Current Regis Time
| Assessment Question | Fully Met | Mostly Met | Partly Met | Insufficiently Met | Total Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources - Are sources appropriate for the assignment? | Sources are credible and are peerreviewed scholarly materials, appropriate for college-level work. Sources were published within the last five years. (17 points) | Most sources are scholarly and appropriate for the assignment. Some sources may have been published more than five years ago or may not have been peerreviewed. (13 points) | Few sources are considered appropriate for the assignment. Many sources are outdated and not from scholarly publications. (10 points) | Not enough sources to meet the assignment requirements. Or inappropriate sources were used, indicating student did not go beyond an Internet search. (0 points) | 17 |
| Summaries - Do the annotations contain clear, concise summaries of source materials? | Annotations contain clear, complete summaries. Main points are summarized, including evidence in support of the main point and examples. (17 points) | Most annotations contain complete summaries, but some may lack clarity or evidence. (13 points) | Several annotations may have omitted key content. Main ideas may be confusing or unclear. Summaries may be incomplete or sketchy. (10 points) | Summaries may indicate that source was misinterpreted, or that author’s ideas were not accurately represented. No real indication that student read or understood the sources. (0 points) | 17 |
| Objective Evaluation - Do the annotations contain evidence of objective evaluative criteria? | All annotations contain evidence of objective evaluation criteria, as related to the field of nursing. These may include author’s credentials within the nursing discipline, accuracy of materials, objectivity, and strengths or weaknesses. Most evaluations address the criteria from a disciplinary point of view. (17 points) | Most annotations address many of the criteria for evaluation. Some annotations may include the criteria, but in a generic way without showing relevance to the discipline of nursing. (13 points) | Annotations may superficially address the criteria for evaluation, or the evaluation is absent in some annotations. (10 points) | Most of the annotations fail to include elements of critical evaluation. May include only statements such as “this was a good source” with no explanation. (0 points) | 17 |
| Subjective evaluation - Do the annotations include a clear assessment of the usefulness of the source, reflecting its context within the discipline? | All annotations contain an assessment of the usefulness of the source & student’s reaction to the source. Agreement or disagreement? Helpful? Application to role or practice is clearly stated. The source offered a unique contribution or contradicted other sources. (17 points) | Most of the annotations include an assessment of the usefulness of the source and the student’s reaction to how the source contributes to the literature of the discipline, and influences their role or practice. (13 points) | Few of the annotations have a subjective evaluation as to the usefulness of the source and/or its contribution to the literature of the discipline. Relevance to student’s role or practice not addressed. (10 points) | Annotations may include statements such as “this was a good source,” but fail to explain why the source was chosen or its usefulness. (0 points) | 17 |
| Did the student communicate clearly and effectively? | The student communicates effectively and well in standard written English. Annotations are meaningful, professional, and informative. Each citation meets assignment requirements. (16 points) | The student communicates adequately and is easily understood. Occasional grammar or spelling errors are found in the annotated bibliography. (12 points) | The student communicates but with numerous errors that contribute to a lack of clarity or effectiveness in communication. Repeated grammar or spelling errors are found in the annotated bibliography. (9 points) | The student’s communication is strained and difficult at times to comprehend. Multiple errors make it hard to understand. (0 points) | 16 |
| Are the annotations properly formatted, ensuring ethical treatment of sources? | All bibliographic entries are in correct APA format. Any quotes within summaries are properly attributed. (16 points) | Most entries are formatted correctly in APA, but with a few minor errors. No intentional plagiarism is found. (12 points) | Entries may not consistently follow APA format, or minor elements are missing. No intentional plagiarism is found. (9 points) | Citations may be missing important elements, making it hard for the reader to locate the sources. Summary may not be in student’s own words or may too closely resemble the database article abstract or the online book review. (0 points) | 16 |
| Total points | 100 | ||||