Criteria for Evaluation

Possible Points

Points

Comments

1. Analysis

• Does the site include sufficient analysis, enough for an 8-10 page paper? Does it significantly expand the reader’s understanding of the text or concept?
• Is the analysis of high quality, making in-depth, original, and interesting points about the work?
• Does the site simply repeat material covered in class, or does it expand on those ideas?
• Are assertions backed up by references to the text?
• Does the analysis look closely at the text (if this is part of the project) and provide a logical and fresh interpretation of it?
• Are unfamiliar terms and concepts explained correctly? Are any unfamiliar terms left without explanations?
• Are the sources used legitimate scholarly sources, such as peer-reviewed journals or books, or are many less scholarly (i.e., Wikipedia or fan sites)?

50

2. Writing

• Is the quality of writing at the site clear and fluent?
• Are the paragraphs or units of analysis unified and coherent? Do sentences flow smoothly within them, or are there instances of choppiness or wordiness?
• Are the sentences grammatically correct? Are there instances of major errors such as comma splices, fragments, and fused sentences?
• Are the sentences free from errors in parallelism, agreement, pronoun reference, and so on? Are they free from wordiness and ambiguity?

20

3. Mechanics

• Are the mechanical features of writing (capitalization, punctuation, and so on) correct?
• Are titles punctuated correctly?
• Is a reference list of links or Works Cited page included?
• Are sources cited correctly using MLA style?

5

4. Site

• Is the site easy to navigate? Does it include a table of contents, a home page with links, or other devices to facilitate navigation?
• Is the site’s use of hypertext features (like links) logical and easy to follow?
• Is the site attractive and visually appealing? If it uses images or sounds, do they contribute to the overall experience of visiting the site?
• If materials are taken from other sites, are they appropriately cited, with a link back to the originating site?
• Does the site provide the names of those who created it?

15

5. Rationale

10

• Is the rationale present?
• Does it effectively explain the purpose and design of the site?