Portfolio Assessment

Portfolio Assessment

 

Who should have access?

Your program director

  • Mentorship
  • Post feedback for SOC

Each member of your SOC

  • Mentorship, review IDP portfolio
  • Post recommendations for fellow and program director

SOC director

  • Remediation and mentorship

SOC administrator

  • Communication, track annually

Providing Detailed Feedback

Feedback is submitted directly on the fellows' Portfolio page. Feedback is a valuable tool for mentoring fellows if it is approached effectively. Meaningful and actionable responses to a fellow's portfolio submission must be provided by the SOC in order to help fellows make important steps in their professional development. Feedback should be a comprehensive analysis of the progress and work done by the fellow with the instructions and guidelines provided below.

IDP Portfolio Review should include the following:

  1. Describe the significance of the current IDP, and if appropriate, suggest any additional goals that you deem important to achieve stated overall career goals.

  2. Describe how the overall scholarly project and specific work product will allow the fellow to achieve his or her stated short and long-term goals.

  3. State if you believe the fellow is on track to complete his/her scholarly endeavors and describe the barriers (if any) that may impact the completion of the IDP Portfolio. Provide your recommendations to improve and facilitate completion of the IDP Portfolio.

Research Day

Year 2 SOC Review Criteria for Poster Presentation

Expectation: Fellows can present poster and articulate research in a formal setting

Instructions: Please provide detailed comments on any of the areas that were identified as poor or average to assist fellows in improving their poster presentation. If there were areas of the presentation that the fellow did exceptionally well, pelase note those as well.

  1. Abstract clear and appropriate
  2. Title reflects content
  3. Background and relevance: Relevance of project clearly explained; clear and complete discussion of background
  4. Research question/study hypothesis: Clear statement of problem/questions; clear statement of hypothesis
  5. Methodology: Clear explanation of methodology; sound and appropriate methodology; analysis section clear
  6. Limitations: Project limitations included
  7. Next steps/future directions: Next steps and future directions included
  8. Presentation of poster: Organization, readability, appearance
  9. Knowledge of subject (oral): Shows knowledge of project; presented in a professional manner; clarity of presentation
  10. Overall quality of poster presentation

Year 3 SOC Review Criteria for Oral Presentation

Expectation: Fulfills ABP requirement for oral presentation of scholarly activity. Fellow can present and articulate research in oral format.

Instructions: Please provide detailed comments on any of the areas that were identified as poor or average to assist the fellow in improving his/her oral presentation. If there were areas of the presentation that the fellow did exceptionally well, please note those as well.

  1. Abstract clear and appropriate
  2. Title reflects content
  3. Background and significance: Relevance of project clearly defined; clear and complete discussion of background
  4. Research question(s)/study hypotheses: Clear statement of problem/question(s); clear statement of hypotheses
  5. Research methods: Clear description of research methods; scientifically appropriate methodology; scientifically appropriate data/analytic plan
  6. Results, discussion and conclusions: Results are clearly presented and relevant; graphs, figures, tables, etc. are clear and relevant; conclusions support results; next steps/future directions
  7. Limitations: Project limitations included
  8. Presentation style and skills: Effective presentation style; ability to defend and discuss the presentation in an articulate and scientific manner; clarity of slides
  9. Overall quality of oral presentation