Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Positivity ratio

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 Promising 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development and/or refinement 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 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 APA style for reporting numbers Use 3rd person perspective (except 1st/2nd person can work for feature boxes/scenarios) Provide focus questions that unpack the sub-title in a feature box at the end of this section Use bullet-points as demonstrated in Tutorial 2 4. Key points Promising development of key points for each section Promising use of citations Promising balance of theory and research Also see work by Gottman For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings Direct quotes need page numbers (APA style) – even better, write in your own words Consider using the Studiosity service and/or a service like Grammarly to help improve the quality of written expression such as checking grammatical and spelling errors Conclusion (the most important section) hasn't been developed 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. How does a bell curve relate to the PR? Use APA style for figure captions Figure(s) are cited at least once in the main text Cite each figure 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) Promising use of one or more scenarios/examples/case studies Promising 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? All citations need to be in the References Check and correct APA referencing style: capitalisation italicisation page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also One of two link types provided Also link to relevant Wikipedia pages External links 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. To add direct links to evidence of Wikiversity edits or comments: view the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and paste the comparison URL on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions. This skill has been demonstrated in tutorials Use a numbered list as demonstrated in Tutorial 2

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:39, 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 The main areas for potential improvement are to provide a more indepth review of research, write more in your own words, and to use correct APA style for citations Basic use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims 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 case study or scenario in a feature box; also include a relevant image Explains the psychological problem or phenomenon reasonably well Add focus questions in a feature box Theory A promising range of ideas are presented but too little is explained in your own words (i.e., too much direct quoting) The chapter does not describe what positive and negative experiences are, or provide any clear examples; the case study is not followed through This chapter does not build on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding interwiki links for key terms) Basic depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Key citations are used in a basic way In some places, there is 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? In some places, there is 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 Some claims lack sufficient citation (e.g., see the tags) Integration Insufficient integration between theory and research Conclusion Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills Some sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the and tags) 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 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 correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2] Spelling Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) Proofreading More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix spacing) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard APA style Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, communicate about concepts in your own words Direct quotes are overused – it is better to communicate about concepts in your own words Figures Figure 1 is poorly selected because it doesn't represent a ratio Use this format for captions: Figure X. Descriptive caption goes here in sentence casing. See example. Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text. Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., "(see Figure 1)"; do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation). Increase some image size to make it easier to view Citations use basic APA style (7th ed.). To improve: Remove titles from main body (only provide in the list of references) If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either: in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020) Do not include author first name or initials Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses References use excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/poor APA style: Check and correct use of italicisation Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Provide the full titles of journals 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. One use of figure(s) No use of table(s) One use of feature box(es) One use of scenarios, case studies, or examples One use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) One use of interwiki links in the "See also" section No use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution ~3 logged contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess. See tutorials for guidance about how to get direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)