WebQuest Evaluation
This template is based on version 1.03 of the WebQuest Rubric as modified by
Laura Bellofatto, Nick Bohl, Mike Casey, Marsha Krill, and Bernie Dodge and last updated on June 19, 2001.

Name: Patricia W. Asor Date: 10/30/01
Title of WebQuest Evaluated:  Welcome to Washington D.C.
URL of WebQuest Evaluated: http://php.iupui.edu/~jcborn/home.htm

 

 Score Explanation

Overall Aesthetics (This refers to the WebQuest page itself, not the external resources linked to it.)

Overall Visual Appeal
(0-4 pts.)

  4 The home page is well organized and visually stimulating.  The page is clear and simple in its presentation of the project.

There are appropriate thematic graphics.
Navigation & Flow
(0-4 pts.)		 4  There is a menu that links the students to each section of the webquest.
Mechanical Aspects
(0-2 pts.)		  2 There are links to resources that will guide the children in completing their task.

Introduction

Motivational effectiveness of Introduction (0-2 pts.)

 1  The introduction is short and to the point. Alittle dry in its presentation.

It states what the expectations are.  I think the introduction could have been presented in a more creative way to excite the children.

Cognitive effectiveness of the Introduction
(0-2 pts.)

 1 The introduction states clearly what the purpose of the webquest is.  It does not build on what the learner might know already.

Task (The task is the end result of student efforts... not the steps involved in getting there.)

Connection of Task to Standards
(0-4 pts.)

 2 The task is age appropriate  in my opinion, but the task is not designed in a way that would make best use of the internet. 

The task is connected to what the students should know at the end.   

The task is information gathering, therefore does not encourage problem solving, or challenge.

Cognitive Level
of the Task
(0-6 pts.)

 0  The tasks simply require the children to compile information on the web and retell it through brochures, posters, presentations, and so on.

Process (The process is the step-by-step description of how students will accomplish the task.)

Clarity of Process
(0-4 pts.)

4

Each step to the process is clear to the students.
Scaffolding of Process
(0-6 pts.)

2

There is nothing in this process that would encourage the child to read more than one attraction site.  Each child can gain knowledge in order to complete the task, but the activities are separate from one another.  There is nothing in the quest that connects the gained knowledge of each child to another.

Richness of Process
(0-2 pts.)

 0

Few steps required.

No separate roles assigned.

Resources (Note: you should evaluate all resources linked to the page, even if they are in sections other than the Resources block. Also note that books, video and other offline resources can and should be used where appropriate.)

Relevance & Quantity of Resources
(0-4 pts.)

  2 There aren't enough resources for each attraction.  Since the goal seems to be strictly information gathering the student can accomplish the task with the resources provided.

Quality of
Resources
(0-4 pts.)

  0 The links are definitely mundane.  The kids do not need a computer for this assignment.

Evaluation

Clarity of Evaluation Criteria
(0-6 pts.)

  3 Criteria for success is partially described.

The proficiency level seems to be subjective.  If a teacher writes, "showed considerable time and effort."  How is she evaluating this?  Some children may spend time on the information gathering and comprehension but might not have the artistic ability to create a nice brochure.

Total Score
(0-50 pts.)

 25  I found the web quest to be disappointing.  What seemed like a great webquest from a visual standpoint, turned out to be a nice assignment for the classroom but not so for a webquest.

There weren't any teacher notes section.  It would have been helpful if a statement of purpose was available to me.

I think for the motivated student they may have explored more than one place, but for the average to weak student there was an easy way out.  The assignment was designed in a way that they really only needed to read about one place.  That wouldn't make them great tourist guides.
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1