Latest comment: 10 months 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.
Key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations
It is likely that this chapter may run over the maximum word count, so this is where sharp focus questions that unpack the sub-title will be useful in deciding what to keep/expand and what to drop/minimise
For sections which include sub-sections include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings
Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research, with practical examples
Very 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.
One out of three types contributions with indirect link(s) to evidence
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.
Looking ahead to the book chapter submission, see how to earn marks for social contributions.
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, thank you for this book chapter, it was very informative. I think it could have benefitted from using more interactive mechanisms (e.g., graphs, quizzes, case studies)!
I have made some changes to your reference list, I hope you don't mind! They are overall really great, the most common ones I have noticed are uncapitalised words after a colon.
Jingying Chen (discuss • contribs) 23:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months 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.
A good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., definitions). Instead, summarise and link to related resources (i.e., other book chapters and/or Wikipedia articles). Increase emphasis on substantive aspects of theory that relate directly to the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
Builds somewhat on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles
Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters)
Good*** depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
Place more emphasis on explaining the underlying theoretical constructs than methods of measurement
Effective use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help clearly convey key theoretical information
Some/Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information
Use tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information
Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags) in some places
Some use of research examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
Overall, the quality of written expression is basic
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
Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings
Grammar
The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance
Abbreviations
Once an abbreviation is established (e.g., PTSD), use it consistently. Don't set up an abbreviation and then not use it or only use it sometimes.
Proofreading
More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
APA style
Express numbers < 10 using words (e.g., two) and >= 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99)
Figures
Figures are well captioned
Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1)
Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example:
A full stop is needed after "et al" (i.e., "et al.") because it is an abbreviation of et alii
References are close to APA style.
Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section
Very 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.
Basic/ use of image(s)
No use of table(s)
Basic use of feature box(es)
Basic use of case studies or examples
No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
Very good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Latest comment: 9 months 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.
The narration is well practiced and/or performed (e.g., pronunciation is excellent)
Audio recording quality was OK. 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 well matched to the target topic (see content)
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 brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding. Check grammar.
Links to and from the book chapter are provided
An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided because the YouTube user account does not yet have access to advanced features
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.