Home and About Me Pages
Criteria for the content and appearance of Home and About Me pages
|
| |
Poor
2 pts
|
Fair
3 pts
|
Good
4 pts
|
Excellent
5 pts
|
Home Page
2 pts
|
Poor
Three of the qualities listed in the excellent column are missing.
|
Fair
Two of the qualities listed in the excellent column are missing.
|
Good
One of the qualities listed in the excellent column is missing.
|
Excellent
Invites the reader to view the portfolio (2). Has something of visual appeal to make the portfolio enticing (2). Explains to the reader what they can expect to find (3). Sounds genuine and individual, not like a cookie-cutter job (3).
|
About Me Page
2 pts
|
Poor
Three of the qualities listed in the excellent column are missing.
|
Fair
Two of the qualities listed in the excellent column are missing.
|
Good
One of the qualities listed in the excellent column is missing.
|
Excellent
Information on page is primarily professional (things someone hiring you would want to know) (2). A professional picture of you in included (2). Your attitudes/beliefs about technology in education can be found (3). Sounds genuine and individual, not like a cookie-cutter job (3).
|
Gallery
|
| |
Poor
2 pts
|
Fair
3 pts
|
Good
4 pts
|
Excellent
5 pts
|
Explanations
1 pts
|
Poor
The explanations are missing or poorly written for most of the gallery items.
|
Fair
Explanations for some of the gallery items are vague. Does not describe both technology itself and its educational merits. Linkage between the items and the subject area is not well established.
|
Good
Explanations of gallery items thoroughly explain both the technology itself and its educational merits. Linkage between the items and the subject area is not well established.
|
Excellent
Explanations of gallery items thoroughly explain both the technology itself and its educational merits. Explanations are also well aligned with the subject area.
|
Quality and Quantity
1 pts
|
Poor
The gallery includes only few items; it does not reflect variety. Quality does not convey a high level of technological ability and achievement.
|
Fair
The page includes a fair number of technological projects. The quality and quantity of the projects in the gallery convey an average level of technological ability and achievement.
|
Good
The page as a whole is a good showcase. It "wow's" the viewer with the listed technological projects. The quality and the projects in the gallery convey a high level of technological ability and achievement. The page is only missing the variety (quantity).
|
Excellent
The page as a whole is a true gallery; a showcase. It "wow's" the viewer with a variety of technological projects. The quality and quantity of the projects in the gallery convey a high level of technological ability and achievement.
|
Functionality and Organization
Criteria for functionality and organization of the e-portfolio
|
| |
Poor
2 pts
|
Fair
3 pts
|
Good
4 pts
|
Excellent
5 pts
|
Functionality
1 pts
|
Poor
Several links are broken or several objects are not publicly viewable.
|
Fair
There are two broken links or unpublished objects on the site.
|
Good
One of the links is broken or one object is not published (publicly viewable)
|
Excellent
All links work properly (-1 point per broken or misdirected link).
Embedded objects are public/published- someone who is not logged in as YOU can see them (-1 point for each unviewable object)
|
Professionalism
|
Writing and Grammar
1 pts
|
Poor
Poorly written. Language is not correctly used. There are minor grammatical or typing errors. It lack professional tone.
|
Fair
Language is correctly used. There are minor grammatical or typing errors. It lack professional tone.
|
Good
Language is correctly used and there are no grammatical or typing errors. It lacks professional tone.
|
Excellent
Writing has a professional tone and correct use of language throughout the portfolio.
|
Page organization
1 pts
|
Poor
Poor page organization. Pages are not clear and manageable for the viewer. Headings, different fonts, etc are not used to help the viewer.
|
Fair
Some of the pages are not clear or manageable for the viewer. Headings, different fonts, etc are used but not consistently.
|
Good
The organization of each page of the portfolio is clear and manageable for the viewer. Headings, different fonts, etc are used but not consistently.
|
Excellent
The organization of each page of the portfolio is clear and manageable for the viewer. Headings, different fonts, etc are used to add clarity.
|
Completeness and Coherence
1 pts
|
Poor
The portfolio does not look like a one-piece project. There are format differences between the pages. It looks like a last-minute work.
|
Fair
The portfolio does not look complete. There are missing parts/pages. Completed parts are promising but does not convey professionalism.
|
Good
The portfolio is only lacking a general professional polish. It appears to be a finished product that you are proud of and that conveys professionalism and care rather than rushed, haphazard, or last-minute work that simply meets minimum expectations.
|
Excellent
The portfolio exhibits a general professional polish. It appears to be a finished product that you are proud of and that conveys professionalism and care rather than rushed, haphazard, or last-minute work that simply meets minimum expectations.
|
Ready to use
Public Rubric
RCampus
email a friend
help on this page