Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Placebo effect and motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heading casing[edit source]

Hi U3203797. 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 11:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for bringing that to my attention! U3203797 (discusscontribs) 06:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


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
  2. The title not correct formatted (capitalisation)
  3. The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted

Headings[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. It may be sufficient to use a 2-level rather than 3-level structure
  3. Consider abbreviating some of the longest headings
  4. The Overview and Conclusion should not have sub-headings
  5. Use default heading formatting (i.e., avoid bold, italics, underline, changing the size etc.)
  6. Avoid having sections with only 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings
  7. Remove heading for quiz; just embed quiz questions in their relevant section
  8. The first letter after colons should be capitalised

Overview[edit source]

  1. Very promising
  2. Use 3rd person perspective
  3. Includes an evocative description of the problem/topic with links to relevant psychological theory/research, and focus questions
  4. Consider starting with the scenario in a feature box to capture reader attention
  5. Consider simplifying the focus questions so that they focus on one issue each (a couple of them are double-barrelled)

Key points[edit source]

  1. Excellent – key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations
  2. Abbreviate historical context provide embedded links to related information
  3. Move types up as part of the general intro to placebos, then go into the mechanisms
  4. There is plenty of potential theory - likely, will need to be selective
  5. If you haven't consulted a source, don't cite it
  6. Applications section is promising - could also use these in feature boxes in other sections
  7. Some applications could be worked into the Conclusion
  8. Promising balance of theory and research
  9. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. Underway
    2. Remove headings; but do use the focus questions as a structuring device

Figure[edit source]

  1. Excellent – A relevant figure is presented and it is appropriately captioned
  2. Not sure about the direct relevance of Figure 2
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text

Learning feature[edit source]

  1. Excellent 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. Excellent use of examples/case studies
  3. Promising use of quiz question(s)
  4. Table also provided

References[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. italicisation
    2. page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Excellent
  2. External links
    1. Very good
    2. Use sentence casing
    3. Description not needed
    4. Include source in brackets after link

User page[edit source]

  1. Excellent – used effectively
  2. Description about self provided
  3. Link(s) provided to professional profile(s)
  4. Link provided to book chapter

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Promising – 3 useful direct edits; ideally add at least three different types of contributions (direct edit, comment, and discussion forum/Twitter post

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:57, 19 September 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. Very good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims
  3. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits

Overview[edit source]

  1. Well developed
  2. Engages reader interest by presenting a case study and/or scenario in a feature box
  3. Add a matching image for the case study/scenario
  4. Clearly explains the problem or phenomenon
  5. Reasonably clear focus questions
  6. I've revised the 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 other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters)
  4. Insightful depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
  5. Effective use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help clearly convey key theoretical information
  6. Key citations are well used
  7. Excellent use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts

Research[edit source]

  1. Very good review of relevant research
  2. Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area?
  3. Very good critical thinking about relevant research is evident
  4. Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by:
    1. describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies
    2. discussing the direction of relationships
    3. considering the strength of relationships
    4. acknowledging limitations
    5. pointing out critiques/counterarguments
    6. suggesting specific directions for future research
  5. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)

Integration[edit source]

  1. Excellent integration between theory and research

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. Very good summary and conclusion
  2. Key points are well summarised
  3. Add practical, take-home message(s)

Style[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent
    2. 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
    3. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead:
      1. it is, most often, not needed at all, or
      2. use section linking
  2. Layout
    1. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections
    2. Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
  3. APA style### Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation)
    1. Tables
      1. Use APA style for captions. See example### Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style
    2. Citations use almost correct APA style### Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses
    3. References use almost correct APA style
      1. Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)

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. Reasonably good use of image(s)
  5. Good use of table(s)
  6. Basic use of feature box(es)
  7. Very good use of case studies or examples
  8. Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
  9. Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
    1. Use alphabetical order
  10. Excellent use of external links in the "External links" section
    1. Use alphabetical order

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~3 logged minor social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:23, 12 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 a basic 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. Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest
  3. Establish a context for the presentation (e.g., by using an example or explaining why it is important), to help the viewer understand
  4. Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation.

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 reasonably good implied use of relevant psychological research
  6. Ideally, make more explicit use of research
  7. The presentation makes excellent use of citations to support claims
  8. The presentation makes reasonably good use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice

Conclusion[edit source]

  1. The conclusion provides a very good summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic

Audio[edit source]

  1. The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio
  2. Audio communication is reasonably well paced
  3. Consider using greater intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement
  4. Audio recording quality was reasonably good
  5. 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.
  6. The narrated content is well matched to the target topic

Video[edit source]

  1. Overall, visual display quality is basic
  2. The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides
  3. Some of the font size could be larger to make it easier to read
  4. The visual communication is supplemented in a very basic way by images
  5. The presentation is basically produced using simple tools
  6. 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. A very brief written description of the presentation is provided. Expand.
  3. A link to the book chapter is not provided
  4. A link from the book chapter is provided

Licensing[edit source]

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

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply