Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Generativity

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 03:53, 5 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/or sub-title were not correctly worded and/or formatted (fixed) 2. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Messy heading structure – needs work (see Tutorial 2) Reads likely poorly developed and unacknowledged genAI content which would violate academic integrity Adopt closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings 3. Overview No scenario Reads likely poorly developed and unacknowledged genAI content which would violate academic integrity No focus questions 4. Key points Reads likely poorly developed and unacknowledged genAI content. If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries, otherwise it violates academic integrity. 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 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 Uploaded figures violated copyright It seems likely that Tutorial 02 hasn't been completed 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 OK Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? Only cite sources which have you have accessed and read Check and correct APA referencing style: remove numbering add hanging indent alphabetical order include hyperlinked dois Remember that the goal is to identify and use the best academic theory and research about this topic 8. Resources See also OK Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) Use sentence casing Include source in brackets after link (e.g., (Wikipedia) or (Book chapter, year) for Wikiversity book chapters) Use alphabetical order External links OK Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) Use sentence casing Include source in brackets after link 9. User page Not developed – see Tutorial 02 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 11:42, 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 a promising but insufficient chapter, mainly because of the lack of critical review of relevant research. Well under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Solid Engages reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with an image A more engaging image could be used at the start. The diagram might be more useful later on Image size has been increased to make it easier to read Explains the problem or phenomenon What are the other developmental options besides generativity? Is is guaranteed/inevitable? Basic focus questions Some questions are not required to address the topic (e.g,. cultural variations) The focus questions could be more focused on the topic (e.g., how does generativity affect behaviour?) Theory A reasonably good range of relevant theory/theories are selected, described, and explained Builds somewhat on previous, related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Reasonably good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Effective use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help clearly convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Excellent 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 discussing the direction of relationships 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 Conclusion Brief, insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic Clear take-home message(s) Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good Layout Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional italics and/or bold) 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) Proofreading More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard Figures Figures are very well captioned Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1) Increase image sizes so they are easier to read Tables Table captions use APA style or wiki style Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1) Citations use basic APA style (7th ed.). Some citations consist of an embedded hyperlink rather than APA style citation and listing in references List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname References use good APA style: Check and correct use of italicisation Remove publisher location Learning features Excellent use of learning features Reasonably 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. Basic use of image(s) Very good use of table(s) Excellent use of feature box(es) Excellent use of case studies or examples Excellent use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Rename links per Tutorial 02 Also include links to related book chapters Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Include sources in parentheses after the link Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Include sources in parentheses after the link Social contribution No logged social contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:13, 13 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 an insufficient presentation The presentation is under the maximum time limit (3 mins), so there was room for further development Overview The presentation could be improved by displaying and narrating a slide with the same title and sub-title as the book chapter to help the viewer understand the purpose of the presentation The presentation has a basic introduction to engage audience interest A basic 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 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 basic use of one or more examples The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies The presentation could be improved by providing 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 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 poor 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 excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic The presentation makes basic use of text-based slides Some of the font size could be larger to make it easier to read Consider using a sans-serif typeface 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 could be improved by including some relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is basically produced using simple tools The visual content is reasonably well matched to the target topic but lacked synthesis of the best psychological theory and research about this topic Meta-data The video title does not match the chapter title and sub-title — this would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation and be more consistent Provide a written description of the presentation to help potential viewers decide whether or not to watch A link to the book chapter is not provided A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is not clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Multimedia presentation resubmission feedback

This resubmitted presentation was reviewed:

1. Incorrect title and sub-title on opening slide
2. The Overview/Introduction is improved
3. The Content is improved
4. Audio
   1. Audio recording quality is slightly improved
   2. Audio narration could be improved through further practice
5. Visual display is somewhat improved
   1. Font size is too small / there is too much text to be easily read while listening
   2. Basic use of images
6. The presentation is over the maximum time limit, so the Conclusion is ignored for marking purposes

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)