Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Free will and neuroscience

Initial suggestions

@Sienna04: 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/Neuroscience
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Will
• Also search past book chapters for related topics
• For the topic development, consider:
  • What psychological theory(ies) can help to understand and explain this topic?
  • What is the main research in this area?
• Let me know if I can do anything else to support the development of this chapter.

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Heading casing

Hi Sienna04. 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 ~~~~

Topic development feedback

The topic development submission has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is below, plus see the general feedback page. Please also check the page history for changes made whilst reviewing the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Marks are available via UCLearn. Marks are based on the latest version before the due date.

1. Title The title and sub-title are correctly worded and formatted 2. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Promising 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development and/or refinement Reduce emphasis on definitions/background Increase emphasis on the neuroscience of free will Adopt closer alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings 3. Overview Hasn't been developed – Needs scenario, image, evocative description of the problem/topic, and focus questions 4. Key points Insufficient development 5. Figure A relevant figure is not presented and cited (see Tutorial 2) 6. Learning feature Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters (see Tutorial 2) Consider use of one or more scenarios/examples/case studies Consider including one or more quiz question(s) about the take-home messages Also consider using one or more tables to summarise key information 7. References Insufficient 8. Resources Not developed (see Tutorial 2) 9. User page Basic Very brief description about self – 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. A link to the book chapter is provided 10. Social contribution None summarised on user page with direct link(s) to evidence (see Tutorial 03). Looking ahead to the book chapter submission, see social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:45, 2 September 2024 (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 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 (e.g., see the tags) Move embedded external links to academic articles into the References section, include links as dois, and provide APA style citation to the article in the main body text Move embedded non-peer-reviewed links into the External links section Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Basic Engages reader via a basic case study or scenario in a feature box; also include a relevant image Explains the problem or phenomenon in a basic way Basic focus questions Theory A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained The chapter lacks a clear definition/description of free will The chapter overly focuses on historical, philosophical concepts of free will and medical case studies (rather than contemporary, theory-driven psychological understandings) The chapter lacks sufficiently description of the neuroscience arguments (with evidence) for and against free will Build more strongly on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Insufficient use of relevant 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? Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Many key citations are not used e.g., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.0005 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 considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations pointing out critiques/counterarguments suggesting specific directions for future research Many claims lack sufficient citation (e.g., see the tags) Integration Basic integration between theory and research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance Where research is discussed, it is integrated with theory 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) Remove list of quotes; if these ideas are important, integrate them (in your own words, with citations) into the main body Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic Direct quotations are over-used Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using 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 Layout Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Grammar The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Consider using a grammar checking tool Another option is to use a services provided by UC, such as Studiosity Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance Check and make correct use of commas Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2] APA style Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used ... as slang, or as an invented or coined expression" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159) Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, communicate concepts in your own words Citations use basic/poor APA style (7th ed.) Move non-peer reviewed links into the External links section as dois and provide APA style citations References use basic APA style: Use hanging indent (fixed) Check and correct use of capitalisation[3] Include hyperlinked URLs and dois (fixed) Move non-peer reviewed links into 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. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links, per Tutorial 02 No use of image(s) No use of table(s) Very basic use of feature box(es) Basic use of case studies or examples No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Also include links to related Wikipedia articles Use sentence casing Include sources in parentheses after the link Basic use of external links in the "External links" section Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Social contribution No logged social contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:55, 24 October 2024 (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 The opening conveys the purpose of the presentation in a basic way The presentation has a basic introduction to engage audience interest A basic context for the presentation is established Consider asking focus questions to help focus and discipline the presentation Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation somewhat addresses the topic The chapter is overly referenced; this presentation should be a stand-alone overview of the topic There is too much content, in too much detail. Provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of content well than a large amount poorly. The presentation makes insufficient use of relevant psychological theory This is a not about the philosophy, but rather the neuroscience, of free will The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes insufficient use of citations to support claims The presentation makes insufficient use of one or more examples The presentation could be improved by providing practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio Audio communication is well-paced Reasonably good intonation The narration could benefit from further scripting and/or practice Audio recording quality was very good The narrated content is reasonably well matched to the target topic Video Overall, visual display quality is basic The presentation makes basic use of text-based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read The amount of text presented per slide makes it easy to read and listen at the same time The visual communication could be improved by including relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is basically produced using simple tools The visual content is reasonably well matched to the target topic Meta-data The correct title and sub-title (or an abbreviation to fit within the 100 character limit) are used in the name of the presentation — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation Provide a written description of the presentation to help potential viewers A link to the book chapter is not provided A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is not clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)