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: Linda AE Cripps | Date: 15 April 2003 |
| Title WebQuest Evaluated: Mural-venture | |
| URL of WebQuest Evaluated: http://www.stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua/student/mural/teacherguide.html | |
| Score | Explanation | |
|
Overall Aesthetics (This refers to the WebQuest page itself, not the external resources linked to it.) |
||
|
Overall Visual Appeal |
2 | The basic layout is tidy uses color well to coordinate with one illustration. however other than one title graphic lesson is one long web page which eventually becomes tedious |
| Navigation & Flow (0-4 pts.) |
1 | Lesson is one entire web page with anchor links from navigation bar at top of page under graphic. lesson really needs to be separated into different web pages. this layout actually hinders the clarity of the presentation of material. it is very confusing where one step stops and another begins by the time you get to actual task descriptions. |
| Mechanical Aspects (0-2 pts.) |
0 | Most important links were broken to mural tour link in overview, and in Step 1 directions "Start Here" which are the directions for the "Background" step. |
|
Introduction - the sections titled Introduction and Overview were analyzed here |
||
|
Motivational effectiveness of Introduction (0-2 pts.) |
1 | I think the Introduction had the right idea in general, but a little rewriting would make it better. I would move the first sentence to the middle of the paragraph to follow all of the series of questions, and precede the the sentence beginning "We will explore ...". However, even with revision the introduction does not relate to any particular reference to potential learners' own interests or personal goals that might be fulfilled by completing assignment. |
|
Cognitive effectiveness of the Introduction |
1 | The major strength is the overview effectively prepares the learner for what the activity is about. However, there does not seem to be much direct or explicit connection to learner's prior activities or knowledge. I recognize that this would be a challenge as this is an interdisciplinary web quest, and the prospective learners would probably be bringing quite varied backgrounds to the project. |
|
Task (The task is the end result of student efforts... not the steps involved in getting there.) |
||
|
Connection of Task to Standards |
1 | Student Lesson Page: No guides are given for intermediate step of Analysis to determine if they are even complete or when to move onto the next step. The Presentation step has guidelines for process which also inferentially address good standards, but no explicit standards for this step are given either. The final step of the Brochure identifies the teacher as the "judge of the brochure", but does not explain any criteria the teacher will use in evaluation. |
|
Cognitive Level |
6 | The greatest strength of this lesson is its multidisciplinary aspect. The learner examines the topic from many aspects - social context, aesthetic appreciation, and many others. The learner has to interact with their partner and examine different analyses and opinions derived from the same process. The variety of activities engage many different learning styles which increase the possibility that the learner will be able to participate in the process from some dimension of personal strength.
The ultimate lesson design is openended. The Conclusion specifically encourages the learner to pursue further independent study on topic. This is direct encouragement to achieve one of universal primary objectives of web quests - to develop self directed learners. |
|
Process (The process is the step-by-step description of how students will accomplish the task.) |
||
|
Clarity of Process |
3 | It seems that the basic design of the process is sound. The weaknesses noted above in page design seriously hinder the ability of the student to separate one task from another. This section evaluation only considers the instructional design of the process not its layout. |
| Scaffolding of Process (0-6 pts.) |
4 | The student is provided with a conceptually comprehensive "Toolbox". However, the questions posed by the Toolbox do presume a certain level of skills or experience in art analysis that do not take into account a social science student using the lesson who may have no concept of art analysis.
Also analysis steps - exactly what "product" is to be produced is not specified - does the student make notes, write summaries, or just ponder the questions in the Toolbox? |
|
Richness of Process |
2 | The tasks take the learner through a variety of activities that allow each learner to interact with the material in very different ways. It also requires collaboration and the consideration of multiple viewpoints by requiring a partner in the process. |
|
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 |
2 | This component was hard to evaluate due to some of the broken hyperlinks. The Teacher Page was rich in links to resources, however very few of these were directly linked to the student pages. One of the primary strengths of web-based learning is acces to and integration of a multitude of sources. I find it difficult to accept that a lesson designed for this audience (high school) would be limited to use of only one resource. |
|
Quality of |
3 | The Expressions of Nicaragua site is excellent. However one hopes the "missing" parts of the lesson in the broken links increase the variety of sources. |
|
Evaluation |
||
|
Clarity of Evaluation Criteria |
0 | At no point in the process, are there any guidelines for determining success from the learner's perspective.
The Teacher's Page provides complete and excellent evaluation tools and excellent rubrics are given here. However the low score in this section is given due to the fact that these rubrics are not available to students through links embedded in the lesson itself. Even if for some reason, it was deemed inappropriate or not desirable to give the student the specific rubric forms, the same criteria could be paraphrased or summarized or posed as a self-analysis questions for learner's use. |
|
Total Score |
27 | This web quest lesson is excellent in its overall concept and instructional design. Its major flaws are in the page design and layout, important broken links, and the segregation of the majority of resources and all of evaluation criteria to be solely accessible to the facilitators (teachers) of the lesson. |