Template:MEBF/2023
Marking and feedback template for the book chapter exercise for the motivation and emotion unit. Designed to be transcluded on a chapter talk page.
Simple example
| ||
|---|---|---|
Simple example editSee also detailed example <!-- Official feedback -->
{{MEBF/2023
|1=
<!-- Overall comments... -->
#
|2=
<!-- Overview comments... -->
#
|3=
<!-- Theory comments... -->
#
|4=
<!-- Research comments... -->
#
|5=
<!-- Integration comments... -->
#
|6=
<!-- Conclusion comments... -->
#
|7=
<!-- Style comments... -->
#
|8=
<!-- Learning features comments... -->
#
|9=
<!-- Social contribution comments... -->
#
}}
~~~~
gives Book chapter review and feedback edit
|
Detailed example edit
Example use of the template which includes some commonly provided feedback comments:
<!-- Official book chapter feedback -->
{{MEBF/2023
|1=
<!-- Overall comments... -->
# Overall, this is an excellent chapter. It successfully uses psychological theory and research to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
# 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.
# Overall, this is a reasonably good chapter. It makes good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem.
# Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient chapter
# Overall, this is an insufficient chapter
# A key / The main area for potential improvement is the quality of written expression
# I suspect that some of this chapter is [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Using generative AI|genAI content]]. If so, it violates academic integrity.
# I suspect that the [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment#Assessment items|recommended 5 topic development hours and 45 book chapter hours]] were not invested in preparing this chapter
<!-- Overall – Citations -->
# Excellent/Very good/Reasonably good/Basic use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims
# Use of academic, peer-reviewed citations is lacking in some places (e.g., see the {{fact}} tags)
# Insufficient use of primary, peer-reviewed sources as citations
# Move non-peer reviewed links into the external links section
<!-- Overall – Word count -->
# Well under the [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter#Word_count|maximum word count]], so there is room to expand
# Well over the [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter#Word_count|maximum word count]]. The content beyond 4,000 words has been ignored for marking purposes.
# This chapter "[[wikt:beat around the bush|beats around the bush]]" for ~* words (i.e., too much preamble) before starting to directly tackle the target topic in the section titled "*"
<!-- Overall – Copyedits -->
# For additional feedback, see the following comments and [ these copyedits]
|2=
<!-- Overview comments... -->
# Well developed/Solid/Reasonably good/Basic/Underdeveloped
<!-- Overview – Case study -->
# Engages reader interest via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image
# Engages reader interest via a case study or scenario in a feature box; also include a relevant image
# Engage reader interest via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image
<!-- Overview – Explains problem -->
# Clearly/Briefly explains the problem or phenomenon
# Explain the problem or phenomenon in more detail
# Explain the problem or phenomenon
# Too long. Move detailed content into subsequent sections.
<!-- Overview – Focus questions -->
# Clear/Basic/Insufficient focus questions
# The focus questions could be improved by being more specific to the topic (i.e., the sub-title)
# Use [[w:Open-ended question|open-ended]] rather than [[w:Closed-ended question|closed-ended]] focus questions
# Provide focus questions in a feature box to help guide the reader and structure the chapter
|3=
<!-- Theory comments... -->
<!-- Theory – Breadth -->
# An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
# A very good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
# A reasonably good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
# A basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained
# 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
# Insufficient use of relevant psychological theory about this topic
# The chapter doesn't wander off into discussion of irrelevant theory
# The chapter wanders off into discussion about irrelevant theory
# Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., definitions). Instead, summarise and link to related resources (i.e., other book chapters and/or Wikipedia articles). Increase emphasis on [[wikt:substantive|substantive]] aspects of theory that relate directly to the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
<!-- Theory – Builds on -->
# Builds effectively on related chapters and Wikipedia articles
# Builds reasonably well on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles
# Builds somewhat on previous, related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles
# Builds somewhat on Wikipedia articles; build more strongly on related book chapters
# Builds on one previous, related chapter and/or Wikipedia article
# Build more strongly on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters)
<!-- Theory – Depth -->
# Insightful/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient depth is provided about relevant theory(ies)
<!-- Theory – Tables/Lists/Figures -->
# Effective use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help clearly convey key theoretical information
# Some/Basic use of tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information
# Use tables, figures, and/or lists are to help convey key theoretical information
<!-- Theory – Citations -->
# Key citations are well used
# Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the {{fact}} tags)
# If you didn't consult an original source (e.g., ?), cite it as a [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/secondary-sources secondary source]
# The Reeve (2018) textbook is overused as a citation – instead, utilise primary, peer-reviewed sources
<!-- Theory – Examples -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Some/Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
# One good use of an example to illustrate theoretical concepts. Consider using more.
# Consider using more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
# Insufficient use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
|4=
<!-- Research comments... -->
<!-- Research – Key findings -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/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 {{fact}} tags)
<!-- Research – Critical thinking -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Basic/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
# Claims are referenced
# Some/Many claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the {{fact}} tags)
|5=
<!-- Integration comments... -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient integration between theory and research
# The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research
# Where research is discussed, it is integrated with theory
|6=
<!-- Conclusion comments... -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic summary and conclusion
# Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best available psychological theory and research about the topic
# Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest
# Key points are well summarised
# Summarise key points
# Clear take-home message(s)
# Address the focus questions
# Add practical, take-home message(s)
|7=
<!-- Written expression – Style comments... -->
<!-- Written expression – Written expression -->
# Written expression
## Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic
## Overall, the quality of written expression is OK but there are several aspects which are below professional standard
## Overall, the quality of written expression is below professional standard. [https://www.canberra.edu.au/current-students/study-skills UC Study Skills] assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills
## Some of the written expression is quite abstract, which makes this a difficult read for an unfamiliar reader. Consider ways of simplifying the written expression to make it more accessible to a wider audience. This is the essence of [[w:science communication|science communication]].
## Use active (e.g., "this chapter explores") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter has explored" or "this chapter will explore") [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/active-passive-voice][https://www.grammarly.com/blog/active-vs-passive-voice/]
## The target audience is international, not domestic. [http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/australia-population/ Australians represent only 0.3% of the world human population].
<!-- Written expression – Sentences -->
## Some sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the {{explain}} and {{rewrite}} tags)
## Some sentences are overly long. Strive for the simplest expression. Consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences.
## Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] at the end of the sentence.
<!-- Written expression – Paragraphs -->
## Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences.
## Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences.
## Develop the bullet points into full sentences and paragraphs
<!-- Written expression – Language -->
## Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") perspective[https://www.grammarly.com/blog/first-second-and-third-person/] 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 [[w:Help#Section linking|section linking]]
## Embed direct quotes within sentences and paragraphs, rather than presenting them holus-bolus. Even better, communicate the concept in your own words.
## "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
## Use gender-neutral language (e.g., mankind -> humankind, s/he -> they)
## Reduce use of [[w:weasel word|weasel word]]s which bulk out the text but don't enhance meaning
## Use permanent, rather than relative, time references. For example, instead of "20 years ago", refer to something like "at the beginning of the 21st century". In this way, the text will survive better into the future, without needing to be rewritten.
## Avoid overly emotive language (e.g,. *) in science-based communication
<!-- Written expression – Layout -->
# Layout
## The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections
## Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see {{expand}} tags)
## Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings
## Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional italics and/or bold)
## See earlier comments about [[#Heading casing|heading casing]]
## Provide more descriptive headings
<!-- Written expression – Grammar -->
# Grammar, spelling, and proofreading are excellent
# Grammar
## The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the {{grammar}} tags)
### Consider using a [https://www.google.com/search?q=grammar+checking+tools grammar checking tool]
### Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance
## Check and make [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma/ correct use of commas]
## Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/punctuation/apostrophe-rules.html]
## Check and correct use of [https://www.google.com.au/search?q=grammar+that+vs+who that vs. who]
## Check and correct use of [https://www.google.com.au/search?q=affect+vs.+effect+grammar affect vs. effect]
## Check and correct use of [http://www.colonsemicolon.com/ semicolons (;) and colons (:)]
<!-- Written expression – Abbreviations -->
## Abbreviations
### Check and correct formatting of abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e., etc.)
### Only use abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc. inside [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]], otherwise spell them out
### Use abbreviations sparingly. Do not use abbreviations for minor terms.
### Spell out abbreviations on their first use, to explain them to the reader
### Once an abbreviation has been established (e.g., PTSD), use it consistently aftwarwards
<!-- Written expression – Spelling -->
# Spelling
## Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the {{spelling}} tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages.
## Use [https://www.abc.net.au/education/learn-english/australian-vs-american-spelling/11244196 Australian spelling] (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour)
<!-- Written expression – Proofreading -->
# 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
<!-- Written expression – APA style -->
# APA style
## [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization/diseases-disorders-therapies Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc.]
## Use [[w:Serial comma|serial comma]]s[https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamdavis/the-oxford-comma-is-extremely-important-and-everyone-should]. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBx8ooDupXY Video] (1 min)
## Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented or coined expression" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159)
## "Use quotation marks only for the first occurrence of the word or phrase, not for subsequent occurrences" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159)
## Express numbers < 10 using words (e.g., two) and >= 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99)
## Direct quotes need page numbers – even better, write in your own words
<!-- Written expression – Figures -->
## Figures
### Figures are very well/well/reasonably well/briefly captioned
### Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text
### Use this format for figure captions: ''Figure X''. Descriptive caption in sentence casing. [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Figures|See example]]
### Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text
### 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., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation)
<!-- Written expression – Tables -->
## Tables
### Table captions use APA style or wiki style
### Use APA style for captions. [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Tables|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 italics, check and correct capitalisation)
### Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1)
<!-- Written expression – Citations -->
## Citations use excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/poor APA style (7th ed.). For example:
### 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 [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] (Smith et al., 2020)
### Do not include author first name or initials
### Use ampersand (&) inside [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] and "and" outside parentheses
### List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname
### A full stop is needed after "et al" (i.e., "et al.") because it is an abbreviation of [[wikt:et alii|et alii]]
### Use a comma between the author(s) and year for citations in [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]]
### Select up to a maximum of three citations per point (i.e., avoid citing four or more citations to support a single point)
### Check and correct placement of full-stops
### Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section
<!-- Written expression – References -->
## References use excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/poor APA style:
### Check and correct use of capitalisation[https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization]
### Check and correct use of italicisation
### Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
### Include hyperlinked dois
### Move non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section
|8=
<!-- Learning features comments... -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient use of learning features
<!-- Learning features - Links -->
# Excellent use of embedded in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|interwiki links]] to Wikipedia articles
# Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/One use of embedded in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|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 [[Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Nutrition and anxiety|example]].
# No use of embedded in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|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 [[Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Nutrition and anxiety|example]].
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/One/No use of embedded in-text links to related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|book chapters]]. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
# Use in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|interwiki links]], rather than external links, per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
# Move links to non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section
<!-- Learning features – Images etc. -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of image(s)
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of table(s)
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of feature box(es)
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of case studies or examples
<!-- Learning features – Quizzes -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
# The quiz questions could be improved by being more focused on the key points and/or take-home messages
# 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
<!-- Learning features – See also, external links -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
## Use bullet points per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Rename links per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Also include links to related book chapters
## Also include links to related Wikipedia articles
## Use sentence casing
## Use alphabetical order
## Include sources in [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] after the link
## Move external links to the external links section
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of external links in the "External links" section
## Use bullet points per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Rename links per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Use sentence casing
## Use alphabetical order
## Include sources in [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] after the link
## Move peer-reviewed articles into references and cite
|9=
<!-- Social contribution comments... -->
# ~ logged, useful, minor/moderate/major social contributions with direct links to evidence
# Thanks very much for your extensive contributions
# ~ logged social contributions without [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter#Making and summarising social contributions|direct links to evidence]], so unable to easily verify and assess
# Contributions made across three platforms
# Use a numbered list per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
# No logged social contributions
}}
~~~~
gives
Book chapter review and feedback edit
|
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 edit
Overview edit
Theory edit
Research edit
Integration edit
Conclusion edit
Style edit
Learning features edit
Social contribution edit
|
-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)