Module Review Form

Instructions to the Reviewer: Please provide comments regarding each aspect of the module you have reviewed.

This web form must be filled out in single sitting: if you leave the page before submitting the form its contents will not be saved. So, we encourage you to draft your answers to the questions in a separate document as you review the module. When you're finished just copy and paste your responses into the form and submit it. The text boxes in the form will accept as much text as you care to provide so don't feed constrained by the size of the boxes.

Name of module being reviewed:

Name of module reviewer:

Date (or date range) of Review:

PART I: Module Components

1. Overall, does this module present the specified teaching method in a way that is compelling, engaging, accurate, complete and useful? Please provide suggestions for ways these goals can be better achieved.
Comments:

2. Note that visitors to the Starting Point: Teaching and Learning Economics site may not enter the site at the top-level web page (the "What is" page). With this in mind, comment on the ability of the module's other pages to "stand alone" as self-contained units that make the purpose of the page clear to the reader. Note that multiple links to other pages as supporting information are expected. Identify any page that you believe relies too heavily on the knowledge from other pages and thus does not stand alone. [Note: feedback on this aspect of the module is particularly important!]
Comments:

3. Does the "what" page (or pages) adequately describe the teaching method, how it originated, and how it differs from other approaches to teaching? Identify any key components of the method that you feel are missing or need enhancement.
Comments:

4. Does the "why" page (or pages) make a compelling case for this method? Is the discussion grounded in relevant educational literature (either theoretical or empirical)? Identify any arguments that are currently underdeveloped or missing. What additional information would make the case for use of this pedagogy even more compelling?
Comments:

5. Does the "how" page (or pages) provide sufficient information for faculty to be able to implement the method successfully, particularly when used in conjunction with the examples? What steps might you add to the existing description to make it easier for instructors to adopt/adapt this pedagogy in their own courses, realizing the competing demands for time and effort that all faculty members face?
Comments:

6. For modules which have a page (or pages) dedicated to the "Pedagogic Practice in Economics": Does this page (or pages) make the case for using this pedagogic practice (specifically) in economics and does it provide the scaffolding that supports its use? What additional information would make the case for using this pedagogy even more compelling (i.e. what additional information would you need to adopt/adapt this pedagogy in your own courses)?

7. Are the examples ogical applications of this method? Do they provide sufficient detail so that they could be implemented without an inordinate amount of effort by an instructor?
Comments:

8. Is the material referenced appropriately? Does it include expected papers? Are there unsupported claims? Are there additional references that you would recommend? Are there important pieces of information that are missing? If so, please describe and/or provide the missing references or information.
Comments:

Part II: Overarching Questions

9. Is the content well-written, concise and clear? Can you make specific suggestions for how to convey the information more clearly and concisely?
Comments:

10. Does the module motivate you to read and use its content? Are the content, layout, and graphics engaging? Do they enhance the appeal of the site? How might this be improved to make it more appealing?
Comments:

11. Is the module structured so that you can find information and examples that you are interested in? Does the module contain enough links across pages to supporting information? Are the links and navigation logical? How might the structure be improved to make the site more usable for instructors?
Comments:

12. To what extent does the module encourage visitors to "click through" to other areas of the module? That is, would a visitor to the site be encouraged to look for additional information in the module, independent of where she/he entered (recognizing that most visitors will NOT start at the top-level page in the site – e.g. If they were directed to a page via a search engine)? If not, what suggestions can you provide for increasing the "stickiness" of the site?

Part III: Final Reflections

12. Overall, how could this module be enhanced to increase its usefulness and attractiveness to prospective adopters?

13. Any additional comments?

14. The module should be made available to the public... (select one)

Name Email

« Previous Page