Skip Navigation

EcoEdDL

Home Browse Resources Submission Instructions About Help Advanced Search

Review Criteria: Learning Activities

Overview of Submission Guidelines 

Author Guidelines: Learning Activities

 

 

 

Reviewer Form: Learning Activities

Download Review Criteria for Learning Activities (.docx)

Please indicate the quality of the submission and provide comments in each major section.
If your answer is “no,” please explain why in the comment section.

PART 1. Review Document 1. Characteristics of the uploaded activity document

1. Subject area: Does the content fit within the discipline of ecology, botany, or evolution?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Partially.

[    ] No. It is more closely related to another discipline.

2. Scientific content:  Does the content address an issue or concept of significance in ecology, botany, or evolution clearly and accurately?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It requires some editing or needs additional information.

[    ] No. There are errors that need to be corrected.

3. Teacher instructions: Is the procedure for instructors clear, organized, and complete? If applicable, is there a complete materials list?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It requires some editing or needs additional information.

[    ] No. The instructions are incomplete.

4. Student instructions: Is the procedure for students clear and complete? If applicable, are prerequisite student knowledge and skills listed?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It requires some editing or needs additional information.

[    ] No. The instructions are incomplete.

5. Time Frame: Does the time required for the major parts of the activity (both instructor preparation and student procedure) seem reasonable?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] The timeframe needs some editing.

[    ] No. The timeframe required is vague or seems unrealistic.

6. Safety: Are any applicable safety issues addressed?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Some safety issues need clarification.

[    ] No. An important safety issue is not addressed.

7. Student engagement: Is the resource designed to actively engage students?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It involves some active engagement.

[    ] No. It does not actively engage students.

8. Innovation: Does the activity present new concepts or meet learning objectives in a new way?  Note: not required but encouraged.

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It includes something new.

[    ] No. It does not include anything new.

9. Accessible language: Is the language used in the resource worded so that a non-specialist who is teaching a discipline focused course can understand them? Are any specialized terms defined?

[    ] Yes.

 

[    ] There are one or two undefined specialized terms.

[    ] No. There is significant use of jargon.

Comments on the uploaded activity document:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART 2. Review Document 2. Characteristics of the submitted descriptions (metadata)

 

A. Ecological / Botanical / Evolutionarydescriptions (metadata)

 

1. Title: Is the title accurate? It is descriptive enough to be helpful when someone searches for resources?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs better description or minor corrections.

[    ] No. It does not reflect the submission.

2. Biological Significance: Is the significance of the activity, as related to the disciple of ecology, evolution or botany, clearly and accurately explained? Does the description provide any information needed to understand the ecological, botanical or evolutionary context?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs better description or minor corrections.

[    ] No. Biological significance is inaccurate or unclear.

3. Core Concepts: Are the selected ecological, botanical or evolutionary concepts appropriate for the resource? Are these the categories where you would expect to find the resource if you were browsing?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] One concept should be changed.

[    ] These categories are not where I would expect to find this resource.

4. Keywords: Are the selected concepts appropriate for the resource? Are these the categories where you would expect to find the resource if you were browsing?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] One keyword should be changed.

[    ] These keywords are not where I would expect to find this resource.

Comments on Ecological / Botanical / Evolutionarydescriptions (metadata):

 

 

B. Pedagogical descriptions (metadata)

1. Audience level: Is the activity appropriate for the intended education level(s)?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] Somewhat. It would be useful for some students at this level(s).

[    ] No. It’s inappropriate for students at this education level(s).

2. Ways to use this learning resource: Does the author briefly summarize how the activity can be used effectively in the classroom? Is it clear what concepts and/or skills students should learn during the activity?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] It needs more detail or some edits for clarity.

[    ] No. Classroom use is inadequately described or very unclear.

3. Learning Objectives: Are learning objectives clearly stated? Does the resource as it is conceived and presented help instructors and/or students achieve these objectives?

[    ] Yes.

[    ] They are somewhat unclear or unsupported by the activity.

[    ] No. The activity does not seem to support the learning objectives, or they are not clearly stated.

Comments on pedagogical descriptions (metadata):

 

 

 

Do you suggest any change to the keywords provided by the author?

 

 

 

Reviewer recommendation:

[    ] Accept.

           [    ]  Accept, pending revisions:

                    [   ] major    [   ] minor     Main characteristics.

                    [   ] major    [   ] minor     Biological Context.

                    [   ] major    [   ] minor     Pedagogical context.

                    [   ] major    [   ] minor     Accessible language.

[    ] Reject.

General comments:

             

 

Log In:





OR