Latest comment: 4 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, with some relevant citations
For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings
Avoid providing too much background information. Aim to briefly summarise general concepts and provide internal links to relevant book chapters and/or Wikipedia pages for further information. Then focus most of the content on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.
Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with illustrative examples
Use APA style 7th edition for citations with three or more authors (i.e., FirstAuthor et al., year)
I recommend using the Studiosity service and/or a service like Grammarly to help improve the quality of written expression because there are a lot of grammatical errors
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.
Rename the book chapter link to make it more user-friendly (see Tutorial 02)
Two out of three types of contributions made with with indirect link(s) to evidence
The other types of contribution are making:
posts about the unit or project on other platforms
If adding the second or subsequent link to a page (or a talk/discussion page), create a direct link like / Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.
Latest comment: 2 months 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.
A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., about emotion). 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).
Why was Kübler-Ross' stage theory of grief focused on? What is the evidence about this theory compared to other theories of grief and loss as applied to pregnancy?
Build more strongly on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters)
Reasonably good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information
Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information
Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using 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
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.
Reasonably good use of image(s)
No use of table(s)
Reasonably good use of feature box(es)
Basic use of case studies or examples
Very good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Also include links to related Wikipedia articles
Move external links to the external links section
Basic use of external links in the "External links" section
Latest comment: 1 month 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.
Overall, this is an insufficient presentation mainly because it is over the time limit and doesn't sufficiently hone in on synthesising the best psychological theory and research about this topic
The presentation is over the maximum time limit — content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes
Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section
The presentation somewhat addresses the topic
There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of well-targetted content than a large amount of poorly selected content.
The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory
The presentation makes insufficient use of relevant psychological research
The presentation makes insufficient use of citations to support claims
The presentation makes insufficient use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice
The presentation lacks focus on easy to understand evidence-based information about the topic
The narration could benefit from further scripting and/or practice
Audio recording quality was excellent
The narrated content is reasonably well/poorly matched to the target topic. I recommend downplaying the general psychological theory about emotion and up-playing more targetted theory and research
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