Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Theory of positive disintegration and personal growth

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 wording and/or capitalisation of the title is incorrect. Be consistent with the book table of contents. The wording and/or capitalisation of the sub-title is incorrect. Be consistent with the book table of contents. 2. Headings Under-developed – needs work (see Tutorial 2) Use more descriptive headings Use sentence casing Adopt closer alignment between the 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 Add a scenario or case study into a feature box (with an image) at the start of this section to help catch reader interest Simplify/abbreviate introductory description - move detail into subsequent sections Present focus questions in a feature box at the end of this section 4. Key points 5. Figure A relevant figure is presented Caption could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text 6. Learning feature Not developed 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 OK 4 out of minimum of 6 references Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? For APA referencing style, check and correct: alphabetical order capitalisation italicisation Do not include location of publisher Check and correct formatting of issue number page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also One of two links provided Use sentence casing Rename links so that they are more user friendly (see Tutorial 02) Also link to relevant Wikipedia pages External links Not developed 9. User page Very good Brief description about self provided – 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. Link provided 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 03:10, 17 August 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 22:08, 21 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 I suspect that some of this chapter is genAI content which hasn't been acknowledged in the edit summaries. If so, it violates academic integrity. The title and/or sub-title wording and casing were not correct (fixed) Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations (e.g., see the tags) Move non-peer reviewed links into the External links section 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 Explains the problem or phenomenon Provide focus questions in a feature box to help guide the reader 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 Builds reasonably well on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Promising depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help 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 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 discussing the direction of relationships 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 Where research is discussed, it is integrated with theory Conclusion Basic summary and conclusion Some points are summarised, but it would be better to address the focus questions and provide practical, take-home message(s) The conclusion is confusing because it raises new ideas that weren't discussed earlier (e.g., self-compassion) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is OK but there are several aspects which are below professional standard Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences. 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 Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead: it is, most often, not needed at all, or use section linking Embed direct quotes within sentences and paragraphs, rather than presenting them holus-bolus. "People" is often a better term than "individuals" Layout The structure is overly complicated; aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Introduction and Conclusion Remove abbreviations from headings Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Grammar The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2] Check and correct use of that vs. who Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) Proofreading Remove unnecessary capitalisation (e.g., Psychologist -> psychologist) APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use serial commas[3]. Video (1 min) Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used ... as slang, or as an invented or coined expression" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159) Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, communicate concepts in your own words Figures Briefly captioned; provide more detail to help connect the figure to the text Use this format for captions: Figure X. Descriptive caption in sentence casing. See example Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text Refer to each Figure using APA style Citations use poor APA style (7th ed.) References use poor APA style: Very weak use of the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic Check and correct use of capitalisation[4] Check and correct use of italicisation Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Move non-peer reviewed links into the External links section Move Wikipedia links into the See also section Acknowledge genAI use via edit summaries per using genAI guidelines Learning features Insufficient 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. Use interwiki links (rather than external links) to Wikipedia articles, per Tutorial 02 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. Move links to non-peer-reviewed sources to the External links section Basic use of image(s) No use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) No use of case studies or examples No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Include sources in parentheses after the link Insufficient use of external links in the "External links" section Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Include sources in parentheses after the link Move Wikipedia links to the See also section Social contribution No logged social contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Resubmission feedback

1. Overall, this is an improved version, but is still insufficient mainly because it is over the maximum word count and lacks integration and relevant research
   1. The resubmission involved major revisions
   2. The chapter is ~500 words over the maximum word count
   3. The structure is overly complex and needs more careful thinking/planning
2. Overview
   1. The opening scenario is difficult for an unfamiliar person to understand
   2. The Overview description of the problem is too long - abbreviate and move detail into subsequent sections
   3. There are no focus questions
3. Theory
   1. Much better use is made of citations
   2. However, there are still claims that lack sufficient citations
4. Research
   1. Some research is now incorporated
5. Integration
   1. Integration of theory and research is slightly improved
6. Style
   1. This has been improved to a basic level
   2. There is some basic acknowledgement of genAI use
   3. APA style is not used for citations (e.g., do not use initials; use et al. for three or more authors)
   4. More proofreading is needed to bring this to a professional standard
7. Learning features
   1. There is some improvement (but this is largely offset by being over the maximum word count e.g., external links not counted)
8. Social contributions
   1. None

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:09, 12 November 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 An opening slide with the correct title and incorrect sub-title is displayed. Also narrate or paraphrase the title and sub-title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest (e.g., by introducing a case study or scenario) A context for the presentation is established Consider asking focus questions that lead to take-away messages. This will help to 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, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of well-targetted content than a large amount of poorly selected content. The presentation makes excellent use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes no use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes no use of examples The presentation provides practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The audio is easy to follow The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Audio communication is well paced Reasonably good intonation The narration is reasonably well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was reasonably good The narrated content is well matched to the target topic but 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 sufficiently large to make it easy to read but could be increased on some slides The visual communication could be improved by including some relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is basically produced using simple tools 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 more consistent Provide a written description of the presentation to help potential viewers decide whether or not to watch Links to and from the book chapter are provided Licensing A copyright license for the presentation is not clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Resubmission comments:

1. Overview
   1. The opening slide is improved
   2. An (overly) long scenario is added at the beginning
2. Content
   1. This has been abbreviated
   2. No use of research
3. Conclusion
   1. A very basic verbal conclusion has been added
4. Audio
   1. No major changes
5. Video
   1. There is greater use of images
6. Meta-data
   1. There are some improvements
7. Licensing
   1. Basic improvements

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)