ACTIVE READING: Highlighting and Annotating Rubric

Pts. / Short-Takes / Comprehension Demonstration / Critical Thinking and Active Reading Demonstration
18
to
20 / Impression of “seamless” understanding of text. / 1.Complete. All important lines conveying full literal understanding have been duly noted.
2. Thorough. Annotations marked with detail, giving impression of a rigorous effort to convey full range of meaning and understanding, including reader connections, reflections, questions, and possible theories.
3. Discriminating. Highlighting not excessive and indiscriminate; does convey a sense of purpose.
4.Comprehension. Text not taken merely at face value. Annotations reveal effort to understand nuances, paradoxes, bias, and inconsistencies in text. / 1.Full range of "meaning-making" strategies (connect, reflect, evaluate, compare/contrast, ask questions, predict, apply/conclude, summary or re-statement) employed consistently.
2.A thread, connecting the annotations and highlighting together, begins to be woven, creating a unified structure to the interpretation of meaning.
3.More than one such thread exists, so that multiple readings / meanings begin to emerge.
4. Annotations reflect logical, strong support for the interpretation, reflections, evaluations, etc., and/or ask reflective questions in need of thinking and discussion with attempt at hypothetical answer.
5. Annotations are of the necessary depth/length so that the reasoning is clear to the reader.
16
to
17 / Hit all the keys, but missed some deeper
understandings / 1. Complete and thorough as in the A level.
2.Differentiation from the A level is the sense of “seamless’ understanding, lacking full attempt to deal with nuance and paradox, and perhaps missing bias or inconsistencies of text; little attempt to question the text. / The B Level has the range and coherency of the A, but lacks as much depth. Sense that more could have been explained for the annotation to be fully realized in the mind of the reader.
14
to
15 / An even mix of hits and misses / 1. Selection and density of highlighted passages gives impression that reader recognized the central ideas and supporting details, but the subtle passages seem to have escaped attention.
2. Instances of excessive and/or indiscriminate highlighting, lacking a clear purpose behind it.
3. Pattern of highlighting creates impression that comprehension does not go beyond the more overt, literal detail. / 1. No clear use or inconsistent use of “meaning-making” strategies.
2. A thread exists, but it has a couple of places where it loses its focus.
3. The support, in a couple of spots, does not add up logically or does not balance with other details currently part of study or knowledge base. Few questions are asked of the text.
4. More needs to be written in the annotations to get a sense of full understanding.
13 / You missed far more than you hit / 1. Selection and density of highlighting is inconsistent or incomplete: a little here; a little there.
2. Though sparse, highlighting is sufficient to give impression that student has read entire text, though with limited attention.
3.Numerous instances of excessive and indiscriminate highlighting, lacking clear purpose behind it.
4. Annotations reveal only the most minimal grasp of the central ideas of the reading. / 1.The use of "meaning-making" strategies has been reduced to an over-reliance on one or two particular strategies.
2.No clear, focused thread has been woven.
3. There are obvious gaps in the logic of the support.No questions are asked of the text.
4. Annotations have been reduced to a few words throughout, leaving the reader to attempt to figure out meaning or understanding.
12 / Oh no! Your highlighter ran dry! Time to buy a new one! / 1. Incomplete and lacking thoroughness. Highlighting and annotating suggests that between 10% and 33% of the selection was skipped or unfinished.
2.No attention to detail—gives impression of trying to create appearance that material has been read; random, scattered. / 1. No "meaning-making" strategy has been employed effectively.
2.No clear, focused thread has been woven.
3.There is no clear logic in the support of the insights.No questions asked of the text.
4. Annotations have been reduced to a word here and there.

1