Evaluation Rubric

Overview explicitly describes the 8-week OST 142 course, the partial website scope (Weeks 4–6), target audience (OST program students), and integration into the broader curriculum. Includes instructor credentials and course philosophy.

Overview describes the course topic and audience but lacks explicit connection to the full 8-week sequence or detailed instructor background.

Overview mentions the course name and general topic but does not clearly define audience, scope, or curriculum integration.

Overview is missing, vague, or does not accurately describe the course purpose or audience.

Every week lists 5+ specific, measurable learning outcomes using Bloom's action verbs (identify, define, interpret, apply, synthesize). Each outcome includes the body-system context and is tagged with LO numbers for cross-referencing.

Learning outcomes are listed for each week and use appropriate action verbs, but some are slightly broad or lack precise measurement criteria.

Learning outcomes are present but use vague language (e.g., 'understand,' 'learn about') or are fewer than 3 per week.

Learning outcomes are missing, incomplete, or written as topic lists rather than measurable statements.

Each week includes 5+ diverse materials (textbook chapter, narrated slides, video, pronunciation guide, reference sheet) with clear purpose statements, aligned LO tags, and access paths. Includes both required and supplementary resources.

Each week includes 3–4 materials with basic descriptions. Most materials are aligned to outcomes, but some lack detailed purpose or access instructions.

Materials are listed but descriptions are minimal, alignment to outcomes is unclear, or fewer than 3 materials are provided per week.

Instructional materials are missing, poorly described, or not aligned to the stated learning outcomes.

Each week includes 4+ varied activities (individual, pair, small group, whole class) with detailed descriptions, timing, format, pedagogical rationale, and LO alignment. Activities promote multiple learning modalities (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, social).

Each week includes 3–4 activities with descriptions and LO alignment. Most activities are interactive, but some rationale or timing details may be missing.

Activities are listed but lack variety, detailed descriptions, or clear pedagogical rationale. Fewer than 3 activities per week.

Engagement activities are missing, purely passive (e.g., 'read the chapter'), or not aligned to learning outcomes.

Each week includes 4+ assessments (formative and summative) with point values, descriptions, format details, and explicit LO alignment. A mix of auto-graded, instructor-graded, and peer-reviewed assessments is used.

Each week includes 3–4 assessments with descriptions and point values. Most are aligned to outcomes, but some lack detailed format or scoring information.

Assessments are present but lack variety, detailed descriptions, or clear LO alignment. Fewer than 3 assessments per week.

Assessments are missing, poorly described, or not connected to the learning outcomes.

Every assessment includes a specific feedback description (timing, method, content). Includes immediate auto-graded feedback, instructor written feedback within 5 business days, personal check-in emails for struggling students, and revision opportunities for partial credit.

Most assessments include feedback information, but some lack specificity on timing or method. One type of feedback (e.g., auto-graded only) dominates.

Feedback is mentioned for some assessments but is vague ('feedback will be provided') or missing entirely for others.

No feedback information is provided, or the site implies that students will not receive performance feedback.

Every material, activity, and assessment is explicitly tagged with the LOs it supports. Students can trace any LO through the full instructional chain. Alignment is documented in a visual course map and per-module tables.

Most materials, activities, and assessments are aligned to outcomes, but some connections are implicit rather than explicitly tagged.

Alignment exists but is inconsistent. Some assessments or activities do not clearly connect to stated outcomes.

Little to no evidence of alignment. Materials, activities, and assessments appear disconnected from the learning outcomes.

Site features persistent top navigation, breadcrumb-style section headers, sticky module layouts, clear CTAs, and mobile-responsive design. Students can reach any module in 2 clicks or fewer. All external links open in new tabs.

Navigation is functional and most content is findable, but some pages may require scrolling or multiple clicks. Mobile experience is acceptable but not fully optimized.

Navigation exists but is inconsistent, missing on some pages, or makes it difficult to locate specific modules or assessments.

Navigation is missing, broken, or the site structure is so confusing that students cannot reliably find course content.

Site meets WCAG 2.1 AA standards: semantic HTML, ARIA labels, keyboard-navigable accordions, sufficient color contrast, closed-captioned videos, alt text for images, and readable font sizes (14px+). Tested on desktop, tablet, and mobile.

Site is generally accessible with good color contrast and readable fonts. Some minor accessibility gaps (e.g., missing alt text on decorative images) may exist.

Site is usable for most students but has notable accessibility barriers (e.g., poor contrast, small fonts, non-keyboard-navigable elements).

Site has significant accessibility or technical barriers that would prevent students with disabilities from using it effectively.