Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Wounded healer paradigm

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 08:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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 was missing
  2. The sub-title has been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents

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. Summarised with link(s) to evidence
  2. If adding the second or subsequent edit to a page, add direct links to evidence like 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. Add your signature to comments on talk/discussion pages

Headings[edit source]

  1. See earlier comment about Heading casing
  2. Overly complicated 3-level structure - consider simplifying to a 2-level structure
  3. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings

Key points[edit source]

  1. Promising development of key points for some sections, with relevant citations
  2. Write the chapter using 3rd person perspective, although a case study or feature box could use 1st or 2nd person perspective
  3. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. focus questions (could replace the learning outcomes)
    2. an image
    3. an example or case study
  4. Remove excessive use of italics, especially from the links
  5. Multiple citations should be in alphabetical order (APA style)
  6. Use APA style 7th edition for citations with three or more authors (i.e., FirstAuthor et al., year)
  7. Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research
  8. Excellent use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters
  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 and/or focus questions?
  10. This is generally well-written, but I recommend using the Studiosity service to help improve the quality of written expression because there are a lot of grammar and spelling errors.

Figure[edit source]

  1. A figure is presented
  2. Caption uses APA style
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text

References[edit source]

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

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Excellent
  2. External links
    1. None

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit source]

Hello, this is a really interesting book chapter, I always wonder about the root of motivation people have to become a health professional. As James has already mentioned watch out for the casing, in your titles. I found this journal article 'Wounded Healer: Psychotherapist Grief Over a Client's Death' DOI: 10.1037/A0023788. I think you could incorporate this article really well into your chapter as a case study. The article goes into topics like countertransference, ethics and the mental wellbeing of the Psychotherapist. Best of luck! --U3217975 (discusscontribs) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, very unique topic and has a lot of potential in a modern setting if presented right. I would suggest adding features like case studies and reflective questions to help those reading this article and more pictures wouldn't/t hurt either. - u3203031

Grammar[edit source]

Hi, I jumped in and corrected a typo in your work, but I also noticed some grammar errors. I would suggest copying it to a word document and sending it to Studiosity through Canvas. They currently have a 4-6 hour turn around, so you'll get it back in time to incorporate changes. Areas to focus on would be comma use for introductory clauses. this seemed to be happening throughout and i would suggest doing an in-depth proof read before submission tomorrow.

I would also suggest checking if you have used the best words throughout your work. For example, is anticipation the best word in this sentence?

"Have you ever wondered why you have anticipation for a career in psychotherapy" 

Thanks, Good luck (edited my own typo)

Suggestion[edit source]

I found a research article that could help guide your research on the 'wounded healer paradigm'. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J287v03n01_13 U3201217 (discusscontribs) 09:42, 17 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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic presentation.

Overview[edit source]

  1. Display and narrate the correct title and sub-title to help the viewer understand the purpose of the presentation and to be consistent with the book chapter.
  2. Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest.
  3. Establish a context for the topic, to help the viewer understand.
  4. Briefly explain why this topic is important.
  5. 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. There is some topic drift. The original topic was the wounded healer paradigm, but the presentation focuses instead on empathy.
  3. The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological theory.
  4. The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological research.
  5. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. A Conclusion slide is presented, but it doesn't mention the wounded healer paradigm! Frowny.svg

Audio[edit source]

  1. The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio.
  2. 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.
  3. Good intonation enhances listener interest and engagement.
  4. Audio recording quality was OK. Review microphone set-up to achieve higher recording quality.
  5. Probably an on-board microphone was used (e.g., white noise). Consider using an external microphone.

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is basic.
  2. The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides.
  3. Some of the font size should be larger to make it easier to read.
  4. The amount of text presented per slide could be reduced to make it easier to read and listen at the same time.
  5. The presentation is basically produced using simple tools.

Meta-data[edit source]

  1. The correct chapter title and sub-title are missing from the name of the presentation — this 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 not provided.
  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 not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:20, 23 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 an excellent chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  2. Addressing the topic development feedback could have helped to improve this chapter.
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Overview[edit source]

  1. Good Overview.
  2. Target a broader audience - the opening paragraph sounds like it is targeting psychology students?
  3. Change learning outcomes into focus questions - these will give more specific targets.
  4. Consider introducing a case study or example or using an image to help engage reader interest.

Theory — Breadth[edit source]

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

Theory — Depth[edit source]

  1. Excellent, balanced, thoughtful depth is provided about the selected theory(ies).
  2. Some useful examples are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts.

Research — Key findings[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed.

Research — Critical thinking[edit source]

  1. Excellent critical thinking about research is evident.

Integration[edit source]

  1. Discussion of theory and research is well integrated.

Conclusion[edit source]

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

Written expression — Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent.
    2. 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. See earlier comments about heading casing.
    2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading — use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
    3. Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional bold).
  3. Grammar
    1. Use serial commas[2] — they are part of APA style and are generally recommended by grammaticists. Here's an explanatory video (1 min).
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour).
  5. APA style
    1. Direct quotes need page numbers — even better, write in your own words.
    2. Figures
      1. Figures are very well captioned.
      2. Figure captions use the correct format.
      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. The year is missing for some citations.
      1. Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses.
    5. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation[3]

Written expression — Learning features[edit source]

  1. Overall, the use of learning features is basic.
  2. No 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. Basic use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding more in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
  4. Good use of image(s).
  5. No use of table(s).
  6. Basic use of feature box(es).
  7. No use of quiz(zes).
  8. Very good use of case studies or examples.
  9. Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section.
  10. Basic use of external links in the "External links" section.
  11. Format bullet-points and numbered lists, per Tutorial 1.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~1 logged, useful, minor/moderate/major social contributions with direct links to evidence.
  2. ~1 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]