Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Neuroscience of unexpected positive outcomes

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 12:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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 User name removed from the page because authorship is as per the list of topics and the page's edit history 2. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Messy heading structure – needs work (see Tutorial 2) Adopt 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 Use default heading formatting (i.e., avoid bold, italics, underline, changing the size etc.) Avoid having sections with only 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Usually an "Introduction" section isn't necessary because the Overview should do this job and, if there is additional detail, consider using more more descriptive heading(s) 3. Overview Move the scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) to the start of this section to help catch reader interest A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Use 3rd person perspective (except 1st/2nd person can work for feature boxes/scenarios) Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended Use bullet-points (see Tutorial 02) 4. Key points Promising development of key points for each section Approach is probably overly complicated; will likely run into word count difficulties; prune down, simplify, and focus Promising use of citations Strive for an integrated balance of the best psychological theory and research about this topic, with practical examples It is unclear whether the best available psychological theory and research has been consulted in the preparation of this plan Use 3rd person perspective, although a case study or feature box could use 1st or 2nd person perspective Use Australian spelling (e.g., analyze -> analyse; behavior -> behaviour) Does this plan include genAI content? If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries, otherwise it violates academic integrity. Conclusion (the most important section) hasn't been developed What might the take-home, practical messages be? (What are the answer(s) to the question(s) in the sub-title and/or focus questions?) 5. Figure One or more relevant figure(s) presented and captioned The figure caption(s) could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text Cite each figure at least once in the main text using APA style (e.g., see Figure 1) Consider increasing image size from to make it easier to view 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) Excellent use of one or more scenarios/examples/case studies Excellent use of quiz question(s) Also consider using one or more tables to summarise key information 7. References Good Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? Move non-academic / non-peer reviewed sources to External links All references need to be cited in the text and must be relevant (e.g., remove Hattie & Timperley) Only include references which have been accessed and read Check and correct APA referencing style: alphabetical order capitalisation make doi hyperlinks active (i.e., clickable) 8. Resources See also Very good Also link to related book chapters Use alphabetical order External links Not developed (see Tutorial 2) 9. User page Basic – minimal, but sufficient 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 Rename the link to the book chapter to make it more user-friendly (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 12:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi @Jana2345

I just read through your chapter and your making very good progress on it!

I thought I might suggest going through and including a few quizzes or figures to help break up the text and make it more digestible, possibly at the end of each section with a major heading, similar to what you did with your "positive surprise" (well played btw)

Overall great work! U3230258 (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 5 October 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 area for potential improvement is to acknowledge use of genAI, to human rewrite and fact-check content, and to address the topic within the maximum word count I suspect that a lot of this chapter is based on unacknowledged use of genAI content; if so, it violates academic integrity principles Basic use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims Over the maximum word count. The content beyond 4,000 words (i.e., quizzes, conclusion, see also, and references) has been ignored for marking purposes. There is a lot of repetitive text For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Well developed Engages reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box; also include a relevant image Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon The focus questions are clear The focus questions could be improved by being: using bullet points (per Tutorial 02) 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 Build more strongly on related chapters and Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding links for key terms) Basic depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Not all of the references are cited (e.g., Kringerlbach, 2004) Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Basic review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? 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 Integration Basic integration between theory and research Conclusion Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills Bullet points are overused. Develop more of the bullet point statements into full sentences and paragraphs. 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 The structure is overly complicated; aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Introduction and Conclusion 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 Abbreviations Once an abbreviation has been established (e.g., PTSD), use it consistently aftwarwards Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) Proofreading More proofreading is needed to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard Remove unnecessary capitalisation – more info APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Figures Well captioned Use this format for captions: Figure X. Descriptive caption goes here in sentence casing. See example. Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., "(see Figure 1)"; do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation) Tables Use APA style for captions (see example) Refer to each Table using APA style (e.g., do not use bold, talics, check and correct capitalisation) References use reasonably good APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[2] Check and correct use of italicisation 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. Basic use of figure(s) Basic use of table(s) Reasonably good use of feature box(es) Reasonably good use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Social contribution ~2 logged, useful, moderate contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)