# 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

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

## Overview

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

## Theory
### Breadth

* Usually a well selected range of theories was considered.

### Depth

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

## Research
### Key findings

* Usually relevant research was summarised, but could have been more indepth.
* More emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses would be helpful.

### Critical thinking

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

## Integration

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

## Conclusion

* Useful summaries were provided.
* Good emphasis on take-home messages, but could often be improved and made more explicit.

## Style
### Written expression

* The quality of written expression varied.
* Relatively common problems included:
** in psychological science, write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person
** serial commas should be used
** correct use of ownership apostrophes
** "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
** Reduce use of weasel words which bulk out the text, but don't enhance meaning
* The main spelling problem was using American instead of Australian spelling.
* APA style was generally good, especially the use of citations. The main areas for improvement were:
** For APA style 7th ed., use first author surname et al. when there are three or more authors.
** References were rarely perfect. Main areas for improvement:
*** capitalisation
*** italicisation
*** use of hyperlinked dois

### Learning features

* Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were usually very good, but often more could be added.
* Embedded interwiki links to related Wikiversity book chapters were rare.
* Images were well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!).
* Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful.
* Feature boxes were well used.
* Quizzes were well used.
* Case studies were well used.

## Social contributions

* Overall, there were substantial improvements made to past and current chapter by peer authors.
* 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+).
* A small number of students contributed across three platforms (Wikiversity, UCLearn Canvas, and Twitter).
* Sometimes contributions were claimed, but unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided.
* A handful of students received social contribution bonus marks, including:
** Alec.cortez
** U3210431
** U3216389