TEL portfolio (100%)

Due Week 20, Sun 23:59 UK Submission: file upload + AI-use declaration (required)

Purpose

To evidence your critical evaluation and improvement of technology-enhanced learning in your own professional practice.

Components

Part	What	Size	AIAS	Formative
P1	Baseline and self-assessment: critically describe your focus technology, context and assumptions; self-assess using a recognised framework	about 800 words	2	Wk 4
P2	Accessibility, inclusion and engagement audit (WCAG 2.2, UDL); ethical learner feedback; critically evaluate at least two sources	about 1,000 words + audit table	2–3	Wk 10
P3	Improvement prototype and rationale; log all AI use and checks	artefact + about 900 words	3	Wk 15
P4	Evaluation and forward plan; propose a focus for Educational Research and the Innovation Project	about 800 words + 5-min recorded reflection	2 (writing) / 1 (recording)	Wk 19

Total equivalent to be aligned with the programme norm (proposed 3,500–4,000 words plus artefact and recording). Required: AI-use declaration and confirmation of ethical approach.

Accessibility of submission. P4 may be written or recorded (UDL). Extensions follow university procedures, and an extension-process reminder is posted in week 20.

Rubric

Criterion (weight)	70+	60–69	50–59	Below 50
Critical evaluation of TEL quality and impact (25%) — MLO1	Sophisticated, criteria-led judgement; weighs competing evidence; original insight	Clear criteria-led evaluation; some weighing of evidence	Evaluation present but partly descriptive	Mainly descriptive; criteria absent
Accessibility, inclusion and engagement analysis (20%) — MLO2	Rigorous audit; nuanced, non-deficit analysis of diverse learners	Sound audit; relevant analysis	Basic audit; limited analysis	Superficial or missing
Use and evaluation of research (15%) — MLO4, PLO4	Critically evaluates rigour and generalisability of key sources; synthesises debates	Evaluates some sources; some synthesis	Uses sources accurately but largely uncritically	Weak, inaccurate or unverified sources
Design of improvement (20%) — MLO3	Innovative, well-justified, feasible; AI use exemplary and critically checked	Well-justified; AI use appropriate and checked	Plausible; justification thin	Poorly justified; AI use undeclared or unchecked
Evaluation, reflection and forward planning (15%) — MLO5, PLO1	Cautious, insightful evaluation; deep reflexivity; compelling forward plan	Sound evaluation and reflection; clear plan	Some evaluation; reflection largely descriptive	Little evaluation or reflection
Communication and academic practice (5%)	Exceptionally clear; flawless referencing	Clear; accurate referencing	Generally clear; minor errors	Unclear; referencing errors

Bands follow the UK master's convention, to be aligned with LJMU's Academic Framework. The "use and evaluation of research" criterion makes PLO4 explicit. AI-use checks are part of the design criterion, so transparent use is rewarded.