CURE Collection Peer Review Rubric

Basic Review Information

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

CURE Entry Title *

Enter the title of the CURE entry being reviewed

Reviewer Name *

Review Date *

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 *

Select the rating that best describes this CURE entry:

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.

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 *

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 *

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 *

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 *

Based on your assessment of the three components above:

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.

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 *

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 *

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 *

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

Check all descriptors that are clearly present in the entry:

Target audience clearly described Duration/timeline provided Core competencies identified Nature of research clearly described

4a. Clarity and Completeness of Description *

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 *

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 *

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 *

Select your overall recommendation:

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

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