Our first pillar is organization and presentation. I'd say that the website homepage does not contain a very good balance of visual aids and writing (far more writing). Seems like a little too much writing for a home page. However, the information is easy to find and the visual aids do have captions and references. I'd give the organization and presentation of this website a 5 points. So "good."They could have either taken away some of the unnecessary writing they had on their table of contents or added some more pictures to balance it out.
Our second pillar is sources. I found this website a bit difficult on how they referenced things. They definitely do have many sources, but it seems like most of them are just pictures. Sources are heavily websites and not cited in any specific way. So under poor it fits with not having enough scholarly sources, sources are improperly referenced and the bibliography is really lacking (it's just a page labeled "links) and it's definitely not cited in Harvard style. I'm going to have to give the website 2 points for this one. They could have made a bibliography page with properly referenced websites. They also could have found a more variety of sources, not just websites.
Our third pillar is research questions. This pillar is barely applicable to this website, since there are no research questions anywhere. So since they don't have any, I guess I'll have to give them a 0. They could have maybe put the objectives of their research at the top of the page, or some questions in regards to it before they put up all the other information. It would show their viewers that they have a clear path of what they want to learn about the monuments they're showing.
Our fourth pillar is written communication. It's excellent in the sense that there are barely any grammar/spelling mistakes. The writing also flows well and is coherent. It's good in the sense that what is supposed to be communicated is a little unclear since their are "miscellaneous" sections, but overall you can tell. There are no in-text citations which makes it poor. I'll give this 4 points. They could have done some in text citations and grouped the miscellaneous into some category somehow.
The fifth pillar is content and data. It is poor because the information is merely presented, and not thoughtfully analyzed. There is also no sort of "conclusion." No opposing information is acknowledged. However, it's excellent because all the information is relevant and on topic. I'll give this one 4 points. They could have possibly written how different people interpret the monuments differently and the correlation they saw between monuments.
Our last pillar is method and approach. This project shows little to no understanding of archaeological concepts and does not use primarily archaeological methodology. It focuses too much on historical information without looking at the archaeological interpretations of the monuments. They could have made it less factual, and more about the interpretation of the monuments/buildings. I'll give it 2 points.
So out of 45 points, this website got…. 17. Well I do feel bad for completely destroying this website, but our rubric is pretty hardcore. I understand now how difficult it really is to mark something so precisely with a rubric since a project can have some really great parts and some parts that don't work as well.
Reference:
The website I marked: http://www.thirdreichruins.com/index.htm
My rubric:
 CATEGORY | |||
| | Poor (N/A) | Good (N/A) | Excellent (N/A) |
| Organization and Presentation | Poor Layout is confusing, navigation is difficult. Lacking any or enough visual aids OR too many of these with not enough writing (balance not achieved). Information is not easily accessible/is hard to find. (1-3 points) | Good Some information cannot be found easily. Layout may not make complete sense. May sacrifice some academic quality for aesthetics or vice versa. Some, but not all, visual aids may be lacking captions or references. (4-6 points) | Excellent Easy to navigate. Style does not distract from communication. Balance between visual aids and text. Information is easily accessible/easy to find. Visual aids do not detract from written information or vice versa. Visual aids have captions and references. Site is aesthetically pleasing. (7-9 points) |
| Sources | Poor Does not have enough sources or not enough sources are scholarly. OR Relies far too heavily strictly on sources that are not relevant to archaeology. Sources are improperly referenced or not referenced at all. Bibliography is missing or done improperly (i.e. not Harvard or improper Harvard). (1-2 points) | Good Most, but not all, sources are relevant. May rely on too many non-academic sources. Most, but not all, sources are cited or listed properly. (3-4 points) | Excellent All sources are relevant to the topic and are all archaeologically/historically sound sources. All sources are cited and listed properly. Sufficient amount of sources and sufficient amount of scholarly sources. (5-6 points) |
| Research Questions | Poor Research questions are either too broad or too narrow. Questions may be too obvious or too easy to answer. Not a lot of thought was put into the question. Questions may not be fully relevant to mortuary archaeology. (1-2 points) | Good Questions could be further developed, and show some depth of thought but not a lot. Questions are largely relevant to mortuary archaeology. (3-4 points) | Excellent Research questions are neither too broad nor too narrow (scope is reasonable). Goes beyond the obvious and clearly shows depth of thought and are clearly relevant to mortuary archaeology. (5-6 points) |
| Written Communication | Poor Writing is rife with grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, etc. In-text citations are missing or incorrect. Writing does not flow well and is not easy to follow or is incoherent and/or inarticulate. (1-2 points) | Good Some grammatical, spelling, etc. mistakes are present but not pervasive. Some mistakes are present in citations. What is supposed to be communicated is mostly articulated well, but may not be clear in all instances. (3-4 points) | Excellent Grammar, spelling, etc. are mistake free (or very close to). Writing flows well, is easy to follow, and is coherent. Sources are cited properly in the text. What is supposed to be communicated is clearly articulated. (5-6 points) |
| Content and Data | Poor Content is minimal or missing important key components. Information is merely presented, not thoughtfully analyzed. There is a large disconnect between evidence and conclusions. Opposing information is not acknowledged or refuted (where applicable). Content or data may be irrelevant or not focused enough on the topic. (1-3 points) | Good Information is used for thoughtful analysis, but there may be too much simple reiteration and not enough analysis. There may be a slight disconnect between evidence and conclusions. It may acknowledge opposing information but this information is not convincingly refuted if refuted at all (where applicable). (4-6 points) | Excellent Sources are not just used for information but are used as a starting point for insightful analysis and conclusions. Evidence clearly supports the conclusions reached. All information is relevant and on topic. The project acknowledges opposing information and refutes it convincingly (where applicable). (7-9 points) |
| Method and Approach | Poor Project shows little to no understanding of archaeological concepts and does not use a primarily archaeological methodology (e.g. may focus too much on historical methods and information without looking at this information through an archaeological lens). (1-3 points) | Good The project shows a fair grasp on archaeological concepts and uses an archaeological method but not to the extent that it could. Methods from other disciplines may be employed a little more than is appropriate for the topic chosen. (4-6 points) | Excellent The project demonstrates a firm and thoughtful understanding of archaeological concepts and consistently employs an archaeological method. If an archaeological approach cannot be maintained 100% because of the topic and sources available, the archaeological method is employed to the greatest extent it can be while presenting information of a non-archaeological nature. (7-9 points) |
| | |
No comments:
Post a Comment