1. MERLOT’s Peer Review Report Composed from reports by at least two Peer Reviewers. Description Section Provides the pedagogical context (i.e. learning goals, target student population, and prerequisite knowledge) for the learning item. Evaluation and Observations Provides the review of the teaching-learning material based on MERLOT’s evaluation criteria.

2. Learning goals Learning goals Target Student Population Target Student Population Features Fields for recommended uses, prerequisite knowledge, and technical requirements are provided. Subject matter First Section of the Peer Review Report: The Overview The Overview contains at least the following five parts: Type of material

3. Menu Next Previous Peer Review Tutorial Quit 5. Type of Material MERLOT categories used to describe learning materials are: 1.SimulationSimulation 2.AnimationAnimation 3.TutorialTutorial 4.Drill and PracticeDrill and Practice 5.Quiz/TestQuiz/Test 6.Lecture/PresentationLecture/Presentation 7.Case StudyCase Study 8.CollectionCollection 9.Reference MaterialReference Material Description >Field 5 of 7 of the Description Section

4. Second Section of the Peer Review: The Evaluations and Observations There are three evaluation standards 1. Quality of Content Validity and significance of the learning material 2. Effectiveness as a Teaching/Learning tool Likelihood of enhancing teaching/ learning 3. Ease of Use Likelihood of successful navigation and interaction.

5. 1. Quality of Content i. Content is accurate and current? ii. Content is a pre-requisite for more advanced material? iii. Content covers material that is difficult to teach/learn? iv. Content stays on target throughout the material? v. Content is flexible and can be readily integrated into curricula?

6. For example… The site is well organized and designed to provide a variety of …. There are clear, accurate, and extensive explanations. An excellent feature is the opportunity to compare compounds and that large problem sets are presented in increasing order of difficult.

7. 2. Effectiveness as a Teaching-Learning Tool The 2nd Evaluation Standard:* Are the materials likely to improve teaching and learning? * Review based on designated type of material (i.e. tutorial or simulation …)

8. 2. Effectiveness As A Teaching-Learning Tool: Learning goals and methods. i. Is the learning material just as effective or better compared to other teaching methods? Is it an innovative, new, original presentation of a concept? “?”“?” ii. Are teaching-learning goals easy to identify? iii. Are concepts, models, or skills presented with clarity, focus, and organization?

9. For example… The items increases potential for enhancing student learning. Computer graphics has made the structures of large complicated biological macromolecules more readily accessible to biochemistry students …. The molecular Models provide some excellent example of how these tools can be effectively used to teach structural concepts in biochemistry. The item can be used in a variety of ways to achieve teaching -learning goals which are easy to identify.

10. 2. Effectiveness as a Teaching-Learning Tool: Motivation to learn and Learning Styles. iv. Does it appeal to multiple learning styles and learning processes? v. Does it engage the learner, create intrigue, or otherwise motivate the learner to achieve? vi. Does it engage multiple senses through audio, video, images, and text?

11. For example… The Cameron Virtual Balloon Factory…: appeals to many learning styles, with options to jump right into descriptions of the business, explanations of theory, or spend time in virtual tours or reading about the staff, engages students with interactive pictures, activities, and interesting stories,

12. 2. Effectiveness as a Teaching-Learning Tool: Learner engagement and feedback viii. If it is interactive, does it provide: - effective interactivity? - immediate feedback regarding the learner’s response accuracy? vii. Is it engaging, interactive, and/or entertaining?

13. 2. Effectiveness as a Teaching-Learning Tool: Conceptual understanding. ix. Does it develop/enhance conceptual understanding? x. Does it provide examples, when appropriate, that help illustrate concepts? xi. Does it have flexibility or versatility of use?

14. 3. Ease of Use The third evaluation standard describes how easy it is for students and faculty to use and interact with the learning material.

15. 3. Ease of Use : Navigation i. Is the site easy to navigate and robust? ii. If it is interactive, does it provide effective feedback for user actions? Will the user know if they are waiting for a response from the system, or if the system is waiting a response from the user? iii. Is it self-contained, or are instructions necessary? For example… “Elemental Spectra” Does take some time to load but once loaded, a quick click-on any element in the Periodic Table displays the absorption or emission spectra of that element. is easy to use and simple, yet functional.

16. 3. Ease of Use : Feedback iv. Are any instructions or “help”, clear, relevant, complete, and available when needed? v. If applicable, it clearly tell users if an error is made, and how the user should continue? vii. Is the presentation clearly designed with no distracting design elements (e.g., color, sound, animation, too much on a page)? viii. Are the terms and any new jargon, defined? For example… An intuitive piece of simulation software Students are not going to get lost because everything is done from one screen

17. 3. Ease of Use : Interface and Layout ix. Interface elements (Labels, buttons, menus and …) and layout are consistent and distinct. ix. Related parts of the site are clearly related, while parts that offer different content areas or audiences distinct? x. Links are provided to easily access required plug-ins for downloading? xi. Are there any major bugs (e.g., links that do not work)? For example This Java Applet does not work with Internet Explorer. There is no visual clue provided for the selected element (i.e no roll-over, no different shading…)