Tag Archives: #Assessment Criteria

Evaluation Criteria for Portfolio Assessments

While quantitative measures may be applied to assess competency-based outcomes via “standardized” instrumentation (i.e. testing, performance checklists, etc.); qualitative outcomes (which vary among individuals) can only be assessed via documentation mechanisms that are indicative of the unique characteristics (and higher-order thinking abilities) exhibited by each pupil.  Higher-order reasoning occurs when humans engage in learning experiences that compel them to conduct research, complete “personal” works, communicate via written and oral presentations, and evaluate the works of their peers.  Thus, practitioners (and society) must move beyond our reliance upon standardized assessments as the primary means of evaluating what (and how) students are learning.  Accordingly, portfolio assessments ought to be employed to exhibit the higher-order outcomes (i.e. products and processes) that are acquired by practitioners and their students.

The following criteria may be applied when assessing the specified requirements for (your/student) portfolios:

  1. Evidence of Reflective Analysis (Excellent; Average; Needs Improvement).
  2. Professional Appearance (Excellent; Average; Needs Improvement).
  3. Adherence to Content Requirements (Excellent; Average; Needs Improvement).

Criteria of Excellent: (Maximum points available may be awarded)

  • A well organized and useable portfolio;
  • Work is neat, indicative of mindful thinking, and well written;
  • Creativity and unique perspectives/constructs are exhibited.

Criteria of Average: (Maximum points will not exceed 90 percent of the potential)

  • A well organized and useable portfolio;
  • Work is neat, indicative of mindful thinking, and well written;
  • Creativity is kept to a minimum and examples (samples) address only the minimum requirement(s) associated with each section (i.e. component) exhibited in the portfolio.

Criteria of Needs Improvement: (Maximum points will not exceed 80 percent of the potential)

  • Portfolio contains examples of work but lacks adequate organizational structure, it requires additional effort to become useable (i.e. functional);
  • The documentation (i.e. examples) included in the portfolio appears inconsistent and/or not aligned with the requirements specified;
  • The portfolio shows that the practitioner (or student) has demonstrated little creativity and mindfulness when considering the overall appearance of the compilation.

Portfolio Requirements: (Additional components may be determined by participants)

  1. Title Page;
  2. Table of Contents;
  3. Presentation of Materials (via distinct sections with a description of contents that follow);
  4. Reflective Analysis (i.e. descriptive information including the significance of each component);
  5. Concluding Remarks (i.e. identify at least 3 components that are most significant);
  6. An Appendix Section (containing selected articles and/or relevant information).

Learn more about “The Dichotomy of Instructional Design” @ http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under #Student-centered Learning, Blooms Taxonomy, Curriculum and Instruction, Education, Instructional Design, professional Development, School Reform Initiatives & Professional Development Strategies, Teaching