Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Uncertainty and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.


[edit source]
  1. Overall, this is an insufficient chapter mainly because it is underdeveloped
  2. I suspect that the recommended 5 topic development hours and 45 book chapter hours were not invested in preparing this chapter
  3. Use of academic, peer-reviewed citations is lacking in some places (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  4. Move non-peer reviewed links into the external links section
  5. Well under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand
  6. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits
  1. Reasonably good
  2. Engage reader interest via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image
  3. Explains the problem or phenomenon
  4. Clear focus questions
  1. A very basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
  2. There was very brief mention about positive emotions that may emerge from uncertainty. Consider expanding.
  3. Builds on two previous, related chapter and/or Wikipedia article
  4. Build more strongly on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters)
  5. Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
  6. Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information
  7. Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  8. Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
  1. Insufficient review of relevant research
  2. More detail about key studies would be ideal
  3. Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  4. Insufficient critical thinking about relevant research is evident
  5. 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
  6. Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  1. Insufficient integration between theory and research
  2. The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research
  1. Somewhat vague and insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic
  2. Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest
  3. Key points are summarised
  4. Address the focus questions
  5. Add practical, take-home message(s)
  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good
    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. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
  2. Layout
    1. Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
    2. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings
    3. Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional italics and/or bold)
  3. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
      1. Consider using a grammar checking tool
      2. Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance
    2. Check and make correct use of commas
    3. Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2]
  4. APA style
    1. Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc.
    2. 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)
    3. Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, write in your own words
    4. Figures
      1. Figures are briefly captioned
      2. Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation)
    5. Tables
      1. Use APA style captions. See example
      2. Refer to each Table using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation)
    6. Citations use basic APA style (7th ed.). For example:
      1. If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either:
        1. in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or
        2. in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020)
      2. Do not include author first name or initials
      3. Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section
    7. References use basic APA style:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation[3]
      2. Check and correct use of italicisation
      3. Include hyperlinked dois
      4. Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section
  1. Good use of learning features
  2. Two uses 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.
  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. Basic use of image(s)
  5. Basic use of table(s)
  6. Very good use of feature box(es)
  7. Reasonably good use of case studies or examples
  8. Very good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
  9. Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
  10. Excellent use of external links in the "External links" section
  1. ~1 logged, useful social contributions with direct links to evidence
  2. ~2 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:52, 20 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.


[edit source]
  1. Overall, this is a basic presentation
  2. The presentation is over the maximum time limit — content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes
  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 basic context for the presentation (e.g., through an example)
  4. Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation.
  1. Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section
  2. The presentation addresses the topic
  3. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory
  4. The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological research
  5. The presentation makes basic use of citations to support claims
  6. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies
  1. Add a conclusion slide with practical, take-home messages in response to each focus question
  2. The Conclusion only partly fitted within the time limit
  3. The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit
  1. The presentation makes good use of narrated audio
  2. Audio communication is well paced
  3. Excellent intonation enhances listener interest and engagement
  4. The narration is reasonably well practiced and/or performed
  5. Audio recording quality was good
  6. 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.
  7. The narrated content is well matched to the target topicc
  1. Overall, visual display quality is reasonably good
  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. Consider using a sans-serif typeface to make the text easier to read
  5. The amount of text presented per slide could be reduced to make it easier to read and listen at the same time
  6. The visual communication is supplemented in a reasonably good by images
  7. Also consider using diagrams
  8. The presentation is basically produced using simple tools
  9. The visual content is well matched to the target topic
  1. 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.
  2. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding.
  3. Only include references for sources that are cited during the presentation
  4. A link to the book chapter is not provided
  5. A link from the book chapter is provided
  6. 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.
  1. Image sources and their copyright status are communicated
    1. The presentation may have violated the copyrights of image owners
  2. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the presentation description but not in the meta-data

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Book chapter resubmission

[edit source]

@Mikaela MG: These changes where reviewed:

  1. Overview
    1. A brief scenario has been added
    2. An image has been added
  2. A clarification tag [which?] has been removed without addition of clarifying content (I've added a clarifying link)
  3. An embedded interwiki link to another book chapter has been added
  4. A broken has been added to Tip: Uncertainty vs Risk (I've removed it)
  5. A moderate amount of additional theoretical content about uncertainty has been added; however, it not clear how this content relates to the topic (uncertainty and emotion)
  6. An image has been uploaded but is missing key information File:Illness.png and appears to be falsely claimed as own work . I've nominated the image for deletion.
  7. Several direct quotes have been added without page numbers; this demonstrates little to no understanding and does not use APA style. It is far better to express concepts in your own words to demonstrate your own understanding.
  8. APA 7th ed. style for three or more citations is not used; similar APA style citations are not used for citations with two authors (learn when to use ampersand and when to use "and")
  9. A moderate amount of an additional content about the relationship between the BIS and uncertainty has been added. This is useful material.
  10. A moderate amount of additional material about uncertainty-identity theory has been added
  11. A new section about uncertainty tolerance has been added
  12. Moderate review of additional research has been added
  13. The Conclusion has been strengthened

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Multimedia presentation resubmission

[edit source]

@Mikaela MG: The resubmitted presentation has been reviewed:

  1. The presentation is over the time limit
  2. The presentation lacks sufficient focus on the relationship between U and E
  3. The presentation starts to address the topic at ~1:40 mins
  4. There is too much text on each slide
  5. The Kings College study is not in the book chapter?
  6. The audio content appears to be incomplete (e.g., at ~2:45 mins)
  7. The Conclusion only partly fits within the time limit
  8. Meta-data
    1. The title and sub-title are now used
    2. A good description is now provided
    3. A link to the book chapter is now provided
  9. Licensing
    1. A license is provided in the description but not the licensing meta-data field
    2. The image attributions indicate that this presentation has used copyright-restricted images without permission of the copyright owners

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply