Evaluation

Introduction

Assessing WebQuests

Use this rubric to assess your own or another's WebQuest.
  Low
Probably not a WebQuest
Medium
A solid draft
High
Ready for Blue Web'n
Engaging Opening No attempt made to appeal to learners. Honestly attempts to appeal to student interests. Has that something that compels attention.
The Question / Task

Fuzzy Question or Task. Maybe what's asked for is lower level thinking. The Question and Task target higher order thinking, but may not be totally clear. Clear Question and Task. These naturally flow from the introduction and signal a direction for learning.
Background for Everyone
No attempt to access prior learning or build common background. Some mention of addressing a common body of knowledge. (May not happen within the activity.) Clearly calls attention to the need for a common foundation of knowledge and provides needed (Web?) resources.
Roles / Expertise

Roles are artificial or not requiring interdependent teamwork. Roles are clear. They may be limited in scope. Roles match the issues and resources. The roles provide multiple perspectives from which to view the topic.
Use of the Web

This activity could probably be done better without the Web. Some resources reflect features of the Web that make it particularly useful. Uses the Web to access at least some of the following: interactivity, multiple perspectives, current information, etc.
Transformative Thinking
No Transformative thinking. (This is not a WebQuest, but may be a good Treasure Hunt). Higher level thinking is required, but the process for students may not be clear. Higher level thinking required to construct new meaning. Scaffolding is clearly provided to support student achievment.
Real World Feedback
No feedback loop included. The learning product could easily be used for authentic assessment although this may not be mentioned. Some feedback loop is included in the Web page. May include a rubric.
Conclusion

Minimal conclusion. No mention of student thinking or symmetry to intro. Sums up the experiences and learning that was undertaken. Probably returns to the intro ideas.
Clear tie-in to the intro. Makes the students' cognitive tasks overt and suggests how this learning could transfer to other domains/issues.

 
launched june 1, 1998, last updated January 6, 2004
copyright © 1995-2004 ozline.com & tom march
all rights reserved
Task
Process
Resource
Conclusion
Evaluation