Dr. Jennifer Maloy
Department of Academic Literacy
Queensborough Community College, CUNY
Assessment Institute
Fall 2013
BE 205 Course Assessment Report
Overview of Course Assessment
BE 205, Advanced Composition for ESL Students, is the upper level of the writing sequence that
the Department of Academic Literacy offers to students who speak English as a second
language. The goals of the course are to provide students with reading and writing strategies that
prepare them to understand and analyze texts and to compose well-developed, organized, and
coherent analytic essays. At the end of the course, students who successfully have completed all
requirements of the course are eligible to take the CUNY Assessment Test in Writing (CATW).
This assessment project focused on the final essay that students wrote in class before they took
the CATW exam at the end of the Fall 2013 semester. Five BE 205 instructors volunteered to
submit their students’ scores on the final for the purpose of this assessment. Half of the sections
of 205 offered in Fall 2013 were represented, equaling 7 out of 14 sections and a sample size of
123 students.
All students represented in this assessment were assigned a department-wide final exam during
the last week of November 2013. To grade the exams, instructors used the CATW Analytic
Scoring Rubric (see Appendix I), which scores students in each of five domains. Each of the five
scoring domains corresponds to one or more of the student learning outcomes for this course, as
demonstrated in Table B.
This project used the exams scored by BE 205 instructors to assess the areas of strength and
weakness in BE 205 students’ writing at the end of the course in five domains that cover textual
analysis, development of ideas, organization, and language use. In evaluating the results of the
assessment, the primary investigator considered the results in each domain as well as the weight
upon which each domain is scored according to the CATW rubric. She examined how many BE
205 students received scores of 56 or higher on their final, which reflects a passing score on the
CATW, as well as the average scores within each domain. She identified the areas of strength in
student essays as well as areas in which students needed improvement.
Student Learning Outcomes
Table A includes a list of the learning outcomes for BE 205 students. Each learning outcome
corresponds to one or more of the following General Education Objectives.
General Education Objectives:
1. Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
2. Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to
make informed decisions.
1
3. Reason quantitatively and mathematically as required in their fields of interest and in
everyday life.
4. Use information management and technology skills effectively for academic research and
lifelong learning.
5. Integrate knowledge and skills in their program of study.
6. Differentiate and make informed decisions about issues based on multiple value systems.
7. Work collaboratively in diverse groups directed at accomplishing learning objectives.
8. Use historical or social sciences perspectives to examine formation of ideas, human
behavior, social institutions, or social processes.
9. Employ concepts and methods of the natural and physical sciences to make informed
judgments.
10. Apply aesthetic and intellectual criteria in the evaluation or creation of works in the
humanities or the arts.
Table A: The Connection of BE 205 Student Learning Outcomes to General Education
Objectives
General
Education
Objective
BE 205 Student Learning Outcome
1,2
1. Students will write analytic essays of multiple paragraphs (500 words) that
introduce, develop, and conclude the discussion of an essay's topic with a
unified, logical, and coherent focus.
1, 2
2. Students will write body paragraphs that develop one idea and support the
central focus of the essay.
1, 2
3. Students will write essays that demonstrate the logical development of an
essay by using transitional words between and within paragraphs.
1, 2, 6
4. Students will summarize and analyze a variety of texts, identifying and
engaging in important ideas from the text and relating these ideas to other
readings or personal experiences.
1
5. Students will follow conventions of Standard Written English (SWE),
specifically using coordination and subordination to achieve sentence variety
as well as an appropriate and consistent level of diction in their essays.
1
6. Students will write essays, in and out of class, with minimal global errors,
showing a command of sentence boundaries and will be able to write an essay
that contains very few local errors related to fragments and/or run-ons,
subject-verb agreement, verb tense, pronoun agreement and reference, and
basic punctuation and capitalization.
1
7. Students will be able to proofread effectively for surface errors such
misspellings, as well as missing or misused apostrophes, articles, possessive
nouns, prepositions, and content words.
2
Student Assignment for Assessment
The assignment chosen for assessment was a timed in-class essay that served as BE 205
students’ final exam. During the last week of November 2013, all students enrolled in BE 205 as
well as BE 112, the equivalent course for students who have been identified as native speakers of
English, took a standardized final exam that resembles the CATW in instructions, requirements,
and scoring (see Appendix II).
The final exam is distributed by individual instructors to their students approximately two weeks
before classes end. Generally, a student’s score on the final exam serves as an indicator of the
score that the student will receive on the CATW exam, which all BE 205 and 112 students in
good standing take at the end of the semester. The writing directions, accompanying reading
passage, scoring rubric and process, and the physical conditions of the exam closely resemble the
CATW.
In the final exam, students have 90 minutes to write an essay that responds to a reading passage
they are given. Students may use only a dictionary or thesaurus and must write in pen in a blue
book. The writing instructions for the exam are as follows:
Read the article provided and compose an essay that summarizes the short text, identifies
a significant idea in the text, and relates it to your own reading, observations, or
personal experience. Your essay should consist of an introduction, a body, and a
conclusion.
Students are then presented with a description of what to include in their introduction, body, and
conclusion, and the CATW Analytical Scoring Rubric and a scoring sheet is provided to students
along with the reading they are asked to use.
The article to which the students were asked to respond was titled, “Are Public Cameras Taking
Away Our Privacy?” adapted from a New York Times article by David Halbfinger (see Appendix
II).
Upon collecting exams from students, all instructors teaching BE 205 or BE 112 scored their
students’ writing using the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric and then arranged for another BE
205/112 instructor to score the exams. The scoring of the exams by two readers resembles the
scoring protocol used for the CATW. All BE 205 and 112 instructors participate in norming
sessions prior to scoring the exams.
Evidence for Assessment
When scoring the final exam, instructors use the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric, which
assesses student essays in the following five areas:
1. Critical Response to the Writing Task and the Test: This category focuses on
whether students understand the main ideas in the text and understand the nature of the
writing task, which is to discuss these ideas and to critically analyze and integrate them
3
with their own ideas and experiences.
2. Development of the Writer’s Ideas: In this category students are assessed on whether
they are able to develop their ideas through summary, narrative and/or problem/solution.
Students should support statements with details and examples from what students have
experienced, read, or learned about. Students also must refer to specific ideas from the
reading to support their ideas.
3. Structure of the Response: This category focuses on students’ ability to express ideas
that connect to a central focus or thesis and to use an organizational structure and
transitions that help to support the thesis.
4. Language Use: Sentences and Word Choice: This category focuses on clarity and
sentence control.
5. Language Use: Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics: This category focuses on
students’ ability to follow conventions of Standard American English.
The domains of the scoring rubric correspond to the Student Learning Outcomes as indicated in
Table B.
Table B: Connection of BE 205 Student Learning Outcomes to the CATW Analytic Scoring
Rubric
CATW Analytic
Scoring Rubric
Domain
Critical Response to the
Writing Task and the
Text
205 Student Learning Outcome
Development of the
Writer’s Ideas
2. Students will write body paragraphs that develop one idea and support the
central focus of the essay.
4. Students will summarize and analyze a variety of texts, identifying and
engaging in important ideas from the text and relating these ideas to other
readings or personal experiences.
4. Students will summarize and analyze a variety of texts, identifying and
engaging in important ideas from the text and relating these ideas to other
readings or personal experiences.
Structure of the
Response
1. Students will write analytic essays of multiple paragraphs (500 words) that
introduce, develop, and conclude the discussion of an essay's topic with a
unified, logical, and coherent focus.
3. Students will write essays that demonstrate the logical development of an
essay by using transitional words between and within paragraphs.
Language Use:
Sentences and Word
5. Students will follow conventions of Standard Written English (SWE),
specifically using coordination and subordination to achieve sentence variety
4
Choice
Language Use:
Grammar, Usage, and
Mechanics
as well as an appropriate and consistent level of diction in their essays.
6. Students will write essays, in and out of class, with minimal global errors,
showing a command of sentence boundaries and will be able to write an
essay that contains very few local errors related to fragments and/or run-ons,
subject-verb agreement, verb tense, pronoun agreement and reference, and
basic punctuation and capitalization.
7. Students will be able to proofread effectively for surface errors such
misspellings, as well as missing or misused apostrophes, articles, possessive
nouns, prepositions, and content words.
In this assessment, each of the five domains listed above were scored on a scale of 1-6 by two
BE 205/112 instructors. The scores from each instructor was calculated according to CATW
guidelines, in which the scores in the first three (content) domains are doubled, added to the two
language domains, and then the scores from both individual instructors are combined for a
totaled score.
Example of a Final Exam Scoring Sheet
5
The CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric (Appendix I) includes detailed descriptions of each score in
each domain; however, Table C presents a general description of each score, ranging from 1 to 6.
Table C: Description of Scores within the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
Description
The student demonstrates a minimal ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates a weak ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates a general or uneven ability to accomplish the task within the
essay.
The student demonstrates a competent ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates an effective or skillful ability to accomplish the task within
the essay.
The student demonstrates a thoughtful or insightful approach to accomplishing the
task within the essay.
The total score may range from 16 (in which the student writer received a score of 1 from each
reader in each of the five domains) to 96 (in which the student writer received a score of 6 from
each reader in each of the five domains). In terms of the CATW, students must receive a score of
56 in order to pass the exam and exit writing remediation. The borderline score of 56 indicates
that a student has received a majority of individual scores of 4, described as “competent” in the
rubric; however, the student also scored a 3 in more than one area of the exam, meaning some
aspects of the essay were deemed “uneven” or “general.”
Analysis of Assessment Results
Analysis of Total Score
The primary investigator (PI) recorded the scores received by each student included in the
sample, examining the scores from individual readers as well as the average scores in each
domain to determine which areas BE 205 students included in the sample scored the highest,
indicating achievement of particular learning outcomes by the end of the semester, and areas in
which the students scored the lowest, indicating a need for improvement in particular learning
outcomes.
As Table D indicates, the average total score of the 123 student writing samples was 55.8,
slightly below a 56, which is a passing score on the CATW. The median total score was 57. The
lowest score was 28, and the highest score was 65. 47 students received a score lower than 56.
Table D: Distribution of Scores
n
Lowest
Highest
Average
Median
123
28
65.47
55.8
57
6
Table E demonstrates that a total of 76 students, or 62% of students sampled, received a passing
score on the final, indicating that a majority of students received a passing score in accordance
with the CATW rubric, thereby achieving the learning objectives of the course (listed on page 2
of this report).
Table E: Pass Fail Rate
n
Percent
Passed
76
62%
Failed
47
38%
Total
123
100 %
The graph below displays a break down of the frequency of each numerical score in the sample.
A score of 60 was the most frequent score.
Frequency of CATW Score in Sample
CATW Score
Analysis of Domain Scores
Table F provides a breakdown of the average scores received by students in each domain for
each reader.
7
Table F: Average Scores for Students in CATW Domains for Reader 1 and Reader 2
CATW Domain
Reader 2
Score
3.62
Difference
CR: Critical Response to Writing Task and Text
Reader 1
Score
3.69
DI: Development of Writer’s Ideas
3.54
3.46
-.08
SR: Structure of the Response
3.69
3.74
-.05
LUWC: Language Use: Sentences and Word
Choice
LUGM: Language Use: Grammar, Usage, and
Mechanics
3.20
3.20
0
3.07
3.03
-.04
-.07
Table F demonstrates that the average domain score by the second reader was lower in four out
of five domains; however, the difference in the score average is never more than one point,
demonstrating an overall consistency among scorers. In addition, this table, as well as Table G
below, presents the domain in which students scored highest—in Structure of the Response—and
lowest—in Language Use: Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics.
Table G: Average CATW Domain Scores
CATW Domain
CR: Critical Response to Writing Task and
Text
DI: Development of Writer’s Ideas
Average
Domain Score
3.65
3.50
SR: Structure of the Response
3.71
LUWC: Language Use: Sentences and Word
Choice
LUGM: Language Use: Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics
3.20
3.05
The two lowest average scores, factoring in the individual domain scores of both readers for
every individual essay, are in the Language Use categories. While this finding is important for
the Department of Academic Literacy to consider, the results may be attributed to the linguistic
backgrounds of BE 205 students, who have been identified as ESL based on linguistic and
grammatical markers in their placement test as well as by the information that students may
provide to Queensborough Community College regarding their educational and linguistic
history, nationality, and the amount of time they have lived in the United States. Generally
students who have been speaking English for less than 5 years or who have recently moved to
the United States are placed into the ESL section of developmental writing and reading. Since
BE 205 students are continuing to acquire proficiency in English as they take their
8
developmental writing exam, it is consistent with the knowledge of the field of TESOL that
students working towards proficiency in English may score lower in language domains on
standardized timed-writing exams. Furthermore, because the two Language Use categories are
not weighted as significantly in the scoring of the CATW, it is important to examine the three
domains on the exam, Critical Response, Development of Ideas, and Structure of Response, that
are more heavily weighted.
Within the three domains that are more heavily weighted and focus on the form and content of a
student’s essay as a whole, the BE 205 students in the sample received the lowest score in the
Development of Writer’s Ideas category. As Table H indicates, only 43.5% of students received
scores of 4 or higher from both readers in this domain, meaning that 56.5% of students received
scores that defined their ability to develop ideas as general/uneven or weak by at least one
reader. As indicated on page 4 of this report, the Development of Writer’s Idea domain includes
the successful ability to summarize, narrate and/or problem-pose as well as develop points using
examples and details from the CATW passage and from a student’s own body of knowledge and
experience. Therefore, this category requires students to demonstrate a complex combination of
reading, writing, and critical thinking skills involving analysis as well as comparison and
contrast as they refer to the reading passage in connection to events or issues outside of the
reading.
Table H: Domain Scores for Development of Writer’s Ideas (DI) with Scores from Each Reader
Scores in 2/2
DI
Domain
Percentage
of
1.5%
Students
2/3
2/4
3/3
3/4
4/4
4/5
5/5
5%
1%
31%
18%
41%
1.5%
1%
As seen in Table G, the domain in which students scored the highest was Structure of Response.
As Table I indicates, 67% of students received scores of 4 or higher from both readers in this
category. Only 33% of students received scores of 3 or lower from at least one reader. These
results demonstrate that a solid majority of students were able to competently organize their
essay around a central focus. It appears that BE 205 students demonstrate an essay with an
introduction, body, and conclusion and present their ideas and points clearly to develop the main
focus of their essay.
Table I: Domain Scores for Structure of Response (SR) with Scores from Each Reader
Scores in 2/2
SR
Domain
Percentage
of
1%
Students
2/3
2/4
3/3
3/4
4/4
4/5
5/5
1%
0%
18%
13%
67%
0%
0%
9
Student Learning Outcomes
BE 205 Final Exam Results and Student Learning Outcomes
The results of this assessment provide an indication of the student learning outcomes that have
been achieved by and need improvement for the sample of BE 205 students examined at the end
of the semester. Overall, the results indicate that this sample of students performed strongly in
the Critical Response to Writing Task and the Text as well as Structure of Response.
Referring to Table B, this would mean that BE 205 students have successfully done the
following by the end of the semester:
1. Students will write analytic essays of multiple paragraphs (500 words) that introduce, develop,
and conclude the discussion of an essay's topic with a unified, logical, and coherent focus.
3. Students will write essays that demonstrate the logical development of an essay by using
transitional words between and within paragraphs.
4. Students will summarize and analyze a variety of texts, identifying and engaging in important
ideas from the text and relating these ideas to other readings or personal experiences.
Ultimately, BE 205 students demonstrate in the final exam their ability to write multipleparagraph essays that have a progression of ideas and a cohesive focus. Students also seem to
have a grasp on reading comprehension and are able to respond to the text in a critical way.
The need for improvement lies in BE 205 students’ ability to develop their ideas to support their
essay’s central focus through careful analysis of texts as well as their own experience. While
there remains some overlap in the CR and DI domains of the CATW in relation to their
corresponding Student Learning Outcomes, the Student Learning Outcome that could be
improved for Development of Writer’s Ideas is #2:
2. Students will write body paragraphs that develop one idea and support the central focus of the
essay.
The DI domain may be particularly difficult for students because it depends upon a student being
able to generate a central focus in his/her essay that responds critically to the text. Once the
student has accomplished these two tasks, which to a certain extent correlate to the CR and SR
domains, the student must also be able to analyze particular points from the text and use them to
support his/her central focus as well as determine examples from his/her experience or
knowledge that connect to this focus.
In addition, BE 205 students should be supported on continuing to work on Student Learning
Outcomes 5-7. In particular, students could work to improve the following, as they correspond to
the CATW domain in which students scored the lowest:
6. Students will write essays, in and out of class, with minimal global errors, showing a command
of sentence boundaries and will be able to write an essay that contains very few local errors
10
related to fragments and/or run-ons, subject-verb agreement, verb tense, pronoun agreement and
reference, and basic punctuation and capitalization.
7. Students will be able to proofread effectively for surface errors such misspellings, as well as
missing or misused apostrophes, articles, possessive nouns, prepositions, and content words.
Suggestions for Addressing Areas of Improvement
The PI’s suggestions for working on areas of improvement focus on two particular areas:
development of ideas and language use.
In order to spend more time on development of ideas, BE 205 instructors may dedicate more
time in the classroom to exploring the elements of a well-developed paragraph that support a
writer’s position. While this may involve discussing topic sentences and methods for
development such as narration, compare/contrast, cause-effect, and description (which all are
common practice at present), instructors also may spend more time working with students on
textual analysis as well as choosing quotations. They also may spend more time in class
exploring analytical approaches and reading and writing sample paragraphs that use various
types of evidence and approaches to explanation to practice using such analysis as support.
Because BE 205 students come to the United States from a wide variety of countries across the
world, instructors must take a great deal of time to explicitly explain possible rhetorical
conventions and what types of examples may be most appropriate for particular topics according
to American academic conventions. Therefore, it is important for BE 205 faculty to explore
continually new approaches for students to gain intercultural awareness as they write and to have
strategies for them to connect their experiences, knowledge, and understanding across culturally
specific contexts. Devoting more time in class to the above tasks is essential to increase students’
scores in the DI category, and it also is important because this is the domain in which instructors’
scored differed the most, -.08, from Reader 1 to Reader 2 (see Table F). A more intensive focus
on the writing tasks involved in this domain will ensure that both instructors and students think
more precisely about what this domain involves.
The other area for improvement for BE 205 students is language use. While this aspect of writing
may not be weighed as heavily in the context of the CATW as the other writing tasks that focus
on form and content, BE 205 could spend more time with students working on identifying and
addressing individual students’ grammatical and mechanical error patterns. Based on best
practices in the field of TESOL, detailed work on addressing such patterns often is most effective
when done on an individual basis. It is therefore important for instructors to direct students to the
Academic Literacy Learning Center in order to receive one-on-one support to address error
patterns. In addition, it is important for instructors to provide students with multiple
opportunities for revision in order for students to identify, learn about, and address their error
patterns.
Ideas for Future Assessment
While this assessment project provided useful information on the domain scores within the final
exam and to identify specific aspects of writing and Student Learning Outcomes that were strong
and in need of improvement for BE 205 students at the end of the semester, the nature of this
11
project in its collection of only one writing sample limits the insight it is able to provide to BE
205 faculty. To expand this assessment project, the PI suggests collecting beginning-of-thesemester diagnostic essays that use the same writing instructions and grading rubric and then
comparing that to the same sample of students’ final written exam in order to chart progress over
the semester. This would give the department a better sense of the areas in which students
improve over the semester as well as areas in which more instruction and support could be
provided.
Another possibility for further investigation is to examine final essays with a focus only on the
DI domain within the CATW scoring rubric in order to determine the specific types of struggles
students experience when trying to analyze or develop ideas. This could help faculty to design
specific in-class and homework activities that would target these issues and provide additional
support for students. This also would help faculty identify the multiple ways in which students
are able to demonstrate competence in this area.
Lastly, the department may use a comparative study of BE 205 students’ final exams and
students’ actual CATW scores at the end of the semester in order to determine the extent to
which the final predicts a students’ CATW scores. For example, although 62% of BE 205
students sampled in this project received a score of 56 or higher on their final exam,
approximately 25% of BE 205 students passed the CATW that they took the week of December
9, 2013. While there are a variety of factors that may have contributed to this difference,
including students’ test anxiety, the testing environment, the topic/length of the reading passage,
the scoring process on the final, and instructors’ scoring abilities and/or biases, the department
should explore this result and attempt to account for it in future assessments. If such a disparity
consistently occurs, the department may consider a department-wide scoring process in which
instructors do not score their own students’ work and encourage more BE 205 instructors to train
to become certified CATW readers.
Copy of Assessment Materials
Appendix I: CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric
Appendix II: Standardized BE 205 Final Exam
12
Writing Assessment Analytic Scoring Rubric
Appendix I
Critical Response to
Writing Task and the
Text
6
5
Development of Writer’s Ideas
Structure of the Response
• A thoughtful and insightful
response to the task effectively
integrates a critical discussion
of ideas in the text and relevant
elements of the writer’s
reading and experience.
• Ideas are fully developed and
approaches to development (e.g.,
summarizing, evaluating,
narrating) are used skillfully to
support and convey the writer’s
ideas throughout the response.
• Organization demonstrates a
well-designed progression of
ideas that supports the writer’s
central focus and the clarity of
ideas throughout the response.
• The discussion demonstrates a
thorough understanding of the
main ideas and the complexity of ideas in the text.
• Reasons and specific details and
examples from the text and from the
writer’s reading and experience are
used effectively to develop ideas.
• The response effectively
integrates a critical
discussion of ideas in the text
and relevant elements of the
writer’s reading and
experience.
• Ideas are well-developed and
approaches to development (e.g.,
summarizing, evaluating, narrating)
are usually used skillfully to support
and convey the writer’s ideas.
• The discussion demonstrates
a good understanding of the
main ideas and the
complexity of ideas in the
text.
4
• Reasons and specific details and
examples from the text and from the
writer’s reading and experience are
usually used effectively to develop
ideas.
• The response competently
integrates a critical
discussion of ideas in the text
and relevant elements of the
writer’s reading and
experience.
• Most ideas are competently
developed and approaches to
development (e.g., summarizing,
evaluating, narrating) are
competently used to support and
convey the writer’s ideas.
• The discussion consistently
demonstrates an
understanding of the main
ideas and of some of the
complexity in the text.
• Reasons and specific details and
examples from the text and from
the writer’s reading and experience
are competently used to develop
ideas.
• Sophisticated and effective use
of transitions conveys
relationships among ideas
throughout the response.
• Organization generally
demonstrates a clear plan with
some progression of ideas that
supports the writer’s central
focus and the clarity of the
writer’s ideas.
• Transitions clearly convey
relationships among ideas
throughout the response.
• An organizational structure is
evident and competently
supports the writer’s central
focus and the clarity of ideas.
Relevant ideas are grouped
together and there may be some
evidence of progression of ideas.
• Though often simple and
obvious, transitions are usually
used to convey relationships
among ideas.
Language Use: Sentences
and Word Choice
• Sentences are consistently
well-controlled with
effective variety in structure.
• Word choice is sophisticated,
precise, and effectively
conveys the writer’s ideas
throughout the response.
• Sentences are usually well
controlled and there is some
effective variety in structure.
• Word choice is usually specific
and usually effective in
conveying the writer’s ideas.
• Most sentences demonstrate
competent control and there is a
little structural variety to
support the clarity of ideas.
Language Use:
Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics
• Though there may be a few
errors in grammar, usage
and mechanics, strong
command of language is
apparent and meaning is
clear throughout the
response.
• Though there may be a few
errors in grammar, usage and
mechanics, good command
of language is apparent and
meaning is usually clear.
• Language use is competent.
Grammar, usage, and
mechanics are mostly correct
and meaning is usually clear.
• Word choice is somewhat
general but clearly conveys
meaning.
13
3
Critical Response to Writing
Task and the Text
Development of Writer’s Ideas
Structure of the Response
• The response integrates some
ideas from the text and some
relevant elements of the
writer’s reading and
experience, but may do so in
an uneven manner.
• Development of ideas is general
or uneven, but approaches to
development sometimes support
the clarity of the writer’s ideas.
• The response uses a basic or
• The response demonstrates
some understanding of the
main ideas in the text, but
understanding is superficial or
incomplete.
2
• There is little integration of
ideas from the text and
elements of the writer’s
reading and experience.
• The response demonstrates a
weak understanding of the
main ideas in the text.
1
• There is minimal, if any,
integration of ideas from the
text and elements of the
writer’s reading and
experience.
• The response demonstrates
little, if any, understanding of
the main ideas in the text.
• The response uses some reasons
and specific details and examples
from the text and from the
writer’s reading and experience to
develop ideas.
• Development of ideas is weak, and
there may be little use of relevant
approaches to development.
• If present, reasons, details and
examples from the text and from
the writer’s reading and experience
are brief, general, inadequately
developed, or not clearly relevant.
uneven organizational structure
that sometimes supports the
writer’s central focus and the
clarity of ideas. For the most
part, relevant ideas are grouped
together.
Language Use: Sentences and
Word Choice
Language Use: Grammar,
Usage, Mechanics
• Sentence control is uneven,
but there is some structural
variety to support the clarity of
ideas.
• Command of language is
uneven. Grammar, usage and
mechanics are usually
correct, but some errors are
distracting and may
occasionally impede
understanding.
• Word choice is simple but
usually clear enough to
convey meaning.
• Some simple and obvious
transitions are used to convey
relationships among ideas.
• The response shows an attempt
to create a central focus and to
put related ideas together, but
relationships among ideas may
be unclear.
• Few, if any, transitions are used
to convey relationships among
ideas.
• There is minimal or no
development of ideas and little, if
any, use of relevant approaches to
development.
• There may be an attempt to
group related ideas together, but
the main focus of the response is
unclear.
• If any reasons, details or examples
from the text or from the writer’s
reading and experience are present,
these elements are brief, general,
undeveloped or irrelevant.
• Transitions are rarely used.
• Sentences demonstrate weak
control and there is little, if
any, sentence variety to
support clarity.
• Word choice is simple and
sometimes meaning is not
clear.
• Sentences demonstrate
minimal or no control.
• Word choice is often
unclear and often obscures
meaning.
• The response demonstrates a
weak command of language.
Grammar, usage and
mechanics are sometimes
correct, but errors are often
distracting and some impede
understanding.
• The response demonstrates
minimal command of
language. Grammar, usage
and mechanics are often
incorrect and errors
frequently impede
understanding.
14
Appendix II
15
16
17