Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Motivational fluctuation

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 User name removed from the page; for authorship see the page's edit history 2. Headings Promising 1-level heading structure – could benefit from further development (e.g., consider using subheadings) The overall logic/flow of the heading structure is good Develop closer alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings. In general, the headings are better than the questions. So, consider modifying the questions to better correspond to the headings. The first focus question could be "What is motivational fluctuation?" 3. Overview Very good A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box with an image at the start of this section I suggest finding a more relevant image for the scenario A promising description of the problem/topic is planned or presented Use present, rather than future, tense Use 3rd person perspective (except 1st/2nd person can work for feature boxes/scenarios) Develop closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings Use open- rather then close-ended focus questions 4. Key points Solid development Perhaps consider the psychological literature about the "messy middle" It may be that all planned aspects cannot be reasonably covered within the final word count, so be selective and concentrate on key aspects that address the question in the sub-title The writing style is clear and easy to follow Promising balance of theory and research Very good use of citations Remove author first names 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. Focus most of the chapter on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title. Use Australian spelling (e.g., analyze → analyse; behavior → behaviour) Conclusion is well underway 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 Relevant figure(s) are presented and captioned Figure caption(s) provide(s) a somewhat clear description that is connected with the main text, but could be improved Cite each figure at least once in the main text using APA style (e.g., see Figure 1) Consider increasing image size(s) (especially if they have text) to make them easier to view 6. Learning feature Add in-text interwiki links for first mention of key terms to Wikipedia and/or book chapters (see Tutorial 2) Promising use of scenarios/examples/case studies Keep scenarios brief Promising use of quiz question(s) Focus the quiz question(s) on the take-home messages rather than a scenario Use scenarios and quizzes to help illustrate key points / take-home messages Also consider using tables to summarise key information 7. References Insufficient What are the most relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses about this topic? Move non-academic / non-peer reviewed sources to the "External links" section Check and correct APA referencing style: alphabetical order journal titles, volume, issue, page numbers, and dois are missing 8. Resources See also Basic Use internal rather than external link style (as taught in Tutorial 2) Use alphabetical order External links Good Only include links directly related to the sub-title Link to the most relevant external resources about this topic 9. User page Good Very good description about self provided eportfolio link broken An external link to the book chapter is provided; use an internal link instead (see Tutorial 02) 10. Social contribution Two out of three types of contributions made with direct link(s) to evidence. The other type of contribution is making: direct improvements to other chapters (past or current) This comment was added directly to a resource page instead of to its discussion page. Please move it to the talk/discussion page. How to make social contributions was demonstrated in Tutorial 02.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:56, 25 August 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 excellent chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem Good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims Move embedded external links to non-peer-reviewed sources into the External links section Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Well developed Engaging scenario or case study in a feature box with a relevant image Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon The focus questions are excellent (clear and relevant) The focus questions could be improved by: being better aligned with the top-level headings Theory Excellent—key theories are very well explained and applied Builds effectively on other chapters and/or Wikipedia articles This chapter does not build on related chapters (e.g., by embedding interwiki links for key terms) Very good depth is provided about key theory(ies) Very good use of tables, figures, and/or lists to clearly convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Excellent use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Very good review of relevant research Greater emphasis on systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses would be ideal Claims are well referenced Reasonably good 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 Very good to excellent 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 Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic summary and conclusion Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic Reads like generic genAI output; write more compellingly in your own words Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest Key points are well summarised The take-away messages for each focus question could be spelt out more clearly Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent 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 The chapter uses a basic, 1-level structure Consider using subheadings Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Grammar and spelling are excellent APA style Use sentence casing for disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Figures Very well captioned Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Citations use very good APA Style (7th ed.): 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) Move embedded links to peer reviewed sources into the References as APA style citations with hyperlinked dois Move embedded links to non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section; only cite peer-reviewed sources References use good APA style: Check and correct use of italicisation Provide hyperlinked dois instead of other links Move non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section Learning features Overall, the learning features are excellent Excellent linking to Wikipedia articles Use internal rather than external link style for embedded Wikipedia links (as taught in Tutorial 2) Also use embedded interwiki links to relevant Wikiversity chapters Move embedded links to non-peer-reviewed sources to the External links section Excellent use of figure(s) No use of table(s) Excellent use of feature box(es) Excellent use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Excellent use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of the "See also" section Several incorrect page names (fixed) Use internal linking style per Tutorial 02 Use alphabetical order Basic use of the "External links" section Use alphabetical order Include sources in parentheses after the link Social contribution ~5 logged, useful, mostly minor to moderate contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)