Excellent question. Also consider posting about this on the UCLearn discussion forum. I use an electronic calendar as my to-do list. If I don't get something done, it gets moved into a future timeslot. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c04:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, this topic is absolutely interesting to touch on. Just a small recommendation for you next time to adjust the font in the references list into Italics font for the volume number and journal name. Overall, really impressive with your chapter! Grace (Tram) Chu (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, It is very impressive how much work you have done. I noticed that you have not done any cons for to-do lists. Maybe try this link to get you started. Sincerely, Giovanni
Thanks I will check it out :)
Hi, the layout looks quite comprehensive so far. This is a minor thing which I'm sure you will do later but under references, you can use doi for the links to the pages of the journal article you made. For your link to the journal article for the Hemingway effect, I would use [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.01.001] which will give you the same page as the link you currently have placed. I just think it presents itself much better. Good luck with the project. Kind regards, Daniel. 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
oh thanks for this tip, I will actually have a look into that as the whole link is a bit bulky while I am just using it as a place holder for my memory, thank you so much for your tip ~~~ U3162169T (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I'm so impressed by your chapter already. Also really glad to see you looking at the neurodivergent aspect of to-do lists (e.g., ADHD reliance). You possibly already plan to do this but it might be worth looking into not just the fact that people with ADHD rely on them but if they are actually effective for them without other tools in place such as alarms because of the whole 'out of sight, out of mind' aspect that comes with ADHD. --U3173387 (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I'm loving your chapter so far! I was going to suggest the same as above- it would really strengthen your chapter to show how it differs/helps physiologically between neurotypical and neurodivergent people. Maybe using a case study/scenario might help to compare the two. Also, it might be worth inserting a figure or diagram to help explain the physiological aspects of the theory. Really great so far! --Natsta19 (discuss • contribs) 05:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
The structure is overly complicated (e.g., one section has 8 sub-sections), so consider simplifying (e.g., there is no need for a separate quiz heading; just embed the quiz questions in their most relevant sections)
Consider tightening the alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings (alignment is pretty good, but can be improved)
Key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations
History section is OK but I wouldn't indulge much in history (keep it brief - could just be a 1 paragraph part of a broader description of to-do lists; more important is a clear, contemporary description of to-do lists
Quotes usually aren't as useful as hoped; consider re-expressing in own words with citation(s)
Pros and cons probably make sense before coming to conclusions about whether lists are (always) helpful. If these questions are a bit awkward, we can discuss tweaking the sub-title.
Using to-do lists effectively is probably the most important section (other than the Overview and Conclusion)
Promising balance of theory and research
Conclusion (the most important section):
Well developed
Overall, there is probably too much content to cover effectively in a single chapter here, so be selective about what is the most relevant/important to addressing the sub-title questions
Extensive contributions - at least three different types of contributions with direct 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.
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
The audio is fun, easy to follow, and interesting to listen to
The presentation makes effective use of narrated audio
Audio communication is well paced
Excellent pauses between sentences. This helps the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point.
Excellent intonation enhances listener interest and engagement
The narration is well practiced and/or performed
Audio recording quality was excellent
The narrated content is well matched to the target topic (see content)
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 provided
Latest comment: 9 months 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. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.
Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient chapter. The theoretical content is good. The research content is OK. The writing style is below professional standard.
Very good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims
Over the maximum word count. The content beyond 4,000 words has been ignored for marking purposes.
For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits
Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard mainly due to poor grammar. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills.
Some sentences are overly long. Strive for the simplest expression. Consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences.
Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences.
Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") perspective[1] in the main text, although 1st or 2nd person perspective can work well for case studies or feature boxes
Grammar
The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')
More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
Figures
Provide detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text
Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1)
Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient use of learning features
Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles
Excellent 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.
Minimal use of image(s)
Good use of table(s)
Excellent use of feature box(es)
Basic use of case studies or examples
No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Basic use of external links in the "External links" section