E-portfolio evaluation criteria and indicators

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search
Mosep logo small.jpg MOSEP ePortfolio Tutorial: Module 4
Assessment of ePortfolios
Overview / Introduction - Module 4
Session 1 | Session 2 | Session 3 | Session 4



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)