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.
Promising development of key points for each section
Promising use of citations
Promising balance of theory and research
Also see work by Gottman
For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings
Direct quotes need page numbers (APA style) – even better, write in your own words
Consider using the Studiosity service and/or a service like Grammarly to help improve the quality of written expression such as checking grammatical and spelling errors
Conclusion (the most important section) hasn't been developed
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
Promising use of quiz question(s)
Also consider using one or more tables to summarise key information
Very 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.
None summarised on user page with direct link(s) to evidence (see Tutorial 03). Looking ahead to the book chapter submission, see social contributions.
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.
Latest comment: 4 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 areas for potential improvement are to provide a more indepth review of research, write more in your own words, and to use correct APA style for citations
Basic use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims
Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills
Some sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the [explain?] and [improve clarity] tags)
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
Layout
Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
Grammar
The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
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]
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.
Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour)
Proofreading
More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix spacing) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
APA style
Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, communicate about concepts in your own words
Direct quotes are overused – it is better to communicate about concepts in your own words
Figures
Figure 1 is poorly selected because it doesn't represent a ratio
Use this format for captions: Figure X. Descriptive caption goes here in sentence casing. See example.
Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text. Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., "(see Figure 1)"; do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation).
Increase some image size to make it easier to view
Citations use basic APA style (7th ed.). To improve:
Remove titles from main body (only provide in the list of references)
If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either:
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.
One use of figure(s)
No use of table(s)
One use of feature box(es)
One use of scenarios, case studies, or examples
One use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
One use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
No use of external links in the "External links" section
~3 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.