PoD: Narration
REQUIRED Readings:
Classic: Shooting an Elephant – Orwell
(LC, 979)
Essay: For Fasting and Football, a Dedicated Game Plan – Freedman
(LC, 473)
Short Story: Sweat – Hurston
(LC, 393)
Poetry: In Westminster Abbey – Betjeman
(LC, 333)
Visual texts:
Christiansted: Official Map and Guide
(LC , 991)
From Spider-Man
(PCW, 82)
p. 475, question 2 or 4
pp. 402-403, question 5 or 7
p. 334, question 1
p. 994, question 1 or 3
p. 82, question 2
Supplemental Texts (Choose ONE):
Barbie Doll – Piercy (LC, 403)
Finishing School – Angelou (PCW, 89)
I Stand Here Ironing – Olsen (LC, 224)
My Mother Never Worked – Smith-Yackel (PCW,
96)
New York Day Women – Danticat (LC, 307)
Only Daughter – Cisneros (PCW, 84)
Superman and Me – Alexie (LC, 110)
The Clan of the One-Breasted Woman – Williams
(LC, 816)
Walking the Path between Worlds – Alvord (LC,
300)
After reading, write ½ page about ONE rhetorical strategy that stood out to you: diction, syntax (sentence structure),
choice of detail (both what’s included and what’s not), or point of view. Use the rubric below to guide your writing.
Homework Setup:
o
Please type your homework, or write it in ink.
o
If you have typed the homework, do NOT send it to me in an email or post it on Edmodo or
otherwise send it electronically. You may bring in a flashdrive and print your homework if
needed, however.
o
Clearly label each answers: I should know which essay and which question each answer pertains
to (and it should be in the order shown above). Your ½ page response to one of the supplemental
works should also be clearly labeled.
Deadlines:
o
The Socratic Seminar discussions will be held on Sept. 22 [A-day] and Sept. 24 [B-day].
o
Answers to questions and the ½ page analyses are due Sept. 25 [A-day] and Sept. 28 [B-day].
Rubrics:
The rubrics for the homework are below. The rubric for the Socratic Seminar discussion (Socratic
Seminar Formal Rubric) is on the wiki under the AP English Language tab.
For book questions
All parts of questions
answered
(1 pts.  1/½ /0)
Textual references
(directly quoted or
paraphrased)
(3 pts.  3/2/1)
Support/explanation/
connection
(6 pts.  6/5/4)
Excellent
All parts of the question
answered.
Textual references are
used in every place that
they are needed to support
the answer. They are an
obvious fit as evidence to
support that point.
Explanation of and
connection between the
student answer and the
textual evidence is
complete as well as
thoughtful
Standard
One part missing (or more
than one part was too
skimpy)
One reference missing OR
one is not the most
obvious fit to support that
point (and the
support/explanation piece
does not resolve the
confusion) OR evidence is
skimpy overall.
Some parts of the
explanation/connection are
weak, incomplete,
confusing, etc.
Unacceptable
More than one part
missing or overall skimpy
responses
More than one reference
missing AND/OR several
obviously do not fit.
[No text references=0 pts.]
Support/explanation does
not at all connect the
student answers with the
textual evidence OR is
extremely lacking
[No explanations= 0 pts.]
For all ½ page analyses
Comparisons/
connections/
patterns
20/18/16/14/12
Textual
evidence
20/18/16/14/12
Depth of
discussion/
explanation
20/18/16/14/12
Overall
coherence
20/18/16/14/12
Three different
examples of the
rhetorical strategy
are
compared/contrast
ed within the
response.
Textual evidence
is complete and
correctly supports
the analysis.
Two different
comparisons of
rhetorical
strategy are
made.
Only one
example of the
rhetorical
strategy is used.
The rhetorical
strategy is
discussed with
only vague
references to the
text.
Evidence is
complete but
may not be the
best fit for the
answer.
Full and coherent
explanation that
goes beyond the
surface and is
multi-faceted
The entire analysis
makes sense and
flows together.
Coherent
explanation that
goes beyond the
surface
Evidence is
slightly lacking
or doesn’t
completely
support the
analysis.
Coherent
explanation that
could have gone
deeper
Evidence is
slightly lacking
and doesn’t
completely
support the
analysis.
Coherent
explanation that
may have
“holes” or be
inconsistent
The response is
more
unclear/vague
than anything
else.
One small area
is unclear.
Two small areas
or one larger
area is unclear.
The response
summarizes or
talks about the
topic of the text
and only
mentions the
strategy.
Evidence is
lacking or is
present but
doesn’t support
the analysis.
Mostly
incoherent
explanation
(regardless of
length)
The response is
almost
impossible to
understand.