Review
Bump index (in parentheses):
1 (lowest): workshop review
2: criteria threshold for inclusion
3 (highest): full on peer review
What about tested in classroom? MARGINS ObsProt...
1 (lowest): workshop review
2: criteria threshold for inclusion
3 (highest): full on peer review
What about tested in classroom? MARGINS ObsProt...
- Cause (2) - http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/cause/devactivities/reviewcriteria.html
This activity was anonymously reviewed by educators with appropriate statistics background according
to the CAUSE review criteria for its pedagogic collection. - comPADRE (2) - http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/compadre/devactivities/reviewcriteria.html
This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process as a part of an activity development workshop. Workshop participants were provided with a set of criteria against which they evaluated each others' activities. For information about the criteria used for this review, see http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/compadre/devactivities/reviewcriteria.html. - CLEAN (3) - http://cleanet.org/clean/about/review.html
This activity has been extensively reviewed for inclusion in the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network's collection of educational resources. For information the process and the collection, see http://cleanet.org/clean/about/review.html. - Cutting Edge (varies) - http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/review.html
Workshop Review (1) - This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process. This review took place as a part of a faculty professional development workshop where groups of faculty reviewed each others' activities and offered feedback and ideas for improvements. To learn more about the process On the Cutting Edge uses for activity review, see http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/review.html.
CE Activity Review (3) - Need Description
MSA Review (3) - This teaching activity was originally published in: Brady, J., Mogk, D. W., and Perkins, D., (editors), 1997, "Teaching Mineralogy," a workbook published by the Mineralogical Society of America, 406 pp. All teaching activities in this volume received two external peer reviews from mineralogy faculty focused on content and pedagogy, and a final review by the co-editors to comply with the publication standards of the Mineralogical Society of America.
- EarthLabs (3) - (Waiting on LDahlman to send final evaluation report to develop page. tagging done, have blurb)
Pilot - This lab activity underwent an extended process of review during development. The review included feedback from a subject matter expert and an education expert, as well as being field tested in a classroom with subsequent interviews and feedback from the classroom teacher. This feedback informed revisions to the activity before its final public release. For more information on the process and instruments involved, see http://serc.carleton.edu/earthlabs/pilot_review.html - ESS Boston (1) - http://serc.carleton.edu/spaceboston/review.html
This activity benefited from feedback from peer teachers and instructors during its development and implementation as a part of the Earth and Space Science professional development course. For more information on the process, see http://serc.carleton.edu/spaceboston/review.html. - EET (3) (incomplete-MGrogan hasn't made the info page to draw blurbs from and enable tagging)
Peer Review - we get 1 or 2 educator reviews and 1 scientist review of an EET chapter. Chapters go live for these reviews and say that they are under review
Workshop Pair - teachers are taught how to use the EET chapter and then we ask that they try it out with students and come back to another online teleconference to share how the implementation worked.
NASA Ed Product Review -
Review Panels - - MacGregor Bioregions (?)
- MARGINS (already done) - http://serc.carleton.edu/margins/protocol.html
Workshop Review -
This activity went through a workshop review process.
This resource was reviewed as part of the May 2009 MARGINS Mini-Lesson Workshop. Each activity received verbal feedback from two participants who had reviewed the activity and activity sheet using these guidelines. Authors revised the activities and activity sheets in response to these comments during the workshop.
Observation Protocol -
This activity went through an observational review process.
This resources was tested in a classroom and feedback was provided using this protocol. The activity was modified in response to the feedback.
- MERLOT (2) - http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/merlot/biology/devactivities/reviewcriteria.html (bio version)
This activity has undergone a peer review process by which submitted activities are compared to a set of criteria. Activities meeting or revised to meet these criteria have been added to the collection. To learn more about the review criteria, see http://taste.merlot.org/evaluationcriteria.html. More information about the peer review process can be found at http://taste.merlot.org/peerreviewprocess.html - MnSCU (1) - http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/pkal/mnscu/sharing_work/virtual_workshop.html
Sharing Our Work - This activity was submitted by an educator in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) System to the Sharing Our Work Virtual Learning Community. Sharing Our Work was the culminating piece of a collaboration between MnSCU and Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL). Information on the the criteria and process of the peer review can be found at http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/pkal/mnscu/activitydesign/index.html.
- PIA (2) - http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/howto/design.html | http://serc.carleton.edu/serc/office_workspace/status_review_b.html
This activity was developed along with a set of web pages about a pedagogic technique. Both the activity and the supporting web pages were peer reviewed by two reviewers prior to being made available to the public. To learn more about the review criteria for this process, see http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/howto/design.html. - Quantitative Skills (varies) - http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/review_processes.html
2004 (1) - This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process as a part of an activity development workshop. Workshop participants were asked to peruse activities submitted by others in their disciplinary group prior to the workshop. The groups then convened early in the workshop to discuss the materials and make suggestions for improvements. To learn more about this review process, see http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/review_processes.html#2004
2005 (1) - This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process as a part of an activity development workshop. Workshop participants were provided with a set of criteria against which they evaluated each others' activities. To learn more about this review process, see http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/review_processes.html#2005
2006 (2) - This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process as a part of an activity development workshop. Workshop participants were provided with a set of criteria against which they evaluated each others' activities. After the review, the authors developed a plan for revising their activities based on the feedback they received from their peers. To learn more about this review process, see http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/review_processes.html#2006. - Teacher Prep (1) - http://serc.carleton.edu/teacherprep/workshops/workshop07/activityreview.html
This activity has benefited from input from faculty educators beyond the author through a review and suggestion process as a part of an activity development workshop. Workshop participants were provided with a set of criteria against which they evaluated each others' activities. For information about the criteria used for this review, see http://serc.carleton.edu/teacherprep/workshops/workshop07/activityreview.html.
- SP1 (already done) -
This resource received a gold-star rating from a Panel Peer Review
This resource received an Accept or Accept with minor revisions rating from a Panel Peer Review process
These materials were reviewed using face-to-face NSF-style review panel of geoscience and geoscience education experts to review groups of resources addressing a single theme. Panelists wrote reviews that addressed the criteria:
- scientific accuracy and currency
- usability and
- pedagogical effectiveness
- Accept
- Accept with minor revisions
- Accept with major revisions, or
- Reject.
Following the panel meetings, the conveners wrote summaries of the panel discussion for each resource; these were transmitted to the creator, along with anonymous versions of the reviews. Relatively few resources were accepted as is. In most cases, the majority of the resources were either designated as 1) Reject or 2) Accept with major revisions. Resources were most often rejected for their lack of completeness to be used in a classroom or they contained scientific inaccuracies. [end hidden']
- SSAC (no response from Len)
adsf
Get from Len and make a page? (emailed 11/12/10)
Show blurb
Hide