Portfolios will be evaluated using the following rubric. A committee of three professors will individually review each student's portfolio and assign a numerical score to each student's portfolio based on the following scale. Portfolios meriting a score of Superior will receive a 4.0, portfolios meriting a Good score will receive a 3.0, portfolios rating a Competent score will receive a 2.0, and Poor portfolios will receive a 1.0. The three scores assigned by the committee will then be averaged to arrive at the final score to be recorded for each student's portfolio.
Superior
- Effective and accurate analysis of the recreation activities completed.
- Well written and organized logical progression of material
- Accurate and effective analysis of issues related to a diverse population
- Clearly articulates principles related to recreation in a democratic society.
- Accurate and effective analysis of the incorporation of technology in this activity.
- Explicit demonstration of knowledge, skills, and dispositions requisite for recreation professionals to be successful in the 21st century.
- Demonstrates a process for reflection and the ability to evaluate their effect on their students' achievement.
Good
- Effective and accurate analysis of the activities completed.
- Well written and organized logical progression of material.
- Accurate and effective analysis of issues related to a diverse population, however may be somewhat limited in scope.
- Clearly articulates principles related to a democratic society.
- Accurate and effective analysis of the incorporation of technology in this activity, but may contain minor errors.
- Demonstrates knowledge, skills and dispositions requisite for recreation professionals to be successful in the 21st century, with minor inaccuracies.
- Demonstrates a process for reflection, however may lack a firm understanding of how to evaluate their effect on their participants.
Competent
- Presence of an analysis of the activities completed.
- Well written and organized logical progression of material.
- An analysis of issues related to a diverse society exists.
- Principles related to a democratic society are briefly addressed.
- The use of technology is discussed and an understanding of its incorporation exists, but is not clearly articulated.
- Demonstrates knowledge, skills, and dispositions requisite for recreation professionals to be successful in the 21st century, but contains many inaccuracies and some omissions.
- Demonstrates a brief process for reflection, but lacks an accurate process for the evaluation of their effect on their participants.
Poor
- Some analysis of the activities completed.
- Weak writing and organization, poor presentation.
- Little or no analysis of issues related to a diverse society exists.
- Principles related to a democratic society are absent or inaccurate.
- Technology is not addressed or is incorrectly applied.
- Does not demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions requisite for recreation professionals to be successful.
- Does not demonstrate a process for reflection or a process for the evaluation of their effect on their participants.