Portfolios will be evaluated using the following rubric. A committee of three professors will individually and anonymously 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 a1.0. 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 sport administration 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 sport administration 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 sport administration 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 sport administration 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 sport administration 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 sport administration professionals to be successful.
- Does not demonstrate a process for reflection or a process for the evaluation of their effect on their participants.