Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Intertemporal choice

Suggestions

Hello! Excellent work. Your chapter is well-structured, beginning with a clear introduction and transitioning into the scientific aspects of intertemporal choice. The case study of Sophie provides a relatable and practical example that helps to illustrate the theoretical concepts, making the content more engaging for readers. To further enhance the depth and thoroughness of the chapter, you could add in more quizzes providing further engagement, particularly those that examine practical applications of intertemporal choice in decision-making scenarios. This would increase its practical value for readers interested in applying these insights to real-world contexts. Well done!--Princess Brutus (discuss • contribs) 08:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Heading casing

Hi HDurban. 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 10:43, 1 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 Promising, 1-level heading structure – could benefit from further development, perhaps using a 2-level structure Remove emotion. This is a motivation topic. Excellent alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and heading structure 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 Usually an "Introduction" section isn't necessary because the Overview should do this job and, if there is additional detail, consider using more more descriptive heading(s) 3. Overview Very good Add an image to the scenario to help attract reader interest A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is planned Remove emotion Focus questions are aligned with sub-title and top-level headings Simplify Remove emotion Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) Use open-ended questions 4. Key points Partial development of key points for some sections Insufficient use of citations 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 One or more relevant figure(s) presented and captioned The figure caption(s) provide(s) a clear, appropriately detailed description that is meaningfully connected with the main text Cite each figure at least once in the main text using APA style (e.g., see Figure 1) 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 Insufficient 8. Resources See also Not developed (see Tutorial 2) External links Move academic sources into references and cite in the chapter 9. User page Good Brief description about self – consider expanding 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 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 10:43, 1 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 chapter. It makes very good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. Very good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims In some places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) 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; also include a relevant image Briefly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon; provide more detail (put bullet points into sentences/paragraphs) The focus questions are clear and relevant Theory A very good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds somewhat on other chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Very good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Research Very good review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? 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 Very good integration between theory and research Conclusion Very good summary and conclusion Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is very good 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 Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead: it is, most often, not needed at all, or use section linking 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 Check and make correct use of commas 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) Direct quotes are overused – it is better to communicate about concepts in your own words Figures Very 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 excellent APA style (7th ed.) References use good APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[3] Include hyperlinked dois (fixed) Learning features Reasonably good 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. 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) Reasonably good use of feature box(es) Very good use of scenarios, case studies, or examples No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) rather than as a set of questions at the end Reasonably good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Move peer-reviewed articles into the References section and cite Add more links Social contribution No logged contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:06, 2 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 reasonably good presentation The presentation is over the maximum time limit. Content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes. Overview The opening conveys the purpose of the presentation in a basic way Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest (e.g., through an example) A basic context for the presentation is established Focus questions and/or an outline of topics are presented There may be too many focus questions for a 3 minute presentation Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation addresses the topic There is too much content (goes over time). Provide a higher-level presentation. It is better to cover a small amount of well-selected content well than a large amount poorly. The presentation makes very good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes insufficient/no use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes insufficient/no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes basico use of examples The presentation provides basic 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 The conclusion provides basic take-home message(s) The Conclusion only partly fitted within the time limit Audio The audio is easy to follow The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Audio communication is well-paced Basic intonation The narration is reasonably well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was very good The narrated content is reasonably well matched to the target topic The narrated content lacked synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Video Overall, visual display quality is basic The presentation makes basic use of text-based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy 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 relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is basically produced using simple tools The visual content is reasonably well matched to the target topic The visual content lacked synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Meta-data The correct title and sub-title (or an abbreviation to fit within the 100 character limit) are used in the name of the presentation — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation A very brief written description of the presentation is provided. Expand. A link to the book chapter is not provided A link from the book chapter is provided The presentation is incorrectly categorised as being for kids. This creates limitations, such as being unable to add the presentation to a playlist. More info. Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is not clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)