Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Subjective wellbeing heritability and changeability

Heading casing

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 05:30, 2 November 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 sub-title are correctly worded and formatted 2. Headings Messy heading structure – needs work (see Tutorial 2) Adopt closer alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings 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 The Overview and Conclusion should not have sub-headings Use default heading formatting (i.e., avoid bold, italics, underline, changing the size etc.) Definition(s) tend to be pedestrian headings. Incorporate definitional material into the Overview and/or subsequent sections with embedded inter-wiki link(s) to further information. 3. Overview Very good Move the scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) to the start of this section to help catch reader interest A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Use 3rd person perspective (except 1st/2nd person can work for feature boxes/scenarios) Remove key points feature box from Overview Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended 4. Key points Excellent – key points are well developed for each section Promising development of key points for each section Basic development of key points for each section Partial development of key points for some sections No development Excellent use of citations Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical examples Reduce the initial material and expand the material about the relationship between WB and genes/environment 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. Move links to references into the References section. Keep citations in the main body. 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) could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text Cite each figure at least once in the main text using APA style (e.g., see Figure 1) 6. Learning feature One use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters 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 Very good Well done on identifying relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses Check and correct APA referencing style: remove extra apostrophes around the title page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also Not developed – needs work (see Tutorial 2) External links OK Target an international audience; Australians only represent 0.33% of the world population Include source in parentheses after the link 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 indirect 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 06:54, 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 reasonably good chapter. It makes very good use of psychological theory and basic use research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. The main area for improvement is to provide more cogent synthesis of research about the heritability of SWB i.e., how heritable is it? The quality of written expression could also be improved Reasonably good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims Move embedded external links to academic articles into the References section, include links as dois, and provide APA style citation to the article in the main body text For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Solid 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 basic 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) Excellent use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help clearly convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Reasonably good use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Basic review of relevant research A key aspect is lacking - the lack of clear description of what the scientific consensus is about the heritability/changeability of SWB More detail about key studies would be ideal 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 Integration Reasonably good integration between theory and research Conclusion Good summary and conclusion 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 The written expression is quite convoluted, which makes this a difficult read. Consider ways of simplifying the written expression. This is important for effective science communication. Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences. Layout The structure is overly complicated; aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Introduction and Conclusion Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional italics, bold, and/or change in font size) Avoid having sections with only one sub-section Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) 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 Proofreading Remove unnecessary capitalisation – more info APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used ... as slang, or as an invented or coined expression" (APA Style 7th ed., 2020, p. 159) Figures Reasonably well captioned 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 using APA style Tables Add an APA style caption to each table Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1) Citations use reasonably good/basic/poor APA style (7th ed.). To improve: Move embedded links to peer reviewed sources into the References as APA style citations with hyperlinked dois References use very good APA style: Remove apostrophes Learning features 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. Good use of figure(s) Reasonably good use of table(s) Very good use of feature box(es) Basic use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) The quiz questions could be improved by being more focused on the key points and/or take-home messages The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than as a set of questions at the end Good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Move external links into the External links section (fixed) Add more links Good use of external links in the "External links" section Use alphabetical order Use more relevant links Social contribution ~4 logged, useful contributions with direct links to evidence ~4 logged social 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. Thanks for the image uploads

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:30, 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 very good way Engaging introduction to hook audience interest 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/somewhat addresses/does not adequately address the topic There is too much content, in too much detail. Provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of content well than a large amount poorly. The presentation makes very good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes reasonably good use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes excellent use of citations to support claims The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples The presentation provides basic practical advice The presentation provides reasonably easy to understand information Conclusion The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The audio is reasonably easy to follow The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Audio communication is reasonably well-paced Reasonably good intonation The narration is reasonably well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was very good/ The narrated content is well matched to the target topic but lacked clear synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Video Overall, visual display quality is reasonably good The presentation makes reasonably good use of text and image based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read Consider using a sans-serif typeface to make the text easier to read The amount of text presented per slide could be reduced to make it easier to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented in an very good way by relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is well produced using simple tools The visual content is well matched to the target 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. Excellent use of time codes An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided (maybe because the YouTube user account doesn't have advanced features) A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are communicated A copyright license for the presentation is clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)