Want to make interactive content? It’s easy in Genially!

Over 30 million people build interactive content in Genially.

Check out what others have designed:

Transcript

Task is the title of the professional action to be assessed (real or simulated). It usually corresponds to the title of the job required, or on which the competencies will be assessed.In the example of the previous table, the title of the work requires two main professional competencies of the course:

  • Analysis of a social intervention
  • Proposal of a new intervention stage

Learning Portfolio

Rubrics or Assessment Tables

RUBRICS AND LEARNING PORTFOLIOS

The learning portfolio is a place where teachers can deposit assessments or work that they have done. The portfolio concept has been adapted to the education world, particularly in the service of skill assessment, where it goes beyond a simple compilation to become a highly reflective and critical component of learning and competency building.Ideally, a learning portfolio is not only used in a particular class, but as a tracking tool to be used throughout a career, implemented by a university or department to track a student's growth in their learning process.

Components of a learning portfolio

Below is an example of a rubric or evaluation table. Click on the different sections of the rubric to learn more about it.

Definition
  • Description of the content (explanation of the structure, choice of pieces, etc.)
  • Analysis of learnings and skills developed
  • Objective and realistic demonstration of the progress (strengths and weaknesses)
  • Prospective on the aspects of the training that need to be deepened
According to Huba and Freed (2000), the portfolio enables students to see themselves as learners, allowing them to analyze what they have learned. Meanwhile, they gain the awareness that learning is a continuous process.

A rubric is a matrix in which certain criteria are shown with an appreciation scale. It is worth explaining to students how the grading is calculated with respect to the different tasks or projects.

Info

Page 1 of 3

RUBRICS AND LEARNING PORTFOLIOS

Page 2 of 3

List of Evaluation Criteria

AdequateClearCoherentCongruentConciseElegantAccurateExhaustiveExplicitEffectiveImportantImpeccableInterestingUnpublishedSensibleFair

Logical Methodical Orderly Organized RelevantAccurate Precise Rich Rigorous Structured Systematic

AutonomousCollaborativeConstructiveDeterminedCommittedInterestedOpenProactiveMethodicalMotivatedOrganized

PersistentWilling to participateRespectfulResponsibleRigorousStimulatingStructuredTolerant

Components are the more detailed professional tasks required when it comes to orally presenting the stage report.In the example, the components are:

  • Description and analysis of the intervention
  • Justification of the intervention choices
  • Quality of the oral presentation
  • Answers to the questions
  • Collaboration
Assessment criteria is an index, a quality, an indication or a signal that qualifies each one of the components. The number of criteria associated to each component is variable, from 1 to approximately 3.In the example, the assessment criteria are the following:
  • Accuracy
  • Completeness
  • Relevance
  • Originality
  • Structure
  • Clarity
  • Respect

Standard

Reflective Competencies

Transparency

Equity

Objectivity

Good (C) corresponds to average, incomplete work, where there are many errors. At this level, it is necessary to improve the various points of work before aspiring to a better appreciation.

The very good level (B) corresponds to work very well done and has few imperfections.

Excellent (A) corresponds to impeccable, meticulous, and error-free work.

The exceptional level (A+) is the equivalent to a remarkable achievement that surprises with its quality and originality, far exceeding demands or expectations.

Passable (D) and Failure (E) are assigned to work that is clearly incomplete in several aspects according to the assessment criteria. If the work shows serious errors, it can result in failure

Benefits of evaluation tables

Literal appreciation scale: Below, we clarify the meaning of the literal appreciation scale that is known in U.S. universities, to be able to justify it to avoid negotiations with students.

Passable (D) and Failure (E)

Good Level (C)

APPRECIATION SCALES

Very Good Level (B)

Excellent Level (A)

Exceptional Level (A+)

Examples of appreciation scales

  • Satisfactory – To be improved – Unsatisfactory
  • Satisfactory – In progress – To be improved
  • Excellent – Very good – To be developed – To be repeated
  • Proficiency level: Advanced – Medium – Weak
  • Exemplary – Competent – Developing
  • Exceptional (A+) – Excellent (A) – Very good (B) – Good (C) – Passable (D) – Failure (E)

Unsatisfactory

To be improved (needs improving)

Satisfactory

The appreciation scale is the assessment with a number of steps that are used to make a qualitative judgement about the student's work. In the previous example, the scale used by the teacher to carry out the feedback process has three levels:

Page 3 of 3

Errors exist in calculations and associated uncertainties are found. Some explanations of achieved results are irrelevant to the theory. Some relevant analyses have not been carried out and some details need clarification.

Mojority of calculations and associated uncertainties are good, with a few small small errors. Explanations of the results archieved with respect to the theory are relevant. Most analyses carried out are relevant and relevant and clear, however do not show a great level of detail.

All calculations and associated uncertainties are exact. All analyzes are clear and relevant, as well as the explanations of the results obtained in relation to the theory.

Most calculations and associated uncertainties have large errors. Many of explanations of the results achieved with respect to the theory are irrelevant. Many relevant analyses have not been carried out and many details need to be clarified.

Some information needs more clarity with some relevance needing to be reviewed with respect to the problem.Some source are not of good quality.

Experimental protocol is mostly clearly described, shows a good level of detail. Majority of the planned experiments are in line with the hypotheses to be tested. Proposed experimental design is relevant, although some details could be improved.

The experimental protocol is clearly described and shows a good level of detail. The planned experiments are clearly in line with the hypotheses to be tested. The proposed experimental design is relevant.

The experimental protocol is unclear. The level of detail is inadequate. The planned experiments do not allow to verification of the hypotheses. The experimental design is irrelevant.

Some of the information needs more clarity with some relevance needing to be reviewed with respect to the problem. Some sources are not of good quality.

The majority of presented information is clear and relevant in relation to the problem. Majority of sources are excellent quality.

Presented information is clear and relevant in relation to the problem. Sources are of excellent quality.

Significant amount of presented information incomprehensible or irrelevant to the problem. Source are of poor quality.

Several hypotheses are incomprehensible and are not relevant to the problem

Some hypotheses need further clarification and the relevance of some needs to be reviewed with respect to the problem.

The majority of the hypotheses are clear and relevant with respect to the problem

All hypotheses are clear and relevant to the problem

Analyze the results of the experiments (30%)

  • Calculations accuracy and associated uncertainties.
  • Relevance of the explanations of the archived results to the theory.
  • Analisys, clarity and relevance.

Planning and preparing experiments (30%)

  • Clarity of the description of the experimental protocol
  • Adequate level of detail of the experimental protocol
  • Clarity of the planning of the experiments in relation to the hypotheses to be contrasted
  • Relevance of the experimental design

Review the literature (30%)

  • Clarity and relevance of the information presented
  • Quality of the information sources used

Formulate hypotheses to contrast (10%)

  • Clarity and relevance of the hypotheses

Less than below average (< 4)

Below Average(6-5)

Average (8-7)

Above average(10-9)

Components