AC/CS 617
Spring 2000

WebQuest Grading Rubric

Accounting Information Systems

Janice L. Ammons, Ph.D., CPA
Associate Professor of Accounting
Quinnipiac College

WebQuest Assignment

• The evaluation will involve a group of reviewers. The grade will reflect a peer review from a fellow classmate, a self-evaluation, and the instructor's review. This approach recognizes the potential for each reviewer to appreciate different facet's of the student's knowledge construction. It is possible to select a set of criteria that differs depending on the reviewer's role (student, peer, professor). Having peer feedback before the final submission will also facilitate ongoing assessment. 

• Evaluation will include assessment of the effectiveness of the WebQuest's introduction, resources, task, and the task's evaluation rubric and "solution".

• Evaluation of the task will involve assessment of the extent to which the task requires the WebQuest user to go beyond the information given in order to develop their own ideas, to make their own recommendations, or to solve a problem.

• As part of the ongoing assessment, we should build in some mechanism that requires each student to have a reflexive awareness about his/her learning process as he/she progresses through this assignment. This awareness requires that the learner focus on how he/she constructs his/her own knowledge. This knowledge construction and skill development will occur by  building on prior experiences and by working on a meaningful learning task. 

• Evaluation will capture not only the process of your knowledge construction (as the item above does), but will also reflect the quality of the content delivered in your WebQuest.

Inadequate

0 to 1 

3

Superior

5

__ contains descriptions or examples that do not reflect the main issue or task evident in the remainder of the WebQuest 

__ uses a story, example, or wording that is not understandable, is unclear or confusing

__ doesn't concisely communicate the big issue or main problem of interest in the WebQuest

__ clear and unambiguous but the opening is unlikely to spark a WebQuest user's interest and curiosity about the topic due to the manner of presentation 

__ is somewhat confusing or unclear in presentation of the setting

__ clear and unambiguous presentation

__ offers a unique representation of the issue or problem

 __ task mostly requires user to comprehend information and answer questions with "right" answers

__ not clear what the WebQuest user is supposed to do (what are the deliverables?)

__not clear when the user should do what; process guiding the tasks is not clear

__ task structure does not build from lower-order to higher-order thinking skills as the WebQuest user progresses

__ task seems repetitious or reads like a collection of independent reports or information resources from which no central themes or integrated concepts emerge

__ task prompts the user to work with the ideas or information presented, but makes little to no attempt to prompt the user to make connections, raise additional questions, synthesize ideas, or draw their own insights

__ the WebQuest presents readings and activities, but task isn't rich enough to sustain much interest from the WebQuest user as he/she moves from one task or question to the next

__ the desired understandings or competencies that should occur as a result of completing the WebQuest are not sufficiently evident from the task

__ question is "higher-order" but the task doesn't prompt the user to think about a important related questions

__ communication of task's process and outcomes (deliverables) is adequately clear, though not well structured to scaffold learning

 __ structure or sequence of steps is reasonably clear and purposeful even though it has mixed success at requiring the user to address increasingly complex questions

__ task develops the topic and works on a functional level to move the user through the WebQuest, but the language is sometimes vague or fails to connect with experiences that may interest a user

__ task prompts the user to analyze the information presented from various sources, but doesn't go far enough in prompting the user to make connections, raise additional questions, synthesize ideas, or draw their own insights

__ the task may pique some interest through enjoyable readings and activities, but doesn't build on itself to generate deepening interest and involvement from the WebQuest user as he/she moves from one task or question to the next; however, it should at least maintain the user's interest so that he/she reaches the end of the WebQuest

__ the desired understandings or competencies that should occur as a result of completing the WebQuest are somewhat difficult to infer from the task

__ question is thought-provoking and "higher-order" in Bloom's sense and it links to other good questions

__ tasks are clearly spelled out and structured to scaffold learning so that the user is likely to produce the desired outcomes 

__ provides a clear, structured approach that identifies a series of steps needed to solve a problem or address increasingly complex questions

__ develops the topic in an enlightening, interesting way; structure or presentation is compelling and helps move the user through the WebQuest and its associated information resources

__ task prompts the user to work with the ideas or information presented, raise additional questions or considerations, make connections among ideas, and draw insights to form their own understanding

__ the task is likely to pique a WebQuest user's curiosity and generate deepening interest as the user moves from one task or question to the next

__ takes advantage of the opportunity (if one exists) to have WebQuest user(s) assume different roles or use a team-approach

__ the desired understandings or competencies that should occur as a result of completing the WebQuest are clearly evident from the presentation of the task

__ insufficient labeling of answers 

__ communication is poor with no rationale or insufficient justification provided to support answers

__ answer includes no significant or accurate information from relevant resources presented in WebQuest (0)

__ answer demonstrates little understanding of the information resources related to the question or problem (1-2)

__ uses incorrect reasoning or incorrect problem-solving strategy was chosen to solve the question

__ demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the problem (or if this was the developer's intended solution, then the task was misleading in its wording)

__ provides an unclear justification

__ answer demonstrates a limited understanding of the WebQuest resources related to the question(s); includes some significant and accurate information, but may include some inaccuracies or may not represent an adequate synthesis of the information resources available

__ has or constructs partially complete or partially valid arguments or solutions

__ uses some inappropriate examples or counter examples

__ uses a partially correct problem-solving strategy to solve the problem

__ responses demonstrate that part of the problem or issue is misunderstood or misinterpreted

__ answer shows evidence of use of appropriate information resources and higher-level thinking beyond those resources

__ uses examples and counter examples where appropriate

__ responses indicate a complete understanding of the issues posed Note: accurate and relevant information that is added from the developer's own experience or from cited information resources outside the WebQuest is acceptable as a means of building a more complete solution.

__ insufficient indicators of quality or performance to communicate expectations 

__ doesn't facilitate effective self-assessment or evaluation by peers or instructors because the rubric isn't specific enough in describing performance or identifying criteria, or because it uses ambiguous language

__ not adaptable to a grading scale

__ generally clear, but fails to offer criteria on an important element of the required task

__ criteria is clearly stated, but relative emphasis (weighting) or some other aspect is missing that makes it challenging to adapt to a grading scale

__ clear connection between content of the rubric and the task assignments; criteria is appropriate 

__ easily adaptable to a grading scale

__ links direct user to some Websites that are of little value 

__ a partial listing of all references used throughout the WebQuest is presented on one web page 

__ where online resources are limited or do not offer sufficient depth or breadth, the WebQuest provides no offline resources 

__ sent the user to one or more external links that were not supportive of a required task

__ little to no attempt to identify competing concepts, alternative perspectives, or limitations 

__ minimal to no attempt was made to provide definitions to terms that might be unfamiliar to a WebQuest user

__ provided several good links, but many are repetitious without offering incremental value 

__ a listing (including hyperlinks) of all references used throughout the WebQuest is presented on one web page, but complete citations are often missing or format of citations was inconsistent

__ where online resources are limited or do not offer sufficient depth or breadth, the WebQuest provides limited or incomplete citations to offline resources 

__ sent the user to one or more external links that would support a required task, but the linked page contained much material that was not relevant so communication would have been clearer if the WebQuest developer had summarized, paraphrased or used diagrams (while referencing the source)

__ identifies some competing concepts, alternative perspectives, or limitations but misses significant ones that must be considered for a rich exploration of the topic or meaningful analysis of the problem 

__ definitions are provided for some terms that could be unfamiliar, but the definitions could have been more complete or employed other unfamiliar terms

__ identifies some competing concepts, alternative perspectives, or limitations but misses significant ones that must be considered for a rich exploration of the topic or meaningful analysis of the problem  

__ definitions are provided for some terms that could be unfamiliar, but the definitions could have been more complete or employed other unfamiliar terms

__ links consistently provide incremental value relative to other links presented

__ a listing of all references used throughout the WebQuest is presented on one web page, where complete citations are provided in a consistent format

__ where online resources are limited or do not offer sufficient depth or breadth, the WebQuest provides references to offline resources with complete citations

 __ summarizes, paraphrases or uses diagrams where this would lead to clearer presentation than sending user to external links

__ resources sufficient to help the user consider competing concepts, alternative perspectives, or limitations for a rich exploration of the topic or meaningful analysis of the problem 

__ new terms are appropriately defined

__ Conclusion broadly discusses what is (hopefully) learned by completing this WebQuest, but omits discussion of how that learning could be transferred to other context

__ Conclusion discusses how learning from this WebQuest can transfer to some other scenario or context

__ Conclusion identifies cognitive skills that students/learners will use as they complete the WebQuest

__ From the opening page(s), it is possible to link directly to any key section of the WebQuest (introduction, task, resources, and conclusion), but this other pages offer only one direction for the user.

__ many links are difficult to identify as hyperlinks because of the way they were formatted 

__ discussion surrounding link(s) fails to clearly communicate the instructional purpose of the link or provide insufficient guidance. [For example, a user requires guidance if a link directs a user to page that list many other links, some of which would not be pertinent to the task. Otherwise, the WebQuest user will flounder.] 

__ all links to external files replace the active WebQuest browser window

__ At any of the Web site's pages (but not external links), it is possible to link directly back to an opening screen where the user can go to another indicated section of the WebQuest. 

__ some links are difficult to identify as hyperlinks because of the way they were formatted 

__ links are sometimes (but not always) incorporated into the discussion or task in a way that clearly guides the learner so that the instructional purpose of each link is clearly evident

__ some links to external files do not open in a new window or within the WebQuest frame

__ At any of the Web site's pages (but not external links), it is possible to link directly to any key section of the WebQuest (introduction, task, resources, conclusion). 

__ links are clearly evident

__ links are incorporated into the discussion or task in a way that clearly guides the learner so that the instructional purpose of each link is clearly evident

__ links to external files open in new windows or come within a frame of the WebQuest so that the WebQuest user isn't lost Note: You may want to include a statement early on in the WebQuest if your external links will all automatically open in a new window so that the user is alert to this

__ journal entries show minimal effort in reflective thought about the developer's own learning process 

__ did not gave details of various research activities; not clear how the user set out to do much of the following: brainstorm, research the Internet, evaluate the different sources to determine priorities and fit with task definition, presentation of the information within a problem-solving context 

__did not indicate the developer's own comfort-level with any of the following aspects at various stages of this course: internet competencies, web page creation, and learning paths that are other than teacher-to-learner or text-to learner

__ journal entries show some attempt to be reflective about the developer's own learning process, but doesn't present evidence of continued reflection through various stages of the process or doesn't explore that understanding very far

__ gave details of various research activities involved in developing this WebQuest, but was too close to the action to address issues like· how what was learned relates to past experiences or could relate to his/her professional environment or other courses this term· what the WebQuest developer got out of this process that can help in developing his/her life-long learning skills· what it means to scaffold learning and how the developer can use this concept in the future· did use of technology help facilitate their learning or was it simply a tool to communicate their learning

__indicates the developer's own comfort-level with one or two of the following aspects at various stages of this course: internet competencies, web page creation, and learning paths that are other than teacher-to-learner or text-to learner

__ journal entries show evidence of reflective thought about the developer's own learning process.

__ gave details of various research activities involved in developing this WebQuest, but also addressed issues like· how what was learned relates to past experiences or could relate to his/her professional environment or other courses this term· what the WebQuest developer got out of this process that can help in developing his/her life-long learning skills· what it means to scaffold learning and how the developer can use this concept in the future· did use of technology help facilitate their learning or was it simply a tool to communicate their learning

__indicates the developer's own comfort-level with the following aspects at various stages of this course: internet competencies, web page creation, and learning paths that are other than teacher-to-learner or text-to learner

See prior guidelines posted to public folder on 2/21, 3/6 and 3/14 regarding errors in spelling, punctuation, usage and grammar, capitalization. 

Did presentation effectively convey the main value or ideas associated with the resources? How well did the presenter address questions related to the topic? Did the presenter show the class why they would enjoy visiting the site? Were the best features of the site illustrated?

Did the developer adequately test the WebQuest to locate errors and prevent them prior to submitting the WebQuest?  

Were recommended changes of peer reviewer (and instructor, if applicable) adopted prior to the deadline?  

Are page titles (set by HTML Title tag) appropriately descriptive to facilitate searches?  

Did the designer avoid garish colors and excessive typographic (font) variations? 

Did the designer avoid using background colors or patterns that interfere with legibility or printing? 

Did the designer use font colors that would print well?

Did designer use concise chunks of information on each Web page? Long pages may disorient the reader. Let logical organization guide subdivision of content. Do not arbitrarily split up one long discussion of a single theme into multiple pages because this will result in additional work for the reader if he/she wants to print the page.