Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Exteroception and emotion

Heading casing

Hi U3239399. 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 05:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@U3239399: This is a reminder about heading casing. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:14, 5 October 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 Headings not applied in wiki heading format. It seems likely that Tutorial 2 hasn't been completed. Text-based 1-level heading structure suggested. I've converted these to heading format. See earlier comment about Heading casing 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 3. Overview 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 Present focus questions in a feature box at the end of this section 4. Key points Partial development of key points for some sections, with some relevant citations Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical examples Is this genAI content? If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries, otherwise it violates academic integrity. 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 A relevant figure is not presented and cited (see Tutorial 2) 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) Consider 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: include hyperlinked dois page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also No links provided (see Tutorial 02) External links No links provided (see Tutorial 02) 9. User page Not created – see Tutorial 02 It seems likely that Tutorial 2 hasn't been completed User content found on chapter page and has been moved to user page Add link to book chapter 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 [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter Socialcontribution|social contributions]]. It seems likely that Tutorial 2 and 3 haven't been completed Social contributions found on chapter page and have been moved to user page. There are no direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:22, 25 August 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 do more independent reading and writing of the best psychological theory and research about this topic I suspect that much of this chapter is based on unacknowledged use of genAI content; if so, it violates academic integrity principles I suspect that the recommended 5 topic development hours and 45 book chapter hours were not invested in preparing this chapter Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations (e.g., see the tags) Several citations (e.g., Lindquist et al., 2012) are not included in the References, so there is a lack of evidence that these sources were consulted 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 Sounds AI-ey, but there is no acknowledgement Clear focus questions Put focus questions in a feature box to help guide the reader Theory A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Build on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) If you didn't consult an original source (e.g., James, 1884), cite it as a secondary source Basic 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? 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 Insufficient integration between theory and research Conclusion Basic summary and conclusion Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic The writing style lacks the authenticity of an independent human voice based on close reading of primary literature There is little evidence that skills taught in the tutorials have been applied Layout Heading structure is underdeveloped (e.g., integrate review of research and learning features) Earlier feedback appears to have been ignored See earlier comments about heading casing Spelling Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) Figures Well captioned Use this format for captions: Figure X. Descriptive caption goes here in sentence casing. See example. Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1) References use excellent APA style: Learning features Insufficient use of learning features No use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text 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. Basic use of figure(s) No use of table(s) No use of feature box(es) Limited use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) No use of interwiki links in the "See also" section No use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution ~3 logged social 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.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:44, 28 October 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 The presentation lacks explicit synthesis of the best psychological theory and research about this topic Overview An opening slide with the sub-title is displayed and narrated. Also display and narrate or paraphrase the title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation and to be consistent with the book chapter. The presentation has a reasonably good introduction to engage audience interest A context for the presentation is established 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 The presentation makes no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes reasonably good use of one or more examples The presentation provides practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The conclusion provides a basic summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic Audio The audio is easy to follow The presentation makes good use of narrated audio Audio communication is well paced Very good intonation The narration is well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was reasonably good 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. The narrated content is well/reasonably well matched to the target topic but lacked synthesis of the best psychological theory and research about this topic Video Overall, visual display quality is good The presentation makes 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 reasonably easy to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented in a reasonably good way by images and/or diagrams Also consider using diagrams The presentation is reasonably well produced using simple tools Meta-data 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. A very brief written description of the presentation is provided. Expand. An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided (maybe because the YouTube user account does not yet have access to 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 indicated, but there is a lack of detail about which CC license is applied

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)