AP Document-Based Question Rubric [Class rubric: 5 -1/AP Translation: 9-1]

Numeric Value

90-100

80-90

70-80

60-70

50

Feature

5 (8-9)

4 (6-7)

3 (4-5)

2

1

Argument: Clear, well-developed thesis; addresses complexity of question

Thesis is well-developed and clearly focused; acknowledges the complexity of the question itself

Thesis must be consistent and controlled; may not be as focused as in top category

Limited or partially developed thesis which addressed question somewhat

Confused, unsupported, poorly developed thesis

No thesis or an irrelevant one

Critical Thought: Analysis of documents; relevance of outside information; discussion of conflicting evidence

In-depth document analysis; confrontation and discussion of conflicting sources and information; relevance of outside knowledge to the argument

Analysis of several sources (documentary and outside)

More descriptive than analytic; may not discuss entire question

Limited understanding of question; ineffective or inaccurate analysis

Inadequate or inaccurate understanding of question

Evidence: Logical and balanced use of documents and outside information; displays sophisticated knowledge of subject

Balance between documents and outside information; liberal use of both; may include an occasional, insignificant error

Considerable use of documents and outside information; less discussion of relationships among sources

May paraphrase documents and exhibit only sketchy outside evidence; may have errors

Poor use of documents-often only a brief citation or paraphrase; little outside information, which is often inaccurate; may contain major errors

Almost no use of documents or evidence; attempts are confused or inappropriate; major errors

Writing Style: Organization; clarity; mechanical skill

Must be well-organized and well-written; cogent

Clearly organized and written; not exceptional but logical

Acceptable organization and writing

Weak organization and writing

Disorganized and poorly written

 

    

AP Free Response Question Rubric [Class rubric: 5 -1/AP Translation: 9-1]

Numeric Value

90-100

80-90

70-80

60-70

50

Feature

5 (8-9)

4 (6-7)

3 (4-5)

2

1

Argument: Clear, well-developed thesis; addresses complexity of question

Thesis is well-developed and clearly focused; acknowledges the complexity of the question itself

Thesis must be consistent and controlled; may not be as focused as in top category

Limited or partially developed thesis which addressed question somewhat

Confused, unsupported, poorly developed thesis

No thesis or an irrelevant one

Critical Thought: Analysis clearly supports thesis and main ideas; discussion of conflicting evidence

In-depth analysis clearly supports thesis and main ideas

Strong analysis in most areas; needs more

More descriptive than analytic; may not discuss entire question

Limited understanding of question; ineffective or inaccurate analysis

Inadequate or inaccurate understanding of question

Evidence: Logical and balanced; displays sophisticated knowledge of subject

Substantial use of evidence throughout

Strong use of evidence, may lack balance

Contains some evidence, needs more

Lacks evidence to support main ideas

Facts not specific, relevant, or accurate

Writing Style: Organization; clarity; mechanical skill

Must be well-organized and well-written; cogent

Clearly organized and written; not exceptional but logical

Acceptable organization and writing

Weak organization and writing

Disorganized and poorly written

 

 

 

 

Oral Presentation Rubric

Numeric Value

90-100

80-90

70-80

60-70

50

 Feature

5

4

3

2

1

Argument:
addresses thesis, question complexity, source analysis, thoroughness of evidence

Thesis is well-developed and clearly focused; acknowledges the complexity of the question itself; confrontation and discussion of conflicting sources and information

Thesis must be consistent and controlled; may not be as focused as in top category

Limited or partially developed thesis which addressed question somewhat; more descriptive than analytic; may not discuss entire question

Confused, unsupported, poorly developed thesis; limited understanding of question; ineffective or inaccurate analysis

No thesis or an irrelevant one; inadequate or inaccurate understanding of question

Presentation:
quality of interaction with audience

Loud and clear, rehearsal evident, consistent eye contact, cooperative effort, good group communication, visuals are integrated and purposeful, answer audience questions with insight, exceeds requirements; effective style and tone, capitalizes on audience level of interest and knowledge

Loud and clear, rehearsed but may need polish in areas, eye contact, good visuals, answers most questions, everyone contributes but not necessarily equally; style and tone consistent with audience level of interest and knowledge

Some eye contact, meets minimum requirements, one leader/speaker (not a group effort), some parts are effective but not consistent, attempts audience questions; style and tone sometimes appropriate, sporadically acknowledges audience interest and knowledge

May read to class, lacking eye contact, speaking not always clear, mispronunciations, not cooperative effort, needs rehearsal, lacking visuals if required, not used if present; style and tone seldom appropriate, rarely acknowledges audience interest and knowledge

Haven't taken assignment seriously, joking or arguing with group, choppy lacking rehearsal and organization; mispronunciations, can't answer questions lacking eye contact, doesn't even meet minimum requirements; no awareness of audience

 

Research Paper Rubric

 

Criteria

Exemplary

Good

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Thesis

Thesis is clear and thoughtful; the writers argument is readily apparent to the reader

The writing has an argument, but may sometimes digress from it

The argument is not consistently clear throughout the paper

The argument is generally unclear

Content

Balanced presentation of relevant and legitimate information that clearly supports the thesis and shows thoughtful, in-depth analysis of the topic. Reader gains important insights.

Information provides reasonable support for thesis and displays evidence of a basic analysis of the topic. Reader gains some insights.

Information supports the thesis at times. Analysis is basic or general. Reader gains few insights.

Thesis is not clearly identified. Analysis is vague or not evident. Reader is confused or may be misinformed.

Organization

The ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose or argument. They flow smoothly from one to another and are clearly linked to each other. The reader can follow the line of reasoning.

The ideas are arranged logically to support the central purpose or argument. They are usually clearly linked to each other. For the most part, the reader can follow the line of reasoning.

In general, the writing is arranged logically, although occasionally ideas fail to make sense together. The reader is fairly clear about what the writer intends.

The writer is not logically organized. Frequently, ideas fail to make sense together. The reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and loses interest.

Tone

The tone is consistently professional and appropriate for an academic research paper.

The tone is generally professional. For the most part, it is appropriate for an academic research paper.

The tone is not consistently professional or appropriate for an academic research paper.

The tone is unprofessional. It is not appropriate for an academic research paper.

Sentence Structure

Transitional sentences are polished and effectively connect back to the thesis.

Transitional sentences are polished and generally connect back to the thesis.

Transitional sentences are awkwardly constructed with little or no connection to thesis.

Transitional sentences are not present in research paper.

Grammar, Spelling, and Writing Mechanics

The writing is free or almost free of errors.

There are occasional errors, but they don’t represent a major distraction or obscure meaning.

Writing has many errors, and the reader is distracted by them.

There are so many errors that meaning is obscured. The reader is confused and stops reading.

Use of MLA

MLA format is used accurately and consistently in the paper and on the Work Cited page.

MLA format is used with minor errors.

There are frequent errors in the MLA format.

Format of the document is not recognizable as MLA.

Length

 

 

Paper is the number of pages specified in the assignment.

Paper has more or fewer than specified in the assignment.

 

Note:

Analysis, the “how” and “why” of your argument, is what separates a research paper from a report.  Without critical analysis of your topic, your paper will fall short of the literary criticism needed for exceptional thesis driven writing.

Cooperative Learning Rubric

 

5

4

3

2

1

Works toward the achievement of group goals

Actively and consistently understands and works toward group goals

Consistently understands and works toward group goals

Consistently understands and sporadically works towards group goals

Sporadically understands and works toward group goals

Rarely, if ever, understands and works toward group goals

Demonstrates effective interpersonal skills

Actively and consistently helps promote effective group interaction and expresses ideas and opinions in ways that are sensitive to the feelings or knowledge base of others

Consistently participates in group interaction without prompting and expresses ideas and opinions in ways that are sensitive to the feelings and knowledge base of others

Consistently participates and sporadically expresses ideas and opinions in ways that are sensitive to the feelings and knowledge base of others

Sporadically participates in group interaction without prompting and sporadically expresses ideas and opinions in ways that are sensitive to the feelings and knowledge base of others

Rarely, if ever, participates in group interaction without prompting and expresses ideas and opinions in ways that are sensitive to the feelings and knowledge base of others

Contributes to group maintenance

Actively and consistently helps the group identify changes or modifications necessary in group processes and works toward carrying out those changes

Consistently implements changes or modifications necessary in group processes

Consistently helps implement changes or modifications necessary in group processes

Sporadically helps implement changes or modifications necessary in group processes

Rarely, if ever, helps implement changes or modifications necessary in group processes

Effectively performs a variety of roles within a group

Fulfills all obligations of assigned role

Fulfills most obligations of assigned role

Fulfills some obligations of assigned role

Fulfills few obligations of assigned role

Fulfills no obligations of assigned role

 

 

Group:

 

Score: ________

 

Justification:

 

Blog Response Rubric

 

Wiki Response SCORING GUIDE:       Score:  ________/40       

This rubric assesses the quality of your participation in our on-line conferencing forum.

Score

Participation in Discussions

 

10

ý      Responses are done within 7 days of topic posting; responses are done in a regular manner (at least once a week).

ý      Participant responded to ALL postings in the conference.

8

ý      Provides comments and information in a fairly regular manner; all but one posting went up within the allotted time frame.

ý      Participant responded to all but one of postings in the conference.

7

ý    Sporadically provides comments and information. Late in responding to a couple topics. Not as consistent as it could have been.

ý    Participant responded to all but two of postings in the conference.

5-0

ý      Provides minimal comments and information to other participants.  The majority of postings were done near the end of the conference (within the last week/days). Responses for many of the postings went up late.

ý      Participant responded to all but three of the postings in the conference.

 

Content of Postings

15

·       Postings reveal a solid understanding of the topics as evidenced by thoughtful responses and questions; provides insights that are unique in a consistent manner.

·       Consistently applies topics/information from the class/texts/articles into postings.  Development of ideas is strong in all postings.

·       All postings going into depth and detail; supported with specific examples throughout the conference.  Many postings also reference outside resources up and beyond ones presented in class.

12

·       Most postings reveal an adequate understanding of the topics as evidenced by posts indicating some new knowledge.

·       Most postings reflect application of topics from class/texts/articles from class.

·       Most postings reflect thought/ detail/examples; may offer some examples already referenced by others in the conference. Some postings demonstrate use of other outside resources.

11

·       Some postings reveal a restricted understanding of the topics limited to information that could be derived from prior posts.

·       Some postings may not be as connected/relevant to the topic as others; a minority of the posts reference connections to texts/articles, etc.

·       Some postings may generally address issues without detail/depth/specific examples leaving the reader with unanswered questions.  Development of ideas seems inconsistent – some postings reveal more than others in terms of support and analysis.

10

·       Several postings seem unrelated to discussion(s).

·       Several postings seem quite brief without much development leaving the reader wanting more in explanation.

·       There seems to be an overall inconsistency in content development; there seems to be a lack of thought in several posts.

 

Participant Interaction

 

10

ý      Interacts with a variety of participants by responding and building upon others’ comments consistently throughout the conference; there is ample evidence of the participant engaging others (posing questions, critiquing, etc.) up and beyond just responding to the instructor’s postings.

ý      Consistently offers critical questions about the posting as well as others’ responses to those postings.

8

ý      Interacts with a few selected participants throughout the conference by posing questions and engaging others in minimal discussion up and beyond instructor’s postings.

ý      May offer some critical questions/analysis about the postings put up by both the instructor and other participants.

7

ý    Interacts with only one or two participants throughout the conference. May reference others’ comments, but no real engagement in discussion with others.  Participant’s postings primarily only respond to instructor’s postings only.

ý    There is little, if any, evidence of critical questions/thinking posed about the postings. 

6

ý      No real interaction with others in the conference; comments are limited to instructor’s postings without any real discussion with others.

ý      Postings mainly provide information without any analysis of instructor’s postings or others’ postings.

 

Mechanics & Writing Conventions

5

·        Complete sentences, well organized, grammatically correct and free of major spelling errors; there is no interference wit understanding the messages in the postings

4

·        Complete sentences, well organized, but some grammar and/or spelling errors may interfere a bit with the messages communicated in the postings

3

·        Complete sentences, comprehensible, organization could be improved to present a more coherent argument or statement, has several grammar and/or spelling errors that interfere with the messages in the postings

2

·        Poor sentence structure, inadequate organization, several grammar and/or spelling errors; too many errors make it difficult to understand the messages in the postings