ePortfolio Rubric

Category Not Yet Meeting Expectations Minimally Meeting Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Function & Design

-Site is difficult to navigate, includes missing or broken links -Layout is disorientating -Guided tour fails to introduce the ePortfolio and insignificantly aides navigation -Poor aesthetic design (cluttered, unorganized) -Not evident throughout the eP -Shows little connection to the learning journey -Little to no connections to the artifacts -Few tools incorporated

-Site can be navigated with some confusion -Layout is unclear -Guided tour vaguely introduces the eP and somewhat aides navigation -Unobtrusive aesthetic design (minimally interferes with viewers experience) -Some integration throughout the eP -Shows some connection to the learning journey -Some connections to the artifacts -Limited range in tools incorporated -Provides limited links to learning and educational theory -Some artifacts are thoughtfully placed and described -Few mechanical errors

-Site can be navigated with minimal confusion -Layout is reasonable -Guided tour introduces the ePortfolio and aides navigation -Decent aesthetic design (doesnt significantly interfere with viewers experience) --Integrated throughout the eP -develops a connection to the learning journey -Connects well to the artifacts -Variety of tools incorporated -Provides some links to learning and educational theory -Many artifacts are thoughtfully placed and described -Occasional mechanical errors

-Site is easy to navigate -Logical layout -Guided tour introduces ePortfolio and considerably aides navigation -Aesthetically pleasing

Metaphor

-Integrated impeccably throughout the eP -strong connection to the learning journey -Sound connection to the artifacts -Large range of media tools incorporated -Demonstrates clear links to learning and educational theory -Artifacts are well placed and provide insight and reflection -No mechanical errors

Content

Reflection

-Provides few or no links to learning and educational theory -Artifacts are not thoughtfully selected and described -Many mechanical errors (grammar, punctuation, citations)

Mechanics