Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
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.
Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
A reasonably good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., about ER). Instead, summarise and link to related resources (i.e., other book chapters and/or Wikipedia articles). Increase emphasis on substantive aspects of theory that relate directly to the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
Builds reasonably well on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles
Reasonably good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
Promising use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information
The tables are lengthy and the chapter is over the maximum word count; consider abbreviating to key info
In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
Reasonably good use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
Overall, the quality of written expression is basic
Some sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the [explain?] and [improve clarity] tags)
Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences.
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
Once an abbreviation has been established (e.g., HRV), use it consistently aftwarwards
Only use abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc. inside parentheses, otherwise spell them out
Spelling
Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages.
Proofreading
More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and remove double spaces) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used ... as slang, or as an invented or coined expression" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159)
Express numbers < 10 using words (e.g., two) and >= 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99)
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.
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.
Reasonably good use of figure(s)
Promising use of table(s)
Reasonably good use of feature box(es)
Reasonably good use of scenarios, case studies, or examples
Reasonably good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
The quiz questions could be improved by being more focused on the key points and/or take-home messages
Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Excellent use of external links in the "External links" section
~2 logged minor contributions with direct links to evidence
~1 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.
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
The chapter sub-title but not the chapter title is used in 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.
Promising use of time codes
An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided (maybe because the YouTube user account doesn't have advanced features)