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. |
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)