During the semester, do some exploratory reading on a topic or topics within the scope of the course. Your choice may be random (read a little about practically everything) or systematic (read up on a topic other than that of your seminar report or final project). Write a brief (50-100 word; 2 or 3 to a page) annotation for each item you read. Feel free to be critical -- not everything that gets published is useful. Your reading list for this course is intended to give you some ideas for relevant readings. If you monitor a listserv it can count as an item on your log.

Criteria for Grading

Quantity (30%); substance (15%); variety (15%); annotations (20%); form (20%)

4. Above the Standard (B+ or A-)

• Quantity: 6 or 7 items not used in your seminar report or final project 
• Substance: Items are solid journal articles, book chapters, or in-depth content sites; research reports may be included
• Variety: Relevant items drawn from a variety of sources – e.g., Library Trends, JOYS, or Reading Research Quarterly, not SLJ alone
• Annotations: Clear, concise summaries of methods as well as findings; evaluations in terms of professional value or research validity; confident, original insights
• Form: All sources are properly cited. Spelling and grammar are correct; layout is easy to follow. All requirements for handing in work are met.   

3. Meets the Standard (B)

• Quantity: 5 items not used in your seminar report or final project 
• Substance: Items are solid journal articles, book chapters, or in-depth content sites
• Variety: Relevant items drawn from a variety of sources – e.g., Library Trends, JOYS, or Reading Research Quarterly, not SLJ alone
• Annotations: Clear summaries; meaningful evaluations
• Form: All sources are properly cited. There are few errors in spelling and grammar; layout is easy to follow. All requirements for handing in work are met.   

2. Below the Standard (C+ or B-)

• Quantity: Fewer than 5 items not used in other assignments
• Substance: May feature 2-page editorials or gateway websites that only link to content elsewhere
• Variety: Most items taken from a single journal -- probably a trade magazine easily accessible at the student's library -- rather than from a variety of more authoritative sources
• Annotations: Summaries may ramble, waste words, and/or omit important details (was it a survey? what was the response rate?); evaluations may be based on gut reactions ("This was hard to read and not very helpful"; "I loved this article") rather than on professional or research value
• Form: Sources may not be cited, or may be incompletely cited. Spelling and grammar may be poor, threatening comprehension or retrieval of information. All requirements for handing in work may not be met.