1. Subject area: Does the content fit within the discipline of ecology?

[ ] 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 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-ecologist who is teaching ecology 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 descriptions (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. Ecological Significance: Is the ecological significance of the activity clearly and accurately explained? Does the description provide any information needed to understand the ecological context?

[ ] Yes.

[ ] It needs better description or minor corrections.

[ ] No. Ecological significance is inaccurate or unclear.

3. Ecological Core Concepts: Are the selected ecological 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 ecological 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 descriptions (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 is 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-Ecological context.
[ ] major [ ] minor-Pedagogical context.
[ ] major [ ]minor- Accessible language.

[ ] Reject.

General comments: