Jump to content

Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2022/Social cure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikiversity

Social Cure- u3210264

[edit source]

Good Start on your topic. Opening overview section could use a little tightening up/specificity, but good use of images and formatting so far. Make sure to include focus questions and separate headings from sub-headings clearly. References are well formatted and can tell have already started to put in the research, just ensure its alphabetical order. U3210264 (discusscontribs) 05:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Heading casing

[edit source]
Hi U3215976. 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 02:38, 27 August 2022 (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 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.

  1. The title is correctly worded and formatted
  2. The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted
  3. Remove author name – authorship is as per the page's editing history
  1. Very good
  2. Description about self provided
  3. Brief description about self provided – consider expanding
  4. 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.
  5. Link provided to book chapter
  1. Excellent – at least one contribution has been made and summarised in a numbered list with direct link(s) to evidence
  2. Use a numbered list
  1. Promising 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development by expanding the structure
  2. Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion
  3. Use default heading formatting (i.e., avoid bold, italics, underline, changing the size etc.)
  1. Basic development of key points for each section, with relevant citations
  2. Use bullet points (see Tutorial 1 - Using Wikiversity)
  3. For sections which include sub-sections include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings
  4. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. an evocative description of the problem and what will be covered
    2. an image
    3. an example or case study
  5. Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research
  6. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  7. Consider including more examples/case studies
  8. Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) – more info
  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?
  1. A figure is presented
  2. Caption could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text
  4. Consider presenting the figure on the right so that text flows around
  5. Check and correct capitalisation
  1. OK
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. italicisation
    3. page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
  1. See also
    1. Not developed
  2. External links
    1. Very good

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Book 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 a solid chapter that makes good use of psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem
  2. Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand
  3. Addressing the topic development feedback could have helped to improve this chapter
  4. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits
  1. Basic Overview
  2. Too long and woolly; cut to the chase
  3. Doesn't explain what the social cure is, in simple terms
  1. Relevant theory is reasonably well explained
  2. Build more strongly on other social-related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters in this category: Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Social)
  1. Appropriate depth is provided about the selected theory(ies)
  2. Tables and/or lists could be used more effectively to help clearly convey key theoretical information
  3. Some useful examples are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts
  1. Reasonably good review of relevant research
  2. Greater emphasis on effect sizes, major reviews, and/or meta-analyses would be helpful
  1. Very good critical thinking about relevant 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. pointing out critiques/counterarguments
    6. suggesting specific directions for future research
  3. Claims are referenced
  1. There is reasonably good integration between theory and research
  1. Reasonably good summary
  2. Add practical, take-home message(s)
  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good
    2. Use active (e.g., "this chapter explored") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter has explored" or "this chapter will explore") [1][2]
    3. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences
    4. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
    5. Reduce use of weasel words which bulk out the text but don't enhance meaning
  2. Layout
    1. Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional bold)
    2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings
    3. See earlier comments about heading casing
    4. Sections which branch into sub-sections should include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
  3. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some 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 affect vs. effect
    3. Abbreviations
      1. Check and correct grammatical formatting for abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e., etc.)
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour
  5. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
  6. APA style
    1. Do not capitalise the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc.
    2. Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numerals (e.g., 10)
    3. Figures
      1. Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text
      2. Figure captions use the correct format
      3. Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1)
    4. 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)
    5. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation[3]
      2. Check and correct use of italicisation
      3. Include hyperlinked dois
  1. Overall, the use of learning features is very good
  2. Good 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 even 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. Excellent use of feature box(es)
  7. Excellent use of quiz(zes)
  8. Excellent use of case studies or examples
  9. Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section. Also include links to related Wikipedia articles.
  10. Basic use of external links in the "External links" section. Move academic sources into References.
  1. ~12 logged, useful, minor social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

[edit source]
  1. Overall, this is an insufficient presentation mainly because:
    1. No research is considered
    2. The Conclusion is not within a time limit
    3. Too few examples are provided
    4. The audio is monotone
    5. The visual display is limited
    6. Meta-data and licensing are insufficient
  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 is displayed. Also display and narrate the sub-title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation
  2. Consider creating an engaging introduction to hook audience interest
  3. Establish a context for the topic (e.g., by using an example or explaining why it is important), to help the viewer understand
  4. Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation.
  1. Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section
  2. The presentation addresses the topic
  3. The social cure is well explained via audio. But why use a pill as an image?
  4. The presentation somewhat addresses the topic
  5. There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of well-targetted content than a large amount of poorly selected content.
  6. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory
  7. The presentation makes no use of relevant psychological research
  8. Include citations to support claims
  9. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies
  1. The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit
  1. The presentation makes basic use of audio
  2. Audio communication is well paced
  3. Consider using greater intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement
  4. Audio recording quality was OK/poor. Review microphone set-up to achieve higher recording quality (there were a couple of audio glitches).
  1. Overall, visual display quality is very basic
  2. The presentation makes very basic use of text-based slides
  3. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read
  4. The amount of text presented per slide makes it easy to read and listen at the same time
  5. Consider presenting more slides, text, and images
  6. The presentation is basically produced using simple tools
  1. The chapter title is used, but the sub-title (or a shortened version of it) is not used, as the name of the presentation. The sub-title (or an abbreviation of the sub-title that fits within the 100 character limit) would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. A very brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.
  3. A link to the book chapter is not provided
  4. A link from the book chapter is provided
  1. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided.
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply