Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Social dominance and power motivation

Hey!

I saw your book chapter and and I just thought I would comment. This seems like a super interesting topic. If you haven't already I would suggest looking at this article the doi is 10.1093/oso/9780190629113.003.0020 and its by Robin Bergh, Gregory K. Davis, Sa-kiera T. J. Hudson, and Jim Sidanius and the article talks about 20 theories of social dominance and power comparison. As well as an article called When Inequality Fails: Power, Group Dominance, and Societal Change by Felicia Pratto*a, Andrew L. Stewarta, Fouad Bou Zeineddinea and they talk about the group power and how it can change. For formatting I would suggest making the top right hand image a little bit bigger so it is more visible. But besides that, great start and hope to read more! Joan-E-1405 (discuss • contribs) 05:31, 15 August 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/or sub-title were not correctly worded and/or formatted. This has been corrected. 2. Headings Basic, 1-level heading structure – could benefit from further development, perhaps using a 2-level structure Adopt closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings 3. Overview Add a scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) at the start of this section to help catch reader interest Make this section more user-friendly. Move details into a subsequent question. Use present rather than future tense Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended Open-ended focus questions are usually better than closed-ended (e.g., yes/no) questions Use bullet-points per Tutorial 2 Present focus questions in a feature box at the end of this section 4. Key points Very basic development of key points for each section, with limited use of relevant citations Avoid providing too much background information. Aim to briefly summarise general concepts and provide internal links to relevant book chapters and/or Wikipedia pages for further information. Then focus most of the content on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.# "Correlation" has a very specific (statistical) meaning. Consider replacing with "relation" and/or "relationship". It is unclear whether the best available psychological theory and research has been consulted in the preparation of this plan Use APA style 7th edition for citations Please read and follow the using genAI guidelines I recommend using the Studiosity service and/or a service like Grammarly to help improve the quality of written expression because there are a lot of grammatical errors Conclusion (the most important section): Hasn't been developed 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 Consider including more examples/case studies, quiz question(s), table(s) etc. 7. References Insufficient Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? Move non-academic / non-peer reviewed sources to External links Do not use genAI as academic references - unreliable source - see genAI guidelines For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation italicisation doi formatting make doi hyperlinks active (i.e., clickable) use dois where available instead of other links Remember that the goal is to identify and use the best academic theory and research about this topic 8. Resources See also Not developed External links Not developed 9. User page Created – minimal, but sufficient 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. Add link to book chapter 10. Social contribution None summarised on user page with direct link(s) to evidence – this was covered in Tutorial 03. Looking ahead to the book chapter submission, see how to earn marks for social contributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:05, 18 August 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 Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest (e.g., through an example) 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 addresses the topic There is too much content (goes over time). Provide a higher-level presentation. It is better to cover a small amount of well-selected content well than a large amount poorly. The presentation makes reasonably good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes insufficient/no use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes insufficient/no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes insufficient/no use of examples The presentation could be improved by providing practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The conclusion provides a basic summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic The conclusion provides basic take-home message(s) The Conclusion only partly fitted within the time limit Audio The audio is easy to follow The presentation makes basic use of narrated audio Audio communication is well-paced Basic intonation The narration could benefit from further scripting and/or practice Audio recording quality was reasonably good Review microphone set-up to achieve higher recording quality. Probably an on-board microphone was used (e.g., keyboard and/or mouse clicks were audible). Consider using an external microphone. The narrated content is well matched to the target topic The narrated content lacked synthesis of the best psychological research about this topic Video Overall, visual display quality is basic The presentation makes basic use of text-based slides The font size is mostly sufficiently large to make it easy to read Some of the font size could be larger to make it easier to read The amount of text presented per slide makes it reasonably easy to read and listen at the same time The amount of text presented on one or more slides could be reduced to make it easier 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 The visual content lacked synthesis of the best research about this topic Meta-data The video title does not match the chapter title and sub-title. This would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation and be consistent. 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 The presentation is incorrectly categorised as being for kids. This creates limitations, such as being unable to add the presentation to a playlist. More info. Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is not clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:27, 10 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 sub-title was incorrect (fixed) The problematic formatting/style of the chapter indicates that the skills taught in tutorials have not been acquired The chapter takes a somewhat sociological approach to the topic, rather than concentrating on synthesising the best psychological theory and research about the topic I suspect that some of this chapter is based on unacknowledged use of genAI output; if so, it violates academic integrity principles The chapter does not make effective use of the wiki environment to create an engaging, interactive experience for a reader Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations (e.g., see the tags) For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Underdeveloped Add an engaging case study or scenario in a feature box with 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 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 This chapter does not build on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding interwiki links for key terms) Reasonably good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) No use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help clearly convey key theoretical information 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? 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 Insufficient integration with chapters 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 The written expression is quite abstract/convoluted, which makes this a difficult read. Consider ways of simplifying the written expression. This is important for effective science communication. Many paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences. 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 chapter structure is underdeveloped; consider using sub-headings Grammar The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see tags) by using a grammar checking tool, accessing UC services like Studiosity, and/or seeking peer feedback on draft work Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats') Check and make correct use of commas Proofreading More proofreading is needed (e.g., move double spaces) 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. Use serial commas[2][3] Express numbers < 10 using words (e.g., two) and >= 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99) Citations use poor APA Style (7th ed.): Do not include author first name or initials 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) References use poor APA style Use hanging indent (fixed) Move internal links to the See also section Move external links to the External links section Learning features Insufficient use of learning features Add 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. Add 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) No use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Insufficient use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Basic 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 05:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)