An example of a SMART Board being used in a 3rd grade classroom
WebQuest Activity
Skunks: Sweet or Smelly?
I chose this WebQuest to go along with our Plant and Animal Adaptations Unit for Grade 3. Skunks are one of the animals we discuss in depth- the kids are fascinated by the skunk's defense against predators.
Click the link to go to the Web Quest Skunks: Sweet or Smelly?
Evaluation
Overall Visual Appeal- 2 points
Graphic elements sometimes, but not always, contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas and relationships. There is some variation in type size, color, and layout. The four activities could have been set up as separate pages.
Navigation and Flow-4 points
Navigation is seamless. It is always clear to the learner what all the pieces are and how to get to them. This was clearly designed for the Grades 2-3 internet user. The activities are listed in order and possible resources are right near each activity description.
Mechanical Aspects- 2 points
No mechanical problems noted. Everything worked as it should. The links for both Inspiration and Kidspiration opened in the same window- so children will need to be reminded to use the "back" button.
Motivational Effectiveness of Introduction- 2 points
The introduction draws the reader into the lesson by relating to the learner's interests or goals and/or engagingly describing a compelling question or problem. Students are drawn into the Quest by being asked to write an article for a local newspaper.
Cognitive Effectiveness of the Instruction-2 points
The introduction builds on learner's prior knowledge and effectively prepares the learner by foreshadowing what the lesson is about. There are three options to gather information in this WebQuest: Basics, More Details, and In Depth. Students can decide what works best for them.
Connection of Task to Standards- 2 point
The task is referenced to standards but is not clearly connected to what students must know and be able to do to achieve proficiency of those standards. I feel it could be better connected to literacy standards since the students' job is to write an article for a newspaper.
Cognitive Level of the Task- 6 points
Task is doable and engaging, and elicits thinking that goes beyond rote comprehension. The task requires synthesis of multiple sources of information, and/or taking a position, and/or going beyond the data given and making a generalization or creative product. Students need to convince an audience that their story should be chosen for the newspaper. They need to take a position after synthesizing information.
Clarity of Process- 4 points
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. Everything is presented in a sequential manner.
Scaffolding of Process- 3 points
Strategies and organizational tools embedded in the process are insufficient to ensure that all students will gain the knowledge needed to complete the task. More websites could be included so students could further research the topic before pulling the information together.
Richness of Process- 2 points
Different roles are assigned to help students understand different perspectives and/or share responsibility in accomplishing the task. Students are asked to get together with a reading buddy and share what they already know about skunks, activating prior knowledge. This is a task that can also be done independently.
Relevance and Quality of Resources- 4 points
There is a clear and meaningful connection between all the resources and the information needed for students to accomplish the task. Every resource carries its weight. There are three "levels" of resources students can choose from- Basics, More Details, and In Depth. Each resource page provides valuable information for students at any reading level.
Quality of Resources- 2 points
Some links carry information not ordinarily found in a classroom. As I previously stated, the resource links could have been connected to outside web sites.
Clarity of Evaluation Criteria- 0 points
Criteria for success are not described. This is disappointing, as students have no way of knowing how they will be scored or assessed. This could lead to a dip in motivation.
Total Score: 35/50
Overall, this is a meaningful learning experience for students. There is a great literacy connection here, but the lack of evaluation criteria is a problem. A rubric would be extremely helpful in helping this WebQuest achieve its full potential.
Click the link to go to the Web Quest Skunks: Sweet or Smelly?
Evaluation
Overall Visual Appeal- 2 points
Graphic elements sometimes, but not always, contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas and relationships. There is some variation in type size, color, and layout. The four activities could have been set up as separate pages.
Navigation and Flow-4 points
Navigation is seamless. It is always clear to the learner what all the pieces are and how to get to them. This was clearly designed for the Grades 2-3 internet user. The activities are listed in order and possible resources are right near each activity description.
Mechanical Aspects- 2 points
No mechanical problems noted. Everything worked as it should. The links for both Inspiration and Kidspiration opened in the same window- so children will need to be reminded to use the "back" button.
Motivational Effectiveness of Introduction- 2 points
The introduction draws the reader into the lesson by relating to the learner's interests or goals and/or engagingly describing a compelling question or problem. Students are drawn into the Quest by being asked to write an article for a local newspaper.
Cognitive Effectiveness of the Instruction-2 points
The introduction builds on learner's prior knowledge and effectively prepares the learner by foreshadowing what the lesson is about. There are three options to gather information in this WebQuest: Basics, More Details, and In Depth. Students can decide what works best for them.
Connection of Task to Standards- 2 point
The task is referenced to standards but is not clearly connected to what students must know and be able to do to achieve proficiency of those standards. I feel it could be better connected to literacy standards since the students' job is to write an article for a newspaper.
Cognitive Level of the Task- 6 points
Task is doable and engaging, and elicits thinking that goes beyond rote comprehension. The task requires synthesis of multiple sources of information, and/or taking a position, and/or going beyond the data given and making a generalization or creative product. Students need to convince an audience that their story should be chosen for the newspaper. They need to take a position after synthesizing information.
Clarity of Process- 4 points
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. Everything is presented in a sequential manner.
Scaffolding of Process- 3 points
Strategies and organizational tools embedded in the process are insufficient to ensure that all students will gain the knowledge needed to complete the task. More websites could be included so students could further research the topic before pulling the information together.
Richness of Process- 2 points
Different roles are assigned to help students understand different perspectives and/or share responsibility in accomplishing the task. Students are asked to get together with a reading buddy and share what they already know about skunks, activating prior knowledge. This is a task that can also be done independently.
Relevance and Quality of Resources- 4 points
There is a clear and meaningful connection between all the resources and the information needed for students to accomplish the task. Every resource carries its weight. There are three "levels" of resources students can choose from- Basics, More Details, and In Depth. Each resource page provides valuable information for students at any reading level.
Quality of Resources- 2 points
Some links carry information not ordinarily found in a classroom. As I previously stated, the resource links could have been connected to outside web sites.
Clarity of Evaluation Criteria- 0 points
Criteria for success are not described. This is disappointing, as students have no way of knowing how they will be scored or assessed. This could lead to a dip in motivation.
Total Score: 35/50
Overall, this is a meaningful learning experience for students. There is a great literacy connection here, but the lack of evaluation criteria is a problem. A rubric would be extremely helpful in helping this WebQuest achieve its full potential.
Should Web Quests be in Included in Chapter 12?
Clark and Mayer's Text
| web_quest.doc |
Research Article Follow-Up
| research_article_follow_up.doc |
Opinion Paper- SMART Boards and Practice
| smart_practice.doc |
