Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sup Guys, Hope someone truly gets some benefit From this chapter. Ill be puttin some things up shortly, if i can work all these awesome formatting ways, that I see in other peoples chapters ENVIOUS!!!!!, Any tips on making my page look nice and shiny, let me KNOW!!! Lucas K111:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lucas - thanks for your comments on my page! If you would to hi-jack any of the formatting etc from my page, go right ahead! So interested to read your chapter as well! ShaunaB06:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
This chapter was a great read! I know its very close to submission, but if you happen to re-look at your chapter, I would suggest a few more pictures! The beginnning looks very appealing, however later on it seems a bit full on with just text....a few pictures will spread out the information. Just a suggestion :) SKM1501 07:27, 07 November 2011 (UTC)
Really well researched - a fantastic chapter - well done - Magnolia
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.
Overall, there is a lot to like about this chapter and there is a lot that could be improved. Strengths include that the chapter tackles a somewhat taboo topic (motivation behind infidelity) using relevant theory and research, and in doing so embraces the self-help book style for the exercise. The main areas for improvement is with regard to the clarity of written expression.
The chapter effectively explains evolutionary/biological, need, and personality theories about infidelity. This theoretical structure provided an excellent framework for the chapter.
There is an awkwardness to the underlying pre-supposition for the chapter. The chapter argues but also seems to assume that monogamy is desirable. This is a normative viewpoint, and probably should be acknowledged as such. The chapter also assumes heterosexual relationships, but this isn't clearly justified e.g., I'm not sure why infidelity wouldn't be just as applicable to homosexual relationships? Thirdly, the chapter often seems to assume a male audience, although the initial introduction (I've adjusted it now) suggested a target audience of people who have had others cheat on them. In contrast, the target audience for the book, ideally, would be all people!
Several statements are either unreferenced or personal opinion. I've placed some [factual?] templates to suggest places where citations could be appropriate. As a result, sometimes it is difficult to know what is a statement based on theory/evidence, and what is a personal view of the author(s).
The chapter seems to draw a confident conclusion that testosterone being the key to understanding infidelity. Again, is this personal opinion, or supported by empirical evidence? Is this only true for males? What about T in female infidelity?
Research on infidelity is discussed in relation to the theories. This is very helpful for integrating research with theory, but research could also have been used outside of this structure, which could have helped to downplay personal opinion and upplay demonstrated familarity with psychological literature on the topic - e.g., for the Introduction - how common is infidelity?
When describing important research findings, try to indicate the size of effects in addition to whether there was an effect or relationship.
The written expression for the chapter is reasonably good, but the style was perhaps overly informal. The coverage of academic content was good, but there seemed to be too much enthusiasm to share personal opinion in addition to conveying what psychological science has discovered about the problem in question.
The chapter could have benefited from a more carefully developed Introduction, with clear focus questions relating to the broad target audience for the self-help book.
Getting early comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to further improve the chapter.
Some paragraphs were overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
The summary needs significant development in order to become a synthesis of what is known in psychological science about the motivational problem, with a clear take-away message.
Inclusion of video links was promising, but these were dumped rather than explained. Better explanations would assist a reader to decide which ones to follow.
Spelling, grammar and proofreading
Further proofreading is needed. For examples, see my edits and tagged comments.
APA style
In-text citations were well used and could be used more often.
The reference list is in reasonable APA style. Check/correct capitalisation.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via login to the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener. If you wish to dispute the marks, see the suggested marking dispute process.
Well-selected key points are made using a dramatic device
More content-related key points could be made (up to 5 mins could be used)
It was good that there was encouragement to read the chapter, but this may have been a little over the top; instead focus on communicating and illustrating the key concepts
XtraNormal audio pronunciation isn't perfect, but I wondered whether a few words may have been misspelt because the voice synthesiser seemed to struggle with some words
Overall, script is well-developed, but perhaps could be some more towards establishing a more robust set of problems/focus questions initially, and summary/take-home messages at the end.
