Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Mixed emotions

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.

  1. Title - correct
  2. Subtitle - missing (I've added)
  3. Author details removed - authorship is as per the page's editing history
  1. Created - minimal, but sufficient
  2. Brief 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
  1. Brief summary with link to evidence.
  2. Add headings for comments on talk pages.
  3. Add your signature to comments on talk/discussion pages.
  1. Excellent
  2. Basic, 1-level heading structure - could benefit from further development, perhaps using a 2-level structure.
  1. Basic development of key points for each section.
  2. Add citations.
  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. Expand theory and research.
  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. Consider including more examples/case studies.
  7. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. very vague - 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?
  1. A figure is presented.
  2. Caption should include Figure X. (note use of period) and use sentence casing.
  3. Caption explains how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  4. Caption could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  5. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.
  6. Consider decreasing image size.
  1. OK
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. doi formatting (the links should be clickable)
  1. See also
    1. Link does not go to a Wikipedia article
    2. Also link to relevant book chapters
  2. External links
    1. Good
    2. Rename links so that they are more user friendly

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:53, 6 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.


[edit source]
  1. Overall, this is a basic presentation.
  2. The presentation is over the maximum time limit - content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes.
  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.
  3. Focus questions are presented in the form of the sub-title.
  1. The presentation addresses the topic.
  2. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little.
  3. The presentation is well structured.
  4. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory.
  5. The presentation makes little or no use of relevant psychological research.
  6. The presentation makes good 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.
  8. Check and correct spelling (e.g., stumulus -> stimulus).
  1. A Conclusion slide is presented with basic take-home message(s).
  1. The audio is easy to follow.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio.
  3. 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.
  4. Basic intonation enhances listener interest and engagement.
  5. Consider improving articulation to enhance the clarity of speech (e.g, Plutchik).
  6. Audio recording quality was OK. Probably an on-board microphone was used (e.g., quiet, tinny, white noise, keyboard/mouse clicks audible). Consider using an external microphone. The fades in and out a bit.
  1. Overall, visual display quality is good.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of animated slides, with text and images.
  3. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  4. The amount of text presented on most slides makes it easy to read and listen at the same time.
  5. Some slides are difficult to read (e.g., wheel of emotions).
  6. The presentation is basically produced using an animation tool.
  1. The correct wording and/or formatting/grammar of the title/sub-title is not presented in the name of the video.
  2. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.
  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.
  1. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided. Probably most of the images are from Animaker but this is not explicitly stated.
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:24, 21 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.


[edit source]
  1. Overall, this is an insufficient chapter.
  2. The main areas for potential improvement are:
    1. The quality of written expression is poor.
    2. Greater focus is needed on mixed emotions and less focus on core emotions.
    3. More focus is needed on reviewing relevant research.
    4. More examples of mixed emotions would be useful.
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.
  1. Basic Overview.
  2. Explains the phenomenon in a general way.
  3. Add focus questions in a feature box to help guide the reader and structure the chapter.
  4. Consider introducing a case study or example or using an image to help engage reader interest.
  1. Insufficient use of psychological theory about this topic.
  2. This chapter focuses too much on core emotions and too little on mixed emotions. The content about core emotions was largely ignored for marking purposes.
  3. Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters in this category: Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Emotion)..
  1. There is insufficient theoretical depth about mixed emotions.
  2. More examples could be useful to illustrate key concepts.
  3. Did you consult Gurney (1884)? If not, this should be cited as a secondary source.
  4. The Reeve (2018) textbook is overused as a citation - instead, utilise primary, peer-reviewed sources.
  1. Insufficient use of relevant psychological research about mixed emotions.
  2. Greater emphasis on effect sizes, major reviews, and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.
  1. Insufficient critical thinking about research related to mixed emotions 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).
  1. Insufficient integration of theory and research about mixed emotions.
  1. Basic summary.
  2. Provide practical, take-home message(s).
  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard.
    2. Direct quotes are over used. It is better to express concepts in your own words.
    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.
  2. Layout
    1. Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional bold and italics).
    2. Sections which branch into sub-sections should include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections.
  3. Grammar
    1. The grammar for many 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 semi-colons (;) and colons (:).
  4. APA style
    1. Direct quotes need page numbers - even better, write in your own words.
    2. Figures
      1. Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text.
      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).
    3. 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)
    4. References use correct APA style.
      1. Check and correct use of italicisation
      2. Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section
  1. Overall, the use of learning features is basic.
  2. Basic use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles.
  3. One use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters.
  4. Links to non-peer-reviewed sources should be moved to the external links section.
  5. Excellent/Very good/Good/Basic/No use of image(s).
  6. Good use of table(s).
  7. No use of feature box(es).
  8. No use of quiz(zes).
  9. Basic use of case studies or examples.
  10. Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section. Rename links per Tutorial 1 to be more user friendly.
  11. Basic use of external links in the "External links" section. Rename links per Tutorial 1 to be more user friendly.
  1. ~2 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply