Single Text Analysis |
|
Demonstrates Superiority
5 pts |
Demonstrates Competence
4 pts |
Suggests Competence
3 pts |
Suggests Lack of Competence
2 pts |
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
1 pts |
Literary Features |
Demonstrates Superiority
Thoroughly analyzes a variety of rhetorical, stylistic, or structural features.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Explains rhetorical, stylistic, or structural features in the text.
|
Suggests Competence
Describes some rhetorical, stylistic, or structural features in the text.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
Identifies some rhetorical, stylistic, or structural features in the text, but may not explain their relevance. Suggests a lack of understanding of the text.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Identifies some rhetorical, stylistic, or structural features in the text, but does not explain their relevance. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the text.
|
Contextual Knowledge |
Demonstrates Superiority
Demonstrates superior understanding of literary, historical, sociocultural, and/or geopolitical contexts and its/their relationship to the text.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Explains how the text's content relates to the given literary, historical, sociocultural and/or geopolitical context(s).
|
Suggests Competence
Identifies features of the literary, historical, sociocultural, and/or geopolitical context(s). Attempts to explain the relevance of the context(s) to the text.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
Identifies some features of the literary, historical, sociocultural, and/or geopolitical context(s). May not clearly identify contextual features represented in the text.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Identifies some features of the literary, historical, sociocultural, and/or geopolitical context(s) but does not explain the relevance to the text. Demonstrates lack of understanding of the context(s) or the text.
|
Knowledge of Movement and Genre |
Demonstrates Superiority
Clearly understands the charateristics of the literary movement and (sub-)genre that are reflected in the text. Analyzes how the the characteristics of the movement and (sub-)genre effect the text.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Explains the characteristics of the literary movement and (sub-)genre and how the text reflects them.
|
Suggests Competence
Identifies features of the literary movement and the (sub-)genre. Attempts to explain their relevance to the text.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
May not clearly identify the literary movement and/or the (sub-)genre. May not clearly explain how it/they are reflected in the text.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
May not clearly identify the literary movement and/or the (sub-)genre. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the literary movement and/or (sub-)genre and/or how it/they are reflected in the text.
|
Cultural Analysis |
Demonstrates Superiority
Analyzes how cultural products, practices, or perspectives found in the text reflect the given context.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Explains how the cultural products, practices, or perspectives found in the text reflect the given context.
|
Suggests Competence
Identifies cultural products, practices, or perspectives found in the text but may not explain how culture is reflectedin the given context.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
May not address cultural features found in the text or explanation of cultural products, practices, or perspectives may be unclear.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Does not address cultural products, practices, or perspectives. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of cultural features in the text.
|
Textual Examples |
Demonstrates Superiority
Supports analysis by integrating specific, well-chosen textual examples throughout the response.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Supports analysis by citing and discussing appropriate textual examples.
|
Suggests Competence
Elaborates on main points and supports observations by citing examples; however, the examples may not always be clear and relevant.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
Presents main points and some details, describes basic elements of the text, but may do so without citing examples or supporting an argument.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
May consist entirely of summary or paraphrasing of the text without citing examples.
|
Organization |
Demonstrates Superiority
Includes a statement of purpose (thesis), a coherent structure, and a cohesive and logical progression of ideas in a well-developed response.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Includes a statement of purpose (thesis), a coherent structure, and a logical progression of ideas.
|
Suggests Competence
Includes a statement of purpose (thesis), evidence of organization (a stated topic, an introduction, a conclusion), and a logical progression of ideas.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
May not clearly state a purpose or be organized around a central idea or argument; progression of ideas may not be logical.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Does not state a purpose, show evidence of organization, or offer a progression of ideas.
|
Balance and Focus |
Demonstrates Superiority
Response has a clearly balanced focus that includes analysis of the text, the context, and the movement/(sub-)genre.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Response has a reasonably balanced focus that includes analysis of the text, the context, and the movement/(sub-)genre.
|
Suggests Competence
Response attempts to have a balanced focus that includes analysis of the text, the context, and the movement/(sub-)genre. If the response has a significantly unbalanced focus, the analysis must be good to achieve this score.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
Response has a significantly unbalanced focus on either the text, specified movement/(sub-)genre, or the given context.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Demonstrates lack of understanding and has a significantly unbalanced focus on either the text, specified movement/(sub-)genre, or the given context.
|
Language Use- Vocabulary |
Demonstrates Superiority
Vocabulary is varied and appropriate to the text(s) being discussed,<BR>
presents main ideas and supporting details, and communicates some<BR>
nuances of meaning.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Vocabulary is appropriate to the text(s) being discussed, and presents<BR>
main ideas and some supporting details.
|
Suggests Competence
Vocabulary is appropriate to the text(s) being discussed, but may be<BR>
limited to presenting some relevant ideas.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
Vocabulary may be inappropriate to the text(s) being discussed, and<BR>
forces the reader to supply inferences.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Vocabulary is insufficient and inappropriate to the text(s) being<BR>
discussed; errors render comprehension difficult.
|
Language Use- Grammar |
Demonstrates Superiority
Control of grammatical and syntactic structures is very good; use<BR>
of verb tenses and moods is generally accurate; word order and<BR>
formation are accurate; use of cohesive devices and transitional<BR>
elements or both is appropriate to guide understanding.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Control of grammatical and syntactic structures is good; occasional<BR>
errors in the use of verb tenses and moods do not detract from<BR>
understanding; word order and formation are mostly accurate.
|
Suggests Competence
Control of grammatical and syntactic structures is adequate; errors in<BR>
the use of verb tenses and moods may be frequent but do not detract<BR>
from overall understanding; word order and formation are generally<BR>
accurate.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
Control of grammatical and syntactic structures is weak; errors in<BR>
verb forms, word order, and formation are numerous and serious<BR>
enough to impede comprehension at times.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Control of grammatical and syntactic structures is inadequate; errors<BR>
in verb forms, word order, and formation are nearly constant and<BR>
impede comprehension frequently.
|
Language Use- Writing Conventions |
Demonstrates Superiority
Writing conventions (e.g., spelling, accent marks, punctuation,<BR>
paragraphing) are generally accurate; paragraphing shows grouping<BR>
and progression of ideas.
|
Demonstrates Competence
Writing conventions (e.g., spelling, accent marks, punctuation,<BR>
paragraphing) are generally accurate; occasional errors do not detract<BR>
from understanding; paragraphing shows grouping and progression<BR>
of ideas.
|
Suggests Competence
Writing conventions (e.g., spelling, accent marks, punctuation,<BR>
paragraphing) are sometimes accurate; numerous errors do not<BR>
detract from overall understanding; paragraphing shows grouping<BR>
of ideas.
|
Suggests Lack of Competence
Writing conventions (e.g., spelling, accent marks, punctuation,<BR>
paragraphing) are generally inaccurate; errors are numerous and<BR>
serious enough to impede comprehension at times; paragraphing may<BR>
not show grouping of ideas.
|
Demonstrates Lack of Competence
Writing conventions (e.g., spelling, accent marks, punctuation,<BR>
paragraphing) are inaccurate; errors are nearly constant and impede<BR>
comprehension frequently; there may be little or no evidence<BR>
of paragraphing.
|