Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2022/Patience and impatience

References

Hi, It looks like you are on your way. You have some great sub-headings. Here are a few references that you might find useful for your chapter.

Kelly, M. R. (2020). The temporal structure of patience. PhaenEx, 13(2), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.22329/p.v13i2.6208

Lipman, S. A., & Attema, A. E. (2020). Good things come to those who wait—Decreasing impatience for health gains and losses. PloS One, 15(3), Article e0229784. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229784

Levine, D. K., Modica, S., Weinschelbaum, F., & Zurita, F. (2015). Evolution of impatience: The example of the farmer-sheriff game. American Economic Journal. Microeconomics, 7(3), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20130188

Cruz Rambaud, S., & Muñoz Torrecillas, M. J. (2016). Measuring impatience in intertemporal choice. PloS One, 11(2), Article e0149256. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149256

Sunde, U., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Meyerheim, G. (2021). Patience and comparative development. The Review of Economic Studies, 89(5), 2806-2840. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab084

Happy writing! U3216256 (discuss • contribs) 04:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Heading casing

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 02:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

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 see editing changes made whilst reviewing this 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 below may also be about all material on the page at the time of providing this feedback.

Title The title and sub-title are correctly worded The capitalisation of the title has been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents User page Excellent – used effectively Description about self provided 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. Link provided to book chapter (rename the link as per Tutorial 02 so it is easier to read) Social contribution At least one contribution has been made and summarised with indirect link(s) to evidence 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. Use a numbered list (see Tutorial 02) Add a brief summary of each contribution Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Promising, but overly complicated 3-level structure – consider simplifying (e.g., Headings that focus on a specific theorist/researcher are probably not needed, although some of these could be featured as an example/case study in a coloured box) Avoid having sections with only 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Key points Promising development of key points for some sections, with relevant citations For sections which include sub-sections include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings Overview - Consider adding: an evocative description of the problem and what will be covered an image an example or case study Avoid dictionary definitions; use academic peer-reviewed sources Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters Consider including more examples/case studies Conclusion (the most important section): Not developed What might the take-home, practical messages be? In a nutshell, what are the answer(s) to the question(s) in the sub-title and/or focus questions? Figure A relevant figure is not presented References OK For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation italicisation doi formatting page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Resources See also OK Rename links so that they are more user friendly (see Tutorial 02) Include source in brackets after link External links Not developed

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Book chapter review and feedback

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 Overall, this is a basic but sufficient chapter A good understanding of the relevant literature is evident The quality of written expression is poor (well below a professional standard) Move non-peer reviewed links into the external links section Over the maximum word count. The content beyond 4000 words has been ignored for marking purposes. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Insufficient Overview Needs proofreading to correct to a professional standard of written expression. Explain the problem or phenomenon in more detail Consider introducing a case study or example or using an image to help engage reader interest Basic focus question(s) Theory – Breadth Relevant theory is reasonably well explained Reduce the emphasis on history. Increase emphasis on theory and research. Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) Theory – Depth Basic depth is provided about the selected theory(ies) Tables and/or lists could be used more effectively to help clearly convey key theoretical information Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research – Key findings Reasonably good review of relevant research I suggest integrating the case study material (which is research material) into the rest of the chapter. Then the case studies could be used to illustrate the ideas by describing patience and impatience in the life of a hypothetical person Research – Critical thinking Basic critical thinking about relevant research is evident Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by: describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies discussing the direction of relationships considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations pointing out critiques/counterarguments suggesting specific directions for future research Most claims are referenced. Only use academic, peer-reviewed citations. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the tags) Integration There is basic integration between theory and research Integrate the case study research Conclusion Basic summary Add practical, take-home message(s) Written expression – Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills Some of the written expression is quite abstract, which makes this a difficult read for an unfamiliar reader. Consider ways of simplifying the written expression to make it more accessible to a wider audience. This is the essence of science communication. Use active (e.g., "this chapter explored") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter has explored") [1][2] Some sentences are overly long (unnecessarily wordy). Strive for the simplest expression of the point being made. At the very least, consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences. Some sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the and tags) Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead: it is, most often, not needed at all, or use section linking Reduce use of weasel words which bulk out the text, but don't enhance meaning Avoid overly emotive language (e.g,. incredibly) in science-based communication Layout Sections which branch into sub-sections should include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings See earlier comments about heading casing Provide more descriptive headings (e.g., consider using a brief description of the key point for the section titled "*"?) Grammar The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the 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. Check and make correct use of commas Check and correct use of affect vs. effect Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[3] Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) Proofreading More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard Remove unnecessary capitalisation APA style Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10) Replace double spaces with single spaces Figures Figures are captioned Figure captions use the correct format Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation) Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example: If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either: in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020) For two authors, there should be no comma between their names References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of italicisation Page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Include hyperlinked dois Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section Written expression – Learning features Overall, the use of learning features is insufficient 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. 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. Links to non-peer-reviewed sources should be moved to the external links section Basic use of image(s) No use of table(s) One use of feature box(es) No use of quiz(zes) Basic use of case studies or examples Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution ~2 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Multimedia presentation 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 Overall, this is a reasonably good presentation The presentation is over the maximum time limit — content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes Overview An opening slide with the title and sub-title is displayed and narrated — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. Check and correct grammar in sub-title. This presentation has an engaging introduction to hook audience interest. The visual imagery however didn't seem to match the audio. A context for the topic is established Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation. Content The presentation addresses the topic Clear definitions MBTI isn't well accepted from a psychological theory/research POV There is too much content because the presentation runs over time The presentation is well structured (i.e., Overview, Content, Conclusion) The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological research The presentation includes citations The presentation makes good use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The audio is easy to follow The presentation makes effective use of narrated audio Audio communication is clear and well paced Very good intonation enhances listener interest and engagement The narration is well polished Audio recording quality was excellent Video Overall, visual display quality is good The presentation makes good use of text and image based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read The amount of text presented per slide could be reduced to make it easier to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented by images and/or diagrams The presentation is well produced using simple tools Hide the audio icon Meta-data The chapter title and sub-title (or an abbreviation to fit within the 100 character limit) are used in the name of the presentation — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. Check and correct grammar of sub-title (missing question mark). A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding. Links to and from the book chapter are provided Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are not provided. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the presentation description but not in the meta-data

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)