# Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Feedback

* General feedback about the 2024 student-authored book chapters
* Detailed feedback about each individual chapter is available on the respective talk pages

## Overall

* The overall quality of chapters was reasonably good, but there was a very wide range
* The main issues were:
** Unacknowledged and low-level use of genAI
** Insufficient review of research
** Lack of social contributions

## Overview

* The best overviews consisted of:
** A scenario/case study in a feature box with a relevant image
** A simple, evocative description of the psychological problem or phenomenon
** Clear and relevant focus questions in a feature box

## Theory

* Usually a well selected range of theories were considered
* Weaker chapters tended to use more general theories; stronger chapters tended to identify more specific theories
* Usually theories were explained in reasonably good depth, but theoretical depth was often a key differentiator between chapters
* Most chapters could be improved by building more strongly on related chapters (i.e., by embedding links from the first mention of key words to other chapters)
* Often more practical examples would have been useful to demonstrate how theories work in practice

## Research

* Sometimes relevant research was summarised, but could often have been more indepth
* Place more emphasis on major reviews such as meta-analyses
* Sometimes there was insufficient citation to support claims

## Integration

* There was reasonably good integration between theory and research
* However, there was often there was more emphasis on theory than research — strive for balance

## Conclusion

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

## Style
### Written expression

* Overall, the quality of written expression was reasonably good, but this varied widely
* Some of the most common problems were:
** poor grammar — there's so many ways these days to get help to improve grammar towards a more professional standard
** lack of sufficient citation — it is problematic in science communication to make claims without clarifying the evidence on which they are based
** write using 3rd person perspective, rather than 1st person
** serial commas should be used (they are part of APA style)
** use of ownership apostrophes
** "People" is often a better term than "individuals"
** 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.
* Use Australian spelling.
* The main areas for improving APA style were:
** Citations with three or more authors should use the first author's surname followed by et al. and the year
** Reference formatting areas for improvement:
*** capitalisation
*** italicisation
*** use of hyperlinked dois

### Learning features

* Embedded interwiki links to Wikipedia articles were underdone; more could be usefully added to most chapters
* Embedded interwiki links to related Wikiversity book chapters were very underutilised — this was disappointing because key to this exercise is situating the chapter within the related network of chapters
* Images were reasonably well used, with several students uploading their own images (thankyou!)
* Tables were less commonly used, but were usually very useful
* Feature boxes were generally well used
* Quizzes were generally well used
* Scenarios/case studies were reasonably well used, but often more examples would have been helpful

## Social contributions

* There were many valuable improvements made to past and current chapters
* The amount and quality of contributions varied widely - some students made no contributions whilst some excelled and were awarded bonus marks
* Unless there were direct links to evidence, no marks were provided