Information Literacy
YVC’s Ability related to Information Literacy:
Analytical Reasoning (AR) – Analytical Reasoning is the ability to consider an issue, idea, or concept systematically and assess the component parts and their application.
The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed. |
|||
Criteria |
|||
Levels of student mastery |
|||
1 - UNACCEPTABLE | 2 - DEVELOPING | 3 - ACCEPTABLE | 4 - PROFICIENT |
Unable to define or articulate the need for information | Shows little ability to define and articulate the need for information | Defines and articulates the need for information | Clearly defines and articulates the need for information |
Unable to identify types of formats of potential sources | Identifies only a few types of formats of potential sources | Identifies some formats of potential sources | Identifies types of formats of potential sources |
Unable to reevaluate the nature and extent of information needed | Shows little ability to reevaluate the nature and extent of information needed | Reevaluates the nature and extent of some of the information needed | Reevaluates the nature and extent of most of the information needed |
The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently. |
|||
Criteria |
|||
Levels of student mastery |
|||
1 - UNACCEPTABLE | 2 - DEVELOPING | 3 - ACCEPTABLE | 4 - PROFICIENT |
Fails to select appropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems | Selects inappropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems | Selects some appropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems | Selects the most appropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems |
Student fails to construct or implement effectively-designed search strategies appropriate to the discipline | Student demonstrates an understanding , but unable to construct and implement search strategies appropriate to the discipline | Student can to some degree construct and implement limited search strategies appropriate to the discipline | Student effectively constructs and implements search strategies appropriate to the discipline |
Uses only one discipline appropriate method to retrieve information | Uses some methods to retrieve information that are inappropriate to the discipline | Uses some of the discipline appropriate methods to retrieve information | Uses a wide variety of discipline appropriate methods to retrieve information |
No understanding of how to record and manage information and its sources | Demonstrates little understanding of records and minimal ability to manage information and its sources | Demonstrates some understanding of records and some ability to manage information and its sources | Records and manages information and its sources |
The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system. |
|||
Criteria |
|||
Levels of student mastery |
|||
1 - UNACCEPTABLE | 2 - DEVELOPING | 3 - ACCEPTABLE | 4 - PROFICIENT |
Does not summarize the main ideas to be extracted from the information | Incorrectly summarizes the main ideas to be extracted from the information | Summarizes most of the main ideas to be extracted from the information | Accurately summarizes the main ideas to be extracted from the information |
Fails to articulate and/or apply evaluation criteria to both the information and the sources | Inaccurately articulates and/or applies evaluation criteria to both the information and the sources | Articulates and applies evaluation criteria to some information and sources | Clearly articulates and applies evaluation criteria to both the information and the sources |
Unable to construct new concepts and/or recognize interrelationships among ideas | Identifies only some new concepts and recognizes few interrelationships among ideas | Identifies new concepts and recognizes some interrelationships among ideas | Clearly constructs new concepts and recognizes interrelationships among ideas |
Fails to compare new and prior knowledge and/or determine significance, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information | Does minimal comparison of new and prior knowledge and unable to determine significance, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information | Does some comparison of new and prior knowledge and attempts to determine significance, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information | Accurately compares new and prior knowledge and determines significance, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information |
No discourse with other individuals, subject area experts, and/or practitioners | Little discourse with other individuals, subject area experts, and/or practitioners | Some discourse with other individuals, subject area experts, and/or practitioners | Demonstrates understanding and interpretation though discourse with other individuals, subject area experts, and/or practitioners |
Does not revise initial inquiry even if it was necessary | Unable to determine if the initial inquiry should be revised | Makes only minimal revisions to initial inquiry even if more are necessary | Revises the initial inquiry if necessary |
The information literate student individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose. |
|||
Criteria |
|||
Levels of student mastery |
|||
1 - UNACCEPTABLE | 2 - DEVELOPING | 3 - ACCEPTABLE | 4 - PROFICIENT |
Does not apply new or prior information to the planning and fails to create a product or performance | Unable to apply both new and prior information to the planning and creation of a product or performance | Applies some new and prior information to the planning and creation of a product or performance | Correctly applies new and prior information to the planning and creation of a product or performance |
Fails to reflect on the process used to develop the product or performance | Few reflections on the process are used to develop the product or performance and they are not clearly or thoughtfully articulated | Only articulates a few reflections on the process used to develop the product or performance | Reflections on the process used to develop the product or performance are clearly and thoughtfully articulated |
Does not communicate the product or performance to others | Does not clearly communicate the product or performance to others, fails to use suitable technology and/or consider intended audience | Communicates the product or performance to others, using some suitable technology and some consideration of intended audience | Effectively communicates the product or performance to others, including. suitable use of technology and appropriateness to audience |
The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. |
|||
Criteria |
|||
Levels of student mastery |
|||
1 - UNACCEPTABLE | 2 - DEVELOPING | 3 - ACCEPTABLE | 4 - PROFICIENT |
Does not demonstrate an understanding of any of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology | Demonstrates a limited understanding of many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology | Demonstrates some understanding of many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology | Demonstrates a clear understanding of many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology (i.e. copyright, censorship & privacy) |
Does not follow laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources | Demonstrates little understanding of the laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources | Follows some laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources | Follows laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources (i.e. plagiarism, YVCC policies & procedures |
Does not acknowledge the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance | Acknowledges only a few of the information sources in communicating the product or performance | Acknowledges most of the information sources in communicating the product or performance | Clearly acknowledges the use of all information sources in communicating the product or performance |
*Based on ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education
This rubric was created for Yakima Valley College (YVC) by Joan Weber, retired Director of Library and Media Services, Judy Kjellman, retired Biology Faculty of YVC. Copyright is held by YVC. Permission must be obtained to copy this document., except for non-profit educational institutions. Educational institutions may utilize this rubric as long as Joan Weber, Judy Kjellman, and YVC are acknowledged as the developers of this rubric.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RESOURCES
Literacy Standards for Science and Engineering/Technology
Based on the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, five standards and twenty-six performance indicators were developed for science and technology. Each performance indicator is accompanied by one or more outcomes for assessing the progress toward information literacy of students of science and engineering or technology at all levels of higher education.
Research Competency Guidelines for Literatures in English
Research Competency Guidelines for Literatures in English were first developed for use within the Literature in English Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries. Although based on the framework of the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, these guidelines address the need for a more specific and source oriented approach within the discipline of English literatures, with a concrete list of research skills.