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: Mindy Rubinlicht |
Date: April 12, 2004 |
| Title WebQuest
Evaluated: Still Got The
Blues |
|
| URL of WebQuest Evaluated: http://olkovikas.tripod.com/bluesquest/ | |
|
|
Score | Explanation |
|
Overall Aesthetics (This refers to the WebQuest page itself, not the external resources linked to it.) |
||
|
Overall Visual Appeal |
2.5 | The webquest was not as visually
appealing to a high school music appreciation class |
| Navigation
& Flow (0-4 pts.) |
3 | Not every link works , but
there are links for the students and teachers. |
| Mechanical
Aspects (0-2 pts.) |
3 | Not every link works, and very easy
to follow. Some pictures did not load up on the opening page, but it
may be my explorer. |
|
Introduction |
||
|
Motivational effectiveness of Introduction (0-2 pts.) |
1.5 | It includes very historical aspects,
but motivational for high school students |
|
Cognitive effectiveness of the Introduction |
2 | Very well written and provokes
thinking as to what the WebQuest will entail. |
|
Task (The task is the end result of student efforts... not the steps involved in getting there.) |
||
|
Connection of Task to Standards |
4 | The students are creating,
listening, and relating in every task they are assigned. This task is
very good for high school students because it connects many aspects of
their curriculum. |
|
Cognitive Level |
5 | Some of the things like creating a
magazine may seem a little elementary to high school students, but the
task will really teach these students what the BLUES are all about! |
|
Process (The process is the step-by-step description of how students will accomplish the task.) |
||
|
Clarity of Process |
4 | The process is really clear and
inclues many links for each task and each person responsible for that
task. |
| Scaffolding of Process (0-6 pts.) |
4 | The process is organized by groups and each student is in charge of one aspect of the final task. I understand it would be hard for each person to research each aspect, but I'm worried that every student in the groups will not really understand what the other students in the group have researched. |
|
Richness of Process |
1.5 | The creator has included many links
for each person's job in the group. I like the idea of links being
created, but I feel that students should be able to do their own
research instead of the teacher including links which directly send
them to the asnwers. |
|
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 |
3.5 | Besides some of the links not
working, every link had so much information relating to the task at
hand. I really enjoyed the amount of links listed. There were links
within links, therefore students had more than enough information to do
the task. |
|
Quality of |
4.0 | These links were great and came from great sources and universities. |
|
Evaluation |
||
|
Clarity of Evaluation Criteria |
5 | The rubric is very clear and included the standards for that specific state. It was well written. |
|
Total Score |
43 | This in general was a great webquest. Besides some missing links and loading problems, this could be a great resource for your classroom |