We use this evaluation matrix / rubric to assess WebQuests
|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.|
||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 =
4 thoughts on “Assessing Best WebQuests”
I’m referring to your evaluation matrix in my master thesis. When did you publish it on your site?
Thanxs a lot & kind regards,
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