WEAVE

**Web Exploration and Value Examination**

The purpose of this assignment is to provide an array of quality, professionally vetted, web sites, across the curriculum, to recommend to classroom teachers with whom you will be working. Accordingly, the assignment is designed to provide as broad a cross section as possible, within a reasonable time frame for this course. Please make a reasonable effort to do a unique site that no one else has done so that all may benefit from reviews of as many sites as possible within the class.

PLAN TO BRING EARBUDS OR HEADPHONES TO LISTEN TO WEB SITES WITHOUT DISTURBING OTHERS.

As you look at the sites listed for each day you will find that some sites have peculiarities that do not always work well with Chrome (the browser I use most). When you run into a site related problem, I have found that Firefox seems to be the most reliable browser. Internet Explorer is the leading browser on Windows computers and Safari is widely used on Macintosh computers. The point is simply to try another browser, if something does not work, before giving up.

Monday, June 27 - __ Language Arts __ (LA) Tuesday, June 28 - __ Social Studies __ (SS) Wednesday, June 29 - __ Visual and Performing Arts __ (VPA) Thursday, June 30 - __ Math and Science __ (MS) Friday, July 1 - __ Professional Resources __ (PR)

A few sites have payment options. Do NOT put any payment information in for this class. If registration for a site is free, then go ahead and register to see what is there. But, if a payment is requested, just review what you can without making a payment or go on to a different site to review if you do not believe you can write a review on free information. Use your best judgement on "free demos" but do not put in any payment information.
 * Note:**

All of these sites listed for this track have been "vetted" (recommended) by professional literature in some way (even though a few are just a store or just a simple tool). Please use these sites and not something you find on a search or have used before. Sites found on a search are more likely to have some questionable facts or teaching strategies. And, the assignment is designed to broaden your horizons in web content delivery, not simply reinforce something you already know.
 * And another note:**

These sites are presented as Web 1.0 applications largely based on Teacher-centric content presentation, rather than the more interactive and potentially student-centered approaches in Web 2.0 (+). You may notice, though, that some of these sites use blog or wiki bases for their content presentations. Blogs and wikis generally are considered Web 2.0 tools, but can serve as foundations for teacher-centric content applications.
 * And, finally:**

Class starts at 8:00 am. Work with your partner on one or two WEAVE sites after you have posted your choices on the whiteboard in the classroom. You need to work on sites no one else has chosen. At approximately 8:30, class will convene as a group for each partnership to present the sites visited to the rest of the class.
 * Performance Record**

Grades are assigned based on preparation, discussion within the group, and one's presentation, based on the rubric below. Typically grades are assigned in class, but may be revised after class on the professor's reflection on the presentations overall.

Each partnership is responsible for structuring their responses into approximately equal segments. This can be done several ways, but it is important that an element of collaboration be evident. In a collaborative environment you are, to some extent, your brother's (or sister's) keeper. You need to be sure your partner understands your points and that you understand theirs so that you truly are working together.
 * Rubric**

|| Excellent || || (A) (B) ||= Good (C) || || Needy ||
 * = Outstanding

|| (D) (F) ||
 * = Unfortunate
 * Collaboration || The ideas contributed by each participant are acknowledged smoothly and at appropriate times within the flow of the presentation overall. The presentation is cohesive, yet the contribution each partner has made is clear and well balanced. Partners do not have to agree to have a smooth and balanced presentation. || The ideas of each partner are clear, but the presentation is choppy and not well organized - or, the presentation is smooth enough, but the contributions each has made are less than absolutely clear. In either situation the balance is likely to be off. Partners do not have to agree, but should respect their differences. || Both partners have contributed at least some, and the report is fairly complete, yet unbalanced and not smoothly done as discussion moves from one point to the next. Partners do not have to agree, but should show some level of understanding on points of disagreement. || One partner is significantly underperforming, or at least unable to communicate or cooperate with the other to create a smooth presentation involving both. Partners do not have to agree, but should show some attempt at finding a common point where they may agree to disagree. || Partners are unable to work together. Both may be underperforming overall, or may be doing otherwise good work, simply pursuing it independently. Partners are unable to work together. ||
 * Analysis || Analysis will include a careful and detailed examination in which points are compared and contrasted, using subdivision of content and reasonable inferences, as needed. || Analysis is a succinct, yet comprehensive examination of the content. Some comparisons or contrasts are made. There is some use of subdivision or inference. || Analysis is a reasonable overview of the site, with some suggestions as to the intended purpose. || Analysis reveals careful examination of at least part of the content, but is incomplete. || The examination of the site is incomplete and not well done, incorrect, or not communicated effectively. ||
 * Synthesis || Synthesis combines chapter content with web content in clear and convincing ways, developing applicable bridging concepts as needed, or formulating reasonable hypotheses on outcomes indicated. || Synthesis actively links ideas from the chapter to the web quest material, perhaps showing some cause and effect, but not effectively drawing any larger conclusions from these findings. || Synthesis finds some parallel concepts in each content base, but can't effectively hypothesize how they are related. || Synthesis finds random similarities, but can't really see how anything ties together. || Attempts at synthesis do not find any points of similarity or comparison between the two information sources. ||
 * Evaluation || The evaluation of the web quest material in light of the chapter concepts considers assessment that employs good judgement built on a logic that weighs various factors in crafting a critique or recommendation regarding its use to illustrate chapter highlights. || The evaluation of the web quest material is built on a clear rationale with a definitive response. While clear and concise, it may leave some questions unanswered. || The evaluation may have a clear conclusion with an inadequate rationale - or a reasonable rationale that has difficulty reaching a clear conclusion. || Some attempt is made at evaluation, but neither the rationale or conclusion are particularly clear or satisfying. || Evaluation either is forgotten or what is offered as evaluation is not a credible attempt. ||