Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Automaticity in goal striving

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 06:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Also check the page history for changes made whilst reviewing the plan. If you don't understand the feedback or would like further information, get in touch to discuss. Marks are available via UCLearn. Marks are based on the latest version before the due date.

1. Title Title and sub-title correctly worded and use sentence casing 2. Headings See earlier comment about heading casing Under-developed heading structure – develop further, perhaps using a 2-level structure for larger section(s) (i.e., including subheadings) Insufficient alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with 3 to 5 sub-headings for large sections The Overview and Conclusion should not use sub-headings Use default heading formatting (i.e., avoid additional formatting such as bold, italics, underline, changing the size etc.) 3. Overview Very good A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box at the start of this section; I moved an image into the feature box to help attract reader interest A clear description of the problem/topic is planned or presented Develop closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings 4. Key points Insufficient development Identify key points that synthesise findings across the best research on the topic (rather than discussing each study separately) Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical examples Excellent use of citations For sections with sub-sections, provide key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings 5. Figure Excellent - Relevant figure(s) presented, captioned, and cited Figure caption(s) provide(s) a somewhat clear description that is connected with the main text, but could be improved Figure(s) are cited at least once in the main text 6. Learning feature Excellent in-text interwiki links for first mention of key terms to Wikipedia and/or book chapters Consider use of more scenarios/examples/case studies Consider including quiz question(s) about the take-home messages Also consider using tables to summarise key information 7. References Very good What are the most relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses about this topic? Check and correct APA referencing style: capitalisation italicisation) 8. Resources See also Excellent Use sentence casing External links Excellent Use alphabetical order 9. User page Used effectively 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. A link to the book chapter 10. Social contribution None summarised on user page with direct link(s) to evidence (see Tutorial 02). Looking ahead to the book chapter, see social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Reference list formatting

Hi Jack, I've just updated the first reference on your reference list to add in the italics for the relevant sections. APA 7th style recommends italicising the journal name, and the volume number. In Wikiversity, you can create italicised words using two apostrophes ' before and after the target phrase in the source editing. You can see what I've added if you edit the reference list in source mode. Keep it up Jack you're doing great! Lachlancanning04 (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Scenario Suggestions

Hi Jack, I have read your scenario and while it is a great jumping off point, you may want to describe more of what automaticity is as its a bit vague. You may also want to change your wording slightly as currently it reads as if the only people who can achieve automaticitiy are F1 drivers.

Great job so far. --U32592542TBoardman (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 28 September 2025 (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 This is an insufficient chapter The main area(s) for potential improvement: more detailed review of the best psychological research about the topic Very good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Very good Engaging scenario or case study Figure 1 is relevant to the scenario Scenario uses an appropriate feature box Explains the psychological problem or phenomenon reasonably well The focus questions are good Theory Basic. Two relevant theories are well selected, described, and explained There is no consideration of goal striving theory Builds somewhat on other Wikipedia articles but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms Good depth is provided about key theory(ies) Limited use of tables, figures, and/or lists to clearly convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Use more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Insufficient review of relevant research Convert bullet-points into sentences and paragraphs Insufficient 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 Insufficient integration between the most relevant theory(ies) and the best research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance Insufficient integration with related chapters Conclusion Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best psychological theory and research about the topic Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest Key points are summarised in a basic way Address the focus questions Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression The quality of written expression is OK but there are several aspects which are below professional standard Remove template material (fixed) Bullet points are overused. Develop more of the bullet point statements into full sentences and paragraphs. Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") instead of 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") in the main text. 1st or 2nd person can work well for case studies or feature boxes. Layout The chapter structure is underdeveloped Direct quotes are overused—it is better to communicate about concepts in your own words Figures Briefly captioned Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Citations use very good APA Style (7th ed.) Do not include author first name or initials References use good APA style: Check and correct use of italicisation Check and correct use of capitalisation[1] Learning features Basic 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. Add 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. Basic use of figure(s) No use of table(s) No use of feature box(es) Insufficient use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) 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 Very good use of the See also section Use alphabetical order Basic use of the External links section Use alphabetical order Link to the top 3-6 external resources about this topic Social contribution ~3 logged, useful, mostly minor contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Theory

Your section on Dual Process Theory has a lot going for it. The explanations of Systems 1 and 2 are clear and easy to understand, the jigsaw analogy works nicely, and the overall flow from dual processing to automaticity feels logical and well thought out. It’s also clear you’ve engaged well with the research, which gives the section a solid academic foundation. There are a couple of areas that could be strengthened to make the writing even more effective. Some parts read a bit repetitively, particularly toward the end, and the introduction doesn’t feel as smooth or natural as the rest of the section. A few moments like how System 2 thinking becomes automatic over time could be explained more clearly, and the relevance of the theory to motivation or emotion isn’t fully brought out, which leaves the section feeling slightly detached from the broader topic. Overall, though, its good great job. Dsanad (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)