• home
  • about
  • updates
  • publications
  • press
  • contact
  • rubrics
  • forum
  • training
  • results
  • closing the loop

Annotated Bibliography Rubric

Attributes Not Acceptable Emerging Developing Proficient
Topical relationship of sources to paper Most sources are not adequately related to topic. Many sources are only marginally related to topic. Most sources are clearly related to topic. All sources are clearly related to topic.
Quality and authority of sources selected Most sources are of poor, unreliable, or indeterminate quality and authority. Many sources are of marginal quality and authority. Most sources appear reliable and of good quality and authority. Sources appear reliable, authoritative and of good or high quality.
Variety of information sources in terms of discipline, format, time, level, etc. Sources fail to represent a reasonable variety appropriate to topic. Sources represent some attempt at variety, but large gaps are obvious, major sources missed. Sources represent major, obvious angles and perspectives appropriate to topic. A wide variety of sources represent relevant and significant perspectives.
Identification & description of authority of sources Annotations do not accurately describe author, audience or publisher of most sources. Annotations often lack such information or frequently mischaracterize author, audience or publisher of sources. Annotations usually accurately characterize author, audience and publisher of sources. Annotations largely, or fully, characterize author, audience and publisher of sources.
Quality & clarity of the summary of ideas in sources Summaries appear to be possibly plagiarized or main ideas are unclear or misrepresented. Main ideas are not summarized clearly; or, summaries are simply incomplete or sketchy. Main ideas of sources are clearly summarized. Main ideas of sources, including nuances and subtleties, are clearly summarized.
Representation & discussion of relevance of sources to paper or project No attempt is made to relate ideas in sources to paper topic. Attempt to relate ideas in sources to paper or project topic results in inaccurate representations. Attempt is to relate ideas in sources to paper topic or project sometimes fuzzy or unclear. Relationship of ideas in sources to paper topic or project clearly described.
Quantity of sources cited Fails to include the required number of sources. Fails to include an adequate number of sources Includes the required or minimal number of sources. Includes the required or an appropriate number of sources.
Accuracy of the citations Citations incomplete, errors are major and numerous. Citations are incomplete, errors numerous. Citations are mostly complete and errors minor. Citations are complete and errors minor.
Research strategies & tools Description of research strategies employed and tools consulted obviously inaccurate; or, strategies & tools not described. Description of research strategies employed very poor; or, major, logical tools not consulted. Description of research strategies employed demonstrates awareness of research strategies; & an adequate variety of tools was consulted. Description of research strategies employed and tools consulted demonstrates superior skill and effort.
Gail Gradowski & Jill Goodman-Gould
Santa Clara University
11 March 2010
Information literacy learning outcomes associated with this assignment: 1.2 b, c, d, e; 1.4 b; 2.2 b, d, e; 2.3 a; 2.4 b; 3.1 a, c; 3.2 a, c, d; 3.4 b, c, g; 3.7a; 5.3a
(Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm)