Rubric for assessing information literacy by looking at student projects
Skill / Excellent (3 points) / Good (2 points) / Marginal (1 point) / Poor (zero)Access: Has identified a variety of sources appropriate to the task; appears able to determine what information needed and how to obtain it. / As appropriate, employs a variety of sources that would likely have been found using various means. If one source type/database is appropriate for the task, has consistently chosen good sources from the right database. / As appropriate, uses more than one type of source. If one source type/database is appropriate for the task, has apparently used the right database and chosen an adequate selection of sources from it. / Uses exclusively one kind of source (e.g. books or Web pages only); has missed better sources because of poor understanding or application of how to access sources. If one source type/database is appropriate for the task, appears to have used the wrong one. / No sources used or has apparently used entirely the wrong type of source for the purpose.
Selection: Has selected sources that provide quality material for the task; where relevant, consider whether sources chosen reflect an understanding of the discipline. / Sources are current, of high quality, and appear to be the most relevant and high quality sources available for the task. There is evidence in the text that the student has evaluated the sources and made careful choices to support an argument or accomplish a particular task. If relevant, the sources fall within disciplinary conventions of quality in sources. / Sources are all appropriate for the task; may have some sources that aren’t the best available, but they suit the needs of the task. None of the sources is obviously a poor choice, though they may not be the best sources available. / Many of the sources used are out of date or of questionable value. Sources selected are biased or show a skewed approach that fails to address an appropriate range of opinion or approaches. If situated within a discipline, sources are either too popular in nature or are from the wrong field. / No sources used, or all of the sources are either outdated, biased, or otherwise inappropriate for the task
Skill / Excellent (3 points) / Good (2 points) / Marginal (1 point) / Poor (zero)
Rhetorical use: Has integrated sources smoothly into the project; includes own ideas supported by evidence (if called for by the assignment); where relevant, consider whether the sources are handled in a style appropriate to the discipline’s conventions / Retains a personal voice appropriate to the task (and the discipline’s conventions); organizes the source material so it supports claims effectively; appears to understand the relationships among the sources, organizing them into appropriate schools of thought or different sides of an issue. Appears to understand the strategy of introducing sources as “expert witnesses” or as a means of fitting new ideas into a framework. / Introduces sources in a way that claims are supported or the literature is reviewed with some success; does not make unsupported claims (if relevant) though may not always situate sources to their best rhetorical advantage. / Reviews or draws on sources in a disorganized fashion; uses material from the sources without making sense of them (an “info-dump”); where relevant, has misunderstood the disciplinary conventions for reviewing the literature or supporting claims effectively. / No sources used, or uses sources indiscriminately and without an understanding of why sources might be useful.
Formal use: Quotes, paraphrases or summarizes information effectively; provides complete citations in a recognizable and predictable style. / Introduces the use of each source so that it is clear where it came from and why it’s being used; uses paraphrase or summary rather than quotation when original language is not necessary; references and citations match. / Doesn’t break the rules excessively, but makes common mistakes such as quoting material that could be paraphrased; citations are by and large complete and constructed in a systematic way. / Introduces and cites material inadequately; fails to follow style conventions and has incomplete citations. Material referred to doesn’t always match works cited. / No sources used, or fails to cite those that are used. Frequently fails to match material cited with sources cited.
Alaska Library Association Annual Conference, 2006 / Barbara Fister - 1