E-portfolio evaluation criteria and indicators

Criteria
A general checklist for the criteria areas that help to define presentational e-Portfolios. Based on E-Portfolio Evaluation Criteria, proposed by Penn State (Penn State, 2006 http://psu.edu). Use this rubric to help you review and evaluate your own e-Portfolio or the e-Portfolios of others.

Operational (e-Portfolio functions well). Indicators:


 * navigation is clear and consistent
 * all links work
 * media displays as intended
 * all programming is appropriate (not too limited or too flashy)
 * spelling and grammar are correct
 * published materials respect copyright laws

Appearance (e-Portfolio looks well). Indicators:
 * appearance and navigation are clear and consistent
 * images are optimized for the web
 * text is readable (fonts, sizes, and contrast)

Evidence (academic, co-curricular and personal evidence). Indicators:
 * organizational scheme connects all evidence into an integrated whole
 * features or showcases a specific piece of evidence
 * shows depth in major and related experience
 * shows breadth of knowledge and experience
 * includes a resume (one page, printer friendly)

Reflection (personal message is integrated into the e-Portfolio). Indicators:
 * audience and purpose of e-portfolio is described or is obvious
 * addresses the Career  and  own personal  development
 * reflective comments about evidence as well as reflective comments about what this evidence says about the student is integrated into the e-portfolio
 * includes short-term goals (skills learner needs to add/improve)
 * includes long-term goals (professional and/or personal aims)
 * interpretation of learner's  own  achievements is expressed

Grading Scale
The grading scale could be based on a number scale of  0 (no) to 10 (excellent):
 * 10 (excellent) -excellent performance
 * 9 (very good)- strong performance
 * 8 (good) above the average performance
 * 7 (highly satisfactory) average performance, with unessential shortcomings
 * 6 (satisfactory) below average performance, with substantial shortcomings
 * 5 (sufficient) meet minimum criteria
 * 4 (insufficient) do not meet minimum criteria
 * 3 (highly insufficient)
 * 2 (poor) far off minimum requirements
 * 1 (very poor)
 * 0 (no)