Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Heart rate variability and mental health

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/or sub-title were not correctly worded and/or formatted (fixed) 2. Headings Basic, 1-level heading structure – could benefit from further development, perhaps using a 2-level structure Develop closer alignment between 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 3. Overview Insufficient Add a scenario or case study in a feature box (with an image) at the start of this section to help catch reader interest Add a brief, evocative description of the problem/topic Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended 4. Key points Insufficient development 5. Figure A relevant figure is not presented and cited (see Tutorial 2) 6. Learning feature Add in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to relevant book chapters (see Tutorial 2) Consider including examples/case studies, quiz question(s), table(s) etc. 7. References To be developed 8. Resources See also To be developed (see Tutorial 2) External links To be developed (see Tutorial 2) 9. User page Not created – see Tutorial 02 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 06:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Heading casing

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 22:10, 2 November 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 The main areas for potential improvement include: Overview Read and cite the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about the topic Conclusion Learning features Social contributions The title and sub-title were incorrect (fixed) I suspect that some of this chapter is based on unacknowledged use of genAI output; if so, it violates academic integrity principles Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations (e.g., see the tags) Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Underdeveloped Engage reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image Briefly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon; provide more detail Add focus questions in a feature box Theory A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds effectively on other chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Basic depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Some use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Insufficient review of relevant research; only one research study is cited and described 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) 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 Insufficient integration between theory and research The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance Conclusion No provided Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences. Bullet points are overused. Develop more of the bullet point statements into full sentences and paragraphs. Layout Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional italics, bold, and/or change in font size) Remove abbreviations from headings Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) See earlier comments about heading casing Move links from headings into their first mention in text 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 Spelling Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. Proofreading More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard Remove unnecessary capitalisation – more info Tables Use APA style for captions (see example) Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1) Not all the references are cited References use reasonably good APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[1] Check and correct use of italicisation Move non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section ChatGPT is a not a peer-reviewed source Learning features Insufficient use of learning features Very 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. No use of figure(s) Basic use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Basic use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than as a set of questions at the end No use of interwiki links in the "See also" section No use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution No logged contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)