Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback/2022
General feedback about
book chapters
book chapters
This page summarises general feedback about the 2022 student-authored book chapters. Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on the respective talk pages.
Overall
edit- The overall quality of chapters was good, but there was a wide range.
- The best chapters will be tweeted in this thread.
Overview
edit- Generally very good.
- Consider using a case study or example or image to help engage reader interest.
Theory
editBreadth
edit- Usually a well selected range of theories was considered.
Depth
edit- Usually theories were explained in reasonably good depth.
- More examples could be useful to explain the theories in practice.
Research
editKey findings
edit- Usually relevant research was summarised, but could have been more indepth.
- 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- Useful summaries were provided.
- Good emphasis on take-home messages, but could often be improved and made more explicit.
Style
editWritten expression
edit- The quality of written expression varied.
- Relatively common problems included:
- in psychological science, write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person[1]
- serial commas[2] should be used
- correct use of ownership apostrophes
- "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
- Reduce use of weasel words which bulk out the text, but don't enhance meaning
- The main spelling problem was using American instead of Australian spelling.
- APA style was generally good, especially the use of citations. The main areas for improvement were:
- 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
Learning features
edit- Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were usually very good, but often more could be added.
- Embedded interwiki links to related Wikiversity book chapters were rare.
- Images were well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!).
- 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: