Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Humility

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 wording and/or capitalisation of the title is incorrect. Be consistent with the book table of contents. The wording and/or capitalisation of the sub-title is incorrect. Be consistent with the book table of contents.y Headings No development Overview No development Key points No development Figure No development Learning feature No development References No development Resources No development User page Created 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. Add link to book chapter Social contribution None 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 00:02, 28 September 2023 (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 03:19, 2 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 Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations Well under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand Obtaining (earlier) comments on a chapter plan via the topic development exercise could have helped to improve the chapter For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Basic Consider providing a case study or scenario with an image in a feature box to help engage reader interest Explains the problem or phenomenon Basic focus questions Ideally, provide open-ended, rather than closed-ended focus questions Theory Insufficient use of relevant psychological theory about this topic Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) There is too much general theoretical material (e.g., historical, philosophical). The topic is psychology. Insufficient depth is provided about relevant psychological theory(ies) No use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help clearly convey key theoretical information Lack of sufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Insufficient use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Insufficient review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Greater emphasis on effect sizes could be helpful. Lack of sufficient 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 Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of basic Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences. 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 Insufficiently developed; poorly structured Remove headings from Overview Consider using sub-headings See earlier comments about heading casing Grammar The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Spelling Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. Proofreading More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard > Figures Figures are briefly captioned. Figure numbering missing. 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) 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: Use a colon to separate multiple citations within a list in parentheses References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of capitalisation[2] Check and correct use of italicisation Learning features Basic use of learning features Basic use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of psychlogy-related key words and technical concepts would make the text even 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. Basic use of image(s) No use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Very good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of case studies or examples Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Use bullet points per Tutorial 02 Rename links per Tutorial 02 Include sources in parentheses Good use of external links in the "External links" section Include sources in parentheses Social contribution ~4 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:19, 2 November 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 a basic but sufficient 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 is displayed. Also display and narrate the sub-title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest Establish a context for the presentation (e.g., by using an example or explaining why it is important), to help the viewer understand Focus questions and/or an outline of topics are presented Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation addresses the topic 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. The presentation makes reasonably good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes reasonably good use of relevant psychological research Include key citations to support claims The presentation makes reasonably 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 presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio 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 Reasonably good intonation The narration is well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was excellent The narrated content is well matched to the target topic (see content), although the initial philosophical perspective should be abbreviated to help make the presentation fit within the maximum time limit Video Overall, visual display quality is basic The presentation makes basic use of text-based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read Red text on green background is difficult to read The visual communication could be improved by including some relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is basically produced using simple tools Hide the audio icon The visual content is matched to the target topic (see content) 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 A written description of the presentation is not provided. Providing an informative description can help viewers decide whether they want to watch or not. A link to the book chapter is not provided A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is not provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Social contribution

Overall an interesting read and makes a lot of strong points. I do feel the conclusion could of been improved by linking back to some of the initial focus questions or subheadings. For example, what was the end result as to what causes humility? or is it really a desirable trait? --U3237728 (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)