Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Sustainable leadership

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. The title is correctly worded and formatted
  2. The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted

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. Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence.

Headings[edit source]

  1. Basic, 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development

Key points[edit source]

  1. Minimal development of key points
  2. We may have different interpretations of this topic - in my mind, "sustainable leadership" is about actions to guide organisations to engage in more environmentally friendly practices (e.g.,, although I appreciate that it could be interpreted as "sustained leadership" meaning longevity in leadership. Feel free to get in touch to discuss.

Figure[edit source]

  1. A figure is presented.
  2. Caption should include Figure X. ...
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.
  4. Consider decreasing image size.

References[edit source]

  1. Two references provided
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. italicisation
    2. doi formatting

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Very good
  2. External links
    1. None provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:30, 6 September 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 insufficient chapter.
  2. The main areas for improvement are:
    1. Greater use of academic peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic.
    2. The quality of written expression is below to professional standard, mainly due to poor grammar and spelling.
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Overview[edit source]

  1. Basic Overview.
  2. Explains the problem or phenomenon, but not so much about the topic (i.e., sustainable leadership).
  3. Consider explaining the problem or phenomenon in more detail.
  4. Focus question(s) are problematic:
    1. The first one doesn't make sense.
    2. The others aren't really about "What are the leadership qualities needed for sustainable enterprises?"
  5. Consider introducing a case study or example or using an image to help engage reader interest.

Theory — Breadth[edit source]

  1. Insufficient use of psychological theory about this topic.
  2. Build more strongly on other leadership and sustainability related chapters (e.g., by incorporating embedded links to other chapters (e.g., see this category: Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Leadership).

Theory — Depth[edit source]

  1. Insufficient use of relevant psychological theory.

Research — Key findings[edit source]

  1. Insufficient use of relevant psychological research.
  2. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Research — Critical thinking[edit source]

  1. Insufficient critical thinking about research is evident.
  2. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).
  3. 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

Integration[edit source]

  1. Discussion of theory and research is poorly integrated.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. The Conclusion is general and vague.
  2. There is insufficient application of psychological theory and research.
  3. Add practical, take-home message(s).

Written expression — Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills.
    2. Use permanent, rather than relative, time references. For example, instead of "20 years ago", refer to something like "at the beginning of the 21st century". In this way, the text will survive better into the future, without needing to be rewritten.
    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. 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 make correct use of commas.
    3. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[2].
    4. Use serial commas[3] - they are part of APA style and are generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's an explanatory video (1 min).
    5. Abbreviations
      1. Once an abbreviation is established (e.g., PTSD), use it consistently. Don't set up an abbreviation
  3. Spelling
  4. Use Australian spelling (e.g., analyze -> analyse; behavior -> behaviour)
  5. APA style
    1. Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc..
    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. APA style is used for Figure captions.
      2. Each Table and Figure is referred to at least once within the main text.
      3. Refer to each Table and Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation
    5. Citations use correct APA style.
    6. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation[4]
      2. Page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
      3. Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section

Written expression — Learning features[edit source]

  1. Overall, the use of learning features is basic.
  2. 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.
  3. Good use of image(s).
  4. No use of table(s).
  5. Good use of feature box(es).
  6. Basic use of quiz(zes).
  7. Basic use of case studies or examples.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~6 logged, useful, minor social contributions with direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:16, 11 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 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 presented and narrated - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. The importance of this topic is briefly explained.
  3. Focus questions are presented.

Content[edit source]

  1. Comments about the book chapter also apply to this section.
  2. This presentation addresses the topic in a basic way.
  3. An appropriate amount of content is presented.
  4. The presentation is well structured.
  5. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory.
  6. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological research.
  7. The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice.

Conclusion[edit source]

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

Audio[edit source]

  1. The audio is easy to follow.
  2. The presentation makes good use of narrated audio.
  3. Audio communication is clear and well paced.
  4. Very good intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  5. Audio recording quality was OK. Probably an on-board microphone was used. Consider using an external microphone.

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is good.
  2. The presentation makes effective/good/basic use of text and image based slides.
  3. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  4. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.
  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 minimal written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.
  3. A link to the book chapter is provided.
  4. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  5. The presentation is incorrectly categorised as being for kids.

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 10:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book chapter resubmission feedback[edit source]

  1. These changes were reviewed.
  2. Overall, minor changes have been made.
  3. The chapter is now over the maximum word count, so some of the additional content was ignored for marking purposes. For example, a lot of unnecessary general material was added to the Overview. Focus more directly on the topic (sustainable leadership) instead of the more general issues around sustainability.
  4. The focus questions have been improved.
  5. A case study was added, but it had nothing to do with sustainable leadership.
  6. Some general leadership theory is added, but it is not explained how this relates to sustainable leadership.
  7. No additional coverage of relevant research has been added.
  8. Some improvements have been made to spelling and grammar.
  9. Additional resources have been added to the See also section.

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]