Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
There's not much in the way of peer-reviewed psychology theory/research journal articles here. Remember that the goal is to identify and use the best academic theory and research about this topic.
Brief description about self provided – consider expanding
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.
If adding the second or subsequent link to a page (or a talk/discussion page), create a direct link like / 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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey,
This is looking great, I love that you have three focus questions and have gone into some detail around these. I would suggest not making them sub-headings and placing them in a box all together without the detail. I would address them throughout the page (incorporating what you have already written about them - whether this is adding in new subheadings or just including them in a paragraph) and then revisit at the end in the conclusion. Mia Pearse (discuss • contribs) 05:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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, this is an insufficient chapter primarily because it shows no evidence of having consulted and integrated the best psychological theory and research about this topic. For example, there are virtually no citations. It seems possible/likely that much of this submission consists of unacknowledged AI-generated content.
An basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
Much of the content about cognitive psychology is too broad/general
Overly focused on general description; summarise and move to the more substantive aspects of theory
Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters)
There is too much general theoretical material. Instead, summarise and link to further information (such as other book chapters or Wikipedia articles), to allow this chapter to focus on the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
Lack of sufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
Insufficient use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts.
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.
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)
Good use of feature box(es)
Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
Basic use of case studies or examples
No use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Basic use of external links in the "External links" section
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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, this is an insufficient presentation mainly because it doesn't sufficiently focus on the target topic: "What are intertemporal choices and how can they be effectively negotiated?" in part because the presentation overly focuses on financial contexts rather than the broader psychological phenomenon of intertemporal choice, delay discounting etc.
The presentation is over the maximum time limit — content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes
Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section
This presentation partially 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 selection of content is poor because it doesn't adequately use the most relevant psychological theory and/or research to address the topic. Financial decisions can be used as an example but not the primary focus.
The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory
The presentation makes insufficient use of relevant psychological research
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.
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
The presentation is incorrectly categorised as being for kids. This introduces limitations, such as being unable to add the presentation to a playlist. More info.