Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback/2021
General feedback about
book chapters
book chapters
This page summarises general feedback about the 2021 student-authored book chapters. Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on its talk page.
Overall
edit- The overall quality of chapters was good, but there was a wide range.
- The best chapters have been tweeted in this thread.
Overview
edit- Generally good to very good.
- A case study or example or image to help engage reader interest.
- Provide focus questions in a feature box.
Theory
editBreadth
edit- Usually a good range of theory was considered.
- Sometimes very general theories were used (e.g., Maslow's hierarchy of needs) when more specific theories would have been better.
Depth
edit- Usually theories were explained in good depth.
- More examples would have been useful to explain the theories in practice.
Research
editKey findings
edit- Usually relevant research was summarised.
- More emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses would be helpful.
Critical thinking
edit- Often there was a lack of sufficient detail about the research reviewed.
- Sometimes there was insufficient citation to support claims.
Integration
edit- There was typically good integration between theory and research.
- Often there was more emphasis on theory than research - strive for balance.
Conclusion
edit- Conclusions were generally very good.
- Greater emphasis on take-home messages would be helpful.
Style
editWritten expression
edit- The quality of written expression varied widely.
- The most common problems were grammatical, including:
- in psychological science, write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person
- serial commas[1] should be used
- correct use of ownership apostrophes
- The main spelling problem was using American instead of Australian spelling.
- APA style was generally good. The main areas for improvement were:
- Citations were generally very good
- For APA style 7th ed., use first author surname et al. when there are three or more authors.
- References were rarely perfect. Main areas for improvement:
- capitalisation
- italicisation
- use of hyperlinked dois
- Citations were generally very good
Learning features
edit- Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were very good.
- Embedded interwiki links to Wikiversity book chapters were very poor. This chapter provides some good examples:
- "The impacts of COVID-19 on people's motivation have resulted in widespread societal uncertainty ..."
- "One theory explaining emotional processes for vaccine uptake is protection motivation theory ..."
- "Fear can also serve as a motivator ..."
- Images were reasonably well used.
- Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful.
- Feature boxes were well used.
- Quizzes were well used.
- Case studies were well used.
Social contributions
edit- Overall, there were substantial improvements made to past and current chapter by peer authors.
- The amount and quality of these contributions varied widely - most were rated as minor (.25), followed by moderate (.50), with some considered to be major (1.00+).
- A small number of students contributed across three platforms (Wikiversity, UCLearn Canvas, and Twitter).
- Sometimes contributions were claimed, but unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided.
- A handful of students received social contribution bonus marks, including: