Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Signature strengths

Changes focus questions

Hey Rumesa, I love the topic you have chosen and how you have gone in such detail about the application of signature strengths. I do have a recommendation - to shorten the amount of focus questions you have. Since you only have 3 main headings, there shouldn't be a need to add more than 3/4 focus questions. Perhaps you can remove the focus questions that are targeting the various applications of signature strength and replace it with one generic focus question such as: What are some applications of signature strength?

Sincerely, Eiman. U3224924 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

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 title is correctly worded and formatted The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted Headings Promising 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development by expanding the structure Adopt closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections Quiz doesn't need a separate heading; instead embed quiz questions within relevant sections Overview Is this genAI content? If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries otherwise it violates academic integrity. Move the scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) to help catch reader interest Add a brief, evocative description of the problem/topic Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended Use Australian spelling (e.g., analyze -> analyse; behavior -> behaviour) Key points Promising development of key points for each section, with relevant citations Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research, with practical examples Use Australian spelling (e.g., analyze -> analyse; behavior -> behaviour) Is some of this genAI content (e.g., Conclusion)? If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries otherwise it violates academic integrity. Conclusion (the most important section): Underway 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 A relevant figure is presented, captioned, and cited Caption could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text Figure(s) are cited at least once in the main text Learning feature One or two uses of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters Promising use of example(s)/case study(ies) Promising use of quiz question(s) References Very good For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation Resources Excellent User page Very good Description about self provided Link(s) provided to professional profile(s) Link provided to book chapter Social contribution Excellent – at least three different types of contributions with direct link(s) to evidence For the first contribution, which makes a grammatical correction, also remove the grammar tag

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, I really enjoyed reading this book chapter! Thank you for all the effort that was put into it. In my opinion, I feel like additional interactive mechanisms (e.g., quizzes, case studies, figures) would have helped to maintain the reader's interest. I have also made some changes to your reference list, I hope you don't mind! The main errors are the unnecessarily capitalised words. Remember to only capitalise the first word, the first word after a colon, initials or acrynoms :).

Jingying Chen (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 19 October 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 03:40, 14 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 a very good chapter. It makes very good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. Excellent use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims Use of academic, peer-reviewed citations is lacking in some places (e.g., see the tags) For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Reasonably good Engages reader interest by presenting a case study and/or scenario with an image in a feature box Explain what Inky's signature strengths are Explains the problem or phenomenon Underdeveloped focus questions Theory An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained It would be helpful to provide a list or table of commonly discussed signature strengths Builds well on related Wikipedia articles Build more strongly on related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) Very good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Use tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information Very good use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Very good review of relevant research Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Good 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 Integration Very good integration between theory and research Conclusion Very good summary and conclusion Key points are summarised Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is very good Some sentences are overly long. Strive for the simplest expression. Consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences. Some sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the and tags) 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 See earlier comments about heading casing Abbreviations Only use abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc. inside parentheses, otherwise spell out Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) Proofreading Remove unnecessary capitalisation APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use serial commas[2]. Video (1 min) 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) Figures Figures are well captioned Figure 2 has been removed for copyright violation; renumber Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example: If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either: in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020) Do not include author first name or initials Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses References use very good APA style Check and correct use of capitalisation[3] Learning features Very good use of learning features 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. One 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. Good use of image(s) No use of table(s) Good use of feature box(es) Very good use of case studies or examples Very good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) 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 Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Reasonably good use of external links in the "External links" section Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Social contribution ~5 logged minor social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:40, 14 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 reasonably good presentation It could be improved by providing a cogent synthesis of the best research about signature strengths and more examples. It could also be improved by providing more accurate information about the copyright licenses for images. Overview An opening slide with the sub-title is displayed and narrated. Also display and narrate the title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation and to be consistent with the book chapter. Engaging introduction to hook audience interest A context for the presentation is clearly established through an example Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation. Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation somewhat addresses the topic An appropriate amount of content is presented — not too much or too little The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes no use of relevant psychological research Ideally, make more explicit use of research Some citations are included to support claims Consider including more key citations to support claims The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies Conclusion A Conclusion slide is presented with reasonably good take-home message(s) The Conclusion only partly fitted within the time limit Audio The audio is fun, easy to follow, and interesting to listen to The audio is easy to follow The audio is hard to follow because so much content is presented so quickly The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Audio communication is well paced Reasonably good intonation Audio recording quality was excellent The narrated content is well matched to the target topic (see content) but lacked synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Video Overall, visual display quality is reasonably good The presentation makes reasonably good use of text and image based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read The amount of text presented per slide could be reduced to make it easier to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented in a reasonably good way by images and/or diagrams The presentation is well produced using simple tools The visual content is well matched to the target topic (see content) but lacked synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Meta-data 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 Add space between title and sub-title A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding. 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 Licensing Image sources are communicated in a general way. Also provide links to each image and the license details (e.g., in the description). The source of the diagram on slide 2 is not acknowledged The Kronos cartoon is falsely claimed as Creative Commons - it is copyright restricted A copyright license for the presentation is provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 19:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)