Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback
General feedback about
book chapters
book chapters
|
Overall
edit- The overall quality of chapters was reasonably good, but there was a very wide range
- The main issues were:
- Unacknowledged and low-level use of genAI
- Insufficient review of research
- Lack of social contributions
Overview
edit- The best overviews consisted of:
- A scenario/case study in a feature box with a relevant image
- A simple, evocative description of the psychological problem or phenomenon
- Clear and relevant focus questions in a feature box
Theory
edit- Usually a well selected range of theories were considered
- Weaker chapters tended to use more general theories; stronger chapters tended to identify more specific theories
- Usually theories were explained in reasonably good depth, but theoretical depth was often a key differentiator between chapters
- 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)
- Often more practical examples would have been useful to demonstrate how theories work in practice
Research
edit- Sometimes relevant research was summarised, but could often have been more indepth
- Place more emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses
- Sometimes there was insufficient citation to support claims
Integration
edit- There was reasonably good integration between theory and research
- However, there was often there was more emphasis on theory than research — strive for balance
Conclusion
edit- Useful summaries of key points were provided
- Good emphasis on take-home messages, but could these messages could often be improved and made more explicit.
Style
editWritten expression
edit- Overall, the quality of written expression was reasonably good, but this varied widely
- Some of the most common problems were:
- poor grammar — there's so many ways these days to get help to improve grammar towards a more professional standard
- lack of sufficient citation — it is problematic in science communication to make claims without clarifying the evidence on which they are based
- write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person[1]
- serial commas[2] should be used (they are part of APA style)
- use of ownership apostrophes
- "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
- 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.
- Use Australian spelling.
- The main areas for improving APA style were:
- Citations with three or more authors should use the first author's surname followed by et al. and the year
- Reference formatting areas for improvement:
- capitalisation
- italicisation
- use of hyperlinked dois
Learning features
edit- Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were underdone; more could be usefully added to most chapters
- 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
- Images were reasonably well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!)
- Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful
- Feature boxes were generally well used
- Quizzes were generally well used
- Scenarios/case studies were reasonably well used, but often more examples would have been helpful
Social contributions
edit- There were many valuable improvements made to past and current chapters
- The amount and quality of contributions varied widely - some students made no contributions whilst some excelled and were awarded bonus marks
- Unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided