Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback/2022

This page summarises general feedback about the 2022 student-authored book chapters. Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on the respective talk pages.

Overall

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

Overview

 * 1) Generally very good.
 * 2) Consider using a case study or example or image to help engage reader interest.

Breadth

 * 1) Usually a well selected range of theories was considered.

Depth

 * 1) Usually theories were explained in reasonably good depth.
 * 2) More examples could be useful to explain the theories in practice.

Key findings

 * 1) Usually relevant research was summarised, but could have been more indepth.
 * 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) Useful summaries were provided.
 * 2) Good emphasis on take-home messages, but could often be improved and made more explicit.

Written expression

 * 1) The quality of written expression varied.
 * 2) Relatively common problems included:
 * 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) "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
 * 7) Reduce use of weasel words which bulk out the text, but don't enhance meaning
 * 8) The main spelling problem was using American instead of Australian spelling.
 * 9) APA style was generally good, especially the use of citations. The main areas for improvement were:
 * 10) For APA style 7th ed., use first author surname et al. when there are three or more authors.
 * 11) References were rarely perfect. Main areas for improvement:
 * 12) capitalisation
 * 13) italicisation
 * 14) use of hyperlinked dois

Learning features

 * 1) Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were usually very good, but often more could be added.
 * 2) Embedded interwiki links to related Wikiversity book chapters were rare.
 * 3) Images were well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!).
 * 4) Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful.
 * 5) Feature boxes were well used.
 * 6) Quizzes were well used.
 * 7) 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) * Alec.cortez
 * 7) * U3210431
 * 8) * U3216389