Running head: WEBSITE REVIEW AND MARKETING THE SCHOOL

Website Review and Marketing the School

Martha C. McMillan
Dr. J. Freeman - EDAS 5770
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
8 June 2014

WEBSITE REVIEW

Website Review
Introduction
According to the Digital Duo at districtadministration.com, school websites
should be useful for parents and students, keeping everyone up to date. It should provide
contact information for school and district employees, should be kept up to date, and
should be enhanced with multimedia elements. (Dyrli and Shields, 2004)
ELE School obtained a new website at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school
year. Parents or teachers do not utilize it often. However, in this technology age, I
believe that it is important to keep up and maintain a full-functioning website that is
helpful to all who peruse it. I used two rubrics from Dr. Alice Christie to evaluate ELE
Schools website.
Rubric 1: All Web Sites
The first rubric contained five categories that were all ranked from 5 (exemplary)
to 0 (emerging). The first category was organization. This category was given a rank of
3 (developing). While it has an inviting opening page, he ELE School website has some
incomplete pages, some links that lack purpose, and it is only generally easy to navigate
through the site. The second category was information. Again, this category was given a
rank of 3 (developing) though it had some checked in all categories, there were more
checked in the developing column. The information is accurate, but it is only relatively
current meaning that it has been updated within the last six months, but not the last two

WEBSITE REVIEW
months. There is no contact information or revision date on the website and it doesnt
always have information that is valuable to the intended audiences.
The third category was presentation. It was given a rank of 4 (exemplary). The
website is clearly identified and easy to find. The backgrounds and text work well
together. The links are not always appropriate and informative, but any multimedia on
the website adds to eh main purpose. The fourth category is technical aspects. It was
ranked a 5 (exemplary). The links work properly, the graphics are organized, and it
works in all major browsers. The fifth (and final category) is mechanics. It received a 4
(exemplary). The organizational structure is only somewhat coherent, but there are minor
problems with the grammar and usage. The punctuation is correct and the spelling is
correct with the site needing little or no editing.
The All Websites rubric has a total of 25 points. The ELE School website
earned 19 out of 25 points. The average score was 3.8, which gives ELE a final ranking
of developing (but very close to exemplary).
Rubric 2: K-12 Schools
The second rubric concerned websites for all K-12 school websites. It had six
categories: philosophy and academic standards, school information, curriculum and
school programs, audience, sensitivity, and links. The first category (philosophy and
academic standards) was given a ranking of 1 (emerging). The mission is stated and
evident in the content of the site. However, it has limited links to district policies and
resources. Neither academic standards nor state standards are listed on the site and the
school Acceptable Use Policy is not provided. The second category was school

WEBSITE REVIEW
information. It garnered a ranking of 4 (exemplary). The site is relevant to the school
community. The school personnel and their contact information are listed. School
policies are provided. The location of the school is stated in text and minimal school
information is provided (no lunch menus, limited calendar, etc.).
The third category is curriculum and school programs. It garnered a ranking of 1
(emerging). It has a limited description of extracurricular activities. It does not mention
best practices of technology use in education. A description of the curriculum is not
provided. A description of Special Programs is not provided. Unique characteristics of
the school are not listed. The fourth category (audience) received a ranking of 1
(emerging). The site addresses needs and interests of some but not all audiences. The
site does not include students work and it does not include classroom activities or
projects. The fifth category is sensitivity. It garnered a ranking of 1 (emerging). It
addresses little to no sensitivity to cultural diversity nor to special needs. However, it
does address some sensitivity to language needs. The sixth (and final) category is links.
It garnered a ranking of 3 (developing). The site provides no links for students, some
links for parents, and a variety of links for teachers.
The K-12 Websites rubric has a total of 30 points. The ELE School website
earned 11 out of 30 points. The average score was 1.8, which gives ELE a final ranking
of emerging (but very close to developing).
Resources
Christie, A. (2005). Web site evaluation rubric. Retrieved from http://www.west.asu.edu/
achristie/webrubric

WEBSITE REVIEW
Dyrli, O.E., & Shields, C. (2004). Do these websites work? Retreived from
https://bb5.utc.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-64811-dt-content-rid-88082_1/courses/SU14.
EDAS.5770.30792/Do_these_web_sites_work.pdf