Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback/2021

This page summarises general feedback about the 2021 student-authored book chapters. Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on its talk page.

Overall

 * 1) The overall quality of chapters was good, but there was a wide range.
 * 2) The best chapters have been tweeted in this thread.

Overview

 * 1) Generally good to very good.
 * 2) A case study or example or image to help engage reader interest.
 * 3) Provide focus questions in a feature box.

Breadth

 * 1) Usually a good range of theory was considered.
 * 2) Sometimes very general theories were used (e.g., Maslow's hierarchy of needs) when more specific theories would have been better.

Depth

 * 1) Usually theories were explained in good depth.
 * 2) More examples would have been useful to explain the theories in practice.

Key findings

 * 1) Usually relevant research was summarised.
 * 2) More emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses would be helpful.

Critical thinking

 * 1) Often there was a lack of sufficient detail about the research reviewed.
 * 2) Sometimes there was insufficient citation to support claims.

Integration

 * 1) There was typically good integration between theory and research.
 * 2) Often there was more emphasis on theory than research - strive for balance.

Conclusion

 * 1) Conclusions were generally very good.
 * 2) Greater emphasis on take-home messages would be helpful.

Written expression

 * 1) The quality of written expression varied widely.
 * 2) The most common problems were grammatical, including:
 * 3) in psychological science, write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person
 * 4) serial commas should be used
 * 5) correct use of ownership apostrophes
 * 6) The main spelling problem was using American instead of Australian spelling.
 * 7) APA style was generally good. The main areas for improvement were:
 * 8) Citations were generally very good
 * 9) For APA style 7th ed., use first author surname et al. when there are three or more authors.
 * 10) References were rarely perfect. Main areas for improvement:
 * 11) capitalisation
 * 12) italicisation
 * 13) use of hyperlinked dois

Learning features

 * 1) Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were very good.
 * 2) Embedded interwiki links to Wikiversity book chapters were very poor. This chapter provides some good examples:
 * 3) "The impacts of COVID-19 on people's motivation have resulted in widespread societal uncertainty ..."
 * 4) "One theory explaining emotional processes for vaccine uptake is protection motivation theory ..."
 * 5) "Fear can also serve as a motivator ..."
 * 6) Images were reasonably well used.
 * 7) Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful.
 * 8) Feature boxes were well used.
 * 9) Quizzes were well used.
 * 10) Case studies were well used.

Social contributions

 * 1) Overall, there were substantial improvements made to past and current chapter by peer authors.
 * 2) The amount and quality of these contributions varied widely - most were rated as minor (.25), followed by moderate (.50), with some considered to be major (1.00+).
 * 3) A small number of students contributed across three platforms (Wikiversity, UCLearn Canvas, and Twitter).
 * 4) Sometimes contributions were claimed, but unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided.
 * 5) A handful of students received social contribution bonus marks, including:
 * 6) * Kait B
 * 7) * LozGrace
 * 8) * U3187741