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.
The title and/or sub-title were not correctly worded and/or formatted (fixed title; adjusted sub-title in list of all topics because I prefer the new sub-title you've suggested)
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: 11 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.
The main area for potential improvement is reduce the background info about MDs and emotion as separate concepts and expand the focus on synthesising the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic
Sub-title was missing (fixed)
Basic 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 [factual?] tags)
For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits
A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., if only the two-factor theory is applied to the topic, then only cover this theory). 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 effectively on related chapters and Wikipedia articles
Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies). The theoretical coverage is too broad and not sufficiently focused in on the relationship between MD and emotion.
Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information
In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
Promising use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
The examples are too broad. Focus the examples on illustrating the relationship between MD and emotion.
Overall, the quality of written expression is basic
The writing style is somewhat convoluted. Many sentences could be simplified.
Use active (e.g., "this chapter explores") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter has explored" or "this chapter will explore") [1][2]
Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") perspective[3] in the main text, although 1st or 2nd person perspective can work well for case studies or feature boxes
Grammar
The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
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)
No use of table(s)
Excellent use of feature box(es)
Promising use of scenarios, case studies, or examples; ideally focus on examples about MD and emotion rather than just MDs
No use of quiz(zes) but case study reflection question(s) are interactive
Very good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Latest comment: 3 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 conclusion provides a reasonably good verbal summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic
Provide a conclusion slide which summarises the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical, take-home messages in response to each focus question
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 reasonably well matched to the target topic but lacked synthesis of the best psychological theory and research about this topic
The chapter title is used, but the sub-title (or a shortened version of it) is not used, as the name of the presentation. The sub-title (or an abbreviation of the sub-title that fits within the 100 character limit) would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
Provide a written description of the presentation to help potential viewers decide whether or not to watch
An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided because the YouTube user account does not yet have access to advanced features
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.