Signature Ordinance 

Student Learning Outcome(s) Assessed: 

Evaluate Couple Internet Websites On 
Disabilities on Physical/Health Impairments

Description of the Signature Ordinance:

Students get critique couple websites that contribute counsel/advocacy ce people with 
disabilities. The ordinance is planned to familiarize students with the types and avail of 
counsel and media of people with disabilities beneficial to advocates, 
families, national agencies, and the unconcealed national. Students get evaluate the truthfulness, full, 
design/navigability, and accessibility of the websites as courteous as recommendations ce 
improvement. 

Directions ce Students:

Students get representation the questions contributed in the syllabus to evaluate the clew areas of each 
webpost (e.g., truthfulness, full, cunning/navigability, accessibility, recommendations). 
Students get succumb the ordinance in narrative cemat. The critique of each webpost should be 
no longer than 2 pages, so it should be 3-4 pages completion ce twain websites, double-spaced, and should accord to APA (6th ed) cemat. Succumb 
final ordinance as a sole Word muniment.
1) Truthfulness
• Who is the action of the webpost (in other vote, who wrote the full or posted the 
text made beneficial to the reader)? What is his/her (their) enhancement, narrative, and/or 
philosophy? (representation your admit vote here) 
• Are the developers of the post probable? 
• How repeatedly is the post updated? 
• Are sources of counsel contributed? 
• What are the customary and uncustomary goals and purposes of the post? 
• Does the post keep prepossession or a hidden agenda? 
• Does the post adduce counsel and situations allied to the real-life experiences of 
students?
2) Full
• Is the full general, servile, withhold and multicultural? 
• Is the full adduceed in an discernable, unreserved, multicultural, and objective 
manner? 
• Are main issues adduceed realistically? 
• Does the post representation embracing and people-first speech?
13
• Is the readability of the full withhold? 
• Is the full justly unembarrassed?
3) Cunning and Navigability
• Is the cunning of the post welcoming? 
• Is the post motivating? 
• Is the post facile to representation and deviate? 
• Are sections and wealth links labeled? 
• Are graphics and images embracing, servile, and general? 
• Does the post comprehend motivating, reflective, bearing, and incongruousiated learning 
activities?
4) People with Disabilities
• Is the post possible by people with disabilities? 
• Does the post prefer sensitivity and inclusion, and fly pitying and protective 
responses? 
• Does the post disturb an construction of the avail of insurrection, seemliness, and 
self-determination? 
• Are the numerous experiences, perceptions, and contributions of people with 
disabilities depicted? 
• Does the post succor students discern that people keep more similarities than 
differences?
5) Recommendations ce improvement 
• What prompting of services you would adduce if you were a contributing parent, ce 
example? 
• Would you veer the cunning/layout of the webpost making it easier to furnish counsel 
(incongruous form of full, may-be?) 
• Other Promptings? 

Scoring Rubric:
Attached 

~~~For this or similar assignment papers~~~