A Rubric for Evaluating WebQuests
The WebQuest format can be applied to a
variety of teaching situations. If you take advantage of all the possibilities
inherent in the format, your students will have a rich and powerful experience.
This rubric will help you pinpoint the ways in which your WebQuest isn't doing
everything it could do. If a page seems to fall
between categories, feel free to score it with in-between points.
|
|
Beginning |
Developing |
Accomplished |
Score |
|
Overall
Aesthetics (This
refers to the WebQuest page itself, not the external resources linked to it.) |
||||
|
Overall Visual Appeal |
0 points There are few or no
graphic elements. No variation in layout or typography. OR Color is garish and/or
typographic variations are overused and legibility suffers. Background
interferes with the readability. |
2 points Graphic elements
sometimes, but not always, contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas
and relationships. There is some variation in type size, color, and layout. |
4 points Appropriate and
thematic graphic elements are used to make visual connections that contribute
to the understanding of concepts, ideas and relationships. Differences in
type size and/or color are used well and consistently. |
2 |
|
Navigation & Flow |
0 points Getting through the
lesson is confusing and unconventional. Pages can't be found easily and/or
the way back isn't clear. |
2 points There are a few places
where the learner can get lost and not know where to go next. |
4 points Navigation is seamless.
It is always clear to the learner what all the pieces are and how to get to
them. |
4 |
|
Mechanical Aspects |
0 points There are more than 5
broken links, misplaced or missing images, badly sized tables, misspellings
and/or grammatical errors. |
1 point There are some broken links,
misplaced or missing images, badly sized tables, misspellings and/or
grammatical errors. |
2 points No mechanical problems
noted. |
4 |
|
Introduction |
||||
|
Motivational Effectiveness of Introduction |
0 points The introduction is
purely factual, with no appeal to relevance or social importance OR The scenario posed is transparently
bogus and doesn't respect the media literacy of today's learners. |
1 point The introduction
relates somewhat to the learner's interests and/or describes a compelling
question or problem. |
2 points The introduction draws
the reader into the lesson by relating to the learner's interests or goals
and/or engagingly describing a compelling question or problem. |
1 |
|
Cognitive Effectiveness of the Introduction |
0 points The introduction
doesn't prepare the reader for what is to come, or build on what the learner
already knows. |
1 point The introduction makes
some reference to learner's prior knowledge and previews to some extent what
the lesson is about. |
2 points The introduction builds
on learner's prior knowledge and effectively prepares the learner by
foreshadowing what the lesson is about. |
1 |
|
Task (The task is the end result of
student efforts... not the steps involved in getting there.) |
||||
|
Connection of Task to Standards |
0 points The task is not related
to standards. |
2 point The task is referenced
to standards but is not clearly connected to what students must know and be
able to do to achieve proficiency of those standards. |
4 points The task is referenced
to standards and is clearly connected to what students must know and be able
to do to achieve proficiency of those standards. |
4 |
|
Cognitive Level of the Task |
0 points Task requires simply
comprehending or retelling of information found on web pages and answering
factual questions. |
3 points Task is doable but is
limited in its significance to students' lives. The task requires analysis of
information and/or putting together information from several sources. |
6 points Task is doable and
engaging, and elicits thinking that goes beyond rote comprehension. The task
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. See WebQuest Taskonomy. |
6 |
|
Process
(The process is
the step-by-step description of how students will accomplish the task.) |
||||
|
Clarity of Process |
0 points Process is not clearly
stated. Students would not know exactly what they were supposed to do just
from reading this. |
2 points Some directions are
given, but there is missing information. Students might be confused. |
4 points Every step is clearly
stated. Most students would know exactly where they are at each step of the
process and know what to do next. |
2 |
|
Scaffolding of Process |
0 points The process lacks
strategies and organizational tools needed for students to gain the knowledge
needed to complete the task. Activities are of
little significance to one another and/or to the accomplishment of the task. |
3 points Strategies and
organizational tools embedded in the process are insufficient to ensure that
all students will gain the knowledge needed to complete the task. Some of the activities
do not relate specifically to the accomplishment of the task. |
6 points The process provides
students coming in at different entry levels with strategies and
organizational tools to access and gain the knowledge needed to complete the
task. Activities are clearly
related and designed to take the students from basic knowledge to higher
level thinking. Checks for
understanding are built in to assess whether students are getting it. See: |
6 |
|
Richness of Process |
0 points Few steps, no separate roles assigned. |
1 points Some separate tasks or roles assigned. More complex
activities required. |
2 points Different roles are assigned to help students understand
different perspectives and/or share responsibility in accomplishing the task. |
2 |
|
Resources (Note: you should evaluate all
resources linked to the page, even if they are in sections other than the
Process block. Also note that books, video and other off-line resources can
and should be used where appropriate.) |
||||
|
Relevance & Quantity of
Resources |
0 points Resources provided are not sufficient for students to
accomplish the task. OR There are too many resources for learners to look at in
a reasonable time. |
2 point There is some connection between the resources and the
information needed for students to accomplish the task. Some resources don't
add anything new. |
4 points There is a clear and meaningful connection between all
the resources and the information needed for students to accomplish the task.
Every resource carries its weight. |
4 |
|
Quality of |
0 points Links are mundane. They lead to information that could
be found in a classroom encyclopedia. |
2 points Some links carry information not ordinarily found in a
classroom. |
4 points Links make excellent use of the Web's timeliness and
colorfulness. Varied resources provide enough meaningful information
for students to think deeply. |
2 |
|
Evaluation |
||||
|
Clarity of Evaluation Criteria |
0 points Criteria for success are not described. |
3 points Criteria for success are at least partially described. |
6 points Criteria for success are clearly stated in the form of a
rubric. Criteria include qualitative as well as quantitative descriptors. The evaluation instrument clearly measures what students
must know and be able to do to accomplish the task. See Creating a Rubric. |
0 |
|
Total Score |
38/50 |
|||
Original WebQuest rubric by Bernie
Dodge.
This is Version 1.03. Modified by Laura Bellofatto, Nick Bohl, Mike Casey,
Marsha Krill, and Bernie Dodge and last updated on June 19, 2001.