Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback

General feedback about
book chapters

Overall

edit
  1. The overall quality of chapters was reasonably good, but there was a very wide range
  2. The main issues were:
    1. Unacknowledged and low-level use of genAI
    2. Insufficient review of research
    3. Lack of social contributions

Overview

edit
  1. The best overviews consisted of:
    1. A scenario/case study in a feature box with a relevant image
    2. A simple, evocative description of the psychological problem or phenomenon
    3. Clear and relevant focus questions in a feature box

Theory

edit
  1. Usually a well selected range of theories were considered
  2. Weaker chapters tended to use more general theories; stronger chapters tended to identify more specific theories
  3. Usually theories were explained in reasonably good depth, but theoretical depth was often a key differentiator between chapters
  4. Most chapters could be improved by building more strongly on related chapters (i.e., by embedding links from the first mention of key words to other chapters)
  5. Often more practical examples would have been useful to demonstrate how theories work in practice

Research

edit
  1. Sometimes relevant research was summarised, but could often have been more indepth
  2. Place more emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses
  3. Sometimes there was insufficient citation to support claims

Integration

edit
  1. There was reasonably good integration between theory and research
  2. However, there was often there was more emphasis on theory than research — strive for balance

Conclusion

edit
  1. Useful summaries of key points were provided
  2. Good emphasis on take-home messages, but could these messages could often be improved and made more explicit.

Style

edit

Written expression

edit
  1. Overall, the quality of written expression was reasonably good, but this varied widely
  2. Some of the most common problems were:
    1. poor grammar — there's so many ways these days to get help to improve grammar towards a more professional standard
    2. lack of sufficient citation — it is problematic in science communication to make claims without clarifying the evidence on which they are based
    3. write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person[1]
    4. serial commas[2] should be used (they are part of APA style)
    5. use of ownership apostrophes
    6. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
    7. Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in parentheses at the end of the sentence.
  3. Use Australian spelling.
  4. The main areas for improving APA style were:
    1. Citations with three or more authors should use the first author's surname followed by et al. and the year
    2. Reference formatting areas for improvement:
      1. capitalisation
      2. italicisation
      3. use of hyperlinked dois

Learning features

edit
  1. Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were underdone; more could be usefully added to most chapters
  2. Embedded interwiki links to related Wikiversity book chapters were very underutilised — this was disappointing because key to this exercise is situating the chapter within the related network of chapters
  3. Images were reasonably well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!)
  4. Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful
  5. Feature boxes were generally well used
  6. Quizzes were generally well used
  7. Scenarios/case studies were reasonably well used, but often more examples would have been helpful

Social contributions

edit
  1. There were many valuable improvements made to past and current chapters
  2. The amount and quality of contributions varied widely - some students made no contributions whilst some excelled and were awarded bonus marks
  3. Unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided

See also

edit