URL: |
Rubric for
Evaluating Student Web Projects
|
Score |
Ideas
& Content |
Organization |
Language/Convention |
Presentation |
Technical |
Give this a
5 or 4
if
|
- Audience and Purpose are clearly stated
- Information is accurate and current
- Ideas come mainly from primary sources
- Authors show knowledge and insight
- Effective use of technology demonstrated
- Accuracy can be checked (sources are cited)
- All information relates to the overall purpose and audience
|
- Inviting opening page draws the visitor inside
- Details are logical and effective
- Layout of pages provides good direction
- How to explore and idea is clear
- Each page begins with a good transition
- Easy to navigate through the pages
|
- Organizational structure is clear and coherent
- Grammar and usage are correct
- Punctuation is accurate
- Spelling is generally correct
- Site needs little or no editing
|
- Web site is clearly identified; it's easy to find
- The layout is clear and easy to follow
- Backgrounds and text work well together
- Graphical elements are used consistently
- Multimedia (if any) adds to the main purpose
- Links are appropriate
|
- Links work properly
- Graphics are optimized
- Works well in all browsers
- Works in text-only mode
- Multimedia resources (if any) work properly
|
Give this a
3 or 2
if
|
- Audience and Purpose not clearly identified
- Information not always clear
- Primary source use not always clear
- Content connections not always clear
- Does not relate content to larger context
- No way to check validity of information
- Strong purpose not demonstrated
|
- Inconsistent structure of pages
- Sequencing is inconsistent
- Some pages incomplete
- Some links disjointed; lack purpose
- Unclear connections among sections
- Sense of being lost or unsure navigating
|
- Long or incomplete paragraphs
- Minor problems with grammar or usage
- Internal punctuation sometimes missing or wrong
- Spelling is usually correct
- Site needs some editing
|
- Web site is easy to find
- The layout of most page is easy to follow
- Backgrounds and text were not always effective
- Some Inconsistent or inappropriate graphics
- Multimedia sometimes doesn't add to experience
- Use of links is unclear
|
- Not all links work properly
- Graphics are generally optimized
- Pages don't work in all browsers
- Text-only mode could be improved
- Multimedia resources (if any) work most of the time
|
Give this a
5 or 4
if
|
- No reference to Purpose or Audience
- Information incomplete or inaccurate
- Information not from primary sources
- Little or no overall context for information
- Value of information is unclear
- No way to check validity of information
- Lacks sense of purpose or central theme
|
- No orientation for visitors
- Sequencing unclear
- Pages lack closure
- No focus for links
- Pages are inconsistent
- Difficult to navigate in an organized way
|
- Paragraph structure is missing
- Errors in grammar or usage noticeable
- Many punctuation mistakes
- Frequent spelling errors
- Site needs extensive editing
|
- Web site was hard to find
- Layout is confusing or inappropriate
- Backgrounds and text generally not effective
- Graphics only decorative or confusing
- Multimedia unrelated to topic
- Too many unrelated links, or too few links
|
- Links don't work properly
- Graphic elements not optimized
- These pages need a specific browser
- Text-only mode doesn't work
- Multimedia resources (if any) fail to work
|
|
SCORE: |
SCORE: |
SCORE: |
SCORE: |
SCORE: |
Adapted from original work done by
Al Rogers, Global SchoolNet Foundation and CyberFair Contest: http://www.gsn.org/cf/. Adaptation done by Clarence
Bakken and Sara Armstrong for Challenge 2000, CTAP Region IV Technology Leadership Academy
and the Institute for Research on Learning. |