Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/ERG theory

Initial suggestions

@U3183521: Thanks for tackling this topic. Some initial suggestions:

• Note that there was a previous attempt, so check out that chapter and the feedback on its talk page.
• Check out other related chapters and see how you can build on, link to, and integrate with that work:
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Motivation
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Needs/Psychological]
• What psychological theories can help to understand? What is the main research in this area?

Let me know if I can do anything else as you go along. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Comparisons to other similar theories

Hi @U3183521,

After the last lecture I would recommend looking at similar theories such as:

• Maslow's Hieracrhy of Needs
• Self-Determination Theory
• Need Theory.

I think it would greatly suppliment your book chapter RBasu3243278 (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

comments

Hi Alexandra,
First of all I think your focus questions are really good. The 3rd one mentions applied use which I think is great. You may find it helpful when explaining ERG to use scenarios to bring them to life a bit like in the Social psych tutorials.

As another suggestion mentions you might like to use similar theories and contrastthem to ERG heres a link to SDT https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.55.1.68 but SDT also has mini theories and I believe relationship motivation theory (RMT) will be best for you to look into.

In terms of your conclusion I can see that you have echoed the overview but is there anything else you would like your readers to take away from your chapter?

Good luck,

Ari --Ubaldo111 (discuss • contribs) 05:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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 Promising 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development and/or refinement Perhaps consider including brief mention of the ancient Greek tripartite model Reasonably good alignment between focus questions and heading structure, but aim for closer alignment 3. Overview Excellent - Scenario, image, evocative description of the problem/topic, relevant psychological theory/research, and focus questions Add a scenario or case study in a feature box (with an image) at 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 Excellent – key points are well developed for each section, with some relevant citations Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical examples Conclusion (the most important section): Well developed 5. Figure Excellent - One or more relevant figure(s) is/are presented, captioned, and cited The figure caption(s) provide(s) a clear, appropriately detailed description that is meaningfully connected with the main text Cite each figure at least once in the main text using APA style (e.g., see Figure 1) (note: without italics) 6. Learning feature 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 Consider use of one or more scenarios/examples/case studies Excellent use of quiz question(s) Also consider using one or more tables to summarise key information 7. References OK Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? Move non-academic / non-peer reviewed sources to External links Only include references which have been accessed and read Check and correct APA referencing style: doi formatting 8. Resources See also Excellent External links Not developed – needs work (see Tutorial 2) 9. User page Very good 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 Good – two out of three types of contributions made with with direct link(s) to evidence. The other type of contribution is making: posts about the unit or project on other platforms such as the UCLearn discussion forum or on X using the #emot24

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:25, 26 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 basic way Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest (e.g., through an example) Establish a context for the presentation (e.g., use an example or explain importance) 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 The presentation makes very good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes insufficient/no use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/insufficient/no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes insufficient/no use of examples The presentation provides basic practical advice The presentation provides reasonably easy to understand information Conclusion The conclusion provides an basic summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic The conclusion provides insufficient take-home message(s) Audio The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio Slow down and leave longer pauses between sentences. This will help viewers to cognitively process the spoken information as it is being presented, before moving on to the next point. Basic intonation The narration could benefit from further scripting and/or practice Audio recording quality was very good The narrated content is well matched to the target topic Video Overall, visual display quality is very good The presentation makes very 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 makes it easy to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented in a very good way by relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is well produced using simple tools The visual content is well matched to the target 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 very brief written description of the presentation is provided. Expand. A link to the book chapter is not provided 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 not clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:11, 11 November 2024 (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 10:11, 18 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 an insufficient chapter The main area for potential improvement is to synthesise and cite the best peer-reviewed theory and research about the topic rather than over reliance on non-academic sources Basic use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims In many places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Reasonably good Engage reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image Explains the psychological problem or phenomenon reasonably well The focus questions are clear but could be more relevant and/or detailed The focus questions could be improved by using open-ended rather than closed-ended Theory A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Some irrelevant related theories are covered rather than concentrating on the topic A promising range of ideas are presented but it is far from clear how this material is derived from a first person reading of the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic Builds effectively on other chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Basic depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information In many places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Consider using more 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? In many places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) 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 Many claims lack sufficient citation (e.g., see the tags) Integration Insufficient integration between theory and research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance Insufficient integration with chapters Conclusion Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest Key points are summarised Clarity of answers to take-home messages is lacking Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is OK but there are several aspects which are below professional standard Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences. Bullet points are overused. Develop more of the bullet point statements into full sentences and paragraphs. 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 Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional italics, bold, and/or change in font size) See earlier comments about heading casing 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 make correct use of commas 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[2]. Video (1 min) Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, communicate about concepts in your own words Figures Very well captioned Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Citations use excellent APA style (7th ed.) Move embedded links to non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section; only cite peer-reviewed sources References use very good/ APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[3] Check and correct use of italicisation Check and correct use of bold The reference list is very short for a Level 3 major written assessment Learning features 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. 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. Good use of figure(s) No use of table(s) Reasonably good use of feature box(es) No use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Reasonably good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Very good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Use alphabetical order Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Use bullet points per Tutorial 02 Rename links per Tutorial 02 Include sources in parentheses after the link Social contribution ~4 logged, useful, mostly moderate contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)