Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Analysis paralysis

Edit suggestions

Hello! I think you have a great topic and can't wait to read more when its done.

I noticed you added a link to analysis paralysis which had an irrelevant redirect so I removed that for you, however I would also recommend changing your headings and sub-headings to sentence casing. U3173387 (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Heading casing

Hi Yashvi M. 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 ~~~~

Topic development feedback

The topic development submission has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is below, plus see the general feedback page. Please also check the page history for changes made whilst reviewing the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Marks are available via UCLearn. Marks are based on the latest version before the due date.

1. Title The title and sub-title are correctly worded and formatted 2. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Excellent – Well developed 2-level heading structure. Meaningful headings clearly relate directly to the core topic. Very good alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and heading structure, but there may be room for improvement 3. Overview Move the scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) to the start of this section to help catch reader interest A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Reasonably good alignment between focus questions and heading structure, but consider closer alignment 4. Key points Partial development of key points for some sections, with some relevant citations For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical examples It is unclear whether the best available psychological theory and research has been consulted in the preparation of this plan Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) – more info Conclusion (the most important section): Hasn't been developed 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?) 5. Figure One or more relevant figure(s) is/are presented and captioned The figure caption(s) could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text Cite each figure at least once in the main text using APA style (e.g., see Figure 1) 6. Learning feature Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters (see Tutorial 2) Promising use of one or more scenarios/examples/case studies Consider including one or more quiz question(s) about the take-home messages Also consider using one or more tables to summarise key information 7. References Very good Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? All references need to be cited in the text Check and correct APA referencing style: capitalisation italicisation 8. Resources See also One of two link types provided Also link to relevant Wikipedia pages Use sentence casing External links Very good Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order 9. User page Excellent – used effectively Excellent description about self provided 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. A link to the book chapter is provided 10. Social contribution Two out of three types of contributions made with with some direct and some indirect link(s) to evidence. The other type of contribution is making: comments on the talk pages of other chapters (past or current) To add direct links to evidence: view the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and paste the comparison URL on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:45, 27 August 2024 (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 basic presentation Overview The opening conveys the purpose of the presentation in a very good/good/reasonably good/basic way Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest (e.g., through an example) A basic context for the presentation is established Consider asking focus questions to help focus and discipline the presentation Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation addresses the topic An appropriate amount of content is presented — not too much or too little The presentation makes very good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes reasonably good use of citations to support claims The presentation makes insufficient/no use of examples The presentation could be improved by providing practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion Provide a conclusion slide which summarises the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic, with take-home messages for each focus question Audio The audio is easy to follow The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio Audio communication is well-paced Basic intonation The narration could benefit from further scripting and/or practice Audio recording quality was reasonably good 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 Video Overall, visual display quality is reasonably good The presentation makes reasonably gooduse 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 makes it easy to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented in a basic way by relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is basically produced using simple tools The visual content is reasonably well matched to the target topic The visual content lacked synthesis of the best psychological theory and research about this topic Meta-data The correct title is used, but the sub-title (or a shortened version of it) is not used, as the name of the presentation. This would help to convey the purpose of the presentation and be consistent. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Expand. An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided (maybe because the YouTube user account doesn't have advanced features) A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are not clearly indicated A copyright license for the presentation is clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:19, 10 November 2024 (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 basic, but sufficient chapter Very good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Well developed Engages reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon The focus questions are clear but could be more relevant and/or detailed Theory A good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds effectively on other chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Insufficient use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Insufficient review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Insufficient 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 considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations pointing out critiques/counterarguments suggesting specific directions for future research Integration Insufficient integration between theory and research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance Conclusion Reasonably good summary and conclusion Address the focus questions Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic Bold is overused Some sentences could be explained more clearly 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 tags) Grammar The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Consider using a grammar checking tool Another option is to use a services provided by UC, such as Studiosity Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2] Spelling Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. 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 Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use serial commas[3]. Video (1 min) Express numbers < 10 using words (e.g., two) and >= 10 ad over using numerals (e.g., 99) Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, communicate about concepts in your own words Figures Well captioned Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., "(see Figure 1)") Citations use good APA style (7th ed.). To improve: Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses Move embedded links to non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section; only cite peer-reviewed sources References use reasonably good APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[4] Check and correct use of italicisation Learning features Reasonably 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. Only link the first mention of key words, not subsequent mentions 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 figure(s) No use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Basic use of scenarios, case studies, or examples No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Also include links to related Wikipedia articles Use sentence casing Add more links Very good use of external links in the "External links" section Use alphabetical order Social contribution ~2 logged contributions with direct links to evidence ~1 logged contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess. See tutorials for guidance about how to get direct links to evidence. Use a numbered list per Tutorial 02

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)