Longwood University Information Literacy Competency Rubric

4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Defines extent of information needed with a clear research question / Defines the scope of the investigation with a clear research question, problem statement, statement of purpose, or thesis. / Defines the scope of the investigation with a research question, problem statement, or thesis, but there is some vagueness. / Attempts to define the scope of the investigation with a research question, problem statement, or thesis, but it is too vague to give direction to the project. / Does not define the scope of the investigation with a research question, problem statement, or thesis.
Organizes content in a manner that supports the purposes of the project (think form or style) / Organizes information from sources in a manner that enables the reader to follow the student’s inferences. / Evidence of a logical organization of information from sources, with minor inconsistencies. / Evidence of an attempt at logical organization of information from sources, with major inconsistencies. / No discernible attempt to organize sources.
Synthesizes information (think content) / Synthesizes information from sources to achieve a clear perspective on the research question or problem statement without oversimplifying. / Some missed opportunities to synthesize information from sources result in minor shortcomings in achieving a clear perspective and handling complexity. / Serious difficulties in synthesizing information from sources results in major shortcomings in achieving a coherent perspective. / No attempt to synthesize information sources to achieve a coherent perspective.
Accesses enough information to explore research question (think quantity or breadth) / Achieves sufficient coverage to consider a significant range of opinion on the research question. / Consults a range of sources, with a few important gaps. / Consults a few outside sources, but coverage is inadequate. / No reference to outside sources (the textbook does not count as an outside source).
Uses relevant, authoritative information (think quality) / Consistently draws from relevant, authoritative research sources. / Most sources are relevant and authoritative; a few are problematic. / A few sources are relevant and authoritative; the majority are problematic. / Sources used are not authoritative or relevant.
Indicates sourced information clearly in the body of the paper; sources referred to in the body of the paper are represented in the reference list or bibliography. / Clearly and consistently indicates sourced information in the body of the paper with quotes, links, superscripts (endnotes), or parenthetical citation. / Minor inconsistencies and/or a few missing in-text citations; most information cited but with some ambiguity. / Major inconsistencies and/or multiple missing in-text citations. / Does not acknowledge outside sources in the body of the paper.
Cites sources clearly in the reference list and/or endnotes / Cites information clearly and consistently, making it easy for the reader to determine the source’s format and to track down the source. / Cites information so that the reader can track down sources without effort/guesswork; reader has minor difficulties interpreting the format of the cited source (book, journal article, website, etc.). / Provides reference list and/or endnotes, but they are too garbled or incomplete to help the reader track down the sources; reader has major difficulties interpreting the format of the cited source (book, journal article, website, etc.). / Does not provide a reference list or endnotes.

Revised May 2015 - Adapted from the Information Literacy VALUE Rubric (http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/pdf/InformationLiteracy.pdf)