iRubric: History Book Review rubric

First paragraph listing title and author is attention-getting and provides information in addition to title and author.

Title and author are both listed immediately, but no other information is provided in that sentence.

Title and author are not immediately mentioned but are eventually provided in a sentence or two.

Title and/or author are not mentioned, or they are written on a separate line instead of in a sentence.

The author's thesis is clearly and accurately defined and stated. Any bias of the author is clearly pointed out by the reviewer.

The book's thesis is mostly defined or is mostly accurate. The author's bias in their writing is reflected.

The author's thesis is vague or poorly defined.

The review does not mention the author's thesis.

Student subjectively looks at the author's work with specific, targeted language. There is no vague voice in their writing, they highlight specific likes/dislikes, key things learned, and arguments for or against the author's work, including how the work could have been improved.

Students are mostly subjective in their review. They wander at times with a vague answer, but are largely specific in their critique of the book, good or bad. Areas for author's improvement or any disagreements are potentially found.

The student is too vague in their overall review of the book. The review shows little was learned by the student or a lack of understanding as the outcome. Lack of engagement with the reading.

Lack of specific critiques. Hyper vague responses to the author's work and vague critiques. Does not appear as if student read the book.