Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Heart rate variability and emotion regulation

Heading casing

Hi U3239156dej. 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 21:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Initial suggestions

@U3239156dej: Thanks for tackling this topic. Some initial suggestions:

• Check out other related chapters and see how you can build on, link to, and integrate with that work:
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Biofeedback
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Emotional self-regulation
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Physiological
• Also search past book chapters for related topics
• For the topic development, consider:
  • What psychological theory(ies) can help to understand and explain this topic?
  • What is the main research in this area?
• Let me know if I can do anything else to support the development of this chapter.

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, not sure if this is the place to post but you should at the term Heart Rate Fragmentation (HRF)!! U3190194 (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 25 September 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 sub-title are correctly worded and formatted User name removed – authorship is as per the list of topics and the page's editing history 2. Headings Promising 2-level heading structure – could benefit from further development by expanding the structure Be careful to distinguish between HR and HRV in the headings - the topic is HRV Adopt closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings 3. Overview A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box at the start of this section Move the scenario or case study into a feature box to help catch reader interest A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended 4. Key points Excellent – key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations 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 A relevant is presented and captioned It is unclear how the figure relates to HRV and ER Cite each figure at least once in the main text using APA style 6. Learning feature Excellent use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters Promising use of example(s)/case study(ies) Promising use of table(s) Also consider using one or more tables to summarise key information Consider including quiz question(s) 7. References Good Are there any systematic reviews about this topic? For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation italicisation page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also Very good There are two see also sections - merge Use alphabetical order External links Excellent Use sentence casing 9. User page Used effectively Excellent description about self provided 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 One out of three types of contributions made with with direct link(s) to evidence The other two types of contribution are making: comments on chapters posts about the unit or project on other platforms

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:37, 18 August 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 reasonably good chapter. It makes good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. Basic use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims In some places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Over the maximum word count. The content beyond 4,000 words has been ignored for marking purposes. This chapter "beats around the bush" (i.e., too much single-concept description/preamble) before starting to directly tackle the target topic 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 Explains the psychological problem or phenomenon reasonably well Basic focus questions Theory A reasonably good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., about ER). Instead, summarise and link to related resources (i.e., other book chapters and/or Wikipedia articles). Increase emphasis on substantive aspects of theory that relate directly to the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question). Builds reasonably well on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Reasonably good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Promising use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information The tables are lengthy and the chapter is over the maximum word count; consider abbreviating to key info In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Reasonably good use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Reasonably good 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) Basic 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 Basic integration between theory and research Conclusion Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count Reasonably good summary and conclusion Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is basic Some sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the and tags) 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 Layout Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Grammar The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Consider using a grammar checking tool Another option is to use a services provided by UC, such as Studiosity Another option is to share draft work with peers and ask for their assistance Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2] Check and make correct use of commas Abbreviations Once an abbreviation has been established (e.g., HRV), use it consistently aftwarwards Only use abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc. inside parentheses, otherwise spell them out Spelling Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages. Proofreading More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and remove double spaces) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard Remove unnecessary capitalisation APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. 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) Express numbers < 10 using words (e.g., two) and >= 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99) Use serial commas[3]. Video (1 min) Figures Reasonably well captioned Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Tables Table captions use APA style or wiki style Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style Citations use basic APA style (7th ed.). To improve: Make correct use of full steps e.g., (Ernst., 2017) -> (Ernst, 2017) References use very good APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[4] Learning features Very good 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. 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) Promising use of table(s) Reasonably good use of feature box(es) Reasonably good use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Reasonably good 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 Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Excellent use of external links in the "External links" section Use sentence casing Social contribution ~2 logged minor contributions with direct links to evidence ~1 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess. See tutorials for guidance about how to get direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)