Peer CURE Review – ACC CURES

CURE Collection Peer Review Rubric

This rubric evaluates Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) based on four key criteria:

Science Practices
Research Elements
Instructional Design
Implementation Feasibility

Basic Review Information

Please provide the following information about your review and the CURE entry being evaluated

CURE Entry Title(Required)

Enter the title of the CURE entry being reviewed

Reviewer Name(Required)

First Last

Review Date(Required)

Criterion 1: Engagement in Science Practices

CUREs should engage students in science practices/core competencies including:

Asking research questions
Developing and using models
Planning and carrying out investigations
Analyzing and interpreting data
Using mathematics and computational thinking
Constructing explanations
Engaging in argument from evidence
Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating scientific information

Criterion 1 Rating: Science Practices Engagement(Required)

Exemplary (3 points)
The description clearly explains the potential for the CURE to engage students in two or more science practices/core competencies.

Good (2 points)
The description explains the potential for the CURE to engage students in at least two science practices/core competencies.

Limited (1 point)
The description does not include sufficient information about the range and types of science practices to be carried out by students, or limits students’ engagement to only one science practice.

Select the rating that best describes this CURE entry:

Evidence and Comments for Criterion 1

Provide specific examples and justification for your rating. What science practices are described? How are students engaged in these practices?

Criterion 2: Inclusion of Research Elements

CUREs should include three distinguishing research elements:

Discovery: Potential to generate novel results unknown to the broader community
Relevance: Results matter to stakeholders outside the classroom and are communicated to them
Iteration: Opportunities for trouble-shooting, problem-solving, building on others’ work, or repeating aspects of work to improve results

2a. Discovery Component(Required)

Excellent
Clear potential for students to make discoveries unknown to the broader community

Good
Some potential for novel discoveries, but scope may be limited

Limited
Unclear if students’ work can generate true discoveries

2b. Relevance Component(Required)

Excellent
Clear stakeholders identified and communication methods described

Good
Some stakeholders identified, but communication methods unclear

Limited
Unclear who the stakeholders are or how results will be shared

2c. Iteration Component(Required)

Excellent
Clear opportunities for trouble-shooting, building on others’ work, or improving results

Good
Some iterative opportunities, but appear limited

Limited
Little to no time for iterative research work

Overall Criterion 2 Rating: Research Elements(Required)

Exemplary (3 points)
The description clearly explains how the CURE is designed for students to make discoveries that contribute to a larger body of knowledge. Stakeholders and communication methods are articulated. Strong iterative opportunities are described.

Good (2 points)
The description explains potential for discoveries, but sharing with stakeholders may be unclear. Some iterative opportunities exist but appear limited.

Limited (1 point)
Insufficient information to determine discovery potential. Unclear audience for results. Little time for iterative work.

Based on your assessment of the three components above:

Evidence and Comments for Criterion 2

Provide specific examples for discovery, relevance, and iteration elements. How does this CURE support authentic research experiences?

Criterion 3: Evidence of Instructional Design

CUREs should demonstrate strong alignment between:

Research and student goals
The tasks students carry out
Assessment methods

The design should ensure:

Full participation
Maximum equity and inclusion for all students

3a. Goal-Task-Assessment Alignment(Required)

Excellent
Clear alignment between goals, tasks, and assessments

Good
Generally aligned, but some aspects could be clearer

Limited
Goals and tasks appear disconnected or poorly aligned

3b. Strategies to Increase Engagement of All Students(Required)

Excellent
Clear strategies for ensuring full participation

Good
Some attention to including all students, but strategies could be more explicit

Limited
Little evidence of strategies to support full participation

Overall Criterion 3 Rating: Instructional Design(Required)

Exemplary (3 points)
Clear, carefully designed tasks aligned with both research and student goals. Strong equity and inclusion strategies. Well-aligned assessment methods clearly described.

Good (2 points)
Tasks relevant to goals but could benefit from greater detail. Some attention to equity. Assessment methods described but could be more specific.

Limited (1 point)
Goals and tasks disconnected. Limited attention to full participation. Assessment methods unclear or poorly aligned.

Evidence and Comments for Criterion 3

Comment on the instructional design quality, alignment of components, and strategies for supporting all students.

Criterion 4: Feasibility of Implementation

Entries should be written to help other instructors understand and potentially adapt or adopt the CURE. This includes:

Clear descriptions
Instructional materials
Assessments
Implementation advice

Essential Descriptors Present

Target audience clearly described

Duration/timeline provided

Core competencies identified

Nature of research clearly described

Check all descriptors that are clearly present in the entry:

4a. Clarity and Completeness of Description(Required)

Excellent
Clear, complete explanation easy to understand and adapt

Good
Generally clear but could benefit from more detail

Limited
Insufficient detail for understanding or implementation

4b. Quality of Supporting Materials(Required)

Excellent
Robust set of materials, assessments, and implementation advice

Good
Some useful materials provided

Limited
Insufficient materials for implementation

Overall Criterion 4 Rating: Implementation Feasibility(Required)

Exemplary (3 points)
Clear, complete explanation with robust instructional materials, assessments, and advice. Abstract provides excellent overview. All essential descriptors present.

Good (2 points)
Sufficient information with some useful materials. Abstract is generally good but could be improved. Most essential descriptors present.

Limited (1 point)
Insufficient information for implementation. Materials inadequate. Abstract unclear or missing key elements. Essential descriptors missing.

Evidence and Comments for Criterion 4

Comment on the clarity of description, quality of materials provided, and overall feasibility for other instructors to implement.

Overall Assessment and Recommendations

Please provide your overall assessment and recommendations for this CURE entry.

Overall Recommendation(Required)

Accept
Entry meets all criteria and is ready for inclusion in the collection

Accept with Minor Revisions
Entry is strong but would benefit from minor improvements

Major Revisions Needed
Entry has potential but requires significant improvements before acceptance

Reject
Entry does not meet the standards for inclusion

Select your overall recommendation:

Summary of Strengths

Highlight the key strengths of this CURE entry

Areas for Improvement

Identify specific areas where the entry could be strengthened

Additional Comments

Any additional feedback or suggestions for the authors