We use this evaluation matrix / rubric to assess WebQuests
| Low | Medium | High | |
| Engaging Opening | No attempt made to appeal to learners. | Honestly attempts to appeal to student interests. | Has that something that compels attention. |
| The Question / Task | Fuzzy Question or Task. Maybe what’s asked for is lower level thinking. | The Question and Task target higher order thinking, but may not be totally clear. | Clear Question and Task. These naturally flow from the introduction and signal a direction for sophisticated learning. |
| Background for Everyone |
No attempt to access prior learning or build common background. | Some mention of addressing a common body of knowledge. (May not happen within the activity.) | Clearly calls attention to the need for a common foundation of knowledge and provides needed (Web?) resources. |
| Roles / Expertise | Roles are artificial and may lack inherent conflicts of interest. | Roles are clear and realistic. They may be limited in scope, but do evoke conflict. | Roles match the issues and resources. The roles provide multiple perspectives from which to view the topic. |
| Use of the Web | This activity could probably be done better without the Web. | Some resources reflect features of the Web that make it particularly useful. | Uses the Web to access at least some of the following: interactivity, multiple perspectives, current information, etc. |
| Transformative Thinking |
No Transformative thinking. (This is not a WebQuest, but may be a good Knowledge Hunt). | Higher level thinking is required, but the process for students may not be clear. | Higher level thinking is required to construct new meaning. Scaffolding is provided to support student achievement. |
| Real World Feedback |
No feedback loop included. | The learning product could easily be used for authentic assessment although this may not be addressed. | A feedback loop is included in the Web page and an evaluation rubric is probably provided (early on!). |
| Conclusion | Minimal conclusion. No mention of student thinking or symmetry to intro. | Returns to the intro ideas. May sum up the experiences and learning that was undertaken. | Clear tie-in to the intro. Makes the students’ cognitive tasks overt and suggests how this learning could transfer to other domains/issues. |
Note – Values in the assessment matrix are:
12 – 15 = 16 – 19 = 20 – 24 = |
Hello Tom,
I’m referring to your evaluation matrix in my master thesis. When did you publish it on your site?
Thanxs a lot & kind regards,
Mareike
Dear Mareike,
This was published with Web-and-Flow’s release in 1999.
Thanks, Tom —
Thanks for this rubric – if only all WebQuests could be excellent on all these criteria! I have borrowed it for my Masters students to evaluate a set of WebQuests for TESOL found on the Quest Garden. I wonder how many will match up?
Hi Tilly, It’s important to keep the bar high (on transformation of information into understanding) or online activities simply descend into mindless copy/paste. Good on you! Tom