1.3.2: Annotation rubric 20 points

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 14945

This page is a draft and is under active development.

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

“Confidence Gap” Annotation Exercise: Total Score ________/20

Annotation Score - 10

Article

Score

Outstanding

90-100% 18-20

Satisfactory

80-89% 16-17

Emerging

70-79% 14-15

Unsatisfactory

60-69% 12-13

Incomplete <60%/11

Annotation

Score:

___/20

Key elements highlighted and labeled including main idea, supporting ideas/reasons,

supporting facts and other evidence, headings, terms, and questionsas noted in the packet list.Work reflects engaged effort, critical thinking, and CLOSE, ACCURATE

READING.

Article is highlighted and labeled (annotated) thoroughly with a high degree of accuracy, with adequate effort and evidence of close reading. Contains additional annotations from packet guideline list.

Article is highlighted and annotated and the work shows some effortful engagement, but lacks completeness and accuracy.

Contains some annotations from packet guideline list.

Article is incompletely highlighted and labeled, does not reflect effortful engagement, and lacks in completeness and accuracy.

Contains few annotations from packet guideline list.

Article contains some highlighting and labeling, but the work is incomplete and does not reflect CLOSE, ACCURATE READING.

Contains few or no annotations from packet guideline list.