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.