In general, the library prize committee looks for student work that demonstrates rigorous, innovative, and/or unique approaches to engaging with library collections and resources.
The research process, as evidenced in the application form (see Application Form), is the primary focus for evaluating submissions. Specifically, each submission will be evaluated according to this rubric (viewable as a Google Doc here):
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|
EXTENT TO WHICH LIBRARY RESEARCH HAS INFORMED THE PROJECT |
Mostly or wholly unclear how the project connects to the library and its resources. | Demonstrates minimal familiarity with the library in relation to the project. | Clearly identifies library resources’ relevance to the project, without demonstrating their centrality to it. | Demonstrates the centrality of library research to the project. | Outlines the centrality and use of an exemplary array of resources (e.g., books, articles, archival materials) and services (e.g., consultations with librarians or faculty, or use of advanced technology). |
| USE OF TARGETED AND/OR COMPLEX RESOURCES | Little to no mention of specific library resources (e.g., only mentions a Google or open web search). | Identifies or misidentifies (e.g., “the library database,” “Ebsco”) only general search tools; little to no mention of specific search strategies. | Identifies basic keyword searches; identifies the use of the library catalog and multidisciplinary search tools such as JSTOR; follows footnotes or textual references. | Identifies discipline-specific tools (such as the MLA Bibliography or PsychInfo), complex search strategies (e.g., subject headings) and/or consultations with librarians or faculty. | Exemplary use of tools and search strategies, such as truncation of words; WorldCat and/or Interlibrary Loan; archival aids. |
|
EXTENT TO WHICH STUDENT HAS EVALUATED RELEVANCE OF RESOURCES TO THE PROJECT |
Little to no evidence of evaluation of resources. | Basic or minimal demonstration of relevance of resources to the topic. | Satisfactory evaluation of resources’ relevance to the topic. | Careful and critical evaluation of resources’ relevance to the topic. | Highly rigorous evaluation of resources’ relevance to the topic. |
| CORRECT CITATION AND CREDITING OF RESOURCES | Lack of clear citation of most or all material. | Inconsistent formatting of citations. | Consistent formatting of citations, but not in a standard style. | Consistent formatting of citations in a recognizable, standard style. | NOT APPLICABLE (scoring for this category only goes from 1 to 4) |
Source: Adapted from Temple University, Library Prize for Undergraduate Research.
If you have questions, please email the Library Prize Committee at LibPrize@conncoll.edu