Module 25: Portfolio, Feedback, and Final Project

Teaching Deck

Learning Objectives

• Curate technical artifacts that demonstrate end-to-end capability
• Write reflective commentary linking decisions, errors, and growth
• Integrate peer/mentor feedback into a revised final portfolio
• Present a coherent research identity and next-step plan

Session Outcomes

• Learners can complete the module capability target.
• Learners can produce one evidence-backed artifact.
• Learners can state one limitation or uncertainty.

Agenda (60 min)

• 0-10 min: Frame and model
• 10-35 min: Guided practice
• 35-50 min: Debrief and misconception correction
• 50-60 min: Competency check + exit ticket

Capability Target

Submit a capstone portfolio that proves technical capability, communicates decision quality, and demonstrates iterative growth through feedback.

Concept Focus

1) Portfolio as evidence architecture

• Technical: artifacts should be organized by competency claims, not chronology.
• Plain language: group work by what it proves you can do.
• Misconception guardrail: quantity of artifacts does not equal quality of evidence.

Core Workflow

• See module page for details.

60-Minute Run-of-Show

• **00:00-08:00

  Portfolio quality exemplar**

• **08:00-20:00

  Competency-claim mapping**

• **20:00-34:00

  Artifact curation and caption drafting**

• **34:00-46:00

  Feedback exchange round**

• **46:00-56:00

  Revision planning**

• **56:00-60:00

  Final submission checklist**

Misconceptions to Watch

• Misconception guardrail: quantity of artifacts does not equal quality of evidence.
• Misconception guardrail: self-praise without analysis is not reflective practice.
• Misconception guardrail: “final” version without revision trace is incomplete.

Studio Activity

Activity Output Checklist

• Evidence-linked artifact submitted.
• At least one limitation or uncertainty stated.
• Revision point captured from feedback.

Assessment Rubric

• Minimum pass
• Portfolio claims are evidence-backed.
• Reflection identifies at least one meaningful revision loop.
• Feedback is incorporated with clear changes.
• Strong performance
• Demonstrates cross-module synthesis and transfer.
• Highlights uncertainty and correction with technical maturity.
• Communicates future growth plan with concrete milestones.
• Common failure modes
• Artifact dump with weak competency mapping.
• Reflection limited to narrative without analytical depth.
• Minimal response to peer/mentor critique.

Exit Ticket

Choose one artifact and write:

1. one competency claim it supports,
2. one limitation,
3. one revision you would make next.

References (Instructor)

• Program portfolio templates and competency rubrics.

Teaching Materials

• Module page: /modules/module25/
• Slide page: /modules/slides/module25/
• Worksheet: /assets/worksheets/module25/module25-activity.md