Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Messiness, neatness, creativity, and productivity

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title[edit source]

  1. The title is correctly worded and formatted
  2. The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted
  3. Author details removed - authorship is as per the page's editing history

User page[edit source]

  1. Description about self provided
  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. Summarised with indirect link(s) to evidence.
  2. Add direct links to evidence. To 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.
  3. Use a numbered list.

Headings[edit source]

  1. Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development by expanding the structure.
  2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Basic development of key points for some sections, with some citations.
  2. Use bullet points (see Tutorial 1 - Using Wikiversity)
  3. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. a description of the problem and what will be covered
    2. focus questions
    3. an image
    4. an example or case study
  4. For sections which include sub-section include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings.
  5. Use APA style 7th edition for citations with three or more authors (i.e., use FirstAuthor et al., year).
  6. Move links to articles into References; replace with citations in main body
  7. Some use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  8. Consider including more examples/case studies.
  9. 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?

Figure[edit source]

  1. A figure is presented.
  2. Caption uses APA style, but note to use italics - 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. OK
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. alphabetical order
    2. capitalisation
    3. italicisation
    4. doi formatting

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Good
    2. Also link to relevant book chapters
  2. External links
    1. Excellent
    2. Very good
    3. Use bullet-points
    4. Rename links so that they are more user friendly
    5. Include source in brackets after link
    6. Target an international audience; Australians only represent 0.33% of the world population

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:05, 7 September 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic presentation.
  2. The presentation is under the maximum time limit.

Overview[edit source]

  1. An opening slide with the title and sub-title is displayed and narrated - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. A context for the topic is established.
  3. Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation.

Content[edit source]

  1. Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section.
  2. The presentation addresses the topic.
  3. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory.
  4. The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological research.
  5. Include citations.
  6. The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice.
  7. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. A Conclusion slide is presented with very good take-home message(s).

Audio[edit source]

  1. The audio is hard to follow because of the poor recording quality.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio.
  3. Audio recording quality was very poor - hard to hear even on maximum. Lots of white noise. Check and fix microphone set up.

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is good.
  2. The presentation makes good use of text and image based slides.
  3. The amount of text presented per slide makes it reasonably easy to read and listen at the same time.
  4. The presentation is basically produced using simple tools.
  5. Hide cursor and final screen.

Meta-data[edit source]

  1. The chapter sub-title but not the chapter title is used in the name of the presentation. The title would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  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 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 not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
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 03:13, 25 November 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.

[File:Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png|right|85px]]

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a good chapter.
  2. Well under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand.
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and [ these copyedits].

Overview[edit source]

  1. No Overview is provided.

Theory — Breadth[edit source]

  1. Relevant theory is reasonably well explained.
  2. Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters in this category: Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Creativity).

Theory — Depth[edit source]

  1. Appropriate depth is provided about the selected theory(ies).
  2. Key citations are well used.
  3. Some useful examples are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts.
  4. More examples could be useful to illustrate key concepts.

Research — Key findings[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed.
  2. More detail about key studies would be ideal.
  3. Greater emphasis on effect sizes, major reviews, and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Research — Critical thinking[edit source]

  1. Very 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. acknowledging limitations
    5. suggesting specific directions for future research
  3. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).

Integration[edit source]

  1. Discussion of theory and research is well integrated.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. Key points are well summarised.
  2. Clear take-home message(s).

Written expression — Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is basic.
    2. Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "we" or "our") 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.
    3. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead:
  2. Layout
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing.
  3. Grammar
    1. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[2].
    2. Check and correct use of that vs. who.
  4. Spelling
    1. Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages.
  5. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
    2. For example, spaces are needed after full-stops.
  6. APA style
    1. Figures
      1. Figures are very well captioned.
      2. Figure captions should use this format: Figure X. Descriptive caption in sentence casing. See example.
      3. Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
    2. Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example:
      1. Check and correct placement of commas.
      2. Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses.
      3. 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)
      4. Multiple citations in parentheses should be listed in alphabetical order by first author surname.
    3. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation[3]
      2. Page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
      3. Include hyperlinked dois

Written expression — Learning features[edit source]

  1. Overall, the use of learning features is basic.
  2. Basic use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make 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. Very good use of image(s).
  5. No use of table(s).
  6. No use of feature box(es).
  7. Good use of quiz(zes).
  8. The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than being presented as a set of questions at the end.
  9. No use of case studies or examples.
  10. Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section.
  11. No use of external links in the "External links" section.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~ logged, useful, minor/moderate/major social contributions with direct links to evidence.
  2. ~ logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess.
  3. Contributions made across three platforms.
  4. No logged social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]