Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Narrative therapy and emotion

Heading casing

Hi Ashley Sanders01. 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 12:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Initial suggestions

@Alyssa.marin: 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/Emotion
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Psychotherapy
• What psychological theories 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 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional avenues?

Despite having done my own assignment work on this topic, I think you have done a great job of describing quite a challenging topic. One area of therapy/concept you may find also interesting is the First Nations idea of Social and Emotional well-being- there is a crossover of ideas and themes between the two and this may be an interesting way of incorporating cross-cultural applications.

This therapy also stands out as it was created with a focus on how we speak and construct our language with concepts like social constructionism and externalising the problem.

U3216125 (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential Article

Hi @Alyssa.marin here is an article that could be useful for you book chapter! It also includes some pros and cons.

What is Narrative Therapy? Ashhstarr (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)--Ashhstarr (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 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 Basic, 3-level heading structure – would benefit from further development Simplify to a 2-level structure Expand the 2nd level of headings (there are too few) See earlier comment about Heading casing Definition(s) is a pedestrian heading. Incorporate definition material into the Overview and/or subsequent sections with embedded inter-wiki link(s) to further information. Adopt closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections Overview Add a scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) at the start of this section to help catch reader interest Key points Hmmmm - this reads like unedited, unacknowledged (use the edit summary to acknowledge) genAI content which would violate academic integrity Insufficient citation Avoid providing too much background information. Briefly summarise general concepts and provide internal wiki links to relevant book chapters and/or Wikipedia pages for further information. Then focus most of the content of this on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title. Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research, with practical examples It is unclear whether the best available psychological theory and research has been consulted in the preparation of this plan Conclusion (the most important section): Underway Figure Not included 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 Consider including more examples/case studies, quiz question(s), table(s) etc. References OK For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation italicisation doi formatting page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Resources See also OK Also link to related book chapters External links 1 out 2 links provided Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) Use sentence casing User page Good 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 One out of three different types of contributions with direct link(s) to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:45, 26 September 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 a promising, but insufficient chapter A lot of the content is unconvincing as original writing and there is no acknowledgement that gen-AI has been used A key area for potential improvement is supporting claims with academic citations Addressing the topic development feedback could have helped to improve this chapter For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Basic Provide a case study or scenario with an image in a feature box to help engage reader interest It is unclear why Plutchik's model is being used; weirdly it isn't used subsequently? The focus questions could be improved by being more specific to the topic (i.e., the sub-title) Ideally, provide open-ended, rather than closed-ended focus questions Theory A promising range of ideas are presented but it is far from clear how this material is derived from a first person reading of the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic A lot of different ideas are considered, but a coherent structure and narrative is (ironically) lacking Build more strongly on other related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles(e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) Basic depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information Insufficient 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. Insufficient 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 The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research Conclusion Flowery 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 Summarise key points Address the focus questions Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is poor from an academic perspective Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Convey one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences. The chapter could be improved by developing some of the bullet points into full sentences and paragraphs Avoid overly emotive language (e.g,. profound) in science-based communication Layout Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) See earlier comments about heading casing Figures Figures are briefly captioned Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text Tables Use APA style for captions. See example Refer to each Table using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation) Citations Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section Limited range of references References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of capitalisation[1] Check and correct use of italicisation Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section Learning features Insufficient use of learning features No use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text 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. Move links to non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section Minimal use of image(s) Basic use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of case studies or examples Insufficient use of interwiki links in the "See also" and "External links" sections Social contribution ~2 logged, useful, minor to moderate social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:40, 3 November 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 a basic presentation 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 is displayed The opening slide shows an incorrect sub-title Also narrate the title and sub-title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest A basic context for the topic is established Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to focus and discipline the presentation. Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation 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 presentation makes very good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes no explicit use of relevant psychological research The presentation includes insufficient citations to support claims The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies The presentation provides practical, easy to understand information Conclusion The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The audio is easy to follow The presentation makes good use of narrated audio Audio communication is well paced Good intonation The narration is well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was very good The narrated content is reasonably well matched to the target topic (see content) (lack of research) Video Overall, visual display quality is very good The presentation makes good 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 and/or diagrams Also consider using diagrams The presentation is well produced using simple tools 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. An extremely brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding. A link to the book chapter is not provided A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are not provided A copyright license for the presentation is not provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission feedback

@Alyssa.marin: I've reviewed these changes:

Thank-you for the improvements which seem to mainly be:

1. Some content has been removed (presumably because it was genAI content)
2. Some peer-reviewed citations have been added
3. Other minor text changes such as American to Australian spelling

However, there are still some issues to addressed with regard to the lack of appropriate citation, including:

1. Some tags have been removed without removal of the corresponding content and/or addition of appropriate peer-reviewed citation
2. Some tags have been left in place. These should be resolved by either removing the content or adding appropriate citation.
3. Some tags have been left in place even though appropriate citation has been added; in these cases, the tag should be removed
4. It is OK not to attribute the headings to ChatGPT (this is relatively minor and breaks the narrative, so remove that acknowledgement); far more important is to provide appropriate citations for the main content in each of the sections
5. Non-academic webpages (e.g., NorthStar Transitions, 2022) are insufficient as citations. Remove them, but these links can be used in the External links section

Addressing these issues is likely to require some rewriting. The end point should be content that addresses the question and is clearly based on the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about the topic.

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission feedback 2

@Alyssa.marin: I've reviewed all changes since the original submission:

1. Overall, the revised chapter remains insufficient as a cogent synthesis of the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic.
2. The chapter now better indicates where ChatGPT was used. However, this information is general, breaks the flow, and there remains insufficient citation of specifically which sentences and paragraphs used ChatGPT as the source, per APA recommended style for citing ChatGPT.
3. I tried out one of the ChatGPT prompts and it did not seem to produce anything like the corresponding content in the chapter (e.g., https://chat.openai.com/share/deaeb151-335f-4048-b77a-c6badd6eb3b1)
4. ~6 citations to academic, peer-reviewed sources have been added with some expanded content which improves the chapter somewhat
5. Some content has been removed (presumably because it lacked originality and/or appropriate source(s))
6. Despite requests to use academic, primary, peer-reviewed citations and to move links to non-peer-reviewed sources into the "External links" section, many non-peer-reviewed citations have been retained (e.g., wheel of emotions)
7. Despite requests to use academic, primary, peer-reviewed citations and to move links to non-peer-reviewed sources into the "External links" section, much of the additional content uses non-peer-reviewed citations, particularly verywellmind.com (n = ~12)
8. The source for the content of several sections is now more clearly acknowledged as being based on ChatGPT (e.g., the use of Plutchik's wheel of emotions in narrative therapy). However, no evidence is presented that these claims have any academic basis. This lack of academic discipline is unprofessional and can lead to serious professional consequences (e.g., https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-lawyer-artificial-intelligence-suspension/). The genAI guidelines for the unit include that "All claims need to be supported by verified peer-reviewed citations which you have consulted ... Recommended uses of genAI tools include brainstorming, explaining key concepts, synthesising complex ideas, rephrasing to improve readability, improving the quality of written expression, checking spelling and grammar, and image generation". Instead, ChatGPT appears to have been used as an end-point (to generate and lightly reword content) rather than as a starting-point for further investigation.
9. Some of the new content appears to be plagiarised e.g., "Deconstruction is used to help people gain clarity in their stories. When a problematic story feels like it has been around for a long time, people might use generalized statements and become confused in their own stories. A narrative therapist would work with the individual to break down their story into smaller parts, clarifying the problem and making it more approachable." from verywellmind is almost identical to "Deconstruction: This technique is used to help people gain clarity in their stories. When a problematic story feels like it has been prolonged, people might use generalised statements and become confused in their own stories. A narrative therapist would work with the individual to break down their story into smaller parts, clarifying the problem and making it more approachable." which was has been added.
10. Further overreliance on the words of others rather than reading, understanding, and re-expressing in the author's own words has been introduced e.g., use of direct quotes: "children receiving narrative therapy intervention showed a significant improvement in self-awareness, self-management, social awareness/empathy, and responsible decision making when compared to their own first stories and the stories from children in the control group. Improvement in relationship skills was present in both cohorts but was significant only for the second year." (Beaudoin et al., 2016)
11. A mixture of APA style and wiki style citations are used. Adopt one style.

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Resubmission feedback 3

@Alyssa.marin: I've reviewed these changes since resubmission 2:

• The chapter has been significantly improved by now being more strongly based on primary, academic, peer-reviewed sources
• The chapter has been significantly improved by no longer being based on genAI and non-academic sources

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)