|
The original rubric on which this one was based was created on January 18, 1998 by Bernie Dodge. Dodge and his collegues updated the rubric on June 19, 2001. Modifications based on the 1998 version were made by...
Kevin O'Neill on March 6, 2001
Cheryl Amundsen in May 2001
Laura D'Amico in October 2001 (also informed by the June 19, 2001 version)
Kevin O'Neill on Feb 7, 2002
Total: 20 points
Technical aspects (4 points total): Ease of use, layout, readability
|
0
|
Not all links work. Graphic requirement is not met. There may be some spelling or grammatical errors. Color scheme may be garish, distracting or difficult to read. Text layout prevents optimal readability. Navigating the page and getting through the lesson may be confusing. |
|
1-2
|
All links work and graphic requirement is met. There may be spelling or grammatical errors and/or text layout prevents optimal readability and/or the color scheme may be garish, distracting or difficult to read. There may be places where the learner can get lost and not know what to do next. |
|
3-4
|
All links work and graphic requirement is met. Layout of page is clear and easy to both read and follow. Color scheme and design are asthetically pleasing. Navigation is seamless and it is clear to the learner how to work through the WebQuest. |
Introduction (2 points total): Effectiveness of Introduction
|
0
|
The introduction is not relevant to student interests or generally motivating. Introduction doesn't prepare the reader for what is to come. |
|
1
|
The introduction relates somewhat to student interests and/or describes a compelling question or problem. Previews to some extent what the lesson is about. |
|
2
|
The introduction draws the student into the lesson by relating to interests or goals and/or engagingly describing a compelling question or problem. Effectively prepares the learner for the lesson by foreshadowing new concepts and principles. |
Task (4 points total): Cognitive level of the task
(The task is the end result of the students' efforts . . . not the steps involved in getting there.)
|
0
|
Task requires simply comprehending webpages and answering factual questions. The task is not related to standards (i.e. learning outcomes as described in the IRP's). |
|
1-2
|
Task requires analysis of information and/or putting together information from several sources. The task is referenced to standards (i.e. learning outcomes as described in the IRP's), but does not clearly indicate what students must know and be able to do to achieve profiency related to those standards. |
|
3-4
|
Task elicits thinking that goes beyond rote comprehension -- it requires synthesis of multiple sources of information, and/or taking a position, and/or going beyond the data given and making a generalization or creative product. The task clearly indicates what students must know and be able to do to achieve proficiency related to standards (i.e. learning outcomes as described in the IRP's). |
Process (2 points total): Clarity and richness of the process
(The process is the step-by-step description of how students will accomplish the task.)
|
0
|
Process is not clearly stated. The activities described are of little significance to one another and/or to the accomplishment of the task. Students are not provided with strategies or organizational tools to support learning the knowledge they need to accomplish the task. Students would not know exactly what they were supposed to do. |
|
1
|
Some directions are given, but there is missing information. Some activities are not related to the accomplishment of the task. Strategies and organizational tools provided may not be adequte to support learning the knowledge students need to accomplish the task. Students might be confused. |
|
2
|
Every step is clearly stated. Activities are clearly related to one another and the overall task. Strategies and organizational tools embedded in the process support students from different entry levels to gain knoweldge needed to complete the task. Most students would know exactly where they were in the process and what to do next. |
Resources (4 points total): Quantity and quality of resources
(All resources linked to the page will be evaluated -- even those in sections other than "Resources". Books, video and other off-line resources should be used where appropriate.)
|
0
|
Less than the required number of on-line resources used and/or on-line resources are trivial, mundane, containing information easily found in an ordinary classroom. |
|
1-2
|
Required number of on-line resources. Most links are tightly focused with the learning outcomes. Some on-line resources contain information not ordinarily found in a classroom. |
|
3-4
|
Includes on-line and off-line resources which are all tightly focused with the learning outcomes. On-line resources provide data, information or perspectives generally not available in the classroom and/or best presented in an on-line medium. |
Evaluation (2 points total): Clarity of evaluation criteria
|
0
|
Students have no idea on how they'll be judged. |
|
1
|
Criteria for success are at least partially described. |
|
2
|
Criteria for levels of success are clearly stated, perhaps in the form of a rubric for self-, peer-, or teacher use. The evaluation instrument clearly measures what students must know and be able to do to accomplish the task. |
Conclusion (2 points total):
|
0
|
Does not summarize what was learned and/or accomplished from the task. |
|
1
|
Summarizes what was learned and/or accomplished from the task. |
|
2
|
Summarizes what was learned and/or accomplished from the task and provides questions or comments (which might possibly be used in class discussion) to help students reflect upon, extend and/or generalize what was learned. |
|