Reading—Making ConnectionsWritten-Response Rubric
6 points
Demonstrates an insightful understanding of the texts at an interpretive level. May make inferences. Mayshow understanding of literary techniques appropriate to genre. Support, explicit or implicit, is thoughtfuland well-integrated. Despite its clarity, response need not be flawless.
5 points
Demonstrates a clear understanding of the texts at an interpretive level. May show understanding of literarytechniques appropriate to genre. Support, explicit or implicit, is convincing and relevant to the task.
4 points
Demonstrates some understanding of the texts at an interpretive level. Response addresses the task in anorganized, straightforward manner, but may miss subtle or complex ideas. Supported by relevant detailsfrom the texts.
3 points
Demonstrates some understanding of the texts at a literal level. Response may be unclear, incomplete orlack detail, but still addresses the task. Ideas are often listed or developed unevenly. Support may consist oflong references to the texts which are not clearly connected to the central idea.
2 Points
Demonstrates a misreading or significant misunderstanding of the texts and/or task. Response may beincomplete or restatements of texts. Support is absent or flawed, with little evidence of relationships orconnections.
1 point
Demonstrates a misreading or significant misunderstanding of the texts and/or task. Response may beirrelevant. No evidence of support or connections between ideas. May be too short to meet therequirements of the task.
0 points
Makes no attempt to address the topic or simply restates the question.
1 comment:
Training paper #1
I would give this 2 out of 6 because it discusses the theme and irony, but it failed to explain them and write quotes. The writer also made spelling and grammar mistakes, and failed to discuss the other poetic terms the writers used.
Training paper #2
I would give this writing 1 out of 6 because it has lots of grammar mistakes. The writer said false information about who is the better role model. The writer failed to more thoughtfully tell the details of who was the better role model.
Training paper #4
I would give the writer 4 out of 6 because he discusses who he think is a better role model and says, in detail, why. He talked about both passages, and made no spelling or grammar mistakes. The writer just didn’t seem to show enthusiasm or make the writing exciting. The writer also didn’t say what stories the characters were from.
Training paper #5
I would give this writer 5 out of 6 because he showed who he thought was a better role model, and who was from which story. He discussed both passages, and told in great detail why he thought the other was a better role model. I took off marks for a lot of spelling, and grammar errors. The person opened with an introduction though, which was good.
Training paper #7
I would give this paper 6 out of 6 because the writer opened up with an intro and ended with a conclusion. He was inspiring, and described everything very well.
Training paper #9
I would give this writing 6 out of 6 because they had all the details and showed all the correct writing.
Colby Thacker
Post a Comment