Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Stress mindset

Hanging referencing

Hi Jacqueline Di Fronzo -

Here's some formatting to add into your reference list so that the references are hanging:

{{Hanging indent|1=

Copy your references here

}}

Looking forward to reading this one :) U3225022 (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Information

Hi, Jacqueline Di Fronzo -

I came across this reference that I thought you may like to use. You could also add in a quiz about the stress mindeset.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23437923/

Can not wait to learn a bit more on this chapter!

Emdawson02 (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 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 sub-title are correctly worded and formatted 2. Headings Overly complicated 3-level structure – consider simplifying 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 Excellent – Scenario, image, evocative description of the problem/topic, and focus questions Add an image to the scenario to help attract 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 4. Key points Excellent – key points are well developed for each section However, there is too much here. The plan is 3,000 words and the final chapter is a maximum of 4,000 words Excellent use of citations Good balance of theory and research For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings 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. Conclusion is well developed 5. Figure Excellent - One or more relevant figure(s) presented, captioned, and cited The figure caption(s) provide(s) a clear, appropriately detailed description that is meaningfully connected with the main text Cite each figure using APA style (e.g., see Figure 1) 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) Promising 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 Very good Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? Check and correct APA referencing style: italicisation page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also Excellent External links Good Include source in brackets after link 9. User page Basic 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) Add link to book chapter 10. Social contribution Excellent – at least three different types of contributions with direct link(s) to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

amazing work!

Wow, Jacquie, love you work! so much great information. You should get 100% Annabelle Taylor (discuss • contribs) 04:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for citations

Heya,

I noticed when in-text referencing you would do "Name et al., (2025) rest of sentence" and I wanted to suggest re-formatting it as "Name et al. (2025), rest of sentence" (essentially moving the comma to after the year). I'm pretty sure this is how the comma is supposed to be added, but I'm not 100% sure so don't worry about it if you disagree :3 U3249300 (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 4 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 a very good chapter. It makes very good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. Very good use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims In some places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Move embedded non-peer-reviewed links into the External links section For some additional feedback, see the following comments and copyedits Overview Well developed Engages reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon Clear focus questions Theory An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds reasonably well on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Builds somewhat on previous, related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Insightful depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Some use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information In general, citations are well used, but in some places there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations Reasonably good use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Reasonably good review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Basic 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 Integration Excellent integration between theory and research Conclusion Very good/ summary and conclusion Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good Use active (e.g., "this chapter explores") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter has explored" or "this chapter will explore") [1][2] Some sentences could be explained more clearly Some sentences are overly long. Strive for the simplest expression. Consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences. Shorter words and sentences are more readable. Try conducting a readability analysis such as via https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/. This chapter gets a score of . Aim for 50+. Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences. "People" is often a better term than "individuals". People is used 6 times and individuals is used 53 times in this chapter. Layout Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Grammar The grammar for some sentences could be improved 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 affect vs. effect Abbreviations Spell out abbreviations on their first use, to explain them to the reader Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) Proofreading More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard APA style Use serial commas[3]. Video (1 min) Figures Well captioned Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style 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) Tables Table captions use APA style or wiki style Use APA style for captions (see example) Add an APA style caption to each table Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text Refer to each Table using APA style (e.g., do not use bold, talics, check and correct capitalisation) Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1) Citations use very good/ APA style (7th ed.). To improve: 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 excellent APA style: Learning features Very good use of learning features Reasonably 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. Reasonably good use of image(s) Basic use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Reasonably good use of case studies or examples Very good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Very good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Use alphabetical order Very good use of external links in the "External links" section Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Social contribution ~14 logged, useful, minor to moderate contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)