Examples of assessment tools

This section of the guidebook provides some concrete examples of the assessment tools discussed in the previous section.

Example 1: Research Paper Rubric
Example 2: Checklist
Example 3: Search Report Process Guide
Example 4: Rubric for Poster Presentations
Example 5: Evaluation of Lab Reports
Example 6: Evaluation of Critiques of Scientific Articles
Example 7: Rubric for Original Research Project
Example 8: Evaluation of Instruction

Example 1: Research Paper Rubric

Characteristics to note in the rubric:

Language is descriptive, not evaluative.
Labels for degrees of success are descriptive ("Expert" "Proficient", etc.); by avoiding the use of letters representing grades or numbers representing points, there is no implied contract that qualities of the paper will "add up" to a specified score or grade or that all dimensions are of equal grading value.
This rubric is developed for a specific writing assignment; it would need to be revised to describe the expectations for each specific assignment.

Figure 1: Research Paper Rubric

	EXPERT	PROFICIENT	APPRENTICE	NOVICE
INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE	The paper demonstrates that the author fully understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Concepts are integrated into the writer's own insights. The writer provides concluding remarks that show analysis and synthesis of ideas.	The paper demonstrates that the author, for the most part, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Some of the conclusions, however, are not supported in the body of the paper.	The paper demonstrates that the author, to a certain extent, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course.	The paper does not demonstrate that the author has fully understood and applied concepts learned in the course.
TOPIC FOCUS	The topic is focused narrowly enough for the scope of this assignment. A thesis statement provides direction for the paper, either by statement of a position or hypothesis.	The topic is focused but lacks direction. The paper is about a specific topic but the writer has not established a position.	The topic is too broad for the scope of this assignment.	The topic is not clearly defined.
DEPTH OF DISCUSSION	In-depth discussion & elaboration in all sections of the paper.	In-depth discussion & elaboration in most sections of the paper.	The writer has omitted pertinent content or content runs-on excessively. Quotations from others outweigh the writer's own ideas excessively.	Cursory discussion in all the sections of the paper or brief discussion in only a few sections.
COHESIVENESS	Ties together information from all sources. Paper flows from one issue to the next without the need for headings. Author's writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources.	For the most part, ties together information from all sources. Paper flows with only some disjointedness. Author's writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources.	Sometimes ties together information from all sources. Paper does not flow - disjointedness is apparent. Author's writing does not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources.	Does not tie together information. Paper does not flow and appears to be created from disparate issues. Headings are necessary to link concepts. Writing does not demonstrate understanding any relationships.
SPELLING & GRAMMAR	No spelling &/or grammar mistakes.	Minimal spelling &/or grammar mistakes.	Noticeable spelling & grammar mistakes.	Unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes.
SOURCES	More than 5 current sources, of which at least 3 are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. Sources include both general background sources and specialized sources. Special-interest sources and popular literature are acknowledged as such if they are cited. All web sites utilized are authoritative.	5 current sources, of which at least 2 are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. All web sites utilized are authoritative.	Fewer than 5 current sources, or fewer than 2 of 5 are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. All web sites utilized are credible.	Fewer than 5 current sources, or fewer than 2 of 5 are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. Not all web sites utilized are credible, and/or sources are not current.
CITATIONS	Cites all data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is used in both text and bibliography.	Cites most data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is used in both text and bibliography.	Cites some data obtained from other sources. Citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect.	Does not cite sources.

Adapted from: Whalen, S. "Rubric from Contemporary Health Issues Research Paper" http://academics.adelphi.edu/edu/hpe/healthstudies/whalen/HED601_r2.shtml

Example 2: Checklist

Characteristics to note in this particular checklist:

This checklist is given to students when the assignment is given, and students are advised that this checklist can serve as a guide for them.
He also advises them that their papers are likely to be stronger if they pay attention to these criteria.
This is less formal than a rubric; it is intended to guide students as they work.
The instructor tells them that he will choose five papers (20%) to give to the consulting librarian to read; he will take these assessments as advice when he evaluates the papers; the consulting librarian also writes a summary of how well the five papers meet the criteria; the department saves these summaries and over time looks for patterns to determine what should be taught more intentionally.
This assessment, then, serves two purposes: to improve student performance and to modify the instruction.

Figure 2: Checklist

Bibliography Checklist for Psychology of Sport (Physical Education 215)

	Criteria
	Sources are authoritative. Articles come from journals whose standards for publication include conscientious editorial review or peer review. Books cited are authored by individuals with appropriate credentials. Web sites are attributed to organizations or individuals with expertise on the topic at hand.
	Sources are current (Older articles are justified).
	Sources are varied. Citations represent various media (book, journal, website, etc.) Where appropriate, diverse points of view are represented. Sources represent a range of publication dates to show the spectrum of thought on the topic, as appropriate.
	Sources are of an appropriate number. At least [five] different sources are included. No single source provides the primary substance for the final product.
	Sources represent appropriate scope for the assignment. Books and journal articles are not too highly specialized for the scope of the paper. General reference citations are used as background material.
	Special-interest web resources are acknowledged as such in the text of the document. Biases are explained.
	Popular literature is included only when appropriate and is acknowledged as such in the text.
	Citations follow APA citation style both in the text and in the list of references.
	Information from sources is integrated into a cohesive text.

Characteristics to note in this process guide:

This form can provide substance to the brief structured interview type of assessment described in the previous section. It is formative, providing feedback to both the student and the librarian.
This form is given to students by the librarian after they have had a group instruction session geared to their specific assignment.
After conducting and recording searches, strategies, and results on this form, each student consults individually with a librarian.
Self-reporting helps students become aware of the steps in their search process.
Individual consultations based on the students' reported strategies allow the librarian to tailor recommendation for refining searches to each student's needs.

Figure 3: Process Guide

Biology
Search Report Process Guide

Initial Topic:________________________________________________________________________
Revised Topic: (if applicable):__________________________________________________________

Research is a recursive process in which we search, revise our search strategy, search again, refine our strategy, etc. Fill in the grid below for each search you perform to track your process. Bring this completed form when you meet with your librarian.

Date of search	Tool used (e.g. EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier, General Science Abstracts, etc.)	Search terms (write exactly what you typed)	Number of results	Search Limits (e.g. title or author fields, timeframe, subject)	Evaluation of results (e.g. focused on my topic, length of articles, relevance of publication year, scholarly/popular, suitable number, article type, etc.)

Final Topic: _____________________________________________________________

Back to top

Example 4: Rubric for Poster Presentations

RUBRIC for POSTER PRESENTATIONS
Criteria	Expert	Proficient	Apprentice	Novice
Presentation of Research	Prominently positions title/authors of paper Thoroughly but concisely presents main points of introduction, hypotheses/propositions, research methods, results, and conclusions in a well-organized manner Narration and/or answering of questions is engaging, thorough, and adds greatly to the presentation	Contains title/authors of paper Adequately presents main points of introduction, hypotheses/proposition, research methods, results, and conclusions in a fairly well-organized manner Narration and/or answering of questions is adequate and adds to the presentation	Contains title/authors of paper Presents main points of introduction, hypotheses/propositions, research methods, results, and conclusions but not as sufficiently and not as well-organized Narration and/or answering of questions is somewhat lacking	Title/authors absent Does not sufficiently present main points of introduction, hypotheses/propositions, research methods, results, and conclusions and is not well-organized Narration and/or answering of questions is lacking
Visual Presentation	Overall visually appealing; not cluttered; colors and patterns enhance readability Uses appropriate font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research Graphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) are engaging and enhance the text Content is clearly arranged so that the viewer can understand order without narration	Overall visually appealing; not cluttered; colors and patterns support readability Adequate use of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research Graphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) enhance the text Content is arranged so that the viewer can understand order without narration	Visual appeal is adequate; somewhat cluttered; colors and patterns detract from readability Use of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research is somewhat inconsistent/distracting Graphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) adequately enhance the text Content arrangement is somewhat confusing and does not adequately assist the viewer in understanding order without narration	Not very visually appealing; cluttered; colors and patterns hinder readability Use of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research is inconsistent/distracting Graphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) do not enhance the text Content arrangement is somewhat confusing and does not adequately assist the viewer in understanding order without narration
Documentation of Sources, Quality of Sources	Cites all data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is accurate	Cites most data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is accurate	Cites some data obtained from other sources. Citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect.	Does not cite sources
Spelling & Grammar	No spelling & grammar mistakes	Minimal spelling & grammar mistakes	Noticeable spelling and grammar mistakes	Unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes
Comments:

Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J.

Example 5: Evaluation of Lab Reports

	Expert	Proficient	Apprentice	Novice
Introduction	Presents a clear summary of the aims of the study and its significance. Briefly describes experimental design. Probably includes one or more references to supporting sources.	Either lacks clarity or is missing one of the primary elements.	Weak or missing primary elements.	No real introduction.
Materials and Methods	Gives the reader a clear picture of the methods and materials used. Does not use prescriptive language. Uses specific, not general, terminology. Detailed, step-by-step procedures are clearly referenced. Avoids long, redundant descriptions.	Some methods are presented so briefly and/or vaguely that it is unclear how or why they were done. May be some written as a protocol rather than a description.	Some methods are omitted; others are presented in a piecemeal, vague form.	Methods barely mentioned.
Results	All figures and tables have titles and legends. All results are clearly presented, with a logical sequence. Controls are clearly indicated.	Some data may be missing, or legends may be brief, vague or uninformative.	Data is presented haphazardly. It is sometimes not possible to tell what material or procedure was used to obtain the data.	No logical connection between methods and data. Irrelevant data may be included, and relevant data left out. No legends.
Discussion	It is clear that the methods and results have been understood. The results (including controls) are related to the questions posed and analyzed for their effectiveness. Possible explanations for inconsistencies and/or unexpected results are given.	There may be some lack of clarity. Did the writer understand why certain methods were used, and how the results could shed light on the questions asked? Incomplete analysis of inconsistencies and unexpected results.	Very little analysis of the results. Statements are vague and general. Inconsistencies are explained by 'human error' or something similar.	Mostly a restatement of results. No analysis given. No recognition of error sources. No understanding of controls.
Cohesiveness	It is clear that the report covers a group of related procedures with a clear set of goals.	Sometimes the goals are not clearly related to the report. Some fragmentation occurs, with methods and results apparently unrelated to each other.	Transitions are abrupt. Each day's work seems unrelated to the next's. Aims are not clearly present throughout.	Disjointed. No flow. Very little use of headings, or explanatory sentences.
Spelling/grammar	No spelling or grammatical errors.	An occasional error.	Apparently not proofread for errors.	Frequent grammatical errors: incomplete sentences, tense changes, misspellings.

J. Cardon

Example 6: Evaluation of Critiques of Scientific Articles

	Expert	Proficient	Apprentice	Novice
Introduction	Clearly summarizes the aims of and methods used by the authors.	Summary is complete, but lacks clarity.	Picture communicated is not clear; connection to paper is not obvious.	No real introduction.
Data presentation	There is a clear understanding of experimental design, especially controls. It is also clear that you understand what was observed and how it relates to the authors' model or hypothesis.	Some parts of the experiments have not been understood. You may not have a clear grasp of the model being tested, or the relevance of the data	There are significant gaps in understanding, or inaccuracies in reporting the data. You have shown some understanding, but there are clearly large parts of the paper that you haven't mastered.	Hurriedly done, with little understanding.
Criticism	There is a clear understanding of the authors' interpretation, of the implications of the results for the hypothesis. Outside information is brought to bear on evaluating the design and conclusions.	Not quite as clear an understanding. Less complete evaluation of design and conclusions.	Uncritical acceptance of authors' conclusions. Or baseless objections to them.	Little or no mention of authors' intent. Little or no evaluation.
Cohesiveness	You have selected the data most relevant to the authors' aims. Your conclusions actually make results clearer.	Although the most relevant data are selected, your picture of the authors' aims and conclusions is not quite as clear and/or complete.	Some of the data you have selected do not seem as relevant to the overall aims of the paper. You seem to have missed some important parts.	Lack understanding of the paper or its context. Authors' aims are unclear.
Spelling/grammar	No spelling or grammatical errors.	Very few spelling or grammatical errors.	Errors on almost every page.	Apparently no proofreading done.

J. Cardon

Example 7: Rubric for Original Research Project

Criteria	Expert	Proficient	Apprentice	Novice
Introduction [Introductory paragraph(s), literature review, hypotheses or propositions]	Clearly identifies and discussed research focus/purpose of research Research focus is clearly grounded in previous research/theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is clearly identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/propositions are clearly articulated	Limited discussion of research focus/purpose of research Research focus is less well-grounded in previous research/theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is not as clearly identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/propositions are described but not as well articulated	Inadequate discussion of research focus/purpose of research Research focus is not well-grounded in previous research/theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is not clearly identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/propositions are not well articulated	Poor discussion of research focus/purpose of research Research focus not grounded in previous research/theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is not identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/propositions are poorly articulated or are absent altogether
Research Methods	Provides accurate, thorough description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context\ Reflection on social situatedness/reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is thorough and insightful	Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is adequate but limited. Reflection on social situatedness/reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is adequate but limited	Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is somewhat confusing/not clearly articulated. Reflection on social situatedness/reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is limited and lacks insight	Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is very confusing/not articulated sufficiently. Reflection on social situatedness/reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is severely limited, lacks insight, or is absent altogether
Results	Results are clearly explained in an appropriate level of detail and are well-organized Tables/figures clearly and concisely convey the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are appropriate tests and are accurately interpreted.	Results are explained but not as clearly, level of detail is not as sufficient, and there are some organizational issues Tables/figures are not as clear/concise in conveying the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are appropriate tests but are not accurately interpreted.	Results are not very clearly explained, level of detail is insufficient, and there are more organizational issues Tables/figures are not clear/concise in conveying the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are inappropriate tests and/or are not accurately interpreted.	Results are not clearly explained, level of detail is severely insufficient, and there are serious organizational issues Tables/figures are not clear/concise in conveying the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are inappropriate tests and/or are not accurately interpreted.
Conclusions	Interpretations/analysis of results are thoughtful and insightful, are clearly informed by the study's results, and thoroughly address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/propositions Insightful discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area Suggestions for further research in this area are insightful and thoughtful	Interpretations/analysis of results are sufficient but somewhat lacking in thoughtfulness and insight, are not as clearly informed by the study's results, and do not as thoroughly address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/proposition Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is adequate. Suggestions for further research in this area are adequate.	Interpretations/analysis of results lacking in thoughtfulness and insight, are not clearly informed by the study's results, and do not adequately address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/propositions Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is limited. Suggestions for further research in this area are very limited.	Interpretations/analysis of results severely lacking in thoughtful ness and insight, are not informed by the study's results, and do not address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/propositions Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is severely limited and/or absent altogether. Suggestions for further research in this area are severely limited and/or absent altogether.
Documentation of Sources, Quality of Sources	Cites all data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is accurately used in both text and bibliography. Sources are all scholarly and clearly relate to the research focus.	Cites most data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is used in both text and bibliography. Sources are primarily scholarly and relate to the research focus.	Cites some data obtained from other sources. Citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect. Sources are not primarily scholarly and relate to the research focus but somewhat tangentially.	Does not cite sources. Sources are disproportionately non-scholarly and do not clearly relate to the research focus.
Spelling & Grammar	No spelling & grammar mistakes	Minimal spelling & grammar mistakes	Noticeable spelling and grammar mistakes	Unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes
Manuscript Format	Title page has proper APA formatting Used correct headings & subheadings consistently	Title page approximates APA formatting Used correct headings & subheadings almost consistently	Title page deviates a bit more from APA formatting Headings & subheadings less consistent	Title page completely deviates from APA formatting Headings and subheadings completely deviate from suggested formatting or are absent altogether
Additional Comments:

Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (Some elements adapted from vom Saal, F., "Scoring Rubric-Scientific Paper" http://www.biology.missouri.edu/courses/Bio4984_vomSaal/pdf/Sci_Paper_Critique.pdf and Cornell College/Colorado College., "Figure 1: Research Paper Rubric" http://www.coloradocollege.edu/library/acmassign/tools.html)

Example 8: Evaluation of Instruction

This evaluation form is used after instruction sessions with the librarian. A similar form is given to faculty for feedback on the session. The form informs the librarian for revising instruction sessions for the future.

Library Instruction Session--Student Evaluation
Course:_______________________________________________________ Block:_____

Please mark the item that best describes your assessment of the instruction session you experienced during this block.

1. Content

1.1 Relevance

	The content of the session was highly relevant to my assignment.
	The content of the session was partially relevant to my assignment.
	The content of the session was not appropriate for this class.

1.2 Degree of complexity

	The content was at the right level of complexity and detail.
	The session covered too much content.
	The content of the session had too much detail.
	The content of the session was too difficult.
	I did not learn anything new.

2. Outcome

	I applied information from the library instruction in my work, either in the sources used, in citations, or in other aspects of my final product.
	The content of the lesson did not help me with my assignment.

3. Resources

	I got the resources I needed to do this assignment through the library, either by using resources in the library or by accessing resources through the library's web site or through inter-library loan.
	The library had some information, but I had to supplement it by going to another library.
	I did not use the library or its web site at all, either remotely or physically.

One resource I want to explore since I attended this instruction session:

One suggestion I would like to offer to the library:

A concept or skill I learned from this session: