As part of the internship program in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, we ask each professional supervisor to evaluate the intern's performance. The internship is graded either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and your evaluation will help determine the grade. The information you give us on this form is confidential, however, we generally share the tone of the evaluation with the student. If you wish to write us a confidential note in addition to the evaluation, please feel free to do so.
The "comments" section at the end is especially important because it will help us prepare future interns.
Please rank the intern from 1 (not acceptable) to 5 (excellent) in each of the areas listed. Choose not applicable if it is not applicable. If you wish to remove one of the multiple choice answers, click the reset button at the end of the form (this removes all of the form's answers). If you would prefer to print out the form, fill it out and mail it or fax it, please download the PDF file here. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to acquire this form online. Company
Supervisor Last Name First Name
Name of Evaluator Last Name First Name
Title
Email
Student you are evaluating Adolph, Joanna Ashcraft, Michael Bartoe, Desiree Bender, Michelle Bergman, Andrew Beris, Greg Bing, Heather Blei, Sarah Bowlin, Carissa Burroughs, Adam Carll, Lauren Carr, David Carroll, Tessa Cichocki, Carli Cleary, William Cockrell, Sarah Cockrill, Alissa Colucy, Katherine Colvin, Sarah Cope, Emily Cothren, Kelly D'Andrea, Trinity Darwish, Meeran DeSantis, Lisa Dixon, Jaclyn Donegan, Samantha Dreschel, Jessica Duller, Anastasia Early, Bethany Ebright, Olsen Egut, Amanda Elliott, Lyndsay Farquhar, Jennifer Fruit, Callie Gallihar, Amber Gary, Kelly Greenwald, Katie Grieco, Noah Grote, Megan Hamel, Jenna Harris, Alexia Haswell, Ashten Hayes, Amanda Holmes, Hilary Huebner, Sara Huntley, Kathryn Jernejec, Adam Kerns, Samantha King, Nicole Koch, Kelli Kozma, Amanda Laner, Abby Laps, Elaine Laska, Caroline Lebovitz, Kristyn Lev, Ariel Linville, Abbey Lloyd, Jacqueline Luempert, Abigail Luysterborg, Katelyn Maczak, Valerie Masters, Anna Mazzagatti, Mark McDermott, Shawn McKenzie, Joseph McKenzie, Kristina McKinney, Julie Mendel, Marissa Metz, Justin Mihajlovic, Ana Mihalic, Olivia Miller, Doug Moore, Lauren Mueller, Holly Nagg, Maureen Neloms, Brandi Nordquist, Emily Odell, Rebecca Orosz, Amanda Parmelee, Jessica Patterson, Krystyl Peltz, Allison Pennyman, V. Noelle Pollock, Melissa Polly, Lauren Pritchard, Deborah Puch, Erika Rader, Dana Robbins, Alaina Rodia, Kimberly Rollins, Shantae Rushnok, Laura Salero, Amara Samuelson, April Sands, Michelle Schroeder, Stefanie Senary, Brittany Sidebotham, Melissa Simpson, Wendi Sinclair, Andrea Slater, Kimberly Smith, Rebekah Spletzer, Mary Stafford, Christina Stottsberry, Shauna Swank, Abbey Swanson, Kaitlyn Tasker, Priscilla Tatgenhorst, Brittany Taylor, Jamie Thoma, Brittany Thompson, Kim Thompson, Kristen Tomei, Allison Toth, Jason Turner, Alison Urycki, Erik Vasil, Amanda Wachowski, Melody Wagner, Eric Wahl, William Wasko, Brittany Watson, Colleen Weible, Nicole Wheeler, Kendra Whinnery, Megan White, Alison Wilkinson, Ryan Williams , Arielle Williams, Meghan willis, greg wolf, stephanie
Date of Internship Select Spring (Jan - May) Summer (June - July) Fall (Aug - Dec) Select 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
A. Performance
1. The student demonstrated an understanding of the work to be performed. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
2. The student understood how to operate necessary equipment or learned within an acceptable time. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
3. The student was punctual in his/her arrival at work and assigned duties. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
4. The student’s demeanor, conduct and dress were appropriate. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
5. Contacts with other employees and non-employees were handled in a professional manner. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
B. DUTIES/SKILLS
1. The student showed an acceptable command of spelling, grammar, and punctuation in his/her writing. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
2. The student’s writing skills were equal to the demands of the assignments. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
3.The student’s editing skills were equal to the demands of the assignments. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
4.The student demonstrated good problem solving skills. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
5. The student demonstrated good production skills. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
6. The student demonstrated an acceptable understanding of job requirements. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
7. The student consistently met deadlines. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
8.The student budgeted time effectively in handling assignments. Not Applicable 5 Excellent 4 3 2 1 Unacceptable
C. COMMENTS
Strengths
Weaknesses
Other Comments