|Donald Duck + Mickey Mouse|
You should edit the previous module, not just delete the content and put in your own. Keep the useful parts of the original module.
Please insert equations as, well, equations (not image files). See the FAQ for details on how to (more specifically, follow the link to Rachel Curtis' page from the FAQ).
Read the talk page for your module. It contains reviews and comments from other students and sometimes comments from Prof. Larsen
No, your phase III module has to be one of the three modules you reviewed in phase II. You are obviously not allowed to choose to review your own module.
Pick another module to review instead, just change it on the sign-up sheet. If you choose the empty module for phase III you can still do it, but instead you will then be contructing the first version of the module instead of editing it.
If your module has already been written by another student your job is to improve the module. Do not delete the original module, just edit it. Leave the original list of contributors if it exists and add your name if you want (not required). See next question for how to improve the module.
First ask yourself if you would be satisfied with the module if this was what your textbook. For all modules in the Chem2A section the answer is likely NO. Students tend to write in the format of notes: Short sentences presenting facts and lists of "rules". This is great to remind yourself of topics or as study guides, but it is not the purpose of the textbook. The textbook should put the material into context and EXPLAIN the material. Let me use a made up example dealing with the periodic trends in atomic sizes. The existing module may say:
"The atomic sizes increase going down a group in the periodic table because n increases. Larger n means larger size. The atom size decrease going left to right across a period due to the increased effective charge."
The content is correct, and written in a bulleted form it is a good summary, but is it how you would like your textbook to be? Compare with the two paragraphs in Petrucci on the same topic (bottom of page 319 and first half of page 320), they write almost a whole page on the same topic! There is still plenty of work for you to do, the person before you essentially just made your outline.
In all cases your first job is to avaluate the outline. Look at the modules before and after yours on the sign up list to determine what material your section should cover. For most the outline follows Petrucci, so you can find hints by looking at the equivalent section in the textbook. Make sure the content is presented in a logical order.
Some modules cover a lot of topics, typically with some figures and a few lines of text for each topic. In that case your job is to decide what material belongs. Material that you find too good to delete can be moved to the module you feel it should be in. Post it on the talk page with a comment to the author of that module to let him/her know where it came from. After you have deleted these topics you
If any of the material in the ChemWiki turns out to be plagiarized, the university can face serious legal consequences, which will be passed directly to the primary plagiarizer. Therefore plagiarism will be harshly pursued requiring detailed and clear efforts by all contributors to leave a “construction trail” that proves that the material is original. To enforce this:
Just like an English essay, the proper evaluation of a ChemWiki module is subjective and will be done exclusively via Pyour instructor or assigned reviewer. For good examples of Modules check out the Wall of Fame. The following components are necessary to receive maximal credit:
Please follow the format described here for Phase II reviews
Once granted access the ChemWiki, any student can modify and/or provide comments to any module that is not locked. For a posted comment to count as a “critical comment” and hence sufficient for credit, it essentially has to satisfy one primary aspect: does the comment provide for a meaningful suggestion on how to improve the module outside the obvious. These are real examples of non- critical comments:
“adding additional links would help.”
“I would put some more practice problems up for the readers’ sake.”
“This module is very good, the information is very helpful, and like others have said informative...but I think your organization with your pictures and stuff can be a little better. overall great job!”
“Very nice module. Consider discussing the importance of your topics and what makes them unique”
There are many examples of Comments that are critical existing on the ChemWiki. Often the longer the comment, the more likely it is critical. Here is a real example:
Very informative! Under electronegativity trend, you explained that "atoms at the top of the group have fewer electrons." What electrons are you talking about? Are they valence electron or total number of electron? Because if they are valence, then why doesn’t lithium have a higher electronegativity since it has fewer electrons? Trends are helpful to memorize the basics but they have no emphasis on how they work.
The underlying aspect in the grading of constructed Modules is if an accurate and useful page has been constructed that can aid other students in their education. To accomplish this, the scoring for the ChemWiki will be given via the following criteria:
Proposed Outline: Does the proposed format of the Module represent a sufficient enough description of the topic to convey some reasonable level of understanding to potential readers. Max of 100%
Accuracy: Is the content of the module correct. Incorrect statements significantly reduce this score.
Completeness: Was the proposed outline completed. A solid outline with no completion is a poor Module.
Figures: Are the figures external links to copyrighted material or original? Are they unique and convey useful information to the reader. Are they well designed?
Problems: Are five original problems of differing levels of complexity given (preferably with answers) that test the readers understanding of the information given in the Module?
References: Are non-internet links, non-textbook references given. Actually journals are preferred (e.g. J. Chem. Ed). More references the better.
Formatting: Is the Module a poorly constructed or difficult to read? Does it fit the standard layout used in the ChemWiki (fonts, headings etc)? Are there links to other existing ChemWiki Modules that generate a more constructive and useful Module?
Discretionary Points: Are their additional aspects of the Module that make its stand out among other modules (e.g. homemade videos, original topic, etc.).
You can earn a maximum of 2% for Phase I, 1% for Phase II, and 2% for Phase III. Maximum credit (5%) is enough to bring you up one partial grade step (so for example from a low B to a B+).
You can only sign up for ONE module for phase I . If you sign up for more your name will be deleted from one of them (randomly chosen). You can sign up for THREE Modules for phase II. For full credit you need to review all three of them. For Phase III you pick ONE of the Modules you reviewed in Phase II and edit it exactly the same way as you did for your Phase I Module.
If you are working in a group you can sign up for one module per person in the group for phase I and II. So a group of two people would sign up for two modules, a group of three would sign up for three, and so on. Make sure you put all names on the sign-up sheet so it is clear you are signing up as a group.
You don't have to do anything. Just make sure you are signed up for the module on the sign-up sheet, we can tell what you did on your module (and when you did it).
You don't have to do all three phases. Phase II + III can be done together, or you can choose to do only phase III.
Some modules had two people signed up for phase III, so I deleted the second person (the one who signed up last). Please select another (empty) module.
An NSF funded Project