Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Truth serum drugs

General comments

Hi Damian,

I've read over your chapter so far I really liked your overview scenario and I can see you've done a good job of referencing most of the points that you want to talk about (efficacy and the drugs themselves). You'll want to make sure you find references for the other sections as well. Also you may want to add the scenario into a box with the title scenario.

With your 4 focus questions I can see how they relate to your topic but it might be a bit tight for you to answer them all within the word count so you might want to narrow in a little.

Good luck,

Ari Ubaldo111 (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Heading casing

Hi U3236669. 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 21:31, 30 October 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 (fixed) 2. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Excellent – Well developed 2-level heading structure. Meaningful headings clearly relate directly to the core topic. Excellent alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and heading structure Use default heading formatting (i.e., avoid bold, italics, underline, changing the size etc.) 3. Overview Very good A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box at the start of this section Add an image to the scenario to help attract reader interest A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Focus questions are aligned with sub-title and top-level headings 4. Key points Basic development of key points for each section Lack of relevant 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 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 Excellent - One or more relevant figure(s) is/are presented, captioned, and cited The figure caption(s) provide(s) a clear, appropriately detailed description that is meaningfully connected with the main text Figure(s) are cited at least once in the main text 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 Consider including one or more quiz question(s) about the take-home messages 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 Only include references which have been accessed and read Check and correct APA referencing style: include hyperlinked dois Remember that the goal is to identify and use the best academic theory and research about this topic 8. Resources See also Excellent External links Very good Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order 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. Add link to book chapter 10. Social contribution Two out of three types of contributions. The other type of contribution is making: comments on the talk pages of other chapters (past or current) posts about the unit or project on other platforms such as the UCLearn discussion forum or on X using the #emot24 Credit is only given for edits which link to direct evidence. 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.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Usage of scenarios

Hey Damian

Had a read over your page and I think it has a lot of potential, but due to the large amount of knowledge on the page, I would really recommend using scenarios with your sections, or examples from real life, so the gravity or weight of the points you're raising, and namely the effectiveness/danger of these drugs really sets in. Outside of that, I think having more images would make it really nice, and would help with the layout.

Hope this helps!

TD TJDuus (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 25 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 a basic chapter I suspect that some of this chapter is based on unacknowledged use of genAI content; if so, it violates academic integrity principles Questionable use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims (e.g., many citations are not in the References). This may be an indicator of unacknowledged genAI use and/or poor attention to detail. 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 with a relevant image Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon The focus questions are clear and relevant Theory A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds effectively on other chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Some use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Reasonably good 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? In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Reasonably good 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 Reasonably good integration between theory and research Conclusion Reasonably good summary and conclusion Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic; whilst promising, it seems to be overly reliant on unacknowledged genAI content with insufficient human checking/rewriting Layout Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) 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) See earlier comments about heading casing 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 Remove unnecessary capitalisation – more info APA style Use serial commas[1]. 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 Style 7th ed., 2020, p. 159) Figures Reasonably well captioned Use this format for captions: Figure X. Descriptive caption goes here in sentence casing. See example. Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., "(see Figure 1)") Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., "(see Figure 1)"; do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation) Citations and references do not match References use poor APA style e.g.,: Check and correct use of capitalisation[2] Check and correct use of italicisation Check and correct formatting of author names Move non-peer reviewed links into the External links section Learning features Basic use of learning features Very 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 figure(s) No use of table(s) Reasonably good use of feature box(es) Reasonably good use of scenarios, case studies, or examples No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Insufficient use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Rename links per Tutorial 02 Use alphabetical order Add more links Insufficient use of external links in the "External links" section Rename links per Tutorial 02 Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order Social contribution ~10 logged, useful, mostly moderate contributions with mostly direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:31, 30 October 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 an excellent presentation The presentation is under the maximum time limit (3 mins), so there was room for further development Overview The opening conveys the purpose of the presentation in a basic way Very engaging introduction to hook audience interest A context for the presentation is clearly established through an example 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 An appropriate amount of content is presented — not too much or too little The presentation makes excellent use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes basic use of relevant psychological research The presentation makes no use of citations to support claims The presentation makes very good use of one or more examples The presentation provides useful practical advice The presentation provides easy to understand information Conclusion The conclusion provides an very good summary of the most relevant psychological theory and research about this topic The conclusion provides excellent take-home message(s) Audio The audio is easy to follow and interesting to listen to The presentation makes effective use of narrated audio Audio communication is well-paced Very good intonation The narration is well practiced and/or performed Audio recording quality was excellent The narrated content is well matched to the target topic Video Overall, visual display quality is excellent The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read Consider using a sans-serif typeface to make the text easier to read The amount of text presented per slide makes it easy to read and listen at the same time The visual communication is supplemented in an excellent way by relevant video, images, and/or diagrams The visual communication could be improved by including relevant images and/or diagrams The presentation is very well produced The visual content is well matched to the target topic Meta-data The correct title and sub-title (or an abbreviation to fit within the 100 character limit) are used in the name of the presentation — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Expand. An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided (maybe because the YouTube user account doesn't have advanced features) A link from the book chapter is provided Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are communicated A copyright license for the presentation is clearly indicated

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)