas[2] - they are part of APA style and are generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's an explanatory video (1 min).
    4. Check and correct use of that vs. who.
    5. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect.
  4. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
  5. APA style
    1. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    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. Figures and tables
      1. Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
      2. Figures are well captioned.
    5. Citations use correct APA style.
    6. References use correct APA style, but more proofreading needed to fix:
      1. Include issue numbers.
      2. Check and correct use of italicisation.
      3. Hyperlinked dois.

Written expression — Learning features[edit source]

  1. Overall, learning features are reasonably well used. The case studies were the highlight.
  2. One 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. See example.
  3. 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.
  4. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links, per Tutorial 1.
  5. Basic use of image(s).
  6. No use of table(s).
  7. Excellent use of feature box(es).
  8. No use of quiz(zes).
  9. Excellent use of case studies or examples.

1]].

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~7 logged, useful, minor to moderate social contributions with direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.

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. A context for the topic is established.

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. The presentation is well structured.
  5. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory.
  6. The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological research.
  7. The presentation makes excellent use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice.
  8. The presentation provides practical, easy to understand information.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. The presentation could be strengthened by adding a Conclusion slide with practical, take-home messages.

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 and 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.
  4. Very good intonation enhances listener interest and engagement.
  5. Audio recording quality was very good. Probably an on-board microphone was used (e.g., keyboard/mouse clicks audible). Consider using an external microphone.

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is very good.
  2. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based 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 well produced using simple tools.

Meta-data[edit source]

  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 written description of the presentation is provided.
  3. A link to the book chapter is provided but it goes to a specific section rather than the top of the chapter.
  4. A link from the book chapter is provided.

Licensing[edit source]

  1. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided. Either provide details about the image sources and their copyright licenses in the presentation description or remove the presentation.
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the presentation description but not in the meta-data.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]