LedsomeWebQuest

Criteria	Accomplished (3)	Developing (2)	Beginning (1)	Score & Comments
Introduction	Engagingly describes a compelling question or problem.	A question or problem is described.	The purpose of the WebQuest is unclear.	3 – This is very good.  It grabs your attention and seems like it would be a really project to do.
Task	Task is doable and engaging, and is connected to learning in the real world. It elicits thinking that goes beyond rote comprehension.	The task is doable and elicits higher order thinking but is not relevant to students lives.	Task requires simply comprehending or retelling of information found on web pages and answering factual questions.	3 – Very doable.  I like how it’s very much a group project sort of thing, with roles and such shared among the members.  Giving them a budget also seems like a great idea to me, seeing as in real life they will not have an unlimited amount of money.  Very nice.
Process Checklist	Every step is clearly stated. Most students would know exactly where they are at each step of the process and know what to do next.	Some directions are given, but there is missing information. Students might be confused.	Every step is clearly stated. Most students would know exactly where they are at each step of the process and know what to do next.	3 – I really like how you’ve set this up with the different colors and such.  It makes it very easy to follow.
Resources	There is a clear and meaningful connection between all the resources and the information needed for students to accomplish the task.	There is some connection between the resources and the information needed for students to accomplish the task. Some resources don't add anything new.	Resources provided are not sufficient for students to accomplish the task.	3 – Your resources are really great and I think they will help out the students a lot.
Formative Assessment	Webquest begins with a formative assessment that assess student understanding of content outlined in CSO.	Formative assessment comes close in assessing student understanding of content outlined in CSO.	Formative assessment does not directly assess student understanding of content outlined in CSO.	3 – Looks good.  I think you’ve covered all of these CSOs in your WebQuest.
Evaluation	Criteria for success are clearly stated in the form of a rubric. Criteria include qualitative as well as quantitative descriptors.	Criteria for success are clearly stated in the form of a rubric. Criteria include qualitative as well as quantitative descriptors.	Criteria for success are not described.	2- I think you have a good starting place with your rubric.  Since cooperation is included in your evaluation listed below that, I think you should probably include that in there as well.  I think you should probably also do a little more with the math and measurements in your rubric since you have it counting for 50%.
Visual Appeal	Appropriate and thematic graphic elements are used to make visual connections that contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas and relationships.	Graphic elements sometimes, but not always, contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas and relationships.	Color is garish and/or typographic variations are overused and legibility suffers. Background interferes with the readability.	1 – I only do this because of your font colors.  I like that you use different ones, but the ones that you used are really, really bright.  They don’t really flow well with the blue and white font colors that are used for the headings and main text.
Navigation	Navigation is seamless. It is always clear to the learner what all the pieces are and how to get to them.	There are a few places where the learner can get lost and not know where to go next.	There are more than 5 broken links, misplaced or missing images, badly sized tables, misspellings and/or grammatical errors.	3 – I see nothing wrong at all with your navigation.

WebQuest Worksheet

The Affiliator

WebQuest	Strengths	Weaknesses
Gorillas	Students have to work together to determine what problems are causing gorillas to become extinct and then to discuss as a class and in groups how best to save these animals.  There is a lot of collaboration.	The beginning research could potentially be done individually.
Shakespeare	Everything is decided as a group.  This project requires the members to work together a great deal.	Research is done individually.
Earthquake	There is a lot of group work here and the group must work well together to get everything done.	I don’t see any.
Foreign Country	There is competition here, other than that not really a whole lot of collaboration.	This project sounds like an individual research and PowerPoint presentation.  There is no group work whatsoever.
Waves & Sounds	I don’t see any.	It’s not very clear what is being asked in this project.  It seems to me, though, that there isn’t all that much collaboration here.

The Top Ten Video

coming soon.

Sharing: The Moral Imperative

coming soon.

Wikipedia: Friend of Foe

The article and class activity didn’t really change my opinion on the value of Wikipedia to society and education.  I’ve always thought that it could be used as a valuable source if used with caution.  I think that Wikipedia can be very useful to give students a good idea on topics that they might be studied and maybe lead them on a search to discover whether or not information is factual and can be used in a paper or in a project.  It can also be a good way to educate the public and to give them a chance to possibly see two sides of a story that they otherwise might not get from watching biased news reports or reading the paper.

I would have my students use Wikipedia as a source to gain a basic level of knowledge on an assignment and to use it for the numerous sources that it could possibly provide for them to explore the information deeper.  I would advise them to never take the information for truth until they've found other sources confirming the information.  I would encourage them to use Wikipedia, but I would also caution them to be aware that not everything they find should be taken at face value.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is "a multilingual, Web-based encyclopedia project, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization."

I think that the source can be very valuable even if it can be edited.  As long as the information is checked and found to be true.  Information is always changing, and those well-versed in a subject would know well enough, I think, to find information and share it with others who also know the subject or are enthusiastic about it.

They trust the population of people who visit the site to weed out misinformation.  Those that have knowledge or have found sources that prove otherwise.

Larry Sanger left Wikipedia because he felt that more authority should be given to experts on the site.  He created his own site after leaving that did just that.

I have no idea what abuse or vandalism would look like on a Wikipedia page.  The article says nothing about it.

The statistics offered in the third paragraph of the article reveal that Wikipedia is quite a popular site with a good bit of information to be found.

I think Wikipedia is so successful because it provides a place to get a good bit of information on a topic.  Even when doing a project, though you shouldn't credit Wikipedia it is a great place to get a good idea about what it is you are researching and several sources that could potentially be used.

I would say that the founders would not want to accept advertising because the people and corporations that advertise on the site would likely bias some of the information found there.  They may want something to adhere more to their views than to let the people who visit see both sides of a situation.

Wikiscanner gives people a way to see who is updating information and how reliable they may or may not be.  It also makes people responsible for their actions and what they say or do on Wikipedia.

Think Aloud

Thinkaloud

View more presentations from brittmorgan9.

Web Page Evaluation

The site I'm evaluating is http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/.

The domain name of this website is zapatopi.net. I feel that this domain name lessons the credibility of this website because .net is one of the many different names that are available for anyone to buy and create websites one.

There is no clear author stated.  There is a message at the bottom that says:  "This site is not associated with any school or educational organization, other than the Kelvinic University branch of the Wild Haggis Conservation Society."  So I suppose that the possible author could be someone from the branch of the Wild Haggis Conservation Society from Kelvinic University.  There is also a link that says:  "Address concerns to Lyle Zapato."  So she could be another potential author.

When I look up Kelvinic University, I am taken to a site with the same domain name as the website I am trying to validate.  The page for this "uuniversity" is just an extinction of the page I'm already on, which tells me that the "corporation" is not a credible sourcee for information.  The page does tell of the school and its goals and purposes.  It does have a mailing address.  There are, however, no actual names given at any time.  No links to pages for facility or anything.  I don't believe there are any biases, either.  Overall, no, I would say the organization should not be giving information on this topic because he organization itself does not exist.

The purpose of this web page is clearly stated.  The purpose is to help save the endangered Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus from extinction.  In a way this page wants to both inform and persuade the reader.  There is a lot of information given on the Tree Octopus, but at the same time they want you to get involved in helping to save this endangered species.  There aren't any advertisements on this page.  There is a sidebar with news, a support thing, and a gift shop, but that's all.  So I would say that its not distracting at all and helps to contribute to the message the page is trying to get out.

I would say the intended target of the page is everyone.  This organization wants to get as many people as possible to take an interest in their cause.  There are several scientific terms within the text that I don't understand, and it uses a bigger vocabulary than maybe younger children wouldn't understand, so I suppose this "matches my needs."\

The information on this page was created on March 8, 1998 and was last updated on March 28, 2011.  There is a tab given that has sightings of the tree octopus and they have recent dates on them.  This site seems to have been probably maintained and not neglected at all.

I don't believe this content is peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny.  There is no indication of this anywhere.  There are no awards or links to favorable site reviews from reliable sources.  Based on what I've seen, I would say that this source is not reliable at all.

I would not recommend this site to anyone, because the corporation that is in charge of this website does not even exist.  So I have to doubt the claims that this Tree Octopus is actually a real thing.