E-portfolio evaluation criteria and indicators

MOSEP ePortfolio Tutorial: Module 4 Assessment of ePortfolios

Overview / Introduction - Module 4 Session 1 | Session 2 | Session 3 | Session 4

• Startpage
• Philosophy
• Foundation Module
• Module 1
• Module 2
• Module 3
• Module 4

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)