Response to a Webquest

The WebQuest I chose to evaluate is called "Introduction to Computers." It was published in September of 2010 and purports to cover "computer basics and XP basics" and be targetted to "adult learners." XP was already two versions out of fashion by September of 2010, so I'm interested to see how good it is. The link is here.

a. Introduction

Strength: Well, it's direct and to the point. I disdain introductions where the subject is explored too deeply and it feels like the designer or presenter is going off on some kind of a tangent; none of that is going on here.

Weaknesses: Nearly everything else. The first word (welcome) is spelled wrong. Beyond that, it doesn't tell the learner what they are supposed to do next. If someone needs a lesson in "Computer Basics" is it going to be intuitive to them to go over to the left and click "Task?" Do they even know what a WebQuest is? Probably not, but this introduction doesn't give them any of that information at all.

b. Task

Strength: Again, I like that it is direct and to the point. It's a numbered list that explains the exact steps that a student will follow.

Weakness: Writing. I don't want to cast aspersions on a total stranger, but if this was intended for an adult audience it should be written at at least a high school reading level. Clearly that is not the case. The writing goes in and out of the second person. And while I do appreciate brevity, some of the tasks are almost too abbreviated. For example, #3 simply says, "View Youtube Videos." There are approximately one gajillion YouTube videos that someone could watch and simultaneously learn nothing about using computers. I agree that the tasks listed are probably "Doable," but they certainly aren't sold by the designer as being interesting.

c. Process

Strength: Not many. I think I will say that this section is easy to understand even for a beginner (what with the CLICK HERE stuff)... but that's only because I feel like I'm required to say something for strengths.

Weakness: I think I understand what's happening here. We had an assignment last week where we had to make a trackstar presentation that was a few slides long. I did so, using "Beginning Computers" as my example. Our goal was to demonstrate we could use TrackStar, as opposed to designing a fully functional, marketable module. I'm beginning to suspect that the creator of this WebQuest was doing the same thing. Again, the writing is a problem (future vs present tense, second person again) and beyond that, the instructions are a bit too clipped. If someone is a beginner, it isn't enough to tell them "Click here and view the presentation." You need to tell them how to view it, what a powerpoint presentation even is, etc.

d. Evaluation

Strengths: None. Sorry. I can't do it this time.

Weakness: Completely unreadable. If the WebQuest page hadn't told us this was going to be a rubric, I wouldn't even recognize that that's what they were going for. I'm quite certain that the text Stated Objective or Performance was supposed to be replaced with an actual stated objective, but it was just left there. Also, there's only one level of success, no depth of understanding. This is understandable with technical training (either you can turn the computer on or you can't) but the level of achievement described barely makes sense....certainly not to someone who is supposedly a computer "beginner." "Perform Copy & Paste Hot Keys." What?????

e. Conclusion

Strength: It's polite. It thanks people for coming this far, and they deserve that thanks. It also gives people a "Click here to provide feedback" link, which I suspect might be a canned QuestGarden component, but it's still nice to include one.

Weaknesses: It isn't really a conclusion of the material. It tells people they're going to get a certificate of achievement, but there's no effort to conclude what was learned, to tie together disparate concepts... It's there because it's required, not because it's doing anything.

f. And Lastly

There was no question listed for F.

g. Usability

I think this could be used in a classroom without modification, specifically in the scenario where you were teaching people how to design WebQuests and needed a rubric example of "Completely Unacceptable." I could not use it to teach adults anything about computers; probably children too. In order to make it acceptable, it would essentially have to be redone from scratch, but if I Have to pick the one thing that makes it useless it's that it isn't really written to an audience that doesn't understand or know computers. It appears to have been written with the goal of using the fewest possible words. While it is admirable not to want to waste people's time, if they get nothing from the exercise/don't understand it, you're still wasting their time... just less of it.