Skip to main content
Chemistry LibreTexts

Phase I: Construction

Students have the choice of one of two methods to get up to 5% (7% in some classes) credit:

  1. Create and build a module from scratch (i.e. isn't already started)
  2. Continue the development of an existing module

The evaluation of students' effort is different depending on which method is applicable. However, scores will be based on performance and effort; getting a good grade via improving an already established Module requires the same effort as from a constructing a new Module. Please select a ChemWiki module topic below by typing your name next to the topic you desire below. If the module exists, your job is to improve it with this template and from the knowledge gain in this class and outside research. 

  • If the Module you selected does not exist, then you should follow the credit guidelines below and follow as much of the template Module as possible.
  • If the Module you selected is already partially written, then you will be getting credit based on how much you improved the module again to follow the standards outlined below. No Module is too good to not be improved appreciably at this stage.
  • If a Module topic does not exist that you are interested in, please contact dlarsen@ucdavis.edu to get authorization. 

Students participating in Phase I credit must certify the following declaration:

Mandatory for credit: I declare that all text and figures I amended in the ChemWiki for extra credit are original and/or made by myself. I also understand that including such unoriginal content constitutes plagiarism and potential copyright infringement. To receive credit, partial construction files of the all figures must be provided on your ChemWiki home page (will be constructed for you), unless figures are prepared in an advanced program like powerpoint, Coreldraw, printshop etc and then I need only the final file for review.

For maximal credit for Phase I:

  1. Start early! Start now.
  2. Each module is unique in its optimal approach, hence each Module will look different and it is up to the author(s) to construct or present it in a manner useful to other students. The current model format can be viewed here.
  3. Just like an English essay, the proper evaluation of a ChemWiki module is subjective and will be done exclusively via your instructor or assigned reviewer. For good examples of Modules check out the Wall of Fame. The following components are necessary to receive maximal credit:
  4. A full credit module will have a clear, brief and accurate description of the topic. It should be something a person who has almost no previous knowledge of the subject should be able to read, understand and learn something from.
  5. Do not use contractions (e.g. doesn't isn't). Use somewhat formal English and tone.
  6. It should have appropriate pictures, equations, and links to internal sites (other ChemWiki modules)
  7. If appropriate, include a section with links to external sites that relates to your topic (for example youtube videos, virtual experiments, wikipedia).
  8. It should have references. References should include textbooks and journal articles (which will definitely be noticed); NO websites in the reference section!
  9. Include FIVE worked out example problems and/or practical examples of your topic of varying levels of complexity
  10. Since the goal of the ChemWiki is to provide an opportunity for students to read and learn the subject via modules written by many students, it required to receive maximal extra credit to provide critical comments about development/progress of other students’ modules (»5).

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 aspects:

  • 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. Max 100%
  • Completeness: Was the proposed outline completed. A solid outline with no completion is a poor Module. Max 100%
  • 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 TWO 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.).