Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Humiliation

Heading casing

Hi Stluciamolly. 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 11:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Stluciamolly (discuss • contribs) 05:37, 10 August 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 sub-title wording has been corrected to match the list of all topics 2. Headings Excellent – Well developed 2-level heading structure. Meaningful headings clearly relate directly to the core topic. Consider adopting closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings 3. Overview Excellent - Scenario, image, evocative description of the problem/topic, relevant psychological theory/research, and focus questions A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box with an image at the start of this section Simplify/abbreviate. Make this section more user-friendly. Move detail into subsequent sections. Promising focus questions. The sub-title suggests three focus questions. Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended 4. Key points Excellent – key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations The main challenge is likely to be synthesising this chapter down to the maximum word count, since the topic development plan is basically already at that point. So, you'll need to very judicious in your choice of what to include (what is essential to address the focus questions using the best psychological science?) and what is interesting but not essential (to be left out) Good balance of theory and research Use APA style 7th edition for citations with three or more authors (i.e., FirstAuthor et al., year) Direct quotes need page numbers (APA style) – even better, write in your own words Conclusion (the most important section): Well 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 presented and captioned Caption could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text (i.e., mention humiliation) Figure(s) are cited at least once in the main text 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 example(s)/case study(ies) 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? alphabetical order capitalisation italicisation 8. Resources See also Very good Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) External links Very good Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order 9. User page Excellent – used effectively Very good Good Created – minimal, but sufficient Not created – see Tutorial 02 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. A link to the book chapter is provided 10. Social contribution Good – two out of three types of contributions made with with direct link(s) to evidence The other types of contribution are making: comments on chapters (past or current)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

APA style for citations with three or more authors

@Stluciamolly: For APA 7th ed. style when a source has three or more authors, just cite the first author then et al. (e.g., instead of Smith, Weston, and Wong (1997), cite as Smith et al. (1997))

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft comments

@Stluciamolly: I am wandering past your draft which looks well advanced. But I noticed already over the word count. So, you're going to have to focus/streamline the chapter. I suggest the litmus test to apply to everything is does it help answer the three questions in the sub-title. I notice there are four focus questions, but I think this could be simplified to three questions were are expanded versions of the three questions in the sub-title. Then scrutinise and organise the content around using theory and research to answer each of these questions. Hope that helps. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Jame! That helps! I have been concerning about word limits and trying to narrow down. Thank you! Stluciamolly (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 30 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 very good (rich and interesting) chapter The main areas for potential improvement are to address the topic within the maximum word count and some aspects of written expression In general, excellent use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims In a small number of places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) For citations, use APA style or wiki style, but not both Consistent with earlier feedback, this chapter is over the maximum word count. Content beyond 4,000 words has been ignored for marking purposes. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Reasonably good Engages reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image Too long/overly complicated – explain the psychological problem or phenomenon in a simpler way. Move detail into subsequent sections. The focus questions are reasonably good; I've edited to improve the wording The focus questions could be improved by being: open-ended rather than closed-ended Theory An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds exceptionally well on other chapters and Wikipedia articles Insightful depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Some use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Very good use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Reasonably good review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Good 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 Good integration between theory and research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance Conclusion Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is good Use active (e.g., "this chapter explores") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter has explored" or "this chapter will explore") [1][2] Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead: it is, most often, not needed at all, or use section linking Layout The structure is overly complicated; this has likely contributed to the chapter being over the maximum word count; simplify Grammar The grammar for some/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 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 Express numbers < 10 using words (e.g., two) and >= 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99) Figures Very well captioned Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Tables Table captions use APA style or wiki style Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Citations use very good APA style (7th ed.). To improve: 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) Do not include author first name or initials Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname Move embedded links to peer reviewed sources into the References as APA style citations with hyperlinked dois References use excellent APA style: Learning features Very good use of learning features Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles 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) Good use of table(s) Very good use of feature box(es) Excellent use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Very good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Social contribution ~9 logged, useful, mostly minor to moderate contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:24, 1 November 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 slide(s) conveys the purpose of the presentation The presentation has a basic introduction to engage audience interest A basic context for the presentation is established 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 excellent use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes good use of citations to support claims The presentation makes good use of one or more examples The presentation provides useful practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Provide easy to understand information Conclusion The conclusion provides a very good summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic Provide take-home messages for each focus question The Conclusion only partly fitted within the time limit The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Audio communication is well-paced Reasonably good intonation The narration is well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was reasonably good The narrated content is well matched to the target topic Video Overall, visual display quality is good The presentation makes good use of text and image based slides Many of the slides are visually complex; consider simplifying The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read The visual communication is effectively supplemented 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 video title does not match the chapter title and sub-title. This would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation and be consistent. Provide a written description of the presentation to help potential viewers A link to the book chapter is not provided 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 on the opening slide but not in the description or license field A copyright license for the presentation is not clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)