Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Emotion and time perception

Heading casing

Hi U3243357. 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 06:11, 26 November 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 Influence and impacts seem like the same thing; consider combining Reasonably good alignment between focus questions and heading structure, but aim for closer alignment The Overview and Conclusion should not have sub-headings 3. Overview Promising Does this section include genAI content? If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries, otherwise it violates academic integrity. Add an image to the scenario; uploaded image was deleted due to lack of sufficient copyright information Simplify/abbreviate the description of the problem/topic. Move detail into subsequent sections. Use 3rd person perspective (except 1st/2nd person can work for feature boxes/scenarios) Reasonably good alignment between focus questions and heading structure, but consider closer alignment Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) 4. Key points Excellent – key points are well developed for each section Excellent use of citations Move links to citations to the References (use dois) Good balance of theory and research Use 3rd person perspective, although a case study or feature box could use 1st or 2nd person perspective Consider using the Studiosity service and/or a service like Grammarly to help improve the quality of written expression such as checking grammatical and spelling errors Conclusion is 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?) 5. Figure A relevant figure is not presented and cited (see Tutorial 2) The uploaded figure was deleted due to lack of sufficient copyright information (see Tutorial 3) 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 Promising 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 Very good Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? Move non-academic / non-peer reviewed sources to External links Check and correct APA referencing style: capitalisation page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also Not developed – needs work (see Tutorial 2) External links Not developed – needs work (see Tutorial 2) 9. User page Good Brief description about self – consider expanding 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 None summarised on user page with direct link(s) to evidence (see Tutorial 03). Looking ahead to the book chapter submission, see social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:29, 1 September 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 good presentation Overview The opening conveys the purpose of the presentation in a reasonably good way The presentation has a basic introduction to engage audience interest A context for the presentation is established through an example Focus questions and/or an outline of topics are presented 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 insufficient/no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes basic use of examples The presentation provides good practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The conclusion provides a very good summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic The conclusion provides reasonably good take-home message(s) Audio The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Audio communication is reasonably well-paced Consider slowing down and leaving longer pauses between sentences. This can help the listener to cognitively process the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point. Reasonably good intonation The narration is reasonably well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was poor The audio at the start of each slide appears to be cut off 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 Consider increasing line spacing to make the text easier 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 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 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 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. Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are communicated Provide clickable links to the image sources and license details (e.g., in the description) A copyright license for the presentation is in the description but not in the license field

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:59, 11 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 reasonably good chapter. It makes excellent use of psychological theory, basic use of research, and insufficient use of learning features to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. I suspect that some of this chapter is based on unacknowledged use of genAI output; if so, it violates academic integrity principles Good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims In some places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) This chapter "beats around the bush" before directly tackling the target topic For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Well developed Engaging case study or scenario in a feature box; also include a relevant image Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon The focus questions are excellent (clear and relevant) Theory An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds on one previous chapters and/or Wikipedia article Build more strongly on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding interwiki links for key terms) Very good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Insufficient use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help clearly 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) Excellent use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Reasonably good review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? In some 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 Some claims lack sufficient citation (e.g., see the tags) Integration Reasonably good 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 Good summary and conclusion Reads like generic genAI output; write more compellingly in your own words Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is good 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) Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use serial commas[2][3] Figures Add captions Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., "(see Figure 1)") Citations use very good APA Style (7th ed.): 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) References use very good APA style: Check and correct use of italicisation Learning features Insufficient use of learning features One 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. Add 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. Insufficient use of figure(s) No use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Excellent use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Basic 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 Insufficient use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Use bullet points per Tutorial 02 Rename links per Tutorial 02 Include sources in parentheses after the link Include links to relevant Wikipedia articles Add more links No use of external links in the "External links" section Move Wikipedia links to See also Add more links Social contribution ~ logged, useful, mostly minor/moderate/major contributions with direct links to evidence ~ 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. Thanks very much for your extensive contributions Use a numbered list per Tutorial 02 No logged contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)