|
HOW TO READ THE WEB SITE EVALUATION Each submitted instructional unit web site prepared for HIS 370 / 570, SUMMER WORKSHOP: WORLD HISTORY FOR TEACHERS, was evaluated by the instructor using the rubric reproduced below with evaluative comments in place. Words and phrases outlined in YELLOW HIGHLIGHTING represent the instructor’s positive and/or negative reflections on the various points covered by the rubric; phrases added in RED TYPEFACE WITH YELLOW HIGHLIGHTING are further evaluative comments by the instructor, outlining other reactions (again, both positive and negative) aroused by a review of the unit web site. RED TYPEFACE COMMENTS WITHOUT HIGHLIGHTING represent comments meant to qualify the preceding statement to some degree; they carry less evaluative weight. In instances where there is neither highlighting nor comments in red typeface, the review was mixed across the board, neither wholly positive nor wholly negative, incorporating both good and bad elements from the rubric, ultimately coming down somewhere in between the two positions cited in the language of the rubric. |
TEACHING UNIT EVALUATION
RUBRIC
The
completed TEACHING UNIT was evaluated with respect to (1) the intelligence with
which the instructional objectives of the unit were stated, supported and
achieved; (2) the quality and effective utilization of incorporated
instructional resources; and (3) the organization and presentation of the
completed web-based instructional unit.
Web Site Evaluation Rubric
|
DEMONSTRATES A CONSISTENT AND WELL-CONCEIVED SITE DESIGN STRATEGY: |
DEMONSTRATES AN INCONSISTENT OR POORLY-EXECUTED SITE DESIGN STRATEGY: |
|
Employs a readable and
appropriately-sized type face |
Type face is difficult to read |
|
Utilizes a coordinated color
scheme consistently throughout the web site Neither of the above
is particularly “jazzy”, however … |
Color scheme is unsuitable (overly garish, too dark, difficult to decipher) or inconsistently applied |
|
Clearly and appropriately
organizes design elements and content in an aesthetically pleasing and
accessible manner Someone with page
layout skills might be helpful in improving the overall “look” of the site to
bring it more in line with the quality of the content it contains. |
Design choices poorly made |
|
Design strategy badly implemented |
|
|
Site badly organized |
|
|
Makes good use of graphics and illustrations throughout |
Employs only minimal
illustrations / graphics The links to useful
illustrations for classroom use could be used a sources for more graphics
within the site itself. |
|
Structures the web site
effectively overall and incorporates an effective linkage strategy Adding a set of
“sub-links” to the end of each of the weekly pages (to allow users to move
directly to the other week without returning to the original page listing)
would improve navigation within each of these sections. |
Site poorly structured |
|
Incorporates inconsistent link patterns |
|
|
Avoids over-lengthy pages of content |
Text overly dense and extended over too many screens to sustain interest and / or easy recall |
|
Is appropriately organized with
respect to content and presentation expectations A particular strength
here is your chosen organizational pattern; although it leads to some
duplication, the utility of the site is enhanced for both student and
teacher. |
Includes irrelevant or tangential materials |
|
Fails to establish meaningful links / divisions between and among included content / information / data |
|
|
Fails to maintain overall thematic or organizational focus |
|
|
Can be effectively and efficiently navigated |
Includes “dead links” or “orphan pages” |
|
Does not incorporate “back” buttons or other necessary site navigation aids |
|
|
Fails to title web site pages appropriately |
|
|
Encourages interactivity and multimedia approaches appropriate to the
subject matter considered Makes excellent use of ‘net resources. |
Fails to take advantage of the multimedia capabilities of the Internet web environment, merely transplanting a conventional instructional lesson plan into cyberspace |
|
Handles issues of language (grammar, diction, spelling) and annotation
/ attribution appropriately and avoids typographical errors Some minor diction problems… |
Loses credibility due to errors (grammar, diction, spelling, typographical) |
|
Lacks necessary source documentation / annotation |
|
|
Provides appropriate site
author authentication (including contact information and indications of
posting and revision dates) on each individual site page and a consideration
of author credentials and qualifications on an associated personal homepage |
Omits needed authentication information establishing web site credibility and reliability |
|
Fails to establish site author credentials and relevant experience |
|
Clearly states grade / skill level expectations No mention of grade level, however… |
Fails to indicate characteristics of an appropriate instructional setting |
|
Establishes and justifies an
appropriate larger thematic and chronological instructional context |
|
|
Meets appropriate grade level
curricular expectations (as listed and credited) |
Omits consideration of instructional standards / goals / teaching objectives |
|
Implementation plan does not meet stated instructional standards / goals / objectives |
|
|
Does not credit sources (local / state / national) of standards listed |
|
|
Is linked creatively and
effectively to specific criteria useful in the teaching of world history as
discussed in the workshop sessions My comments here
should reflect a concern with minutia that, if dealt with and corrected,
could move this site to very close to the head of the class. The content included here, the overall
organization of the site, the thematic construct and its various historical
context suggestions, the level of evaluative annotation, the detailed plans
for both student and instructor, the use of Internet (and print and video)
resources, all contribute to making this a very useful and “user friendly”
site indeed. With a little additional
effort, it could become a model and eample of its
type. |
Is insufficiently tied to established world history characteristics (is not thematic, comparative, limited in scope to a significant topic, encouraging of empathy and awareness of multiple points of view, open to movement beyond consideration of the United States and Western Europe, oriented towards active student participation in the learning process, interested in equipping students with useful academic skills) |
|
Lacks creativity in choice of subject matter or the implementation of chosen criteria in the classroom setting |
|
|
Clearly and effectively
evidences instructor creativity, expertise and experience in choice of
subject matter, teaching rationale, thematic emphasis, planning resources
used and/or consulted, approach, processes and procedures used, and homework
/ classroom assignments Ambitious but do-able
… |
Overly ambitious (in terms of timeline or expectations laid on students or instructor) or otherwise inappropriately packaged for intended audience |
|
Poorly laid out or insufficiently explained instructional process |
|
|
Lacks evidence of creativity in the implementation of the chosen subject matter |
|
|
Includes appropriate and meaningful instructional goals and objectives coupled with effective evaluation standards and procedures |
Fails to provide adequate indication of instructional expectations and/or evaluation standards |
|
Demonstrates familiarity with
useful and effective electronic resources accessible through the Internet A real strength,
indicating lots of research and evaluation of possibilities on your part. |
Internet links are altogether absent |
|
Internet links are not well chosen or are inadequately integrated into the instructional process |
|
|
Provides effective curricular
unit classroom resources and useful explanations for classroom materials and
lesson plans |
Instructor resources are not included |
|
Instructor resources are left unexplained as to their potential utility or inappropriate to the lesson plan implementation process |
|
|
Incorporates an effectively
annotated bibliography discussing both print and non-print resources useful
in preparation and/or implementation of the curriculum unit Listing the name or
title of the site, then providing the link address plus the current
annotation would enhance both the look and utility of your URL listings
throughout the web site. |
Omits bibliographic references altogether |
|
Listed resources are erroneously or inadequately annotated |