Appendix Comparison of ap english Language and Composition Rubric and Revised Student-Friendly Rubric



Download 30,25 Kb.
Date conversion29.12.2016
Size30,25 Kb.
Appendix

Comparison of AP English Language and Composition Rubric and Revised Student-Friendly Rubric


AP Rubric

Revised Rubric

9: Essays earning a score of 9 meet the criteria for the score of 8 and, in addition, are especially sophisticated in their argument, thorough in their development, or impressive in their control of language.
8 Effective

Essays earning a score of 8 effectively analyze the rhetorical strategies Louv uses to develop his argument about the separation between people and nature. They develop their analysis with evidence and explanations that are appropriate and convincing, referring to the passage explicitly or implicitly. The prose demonstrates a consistent ability to control a wide range of the elements of effective writing but is not necessarily flawless.


7 Essays earning a score of 7 meet the criteria for the score of 6 but provide more complete explanation, more thorough development, or a more mature prose style.
6 Adequate

Essays earning a score of 6 adequately analyze the rhetorical strategies Louv uses to develop his argument about the separation between people and nature. They develop their analysis with evidence and explanations that are appropriate and sufficient, referring to the passage explicitly or implicitly. The writing may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but generally the prose is clear.


5 Essays earning a score of 5 analyze the rhetorical strategies Louv uses to develop his argument about the separation between people and nature. The evidence or explanations used may be uneven, inconsistent, or limited. The writing may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but it usually conveys the writer’s ideas.
4 Inadequate

Essays earning a score of 4 inadequately analyze the rhetorical strategies Louv uses to develop his argument about the separation between people and nature. These essays may misunderstand the passage, misrepresent the strategies Louv uses or may analyze these strategies insufficiently. The evidence or explanations used may be inappropriate, insufficient, or unconvincing. The prose generally conveys the writer’s ideas but may be inconsistent in controlling the elements of effective writing.


3 Essays earning a score of 3 meet the criteria for the score of 4 but demonstrate less success in analyzing the rhetorical strategies Louv uses to develop his argument about the separation between people and nature. They are less perceptive in their understanding of the passage or Louv’s strategies, or the explanations or examples may be particularly limited or simplistic. The essays may show less maturity in control of writing.
2 Little Success

Essays earning a score of 2 demonstrate little success in analyzing the rhetorical strategies Louv uses to develop his argument about the separation between people and nature. These essays may misunderstand the prompt, misread the passage, fail to analyze the strategies Louv uses, or substitute a simpler task by responding to the prompt tangentially with unrelated, inaccurate, or inappropriate explanation. The prose often demonstrates consistent weaknesses in writing, such as grammatical problems, a lack of development or organization, or a lack of control.


1 Essays earning a score of 1 meet the criteria for the score of 2 but are undeveloped, especially simplistic in their explanation, or weak in their control of language.


Thesis

Open-ended Feedback*: Provide feedback on the quality of the author's thesis.

Ratings:

Did the author include a clear, specific thesis in his or her introduction?

7 - The author's introduction includes a clear, specific thesis statement that connects Louv's rhetorical

strategies with the argument he is making about the separation between people and nature.

6

5 - The author's introduction includes a thesis, but the thesis does not make a specific or clear connection between Louv's rhetorical strategies and his argument about the separation between people and nature.



4

3 - The author's introduction includes a thesis, but the thesis is overly general or simply a restatement

of the essay prompt.

2

1 - The author did not include a thesis in his or her introduction.



Louv’s Argument

Open-ended Feedback: Provide feedback on how well the author explained Louv's argument about the separation between people and nature throughout the essay.

Ratings:

Did the author accurately describe Louv's argument about the separation between people and nature?

7 - The author accurately describes all of Louv's argument.

6

5 - The author accurately describes most of Louv's argument.



4

3 - In the majority of the essay, the author misunderstands Louv's argument.

2

1 - The author does not address Louv's argument and instead writes about his or her own argument about the separation between people and nature.



Rhetorical Strategies

Open-ended Feedback: Provide feedback on how well the author analyzed how Louv's rhetorical strategies support his argument throughout the essay.

Ratings:

What rhetorical strategies did the author analyze in his or her essay?

7 - The author analyses multiple, subtle rhetorical strategies that Louv uses accurately (such as appeal to a common cause, evoking nostalgia, or other sophisticated strategies).

6

5 - The author analyses three or more obvious rhetorical strategies that Louv uses (such as using rhetorical questions, anecdotes, or other obvious strategies).



4

3 - The author analyses only 1-2 obvious rhetorical strategies that Louv uses (such as rhetorical questions) or misunderstands Louv's strategies.

2

1 - The author didn't write about Louv's rhetorical strategies (instead discussed a different topic, connected to personal experience, or just summarized Louv's piece).



Evidence for Claims

Open-ended Feedback: Provide feedback on how well the author supported his or her analysis of Louv s rhetorical strategies with an adequate amount of specific and accurate references to the text.

Ratings:

How strong is the textual evidence for each claim about Louv s rhetorical strategies?

7 - Every claim has accurate evidence for all important aspects of the claim. Most evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.

6

5 -Every claim has evidence, but some of the evidence is not accurate or not complete. Some



evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.

4

3 - Several claims are missing evidence, or most of the evidence is not accurate. Little or no evidence is



conveyed through direct quotes.

2

1 - No evidence is provided for any of the claims.



Explaining Evidence

Open-ended Comments: Provide feedback on how well the author explained the textual evidence he or she provided.

Ratings:

Are the explanations of the textual evidence logical and thorough?

7 - Explanations of all the evidence provided are thorough, logical and connected to the essay's thesis.

6

5 - Explanations are sufficient, but not always thorough, logical, and clearly connected to the essay's



thesis.

4

3 - Explanations are simplistic, sometimes absent, or not clearly connected to the essay's thesis.



2

1 - Explanations are missing or unrelated to the prompt (such as based in personal experience).



Organization

Open-ended comments: Provide feedback on how well the author organized his or her essay.

Ratings:

7 - The essay has a clear organization with a logical progression of ideas and body paragraphs that are

each focused on a single argument that connects back to the thesis.

6

5 - The essay has a clear organization and progression of ideas, but the body paragraphs may



sometimes be unfocused or not clearly connected to the thesis. The organization may be simplistic with

formulaic transitions and a list-like progression of ideas.

4

3 - The organization of the essay is difficult to follow in many places due to jumps in logic, lack of transitions, repetition, and lack of focused body paragraphs that connect to the thesis.



2

1 - The essay is very disorganized with most ideas presented in random, repetitive, or illogical ways that make the author's argument and its connection to a thesis very difficult to understand.



Control of Language & Conventions

Open-ended Feedback: Provide feedback on how controlled and sophisticated the author's use of language was, including its

vocabulary and grammar.




Control of Language Ratings:

How appropriate are the writing style and vocabulary for an academic essay?

7 - Mature, sophisticated prose style, using specific academic terminology (such as pathos and ethos) and control of language.

6

5 - Clear prose style with few lapses in academic word choice.



4

3 - The prose generally conveys the writer's ideas but is inconsistent in controlling the elements of effective writing, such as academic word choice.

2

1 - Simplistic style and vocabulary.



Conventions Ratings:

How well does the paper follow the conventions (grammar, punctuation, and spelling) of Standard Written English?

7 - The paper follows the conventions of Standard Written English very well with very few or no errors.

6

5 - The paper mostly follows the conventions of Standard Written English, but has about 1-2 error per paragraph. The errors don't interfere with your understanding the writer's ideas.



4

3 - The paper does not consistently follow the conventions of Standard Written English and may include up to 3-5 errors per paragraph. In places, the errors make it hard to understand the writer's



ideas.

2

1 - In many sentences, the paper does not follow the conventions of Standard Written English. The errors make it very difficult to understand the write's ideas in many places.



* All open-ended feedback prompts ended with the sentence, “Be specific about how the writer could improve his or her thesis and provide suggestions for improvements.”


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page