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. See Fine Points Checklist.	2 points Graphic elements contribute to the understanding of concepts, but no variation in type size, color, or layout.
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 points Navigation is pretty easy to understand.
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. See Fine Points Checklist.	2 points No apparent mechanical problems.
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 point The introduction is relatively facutal but offers a compelling question in the process.
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.	1point The introduction offers a students prior knowledge however the foreshadowing could of been better and more compelling.
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.	2 points The task is clear, but very little relevance is attributed to the purpose of the project.
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.	3 points The task is doable a large part is regurgitating information researched, however there is a little relevance to the students taking a position and forming an opinion.
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.	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.
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: Process Guides A Taxonomy of Information Patterns Language Arts Standards and Technology WebQuest Enhancement Tools Reception, Transformation & Production Scaffolds	4 points Startegies and organizational tools are not thoroughly presented but more or less implied. The activities surround a higher level thinking and understanding is required in the final pruduct.
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.	1 points Only one real role assained. doesn't seem to be a group project but more of an individual excersize with help form the teacher.
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.
Quality of Resources	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.
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.
Total Score				/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.

Webquest

For my Webquest analysis and critique I chose the U.S. Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s

Webquest/Technophile

 

___Efficiency Expert

___Affiliator

___Altitudinist

_X_Technophile

You’re Impressions

Web Quest	Strengths	Weaknesses
Gorillas	The gorilla’s website has wide variety of color within the graphics with nice pictures and depictions of the endangered gorilla; as well as many links to reputable and interesting sites.	The gorilla’s sites though colorful in its graphics could have possibly used more pictures and perhaps a theme that surrounded the endangered gorilla to appeal to students and present more aesthetic value.
Shakespeare	The Shakespeare website had a stylish color that fit the theme of a traditional archaic Shakespearian play; the background was very fitting and complimentary to the content of the website. Lots of pictures where used as well as many links to a wide array of sites.	The text font could have been better if it were perhaps in more of an old English style of writing. This would better bring out the Shakespearian time period in a more visual since.
Earthquake	The earthquakes website had links to interesting sites.	I felt the color and theme to be a little bland and not very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The pictures and illustrations provided left little of personal interest and while few and far between there could have been more interesting visual displays to capture ones attention.
Foreign Country	Bright coloring was held in a fair degree to bring focus in all the right areas.	Could have used more visual imagery with pictures and perhaps illustrations.
Waves & Sound	A nice color scheme to fit the theme of the website, many pictures and illustrations to elaborate and capture imagination, and a wide array of links to sites of interest to the topic.	Some of the links weren’t active or needed to be updated.

Bernie Dodge, Department of Educational Technology, SDSU

 

A Think Aloud

Objectivity

-          What is the author's point of view? Summarize the argument being presented. What is the purpose of the site?

 

The author contends that greenhouse gas levels are rising due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation which are causing significant climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, glacier retreat, more intense heat waves, stronger hurricanes, and more droughts. The argument being presented is a disagreement with the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists who feel that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate. The purpose of the site is to show that climate change requires immediate international action to prevent dire consequences.

 

-          What is the author's / speakers social-political position? With what social, political, or professional groups is the speaker identified?

 

Although the author/speaker doesn’t proclaim any affiliation with any social-political group, it’s clear that they are taking and somewhat liberal environmental stance on the climate change issue.

 

-          Does the speaker have anything to gain personally from delivering the message?

 

The speaker stands to gain publicity for the web site, but to me it seems like a genuine concern and outcry to solve a fundamental problem. I don’t believe the speaker has any vain predetermined incentives in delivering this message.

 

-          Who is paying for the message? Where does the message appear? What is the bias of the medium? Who stands to gain?

 

The Website itself stands to gain as it is posted on their website with a liberal bias medium.

 

-          What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?

 

The Speaker cites many credible sources and provides active links to these sources many of which are government websites. Statistics are stated many times in text to support the speaker point of view. The speaker recites the data collected by research of different programs many of which are government ran. The data seems to be presented fully.

 

-          How does the speaker present arguments? Is the message one-sided, or does it include alternative points of view? Does the speaker fairly present alternative arguments? Does the speaker ignore obviously conflicting arguments?

 

The speaker presents the argument from only one real side, so it does appear one-sided. It doesn’t include other points of view necessarily. It more or less plainly states the left side of the argument in neither a negative or positive way. The speaker doesn’t ignore conflicting arguments that just don’t elaborate on them.

 

-          If the message includes alternative points of view, how are those views characterized? Does the speaker use positive words and images to describe his/her point of view and negative words and images to describe other points of view? Does the speaker ascribe positive motivations to his/her point of view and negative motivations to alternative points of view?

 

The speaker reframes from using any positive language when pointing out either point of view; they rather plainly state each side and elaborate on their point of view in more detail than the conflicting side. There is however positive inferences to the speakers point of view in the realm of results discussed.

 

Double Entry Journal # 14

Chapter 7: Citizens Navigating in Literate Worlds: The case of digital literacy.

 

Read the introduction through to the sub heading “Studying Digital Youth” on page 102.

 

1.      What is the purpose of the chapter?

The aim of the chapter is to look closer at the term “digital literacy” as a way of understanding how young people relate to the digital culture they live in, and the role of education in developing their knowledge and skills further (Thomas, 2011).

 

2.      Why did the author choose to focus on people in the Nordic countries?

He chose the Nordic region, primarily a Norwegian, perspective, since his research had mostly dealt with media use in this cultural setting, both inside and outside of schools (Thomas, 2011).

 

3.      How does education differ in Nordic countries from education in other parts of the world including the United States?

There is a public and political awareness about the importance of digital literacy related to education and not such a strong emphasis on testing as in many other countries including the United States. There has generally been a much stronger tradition of project-based learning, a strong emphasis on equal possibilities, and a high access to media within schools.  Also, the broader social structure and the welfare society model, which are similar in all Nordic countries, have created a different framework for how people engage themselves in their own societies (Thomas, 2011).

 

4.      Why is more research needed about how young people use digital media in their lives outside of school?

Because it shows what is relevant to people and what capabilities they can expand on. It is a better display of what works and what reaches people.

 

Then begin reading again on p. 110 Digital Literacies and Educational Practices.

 

1.      Why is it important for there to be more opportunities for young people to use Digital Media in school?

In this way one gets a more focused and detailed understanding of the use of digital media for educational purposes (Thomas, 2011).

 

2.      What skills do people need in order to be considered digitally literate?

Five dimensions can be elaborated, which highlight different aspects of how we understand digital literacies as part of school-based learning: Basic Skills, Media as Object of Analysis, Knowledge Building in Subject Domain, Learning Strategies, and Digital Bildung/Cultural Competence (Thomas, 2011).

 

Works Cited

Thomas, M. (2011). 'Deconstructing Digital Natives". New York and London: Routledge.

 

 

 

Value

-          Was the page worth visiting? Does the site offer anything informative, substantial, or insightful? Is the site free of spelling and grammatical errors?

 

I feel the page is well worth visiting and taking a look at if this particular topic is of great concern to you. It is very informative with the information provided, as well as substantial especially today as this problem is a global issue and concerns everyone, and it is very insightful because even if you disagree with the web sites stance you can’t ignore the evidence provided by the speaker. It is a bland read, and like I said it’s worth taking a look at if this is a topic that you have a concern or interest in, but if you don’t it probably won’t grab your attention simply because it is scholarly in its presentation and lists a lot of statistics and facts that might overwhelm you if you have no invested personal interest in the topic. I am not a very good editor but the site did seem to be free of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. I feel since it is a site often visited by educators that it takes its appearance and presentation into careful consideration with prudent editing, and great self-analysis.   

Coverage

-          Is your topic being addressed? Is the information basic and cursory or detailed and scholarly? Explain the major argument being made.

 

The topic is clear, well addressed, and to the point. The web site has cited at the bottom of the page that over 643 elementary and middle schools, 1,652 high schools, and 923 colleges and universities use the site for free educational resources so it is presented in a  scholarly manner, but the information is easy to understand especially with the links provided to each source. The major argument being made is a fundamental disagreement between the website speaker and the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists who feel that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate.

 

 

 

Currency

-  When was the information on the page originally written? Has the site been kept up-to-date?

It doesn’t seem to have an original date for when it was first written, however it has been kept thoroughly up-to-date. The last update was October 25, 2012 at 3:42 PM. 

Double Entry Journal #13

Chapter 12: Sharing Our Planet
Find a resource online that offers a solution to one of these problems.

The above youtube video presents solutions to two of the issues proposed in Chapter 12 regarding Climate Change and possible solutions.

Double Entry Journal # 12

Chapter 6: Analyzing Students’ Multimodal Texts: The Product and Process

1.     Why do educators need to be careful about terms like the “Digital Native”?

We need to be careful with terms such as “Digital Natives” that lead to an understanding of a whole generation as a homogeneous group. There is more variance across individuals than is suggested by broad generalizations such as the “Digital Native” and the “Net Generation.” “No two digital natives are created equal,” “each of them has varying degrees of access to digital technologies, literacy skills, and participation within their peer culture” (Bylin). An example is, “while most of the younger students were proficient in using the Web, they could not adequately perform advanced searches or evaluate the validity of the recourses they found” (VanSlyke).

2.     What outcome occurs when young people are encouraged to transform their understanding of particular topics by designing a multimodal text?

Such studies support the notion that digital transformations and designing can enhance the learning process. This recognition of the importance of developing young people’s creative and critical productions with technology signals the need for closer attention by researchers and educators to the actual products that young people create in their learning activities. “There are aspects of multimodal designs that need more careful scrutiny and explicit teaching is needed of the more subtle design elements. This is an area that teachers and researchers need to explore” (Adlinglton and Hansford).

3.     You may skip the section titled “Context for the Project.”

4.     What was the goal of the project in terms of product?

The goal in terms of product was to track the development of the participants’ multimodal literacies over a two-year period by comparison two multimodal products created at the beginning and the end of the period.

5.     What was the goal of the project in terms of process?

The goal in terms of process was to gain deeper understanding of how multimodal texts were created, especially when the students were working in pairs at the computer.

6.     How were the participants for the study selected?

From careful analysis, they selected ten students who best represented the cohorts and the multimodal products of these students provided the core product data of the study. For the study on process, the student pair selected for in-depth analysis was determined through an incremental, cyclical process of elimination. They initially chose to focus on a small group represented by one school. Then, from this group, they selected the students who fulfilled the following three criteria: they had worked collaboratively in pairs, they had fully completed the task, and the video screen data recordings were intact and complete.

7.     Describe the task students engage in for the purpose of this study?

The 2004 task required students to evaluate possible solutions in response to the environmental threats posed by plastic bags; the 2006 task followed a similar pattern, but with global warming as the topic. Each task was carefully structured and divided into three phases of development: researching, designing, and reflecting. Part of the research process required the student to complete two templates: first, a concept map to organize information acquired from web sources; the second, a decision-making matrix to facilitate transformation acquired from web sources; and third, a decision-making matrix to facilitate transformation of the ideas in their concept map into a preferred solution, as required for the multimodal text. Following these preparatory stages, the students could create a multimodal text using a word processor, a presentation tool, or a web-publishing program.

8.     Explain how the researchers compared the student created multimodal texts?

In order to compare and contrast the products, it was necessary to isolate particular characteristic features of the product that represented capacity in operational terms. The research group reduced the features required when determining quality in multimodal texts to three key elements. Ultimately, they limited their field of view to design, content, and cohesion for their analysis. This approach allowed them to identify individual differences and develop understandings of the nature of digital, multimodal text production at and across different year levels. A series of questions was developed in each of the three categories below, to define the distinctive attributes and to provide a basis for caparison of multimodal products at different new levels.

-       The first slide/page in the set (title slide/ page);

-       The choice and shape or wording in the headings of individual slides/pages throughout the set (heading); and

-       The quality of knowledge revealed in each slide/page and the complete set (knowledge representation).

9.     What difference in Jenny’s PowerPoint presentation do you find the most interesting?

At Year 10, Jenny is still having difficulty formulating her own views and drawing collusions from the material she has read on the resource website. She is not on top of the material she has read and she has not processed it sufficiently so as to reach the point where she has formed an opinion that she can then communicate clearly.

10.  How is working together on a computer unlike working together using a pencil and paper?

There are at least three important differences. First, while typed words may appear immediately on screen, there is often a considerable wait time between the keying in of an instruction and a response from the computer. Second, the length of the wait time is unpredictable and may by several minutes. There is also another kind of unpredictability. The result the computer provides to an instruction is often unexpected, as in the selection and ordering of items located in a web search.

11.  What was interesting about students’ behavior as they collaborated on a task at the computer?

Fist, students took turns in operating the keyboard and the mouse. Second, while much of the talking responded directly or indirectly to task requirements, there was also evidence of off-task discussion. And third, there was evidence of various kind of multitasking within the local computing environment.

12.  What can teachers learn about designing learning activities that involve the creation of multimodal texts from this study?

It would appear that increased scaffolding of the task through the provision of start-up materials rather than requiring students to start from scratch would ensure students engage with more complex decision-making and text production. Specific tasks and task structure will lead to specific types of learning. And, applying Skehan’s concept of cycles of task-based activity beyond language learning may also increase quality in both process and product.

13.  According to the conclusion of this study, what do students need to learn in order to successfully complete a multimodal text construction?

It is beneficial to develop in students’ time management skills and a sense of priorities in relation to the task at hand.

14.  Are you surprised by the conclusion drawn in this study?

To be perfectly honest I wasn’t truly surprised, I expected such results to come about. Being a student myself I have engaged in activities a lot like these studies and the result was very similar. The only thing that I found kind of shocking is how these studies and there results could come about from any form of group participation within students. Time management is an issue with any group projects whether it be computing or not, and increased scaffolding from the teacher would help in any form of lesson whether it involve technology or not.