Capstone ePortfolio
As the capstone project at the end of the master's program, all EDTC students will create a multimedia Web site ePortfolio full of artifacts demonstrating the manner and the extent to which the degree candidate has met the ISTE-TF or AECT-SMETS national standards. This capstone ePortfolio is the logical outgrowth or maturation of the benchmark ePortfolio Web site that the candidates began when they took the multimedia literacy course at the beginning of the program.
When evaluating the capstone ePortfolio, program faculty use one of the following two rubrics. Faculty use the ISTE rubric for candidates who are teachers working toward the ISTE-TF endorsement. For all other candidates, faculty use the AECT rubric. The tables below present the Capstone ePortfolio rubrics.
|
AECT Rubric for the National Standards Capstone ePortfolio |
||||
|
Required elements: □ Summative Introduction. □ Statement for each of the five AECT standards. □ Artifacts, with abstracts, supporting each of the five AECT standards. |
||||
|
Candidate's Name: |
Date: |
|||
|
INDICATORS |
Developing |
Meets |
Exceeds |
|
|
Summative Introduction |
The introduction may accurately summarize the five statements and connections, but it does not discuss insights gained or connect the statements as a whole. |
Introduces and summarizes theories and connections to artifacts presented in the statements. This provides the reader with an overview of your accomplishments as well as a context for the statements that follow. |
In addition to summarizing the connections between the artificacts and the statements, the indroduction includes a reflection on how your perspective as an instructional developer has been impacted by the process of meeting the AECT-SMETS standards. |
|
|
(circle rating) |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Statements documenting achievement of the five AECT Standards |
Artifacts may demonstrate proficiency, but their value to the candidate's practice and theory-base is not clear.
Artifacts may be of high quality showing good use of integrated technology, but their connection with the AECT standards is not explicit or the artifacts are of limited value.
Artifacts are not given a context or are evaluated only to a limited extent by the candidate.
More artifacts are needed to support proficiency in one or more AECT standards. |
Two to three significant artifacts are cited for each AECT standard, and artifacts are used for multiple standards.
For each artifact cited there is an abstract which provides (1) a description of the artifact and how it relates to you (context/date), and (2) an analysis of how the artifact demonstrates evidence for one or more particular standards. |
In addition to citing two or three significant artificats for each AECT standard, selections or portions are chosen from artifacts to illustrate salient points.
In addition to explaining how each artifact demonstrates evidence for one or more standards, the abstract includes a reflection on how the artifact has contributed to your growth as a more informed, reflective, and/or responsive educator consistent with the SOE conceptual framework. |
|
|
(circle one rating per standard) |
||||
|
AECT 1: Design |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
AECT 2: Development |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
AECT 3: Utilization |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
AECT 4: Management |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
AECT 5: Evaluation |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Technical Quality of ePortfolio Design |
Proper use of type and size may be used, but consistency in design is weak.
Document is not carefully edited for spelling and grammar.
Writing style and/or organization create comprehension difficulties for the reader.
Reader may be confused or lost due to poor site design. |
Elements of design are clearly implemented (alignment, contrast, proximity, repetition).
Easy to navigate and understand.
Demonstrates technical skills presented in Ed Tech courses.
Writing is concise, clear, and well organized. |
Use of media/software enhances communication.
Elegant simple design with seamless flow and connections.
Design elements constantly and consistently locate the reader in the portfolio structure.
Writing works well with site structure to synthesize and make connections. |
|
|
(circle rating) |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
ISTE Rubric for the National Standards Capstone ePortfolio |
||||
|
Required elements: □ Summative Introduction □ Statement for each of the eight NETS-TF standards □ Artifacts, with abstracts, supporting each of the eight NETS-TF standards |
||||
|
Candidate's Name: |
Date: |
|||
|
INDICATORS |
Developing |
Meets |
Exceeds |
|
|
Summative Introduction |
The introduction may accurately summarize the eight statements and connections, but it does not discuss insights gained or connect the statements as a whole. |
Introduces and summarizes theories and connections to artifacts presented in the statements. This provides the reader with an overview of your accomplishments as well as a context for the statements that follow. |
In addition to summarizing the connections between the artificacts and the statements, the indroduction includes a reflection on how your perspective as a teacher/technology facilitator has been impacted by the process of meeting the NETS-TF standards. |
|
|
(circle rating) |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Statements documenting achievement of the eight NETS-TF Standards |
Artifacts may demonstrate proficiency, but their value to the candidate's practice and theory-base is not clear.
Artifacts may be of high quality showing good use of integrated technology, but their connection with the ISTE standards is not explicit or the artifacts are of limited value.
Artifacts are not given a context or are evaluated only to a limited extent by the candidate.
More artifacts are needed to support proficiency in one or more ISTE standards. |
Two to three significant artifacts are cited for each ISTE-TF standard, and artifacts are used for multiple standards.
For each artifact cited there is an abstract which provides (1) a description of the artifact and how it relates to you (context/date), and (2) an analysis of how the artifact demonstrates evidence for one or more particular standards. |
In addition to citing two or three significant artificats for each standard, selections or portions are chosen from artifacts to illustrate salient points.
In addition to explaining how each artifact demonstrates evidence for one or more standards, the abstract includes a reflection on how the artifact has contributed to your growth as a more informed, reflective, and/or responsive teacher/technology facilitator consistent with the SOE conceptual framework. |
|
|
(circle one rating per standard) |
||||
|
NETS-TF 1: Operations |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
NETS-TF 2: Designing |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
NETS-TF 3: Teaching |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
NETS-TF 4: Assessing |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
NETS-TF 5: Productivity |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
NETS-TF 6: Social Issues |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
NETS-TF 7: Planning |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
NETS-TF 8: Leadership |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Technical Quality of ePortfolio Design |
Proper use of type and size may be used, but consistency in design is weak, or the document is not carefully edited for spelling and grammar. The writing style may create comprehension difficulties, or the user may get lost due to poor site design. |
The portfolio is easy to navigate and follows design principles covered in the multimedia literacy and ePortfolio Web design courses. Writing is concise, clear, and well organized. |
Navigation is seamless because the design elements consistently locate the reader in the portfolio structure and provide intuitive controls to navigate the portfolio. The candidate's writing integrates into the site structure by making logical connections between portfolio sections and the artifacts. |
|
|
(circle rating) |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|