writing

English Department Rubric

  • This is the rubric the English Department uses for all regular English Classes (AP and Dual Credit classes use specific rubrics to USM and College Board).

     

    On in-class writing, Comprehension of Key Ideas/Details and Written Expression: 

    Development of Ideas will be the sole consideration for the mid- to low- range score.

    Construct Measured

    Score Point 4

    100

    Score Point 3

    88

    Score Point 2

    75

    Score Point 1

    65

    Score Point 0

    50


    Reading


    Comprehension of

    Key Ideas and

    Details



    The student response demonstrates full comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and inferentially by providing an accurate analysis and supporting the analysis with effective and convincing textual evidence.

    The student response demonstrates comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and/or inferentially by providing an accurate analysis and supporting the analysis with adequate textual evidence.

    The student response demonstrates basic comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and/or inferentially by providing a generally accurate analysis and supporting the analysis with basic textual evidence.

    The student response demonstrates limited comprehension of ideas stated explicitly and/or inferentially by providing a minimally accurate analysis and supporting the analysis with limited textual evidence.

    The student response demonstrates no comprehension of ideas by providing inaccurate or no analysis and little to no textual evidence.


    Writing


    Written Expression:

    Development

    of Ideas



    On in-class writing, this construct and Comprehension of Key Ideas will be the sole consideration for the mid- to low- range score.

    The student response:

    • is clear , consistently focused and shows a clear understanding of the task;

    • develops ideas fully by using clear and convincing reasoning supported by relevant textual evidence;

    • demonstrates evidence of planning and a purposeful, logical progression that allows the reader to easily follow the writer’s ideas;

     

    • has an effective introduction and conclusion that contribute to the cohesiveness and clarity of the response;


    • establishes and maintains an effective style and tone, attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline;

    • uses precise, effective, and purposeful word choice;

    • employs fluent and varied sentences;






    • uses words, clauses, and transitions frequently and effectively to clarify the relationship among claims, and support;


    The student response:

    • is generally clear, focused and shows a general understanding of the given task;

    • provides adequate development of the claim or topic that  is appropriate to the task by using clear reasoning supported by relevant textual evidence;



    • demonstrates evidence of planning and a logical progression that allows the reader to follow the writer’s ideas;

    • has an introduction and conclusion that contribute to the cohesiveness of the response;



    • establishes and maintains a mostly effective style and tone, attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline;
    • uses precise, effective, and purposeful word choice;

    • employs fluent and varied sentences;




    • uses words, clauses, and transitions to clarify the relationships among claims and support;


    The student response:

    • is vague and shows only partial understanding of the given task;


    • is somewhat developed by using some reasoning and text-based evidence;





    • demonstrates evidence of planning with some logical progression that allows the reader to follow the writer’s ideas;



    • has a basic and/ or formulaic introduction and conclusion that contribute to the cohesiveness of the response;



    • has a style and tone that is somewhat effective, generally attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline;
    • uses precise, effective, and purposeful word choice;

    • employs fluent and varied sentences.




    • uses words, clauses, and transitions somewhat consistently to clarify relationships among claims and support;

    The student response:

    • is unclear and shows a lack of understanding of the given task;


    • develops ideas with limited reasoning, little to no evidence from the text, and description and details are irrelevant or inaccurate;

    • demonstrates an attempt at planning, but the progression is illogical, making it more difficult to follow the writer’s ideas;

    • has an introduction and conclusion that are inappropriate and/or disconnected, resulting in a lack of coherence and clarity.

    • has a style and tone  that has limited effectiveness with limited awareness of the norms of the discipline;
    • uses limited, cliched, and repetitive word choice;

    • Shows little or no variety in length and structure, and some may be awkward, leading to monotonous reading;

    • uses words, clauses, and transitions sparingly and sometimes ineffectively to clarify relationships among claims and support;

    The student response:

    • is unclear, shows no understanding  of the given task;



    • uses no reasoning and little to no evidence from the text and details or descriptions that are irrelevant or inaccurate;


    • lacks evidence of planning or a progression (random order), making it difficult for the reader to follow the writer’s message or ideas;


    • lacks an introduction and/or conclusion resulting in a lack of cohesiveness and clarity.


    • has an inappropriate style or tone, with little to no awareness of the norms of the discipline;

    • uses words that are functional and simple and/or may be inappropriate to the task;

    • Lacks variety in sentence structure; sentences may contain errors in construction, making it difficult to read.

    • lacks words, clauses, and transitions to clarify relationships among claims and support, and/or uses them ineffectively;

    Writing


    Knowledge of

    Language and

    Conventions



    The student response effectively demonstrates full command of the conventions of standard English at an appropriate level of complexity. There may be a few minor errors in mechanics, grammar, and usage, but meaning is clear.

    The student response demonstrates full command of the conventions of standard English at an appropriate level of complexity. There may be a few minor errors in mechanics, grammar, and usage, but meaning is clear.

    The student response

    demonstrates consistent

    command of the conventions of standard English at an appropriate level of complexity. There may be errors in mechanics, grammar and usage that occasionally impede understanding, but the meaning is generally clear.

    The student response demonstrates limited command of the conventions of standard English at an appropriate level of complexity. There may be errors in mechanics, grammar and usage that often impede understanding.

    The student response

    demonstrates no command of the conventions of standard English. Frequent and varied errors in mechanics, grammar and usage impede understanding.