This page summarizes the type of content on the wiki, how to add/edit/flag it, and expectations of quality.

Question Statements

MER Manual
Table of Contents
	Contributors; Lists; MER/Manual; About; Navigation; How To; Quality Control; Design; Installation;

Question statements are stated as closely as possible to their original statements on the exam.

Adding/Editing a question statement

Question pages are automatically generated with a blank question statement box. Just click edit to start adding content to that hint.

Finding Exam Questions

Exams are published on the UBC Math Department website, sorted by course. There should also be a copy linked on an exam page.

Quality control : reviewing a question statement

Once a question statement has been flagged for review (with a RQ flag), a contributor who has NOT worked on that statement can review its content. There are two possible outcomes of the review:

Bad: for a question statement that contains mistakes, typos or formatting errors when compared to the pdf version of the original exam question. In this case, the reviewer has two choices:
- make the appropriate modifications and leave the RQ flag to invite another contributor to review the new work;
- OR leave the work as is and change the RQ flag into a QBQ flag to signal the problem to other contributors. In this case, the reviewer is asked to write the reasons for the bad flag in the discussion page to justify and inform other contributors of his decision and the work that needs to be done.
Good: for a question statement that is correct and well formatted. In this case, the reviewer changes the RQ flag into a QGQ flag.

Hints

Hints are a critical aspects of the MER project. They constitute our attempt to support student learning by encouraging the students to work on the problems on their own instead of simply copying procedures.

Criteria for good hints

A good hint should be:

Something that helps the student move forward with the problem while revealing as little as possible.
Something that focuses on a conceptual understanding of the underlying mathematics instead of highlighting procedural methods.

I added a hint, how do I flag it for review?

When there is more than one hint present, it is worth adding in the discussion page a mention of which hint should be reviewed, and add additional RH flags if appropriate.

Quality control - reviewing hints

Once a hint has been flagged for review (with a RH flag), a contributor who has NOT worked on that hint can review its content. There are two possible outcomes of the review:

Bad: for a hint statement that contains mistakes, typos or formatting errors OR for a hint that doesn't support well student learning (see the criteria for good hints above). In this case, the reviewer has two choices:
- make some modifications and leave the RH flag to invite another contributor to review the new work;
- OR leave the work as is and change the RH flag into a QBH flag to signal the problem to other contributors. In this case, the reviewer is asked to write the reasons for the bad flag in the discussion page to justify and inform other contributors of his decision and the work that needs to be done.
Good: for a hint that is correct, well formatted and support student learning. In this case, the reviewer change the RH flag into a QGH flag.

A third possible outcome would be that the reviewer thinks there should be more hints. In that case, the reviewer can add the hints him/herself and flag appropriately (see above) or make sure that the Question page has an active CH flag and explain what kind of hint you are looking for in the discussion page.

Solutions

Solutions to exam questions constitute the main part of the content this wiki offers to students (for the moment at least). Since our mission is to support student learning, we want to strive for solutions which encourage students to learn and think deeply of their work and the concepts involved with calculus and avoid promoting rote learning and procedural thinking as much as possible.

Criteria for good solutions

A good solution should be:

Simple given the concepts and tools that are available to a typical student.
Clearly highlight the reasoning that is involved in making decisions when solving a problem.
Spend some time discussing how word problems are modelled. This element is critical for students and constitute one of their biggest weaknesses. As such, extra care should be taken to explain and guide students through that step while explaining alternate and equivalent choices which would also work.

I added a solution, how do I flag it for review?

When there are more than one solution present, it is worth adding in the discussion page a mention of which solution should be reviewed.

Quality control - reviewing a solution?

Once a solution has been flagged for review (with a RS flag), a contributor who has NOT worked on that solution can review its content. There are two possible outcomes of the review:

Bad: for a solution that contains mistakes, typos or formatting errors OR for a solution that doesn't support well student learning (see the criteria for good solutions above). In this case, the reviewer has two choices:
- make some modifications to the solution and leave the RS flag to invite another contributor to review the new work;
- OR leave the work as is and change the RS flag into a QBS flag to signal the problem to other contributors. In this case, the reviewer is asked to write the reasons for the bad flag in the discussion page to justify and inform other contributors of his decision and the work that needs to be done.
Good: for a solution that is correct, well formatted AND support student learning. In this case, the reviewer change the RS flag into a QGS flag.

As with hints, the third possible outcome is that the reviewer would like to see an additional solution. The reviewer can either write the additional solution and flag for review (see above) or make sure that the Question page has an active CS flag and explain what kind of hint you are looking for in the discussion page.

Tags

Tags (another use of wiki category flags) allows us to sort and search for questions by topic. It is nice if you can tag questions as you go, but adding topic tags is not required to "finish" a solution.

Adding tags to a question page

Simply add your tag(s) at the appropriate place in the code of the corresponding question page. E.g.

... <!-- WRITE TAGS BETWEEN HERE --> [[Category:MER Tag Set theory]][[Category:MER Tag Prove or disprove]] <!-- AND HERE --> ...

adds the tags Set theory and Prove or disprove to that question. To see which tags can be added to questions, see the tag dictionary below.

After you have added your tags, update the status flag of the question from Category:MER_CT flag to Category:MER RT flag.

Adding a tag to the dictionary

Just use the following creation box to add a new Tag. Please consider the current list of tags before adding a new one.

Create a new Tag
Simply add the title of the Tag at the end of the pre-loaded address in the text-box below (e.g. you add Set theory to obtain for example Category:MER Tag Set theory in the text box.) Naming Conventions Rule 1: All proper nouns get capitalized regardless of where they appear. Rule 2: Tags should always start with a capital letter (uppercase) and the rest of their name should be in lowercase (except for rule 1). Spaces are allowed and recommend when necessary, e.g. Set theory. Rule 3: Respect the spacing of tags; tags need to look like MER Tag Funky topic not MER TagFunkyTopic or MER TagFunky topic etc. . This form loads all the structure of the page; Add content now or later, and click Save page to finalize the creation of this new tag.

Tags Dictionary