Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Trauma-informed education

Heading casing

Hi U3235191. 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 ~~~~

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 2. Headings See earlier comment about Heading casing Basic, 1-level heading structure – could benefit from further development, perhaps using a 2-level structure Excellent alignment between sub-title, focus questions, and heading structure Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections 3. Overview Very good Put the scenario or case study is presented in a feature box A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided Focus questions are aligned with sub-title and top-level headings 4. Key points Excellent – key points are well developed for each section Very good use of citations Multiple citations should be presented in alphabetical order (APA style) Promising balance of theory and research Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) – more info Conclusion is well 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 One or more relevant figure(s) presented, captioned, and cited Hone the figure caption(s) to provide clearer explanation about how the image connects to key points being made in the main text Figure(s) are cited at least once in the main text Using APA style for figure citations (e.g., see Figure 1 (note, no bold)) 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 one or more case studies/scenarios/examples 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 Very good Well done on identifying relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses Check and correct APA referencing style: italicisation page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) 8. Resources See also Excellent Use sentence casing External links One of two required external links provided Use sentence casing 9. User page Basic May not have completed the exercises demonstrated in Tutorial 02 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-ish out of three types of contributions made with with somewhat direct link(s) to evidence. The other type of contribution is making: direct improvements to other chapters (past or current) comments on the talk pages of other chapters (past or current) 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. Use a numbered list (see Tutorial 02)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:55, 1 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 reasonably good chapter. It makes some good use of psychological theory and basic use research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem. Reasonably good 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) For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Solid Engages reader via a case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image The image lacks an APA style caption and is not referred to in the scenario Explains the psychological problem or phenomenon reasonably well Lack of citation The focus questions are clear Theory A reasonably good range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Less background info about trauma and TIC and more info about TIE would be ideal Builds effectively on chapters and Wikipedia articles Reasonably good depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Use tables, figures, and/or lists to help convey key theoretical information Key citations are reasonably well used In some places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the tags) Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Consider using more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Basic review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal 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 Integration Basic integration between theory and research Conclusion Reasonably good summary and conclusion Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good Some sentences could be explained more clearly 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 parentheses at the end of the sentence. Some sentences are overly long. Strive for the simplest expression. Consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences. Shorter words and sentences are more readable. Try conducting a readability analysis such as via https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/. Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "our") 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 Layout Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional italics, bold, and/or change in font size) Grammar The grammar for some sentences could be improved 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 make correct use of commas Abbreviations 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 Proofreading Remove unnecessary capitalisation – more info APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use serial commas[2]. Video (1 min) Use APA style for direct quote page numbers – need a space after "p." Direct quotes are overused – it is better to communicate about concepts in your own words Figures Some figures lack APA style numbering and captions Some figure captions are overly detailed (e.g., Figure 1) Increase Figure 1 image size to make it easier to read Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., "(see Figure 1)"; do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation) Citations use good/ APA style (7th ed.). To improve: List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname Move non-peer reviewed citations into the External links section; only cite peer-reviewed work References use reasonably good APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[3] Check and correct use of italicisation Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Move non-peer reviewed links into the External links section Learning features Reasonably good use of learning features Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles One 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) Very good use of feature box(es) Basic use of scenarios, case studies, or examples Basic 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 Basic use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Concentrate on the most relevant links Use sentence casing Use alphabetical order No use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution ~1 logged contribution with direct links to evidence ~several other 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. Use a numbered list per Tutorial 02

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)