Rubric used to score student annotated bibliographies in order to evaluate the learning outcomes "Students will be able to evaluate sources based on information need and the context in which the information will be used" and "Students will be able to identify multiple perspectives on a research topic."

Rubric used to assess student topic proposals in order to evaluate the learning outcome "Students will formulate research questions that are appropriately scaled, facilitate inquiry, and can be supported by available resources." 

This rubric was developed to assess students' written reflections about primary source materials they encountered in class.  Developed by Meggan Press and Meg Meiman at Indiana University Libraries in Bloomington, this rubric is designed for instructors to gauge students' primary source literacy skills for short- or long-form written projects.  It was adapted from the SAA/RBMS Guidelines for Primary Source Literacy and the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy.

This rubric was designed for use with a Freshmen-level information literacy instruction one-shot. The faculty member required that students select one empirical research article to support their research paper for the course. The information literacy session specifically went over crafting research questions, understanding emprical research, bias, study design, etc. Students were shown how to search for quantitative and qualtiative research and to recognize identifiers of empirical research using an article's abstract. Once the assignment was completed the course instructor shared the students' selected articles and their justification for why it was appropraite with the librarian who taught the course. 

This rubric was created to evaluate student resource choice for their research papers after a library session. The rubric keeps the scope of ACRL's Framework in mind, while focusing on evalautive criteria students' would be taught to implement in their research inquiries during an information literacy session. The rubric consists of four categories: begining, emerging, developing and proficient, which allow for clear delineations of students' sophistication in conducting research.   

This document includes SLOs with performance indicators. After each indicator is a rubric to explain what would be considered excellent, acceptable, developing, or confused work for each indicator. It can be used for a course or program.

This rubric is based upon a set of learning outcomes for an information literacy course. Each outcome includes specific performance indicators. The rubric has 4 categories for evaluation: excellent, acceptable, developing, and confused. This rubric could also be used on the program level.

This resource introduces students to rubrics for evaluating information, including SCARAB, CRAAP, and Reuters Source Guide. Furthermore, it provides a framework of questions to ask about a piece of information under consideration. 

The three rubrics here were designed for an introductory course for English majors, but the ways in which the ACRL Framework is used could be replicated for any discipline and could be extended to program assessment.  Each rubric addresses one ARCL Frame.  The ACRL "dispositions" are treated as desired learning outcomes; the ACRL "knowledge practices" play the role of descriptors.  The rubric is intended to be used not simply on a student-produced project or activity, but on a project and a structured student reflection taken together.

This matrix was developed as a result of conversations with the writing department faculty, FYS coordinator, and general education committee.  I condensed the language of the Framework as well as the learner/dispositions, and led the workshop with faculty and librarians on how to begin to look at their specific courses as well as across the program on how they might incorporate the FW at each level, for each course, and drill down to the classroom instruction, partnering with the librarian on activities, assessment, and outcomes. More work and a journal publication about this process and method TBD. Please contact me (rhondahuisman@gmail.com) or PM on Twitter if you have questions, discussion, etc.Pilot exercise presented at Marian University Faculty Con (May, 2017)