Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Intertemporal choice

Topic selection feedback

@TD3223808: Thanks for tackling this topic. Some initial suggestions:

• Check out other related chapters and see how you can build on, link to, and integrate with that work:
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Choice
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Cognitive
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Decision making
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Time
• What psychological theory(ies) can help to understand? What is the main research in this area?

Let me know if I can do anything else as you go along. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Heading casing

Hi TD3223808. FYI, the recommended Wikiversity heading style uses sentence casing. For example: Self-determination theory rather than Self-Determination Theory Here's an example chapter with correct heading casing: Growth mindset development -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

The topic development submission 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 for editing changes made whilst reviewing this chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date.

Title The title is correctly worded and formatted The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Basic, 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development by simplifying and focusing Consider adopting closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings History isn't so interesting/relevant here Consider adopting closer alignment between the focus questions and the top-level headings Avoid having sections with only 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Overview Way too long - significantly simplify and abbreviate. Some detail may be useful in subsequent sections. Put the scenario in a feature box at the start to help catch reader interest. Consider adding an image. Provide a brief, evocative description of the problem/topic and focus questions. Maybe mention key psychological theory. Move quiz into another section Focus questions are too wordy - simplify and align with sub-title and top-level headings Key points Basic development of key points For sections which include sub-sections include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings Focus on the theory/research rather than individuals The neuroscience focus is overly detailed - provide the big picture The cognitive perspective makes sense as the other theoretical perspective Also consider delay discounting (and connecting to the relevant chapter) Promising balance of theory and research Conclusion (the most important section): Well developed Hasn't been developed Figure Excellent - A relevant figure is presented, captioned, and cited Learning feature Promising use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters Promising use of example(s)/case study(ies) Promising use of quiz question(s) References OK Remove bullet-points First reference needs to include the editors There's not much in the way of peer-reviewed psychology theory/research journal articles here. Remember that the goal is to identify and use the best academic theory and research about this topic. For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation make doi hyperlinks active (i.e., clickable) Resources See also Not developed External links Excellent User page Created – minimal, but sufficient Brief description about self provided – consider expanding Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks. Link provided to book chapter Social contribution Two indirect link(s) to evidence If adding the second or subsequent link to a page (or a talk/discussion page), create a direct link like / Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Social Contribution Suggestion

Hey,

This is looking great, I love that you have three focus questions and have gone into some detail around these. I would suggest not making them sub-headings and placing them in a box all together without the detail. I would address them throughout the page (incorporating what you have already written about them - whether this is adding in new subheadings or just including them in a paragraph) and then revisit at the end in the conclusion. Mia Pearse (discuss • contribs) 05:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Book chapter review and feedback

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. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is an insufficient chapter primarily because it shows no evidence of having consulted and integrated the best psychological theory and research about this topic. For example, there are virtually no citations. It seems possible/likely that much of this submission consists of unacknowledged AI-generated content. I suspect that the recommended 5 topic development hours and 45 book chapter hours were not invested in preparing this chapter. Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations Well under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand Addressing the topic development feedback could have helped to improve this chapter For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Reasonably good I've restructured and removed the sub-headings Engages reader interest by introducing a case study and/or scenario in a feature box; ideally, include relevant image Explains the problem or phenomenon Focus question(s) are provided. Simplify to just the questions and put the detail in the main body. The focus questions would ideally be less general and more focused on unpacking the specific topic Theory An basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Much of the content about cognitive psychology is too broad/general Overly focused on general description; summarise and move to the more substantive aspects of theory Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) There is too much general theoretical material. Instead, summarise and link to further information (such as other book chapters or Wikipedia articles), to allow this chapter to focus on the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question). Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Lack of sufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Insufficient use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts. Research Insufficient review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Greater emphasis on effect sizes could be helpful. Lack of sufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Insufficient critical thinking about relevant research is evident Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by: describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies discussing the direction of relationships considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations pointing out critiques/counterarguments suggesting specific directions for future research Many claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the tags) Integration Insufficient integration between theory and research Conclusion Basic summary and conclusion Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills Layout Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) See earlier comments about heading casing Some headings should be simplified Remove unnecessary capitalisation Figures Figures are captioned Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1) Not all references are cited References are not in full APA style. For example: Use alphabetical order Check and correct use of capitalisation[1] Check and correct use of italicisation Remove double quotation marks Learning features Sufficient use of learning features Good use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text even more interactive. See example. No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project. Basic use of image(s) No use of table(s) Good use of feature box(es) Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of case studies or examples No use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution ~2 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Multimedia presentation feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's UCLearn site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the 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.

Overall Overall, this is an insufficient presentation mainly because it doesn't sufficiently focus on the target topic: "What are intertemporal choices and how can they be effectively negotiated?" in part because the presentation overly focuses on financial contexts rather than the broader psychological phenomenon of intertemporal choice, delay discounting etc. The presentation is over the maximum time limit — content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes Overview An opening slide with the title and sub-title is displayed — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation Also narrate the title and sub-title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. This presentation has a basic introduction to engage audience interest A context for the topic is established Focus questions and/or an outline of topics are presented Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section This presentation partially addresses the topic There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of well-targetted content than a large amount of poorly selected content. The selection of content is poor because it doesn't adequately use the most relevant psychological theory and/or research to address the topic. Financial decisions can be used as an example but not the primary focus. The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes insufficient use of relevant psychological research Here's an example of a potentially useful starting point: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/intertemporal-choice Include citations to support claims The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples The presentation could be improved by making more use of a wider range of examples Conclusion The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Audio communication is well paced Audio recording quality was excellent The narrated content is partially matched to the target topic (see content) Video Overall, visual display quality is reasonably good The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read The visual communication is supplemented in a basic way by images Also consider using diagrams The presentation is basically produced using simple tools Hide the audio icon The visual content is partially matched to the target topic (see content) Meta-data The chapter title is used, but the sub-title (or a shortened version of it) is not used, as the name of the presentation. The sub-title (or an abbreviation of the sub-title that fits within the 100 character limit) would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. A written description of the presentation is not provided. Providing an informative description can help viewers decide whether they want to watch or not. A link to the book chapter is not provided A link from the book chapter is provided The presentation is incorrectly categorised as being for kids. This introduces limitations, such as being unable to add the presentation to a playlist. More info. Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are not provided A copyright license for the presentation is not provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)