Initial Portfolio Review for Master’s and Specialist Degree in Educational Technology
Name: ____________________
Date: ________________
Reviewer: __________________________________________
Indicator
Benchmark
Technically Sound
Links
Artifact Links
Navigation
Readability
Grammar
Reflection
Statement with
Paragraph 1
Assessment
3 = All links are working.
2 = Most links are working.
1 = There are enough non-working links to show student has difficulty with
this aspect of design.
0 = Most links don’t work.
3 = All artifacts open in a separate window.
2 = Most artifact links open in a separate window.
1 = A few artifact links open in a separate window.
0 = No artifact links open in a separate window.
3 = Portfolio is clear and easy to navigate.
2 = Navigation is functional but needs improvement.
1 = Navigation needs significant work.
0 = The portfolio is almost impossible to navigate.
3 = All data and materials are easy to read.
2 = A few technical elements (i.e. font, spacing, etc.) need improvement
1 = Many technical elements (i.e. font, spacing, etc.) need improvement.
0 = The portfolio is very difficult to read.
3 = There are no grammar problems in the portfolio
2 = There are a few grammar problems in the portfolio.
1 = There are many grammar problems in the portfolio
0 = Grammar mistakes are significant.
3 = Context is included.
2 = Context is included but insufficient depth.
0 = Context is not included.
Score
Indicator
Benchmark
Assessment
Supporting
Artifacts
Paragraph 2
3 = Three things learned in program are listed with supporting artifacts
2 = Three things listed without supporting artifacts.
0 = Three things are not listed
3 = Reflections are supported by representative artifacts.
2 = Reflections are generally supported by representative artifacts
1 = Reflections are not supported by representative artifacts and are loosely
supported throughout the portfolio.
0 = Artifacts do not support stated reflections
3 = Summary comments are included that briefly describe the difference this
degree program has made (or will make) in future.
2 = Summary comments are included but insufficient depth.
0 = Summary comments are not included.
3= Each link type is distinct from all others, clearly describes relationship;
used consistently
2=Each link type is distinct from all others, clearly describes relationship;
used consistently
1=Several links are synonymous; don't discriminate concepts well; don't
show a variety of relationships; used inconsistently
0=Most links synonymous or vaguely describe relationships and aren't
distinct from other links
3 = All artifacts appropriately support the stated standards.
2 = Many artifacts appropriately support the stated standards.
1 = A few artifacts appropriately support stated standards.
0 = No artifacts appropriately support stated standards.
3 = There is mastery of all standards at the *.x level.
0 = There is not mastery for each standard at the *.x level.
Artifacts with
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Links are Efficient
Standards
Artifact Support of
Standards
Inclusion of Artifacts
Score
Indicator
Benchmark
Assessment
Data
Evidence of
Application
Course of Study
Presence of course of
study
3 = Many standards have artifacts supported by data that shows application
by the student in “real-world” situations.
2 = One artifact supports the standard with data that shows application by the
student.
1 = There is no data present in the artifacts that shows application, but
evidence suggests there may be data available.
0 = There is no evidence that the student used artifacts at the application
level.
3 = A thorough reflection is present for each course of study.
2 = The course of study is listed but reflections need to have more depth.
1 = The course of study is listed but reflections do not exist.
0 = There is no course of study listed.
Overall Average:
3.0 = Portfolio has passed two independent reviewers and no need for further review or presentation to SISLT faculty.
2.0 = There are slight issues that must be addressed by presentation date. The presentation may be cancelled if all issues
are addressed.
1.0 = There are major issues that must be addressed before the portfolio may be presented to SISLT faculty.
Less than 1 = There are major issues noted and portfolio is not ready for presentation this semester.
Score