Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Paradoxical interventions

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 Basic, 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development (expand) Develop closer alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings The Overview and Conclusion should not have sub-headings 3. Overview Excellent – Scenario, image, evocative description of the problem/topic, and focus questions A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box with an image at the start of this section A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) Present focus questions in a feature box at the end of this section 4. Key points Insufficient development Basic 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 For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings 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 Add in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to relevant book chapters (see Tutorial 2) Consider including more examples/case studies, quiz question(s), table(s) etc. 7. References Good Well done on identifying relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses Check and correct APA referencing style: capitalisation add spaces between author initials page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also Basic Also link to relevant Wikipedia pages Include source in brackets after link (e.g., (Wikipedia) or (Book chapter, year) for Wikiversity book chapters) External links Basic Use sentence casing Include source in brackets after link Use alphabetical order 9. User page Very good 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 At least three different types of contributions with 2/3 direct link(s) to evidence To add direct links to evidence of Wikiversity edits or comments: view the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and paste the comparison URL on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Some feedback

Bring up PIs to anyone who is remotely involved in the psychotherapy world, and they will likely claim this technique as just being “reverse psychology”, “unethical”, “manipulative”, “coercive”, and so on (Browning & Hull, 2021)

I think this sentence should be reworded because it sounds too informal, and instead a better way of conveying the same idea would be to frame it based on the consensus of psychotherapy.

The consensus on PIs in psychotherapy is controversial, because it is often described as “reverse psychology”, “unethical”, “manipulative” and “coercive” (Browning & Hull, 2021).

RBasu3243278 (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 5 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 excellent presentation Overview The opening conveys the purpose of the presentation in a very good way Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest (e.g., through an example) A basic context for the presentation is established Consider asking focus questions to help focus and discipline the presentation 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 insufficient/no use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes insufficient/no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes excellent use of examples The presentation provides useful practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The conclusion provides a very good summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic The conclusion provides good take-home message(s) Audio The audio is easy to follow and interesting to listen to The presentation makes effective use of narrated audio Audio communication is well-paced Very good intonation The narration is well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was excellent The narrated content is well matched to the target topic Video Overall, visual display quality is excellent The presentation makes creative use of text and image 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 is supplemented in an excellent way by relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is very well produced The visual content is well matched to the target topic Meta-data A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are not clearly indicated (presumably Canva) A copyright license for the presentation is clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:16, 10 November 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 good chapter. It makes excellent use of psychological theory and basic use of research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. The quality of written expression could be improved 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 Well developed Engages reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon The focus questions are good The focus questions could be improved by: being presented in a feature box to help guide the reader Theory An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained This chapter does not build on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding interwiki links for key terms) Insightful depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help clearly convey key theoretical information In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Reasonably good use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Consider using more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Basic review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Basic 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 Some claims lack sufficient citation (e.g., see the tags) Integration Basic integration between theory and research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance Insufficient integration with chapters Conclusion Excellent summary and conclusion Key points are well summarised Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is OK but there are several aspects which are below professional standard Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in 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 Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead: it is, most often, not needed at all, or use section linking Layout Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Grammar The grammar for 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 correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2] Abbreviations Check and correct formatting of abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e., etc.) APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use serial commas[3]. Video (1 min) Figures Briefly captioned; provide more detail to help connect the figure to the text 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 basic 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) References use excellent APA style: Learning features Insufficient use of learning features No use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text 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. Insufficient use of figure(s) No use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Basic use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Insufficient use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Also include links to related Wikipedia articles Add more links Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Use sentence casing Include sources in parentheses after the link Add more links Social contribution ~2 logged, useful, mostly minor/moderate/major contributions with direct links to evidence ~1 logged 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.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)