Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Functional approach to volunteerism

Heading casing

Hi U32314488. 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 06:04, 2 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/or sub-title were not correctly worded and/or formatted (fixed) 2. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Drop "Introduction" as a heading (pedestrian). Incorporate this content into the Overview and/or other, more specificly named sections Adopt closer alignment between 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 OK Add an image to the scenario to help attract reader interest A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Reduce/simplify the number of focus questions Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended 4. Key points Promising development of key points for each section Basic use of citations Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical examples 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 (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) 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 Basic Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? Move non-academic / non-peer reviewed sources to See also (for Wikiversity and Wikipedia links) and External links Check and correct APA referencing style: capitalisation doi formatting make doi hyperlinks active (i.e., clickable) 8. Resources See also Links lacked relevance to this section (have been moved or removed) External links Not developed (see Tutorial 2) 9. User page Basic 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. Add link to book chapter 10. Social contribution Please review lectures and tutorials in Module 1 and 2 to better understand what's required 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 06:04, 2 September 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 chapter. It makes good use of psychological theory but lacks sufficient focus on research. 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 Basic 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 excellent (clear and relevant) Theory A good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained This chapter does not build on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding interwiki links for key terms) Reasonably good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Reasonably good use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help clearly convey key theoretical information Citations are reasonably well used 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? 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 Insufficient integration with chapters Conclusion Good summary and conclusion Key points are well summarised Address the focus questions Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good Layout The chapter structure is underdeveloped; consider expanding Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings See earlier comments about heading casing Remove bold Grammar The grammar for 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 Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[1] Check and correct use of that vs. who Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) 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) 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)") Citations use very good APA Style (7th ed.): References use basic APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[3] Include hyperlinked dois Move non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section Use hanging indent (fixed) Learning features Basic 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) Excellent use of feature box(es) Good use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Very good 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 Move peer-reviewed articles into the References section and cite Also include links to related Wikipedia articles Use sentence casing Add more links No use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution No logged contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)