Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Dopamine and extraversion-introversion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Topic development feedback[edit source]

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[edit source]

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

Headings[edit source]

  1. Simple 2-level heading structure - this size can be effective
  2. BUT significantly reduce "What is extraversion?" and "What is dopamine?" and significantly expand "How does dopamine affect extraversion?" (i.e., I would expect the latter section to have more sub-headings and to be significantly longer)
  3. Avoid having section

s with only 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings

Overview[edit source]

  1. A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box at the start of this section
  2. Dot points look promising; keep brief and avoid being too technical/academic for this section
  3. Interesting, relevant focus questions; maybe overly technical but they make logical sense
  4. Consider using single- rather than double-barrelled focus questions
  1. Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended

Key points[edit source]

  1. Promising development of key points for each section, with relevant citations
  2. Avoid providing too much background information. Briefly summarise general concepts and provide internal wiki links to relevant book chapters and/or Wikipedia pages for further information. Then focus most of the content of this on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.
  3. Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research
  4. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. Well developed
    2. What might the take-home, practical messages be? (What are the answer(s) to the question(s) in the sub-title and/or focus questions?)

Figure[edit source]

  1. Excellent - A relevant figure is presented, captioned, and cited
  2. Caption could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text
  3. Figure(s) are cited at least once in the main text

Learning feature[edit source]

  1. Promising use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters
  2. Promising use of example(s)/case study(ies)
  3. Consider including quiz question(s), table(s) etc.

References[edit source]

  1. Good
  2. I would like to see more references like the Wacker and Smillie (2015) - identify and use the best academic theory and research about this topic
  3. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Good
    2. Only hyperlink the name of the target page (not the source in parentheses)
  2. External links
    1. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Created – minimal, but sufficient
  2. Very brief description about self provided – consider expanding
  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 – at least three different types of contributions with direct link(s) to evidence
  2. Use a numbered list (see Tutorial 02)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Social Contribution Suggestion[edit source]

Hi there,

this topic looks so interesting! I would love to see a table to clearly display either the extraversion history from the four psychologists you have included or a table to show the difference/compare the contemporary measurement. Mia Pearse (discusscontribs) 05:04, 5 October 2023 (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 an excellent chapter. It successfully uses psychological theory and research to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  2. Excellent use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits

Overview[edit source]

  1. Reasonably good
  2. Engages reader interest via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image
  3. Explain the problem or phenomenon
  4. Clear focus questions

Theory[edit source]

  1. An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
  2. Builds effectively on related Wikipedia articles
  3. Build more strongly on related Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters)
  4. Insightful depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
  5. Use tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information
  6. Key citations are well used
  7. Excellent use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts

Research[edit source]

  1. Excellent review of relevant research
  2. Excellent critical thinking about relevant research is evident
  3. Claims are referenced

Integration[edit source]

  1. Excellent integration between theory and research

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. Very good summary and conclusion
  2. A bit genAI-y
  3. Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest
  4. Key points are well summarised
  5. Add practical, take-home message(s)

Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent
    2. Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences.
    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. Layout
    1. Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
  3. Grammar
    1. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect
  4. APA style
    1. 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" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159)
    2. Figures
      1. Figures are very well captioned
      2. Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1)
    3. Citations use excellent APA style (7th ed.). For example:
      1. List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname
    4. References use excellent APA style:

Learning features[edit source]

  1. Excellent use of learning features
  2. Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles
  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. Good use of feature box(es)
  7. Very good use of case studies or examples
  8. Reasonably good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
  9. 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
  10. Very good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
    1. Use alphabetical order
  11. Good use of external links in the "External links" section
    1. Add more links

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~7 logged, useful, minor to moderate social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:46, 19 November 2023 (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 excellent presentation

Overview[edit source]

  1. An opening slide with the title and sub-title is displayed and narrated — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation
  2. Very engaging introduction to hook audience interest
  3. A context for the presentation is clearly established through an example
  4. Focus questions and/or an outline of topics are presented

Content[edit source]

  1. Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section
  2. The presentation addresses the topic
  3. An appropriate amount of content is presented — not too much or too little
  4. The presentation makes excellent use of relevant psychological theory
  5. The presentation makes excellent use of relevant psychological research
  6. The presentation makes excellent use of citations to support claims
  7. The presentation makes very good use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice
  8. The presentation provides practical, easy to understand information

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. A conclusion is presented with an excellent summary and take-home message(s)

Audio[edit source]

  1. The audio is easy to follow
  2. The presentation makes effective use of narrated audio
  3. Audio communication is well well paced
  4. Very good intonation
  5. The narration is well practiced and/or performed
  6. Audio recording quality was very good
  7. The narrated content is well matched to the target topic

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is very good
  2. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides
  3. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read
    1. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images and/or diagrams
  4. The presentation is well produced using simple tools
  5. The visual content is well matched to the target topic

Meta-data[edit source]

  1. 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
  2. Provide an informative description to help viewers decide whether they want to watch
  3. A link to the book chapter is not provided
  4. A link from the book chapter was not provided. I've added it.
  5. 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[edit source]

  1. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply