Student Name: Emily Hanson 200268359
| Criteria | Unsatisfactory 1 | Emerging 2 | Proficient 3 | Exemplary 4 | Rating |
| 1. Selection of Artifacts | My artifacts and work samples do not relate to the purpose of the eportfolio. | Some of my artifacts and work samples are related to the purpose of the eportfolio. | Most artifacts and work samples are related to the purpose of the eportfolio. | All artifacts and work samples are clearly and directly related to the purpose of the eportfolio. A wide variety of artifacts is included. | 4 |
| 2. Descriptive Text | No artifacts are accompanied by a caption that clearly explains the importance of the item including title, author, and date. | Some of my artifacts are accompanied by a caption that clearly explains the importance of the item including title, author, and date. | Most of my artifacts are accompanied by a caption that clearly explains the importance of the item work including title, author, and date. | All artifacts are accompanied by a caption that clearly explains the importance of the item including title, author, and date. | 4 |
| 3. Reflective Commentary | My reflections do not explain growth or include goals for continued learning. | A few of my reflections explain growth and include goals for continued learning. | Most of my reflections explain growth and include goals for continued learning. | All reflections clearly explain how the artifact demonstrates your growth, competencies, accomplishments, and include goals for continued learning (long and short term). | 3.5 |
| My reflections do not illustrate the ability to effectively critique work or provide suggestions for constructive practical alternatives. | A few of my reflections illustrate the ability to effectively critique work and provide suggestions for constructive practical alternatives. | Most of my reflections illustrate the ability to effectively critique work and provide suggestions for constructive practical alternatives. | All reflections illustrate the ability to effectively critique work and provide suggestions for constructive practical alternatives. | ||
| 4. Usability and Accessibility: Text Elements, Layout, and Color | The eportfolio is difficult to read due to inappropriate use of fonts, type size for headings, sub-headings and text and font styles (italic, bold, underline). | The portfolio is often difficult to read due to inappropriate use of fonts and type size for headings, sub-headings, text or long paragraphs. | The eportfolio is generally easy to read. Fonts and type size vary appropriately for headings, sub-headings and text. | The eportfolio is easy to read. Fonts and type size vary appropriately for headings, sub-headings and text. | 4 |
| Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are used inappro-priately, and the content appears disorganized and cluttered. | Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are sometimes used inappro-priately to organize content. | Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are generally used appropriately to organize content. | Horizontal and vertical white space alignment are used appropriately to organize content. | ||
| Color of background, fonts, and links decrease the readability of the text, are distracting and used inconsistently throughout the eportfolio. | Color of background, fonts, and links generally enhance the read-ability of the text, and are generally used consistently throughout the eportfolio. | Color of background, fonts, and links generally enhance the read-ability of the text, and are generally used consistently throughout the eportfolio. | Color of background, fonts, and links enhance the readability and aesthetic quality, and are used consistently throughout the eportfolio. | ||
| 5. Writing Conventions | There are more than six errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling requiring major editing and revision. | There are four or more errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling requiring editing and revision. | There are a few errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. These require minor editing and revision. | There are no errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. | 3 |
| TOTAL (out of 20) | 18.5 |
Comments:
- Selection of Artifacts: The reason I gave myself a 4/4 on this section is because I believe all the sources that I used fit in nicely with my e-portfolio. The articles support my work that is put into my portfolio. The artifacts, I believe support my educational journey, and while others are reading my works they can see this. I believe that I have variety different artifacts that cover many different aspects of my portfolio.
2. Descriptive Text: In my writing when using artifacts, I always than explain the quote and the significance the quote adds to my writing. When others peer reviewed my work they also say how the artifacts went with my writing and I did a good job explaining how the artifacts support my work.
3. Reflective Commentary: The reason I gave myself a 3.5 out of 4 in this section is because now looking at all my reflections as a whole, I could have added a couple more ideas together to really make my reflections outstanding. However, from the marks I have gotten back from my reflections I do think one would agree that I have grown in my reflections and my grades get higher with each reflection.
4. Usability and Accessibility: Text Elements, Layout, and Colour: I believe that I deserve a 4 out of 4 for my I think my portfolio is pleasant to look at with complementary colours that I have pair together. I used fonts that are easy for anyone to read used font sizes that fit the space they are given. I have headers with tabs below them to make everything easier to find. I also used colours that are easy to read with the colour behind it.
5. Writing Conventions: I know personally that my writing is not the strongest and there is always room for improvement. With some reflections I did not have time to get someone to peer review so there are probably errors within my writing and that is why I gave myself a 3 out of 4.