Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Active transport motivation

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 10:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

The topic development submission 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 for 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.

Title The title is correctly worded and formatted The wording and/or capitalisation of the sub-title is incorrect. Be consistent with the book table of contents. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Remove colons from the end of the headings Basic, 1-level heading structure – would benefit from further development, perhaps using a 2-level structure Headings 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not directly related to the topic which related to motivation: What motivates use of active transport and how can people be encouraged to use it? Adopt closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings Overview Move the scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) to the start of this section to help catch reader interest A brief description of the problem/topic is provided. Could be more evocative. The current focus questions are more like self-reflection questions and could be moved elsewhere Replace with new focus questions which unpack the sub-title and provide a structure and focus for the chapter Key points Basic development of key points for each section There are no relevant citations Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research, with practical examples Use Australian spelling (e.g., analyze -> analyse; behavior -> behaviour) It is unclear whether the best available psychological theory and research has been consulted in the preparation of this plan Is this genAI content? If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries otherwise it violates academic integrity. Conclusion (the most important section): Hasn't been developed Figure A relevant figure is presented, captioned, and cited Cite each figure at least once in the main text Learning feature Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters Promising use of example(s)/case study(ies) Consider including more examples/case studies, quiz question(s), table(s) etc. References The references aren't cited For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation italicisation doi formatting make doi hyperlinks active (i.e., clickable) page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Remember that the goal is to identify and use the best academic theory and research about this topic Resources Not developed User page Excellent – used effectively Excellent 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 Social contribution No relevant contributions to this unit are summarised on user page with direct link(s) to evidence – this was covered in Tutorial 03. Looking ahead to the book chapter submission, see how to earn marks for social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Social Contribution

Hi, I really like what you have so far, I would suggest adding in some more pictures or interactive things to break up the large amount of texts. --U3224582 (discuss • contribs) 05:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Social contribution

Hey. This is such an interesting topic! I have learned a bit about this in other classes, one research article I read was super interesting. I would suggest giving it a read and maybe incorporate it into your chapter!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6973692/ U3210285 (discuss • contribs) 09:34, 8 October 2023 (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 an insufficient presentation mainly because it lacks synthesis of the best available theory (general motivation theory is used) and research (none reviewed or integrated) about this topic 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 — but this title and sub-title did not match the book chapter Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest A basic context for the presentation is established Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation. Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation somewhat addresses the topic There is too much content presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation. The presentation makes basic use of general psychological theory The presentation makes insufficient use of relevant psychological research Ideally, make more explicit use of research Include citations to support claims The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies Conclusion A Conclusion slide is presented with basic take-home message(s) but it is not clear how these conclusions are based on the best available psychological theory and research about this topic? The Conclusion only partly fitted within the time limit Audio The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio Audio communication is well well paced Very good intonation The narration is reasonably well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was good Review microphone set-up to achieve higher recording quality. Probably an on-board microphone was used (e.g., keyboard and/or mouse clicks were audible). Consider using an external microphone. The narrated content is somewhat matched to the target topic (see content) but lacked synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Video Overall, visual display quality is excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read Consider using a sans-serif typeface to make the text easier to read The amount of text presented on some slide could be reduced to make it easier to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented in a basic way by images and/or diagrams The presentation is reasonably well produced using simple tools The visual content is reasonably well matched to the target topic (see content) but lacked synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Meta-data The video title does not match the chapter title and sub-title — this would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation and be more consistent Provide an informative description to help viewers decide whether they want to watch A link to the book chapter is not provided A link from the book chapter is provided The presentation is incorrectly categorised as being for kids. This creates limitations, such as being unable to add the presentation to a playlist. More info. Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are not provided A copyright license for the presentation is not provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:51, 15 November 2023 (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 an insufficient chapter The main area for potential improvement is to structure the chapter around addressing clear focus questions and synthesising the best psychological theory and research about these focus questions based on peer-reviewed citations. I suspect that the recommended 5 topic development hours and 45 book chapter hours were not invested in preparing this chapter It seems likely that much of this is unacknowledged genAI content. If so, it needs to be acknowledged in the edit summaries otherwise it violates academic integrity. The chapter could be improved by addressing earlier feedback Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations Well over the maximum word count. The content beyond 4,000 words has been ignored for marking purposes. There is a lot of repetition. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Reasonably good Repetitive of subsequent content Engages reader interest by presenting a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image Explains the problem or phenomenon Insufficient focus questions The focus questions could be improved by being more specific to the topic (i.e., the sub-title) What is provided instead are potentially useful reflection questions which could be used elsewhere Theory Insufficient use of relevant psychological theory about this topic I suspect the chapter relies on secondary rather than primary sources because there is very little evidence that the best primary peer-reviewed sources have been consulted and used to inform this chapter Builds on two related Wikipedia articles and no related chapters through embedded links. This demonstrates little awareness of the connections between this chapter and related resources in the Wikimedia Foundation knowledge system. Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Some use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Some promising use of examples. To improve, choose examples that illustrate theoretical concepts about what motivates use of active transport. Research Insufficient review of relevant research Provide more detail about key studies Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Insufficient 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 Many claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the tags) Integration Insufficient integration between theory and research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research Conclusion Basic summary and conclusion Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic Address the focus questions Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills This chapter reads like a developing draft rather than complete work 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 Layout The chapter structure is overly complicated; synthesise and simplify Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings See earlier comments about heading casing Figures Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1) Tables Use APA style for captions. See example Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1) Not all references are cited References use poor APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[2] Check and correct use of italicisation Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section Learning features Basic use of learning features Two 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. Basic use of image(s); adjust image sizes and add APA style captions; don't upload images which violate copyright owner permissions Promising use of table(s) Excellent use of feature box(es) Reasonably good use of case studies or examples Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) The quiz questions could be improved by being more focused on the key points and/or take-home messages The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than as a set of questions at the end Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Move external links to the external links section Also include links to related book chapters Also include links to related Wikipedia articles Use alphabetical order Basic use of external links in the "External links" section The audience is international; Australians are only .3% of world population; internalise the external resources Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Social contribution No logged social contributions. See Topic Development feedback for more details.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Double ??

There is a double ? in the subheading which could be removed. Other than this it great work and very informative. U3054914 (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)