During review training, examples of good and poor citations for the review criteria provide reviewers with a model and help ensure that convincing evidence is collected. The content criterion (Form 2) is particularly improved by giving examples. The quality and quantity of the evidence becomes important in the selection process (Step 4), and is essential in documenting the rigor of the process. A few examples, shown on overhead transparencies during review training, can be effective in getting the point across. Reviewers also appreciate knowing who may be reading their reviews and why.
The lessons that highlight the first part of the standard (the Sun can be seen in the daytime) include shadows and model ships, discussion of the shape of the Earth, tracking shadows, the Earth as a sphere, the part of the Earth that is illuminated by the Sun at any one time. (Problem: the models are not necessarily convincing.)
The lessons do not address why the moon can be seen during the day.
The "lab" model does reinforce that the Earth rotates. (Problem: it very much reinforces the incorrect notion of a geocentric universe.)
Missed opportunity. In the Explorations with the Lab there is potential for a full-scale inquiry (e.g., pick a location anywhere in the world, figure out where it is in relation to the equator, and make up a question on how much daylight it has during a particular season).
The module covers only the relationship of Sun and Earth, and does not develop a model of the Universe; so the moon and stars are excluded.
The shadow tracking sheet seems to be an easy and observable way of collecting analyzable data.
There are many pieces of content that lend themselves to matching this standard.
I'm not a teacher — can't respond.