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 Could be a bit more lively and graphically interesting, but the result is serviceable enough.	Type face is difficult to read
Utilizes a coordinated color scheme consistently throughout the web site Coordination of color schemes to indicate different levels of the site might have added coherence to the overall effect.	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 At times it wass difficult to know where I had come from and where to go from there – an overall graphic design scheme (as indicated above) might have helped alleviate this confusion	Design choices poorly made
	Design strategy badly implemented
	Site badly organized
Makes good use of graphics and illustrations throughout The mosaic fade is a bit slow…	Employs only minimal illustrations / graphics
Structures the web site effectively overall and incorporates an effective linkage strategy	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 Exceptionally content rich at every level!	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 … although (as mentioned above) things could be a bit more graphically structured and organized	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	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 typeface and spacing problems crop up now and again	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 Your web site design consultant deserves congratulations for helping you realize and effectively package your site.	Omits needed authentication information establishing web site credibility and reliability
	Fails to establish site author credentials and relevant experience

Content Evaluation Criteria

Clearly states grade / skill level expectations	Fails to indicate characteristics of an appropriate instructional setting
Establishes and justifies an appropriate larger thematic and chronological instructional context … and does so exceptionally well.
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 Incorporates English goals and expectations as well.	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 A richly rewarding instructional unit in every regard!	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 One of the unit’s best attributes!	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 Another aspect of great potential utility to other teachers.	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 … and still another. My only suggestion along these lines is that similar attention be paid the sites used in the Pyramid of Hate portion of the site – just listing the links isn’t likely to inspire students involved in the exercise quite as much as giving them some verbal incentive to click on the site link.	Omits bibliographic references altogether
	Listed resources are erroneously or inadequately annotated