MERLOT: The Peer Review Process - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

MERLOT: The Peer Review Process

Description:

Music. Math. Physics. Psych. Teacher Ed. Teaching. w/Tech. World. Languages. Editorial Boards ... Reviewers apply MERLOT standards to write reviews. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:27
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: theresab
Category:
Tags: merlot | peer | process | review

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: MERLOT: The Peer Review Process


1
MERLOT The Peer Review Process
  • George Heake

2
Discipline Communities
Info Tech
Biology
Engineering
Psych
Health Sciences
Teacher Ed
Business
Math
Chemistry
Teaching w/Tech
History
Music
World Languages
Physics
3
Editorial Boards
  • Support development of discipline communities
    (14)
  • Editorial Review Board Members (150)
  • Editors/Co-Editors (25)
  • Associate and Assistant Editors
  • Peer Reviewers (?)

4
Board Qualifications
  • Expertise in scholarship of their field
  • Excellence in teaching
  • Experience in using technology in teaching and
    learning
  • Connections to professional organizations
  • Experience in conducting peer reviews of online
    learning resources

5
Board Responsibilities
  • Expand and manage the collection
  • Implement the peer review process
  • Post peer reviews
  • Recruit and train peer reviewers
  • Education and outreach to the community of
    educators

6
MERLOTs Business Discipline
  • Accounting
  • Business Law
  • Economics
  • E-commerce
  • Finance
  • General
  • Information Systems
  • International Business
  • Management
  • Marketing

7
TYPES OF MODULES
  • Simulations
  • Tutorials
  • Animations
  • Drills Practice
  • Quiz/Tests
  • Lecture/Presentations
  • Collections
  • Reference materials

8
The MERLOT Learning Profile
  • Title, author and affiliation
  • Peer Review Link
  • User Comments Link
  • Type of learning material
  • Location (URL for the module)
  • Subject classification
  • Description
  • Submitter
  • Audience

9
Evaluation Process
  • Stage 1
  • Cursory review to identify worthy modules
  • Post triage comments and triage value online
  • Stage 2
  • Editor assigns worthy materials to reviewers
  • Reviewers apply MERLOT standards to write reviews.

10
MERLOT follows the model of peer review of
scholarship
Individual Review 1
Composite Review
Individual Review 2
11
Evaluation Process
  • Editor sends review to author for feedback and
    permission to post
  • Authors can elect to modify materials and request
    review be modified
  • Authors can request module be pulled from the
    repository
  • Authors can request 2 letters from MERLOT
    summarizing peer review process and report to 2
    people of their choice.
  • Peer review is posted

12
Standard Evaluation Criteria (Strengths
Concerns)
Ease of Use
Potential Effectiveness
Quality of Content
13
Quality of Content
  • Current and relevant
  • Accurate information
  • Clear and concise
  • Informed by scholarship
  • Completely demonstrates concepts
  • Flexibility
  • Integrates/summarizes concept well

14
Potential Effectiveness
  • Specifies learning objectives
  • Identifies prerequisite knowledge
  • Is very efficient
  • Reinforces concepts progressively
  • Builds on prior concepts
  • Demonstrates relationships between concepts

15
Ease of Use
  • Is easy to use
  • Has clear instructions
  • Is engaging
  • Has visual appeal
  • Is Interactive
  • Uses effective navigation techniques
  • All elements work as intended

16
Star Rating System
Excellent all around
Very good w/few minor concerns (4.0-4.9)
Meets/exceeds
standards with some
significant concerns
(3.0-3.9)
Standards not met, some limited value (2.0-2.9)
Not worth using at all (1.0-1.9)
17
Reviews can be developed online through your
workspace
18
The review can be completed in different time
segments
19
To become a peer reviewer, an individual must
  • be an instructor at an institution of higher
    learning
  • demonstrate expertise in the discipline
  • be recognized for excellence in teaching
  • have experience using technology in teaching, and
  • have participated in the activities of the
    discipline.

20
Standards for Scholarly Work
  • Endeavors require high level of discipline
    expertise
  • Breaks new ground and is innovative
  • Is of significance
  • Can be replicated or elaborated upon
  • Can be documented
  • Has the potential to be peer reviewed
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com