What are the elements that build a strong and trusting friendship Capstone Assignment | Online Assignment
Essential Question : “What are the elements that build a strong and trusting friendship?” Books: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Wonder, Hunger-games Book 1
Dearborn Public Schools
| Capstone Literary Review Rubric | |||||
|
Score |
Statement of Purpose/Focus and Organization | Development: Language and Elaboration of Evidence |
Conventions |
||
| Statement of Purpose/Focus | Organization | Elaboration of Evidence | Language and Vocabulary | ||
|
6 |
The response is purposefully focused:
● Thesis is clearly stated, focused and strongly maintained ● logical reasoning clarifies complex ideas ● alternate claim(s) are examined thoroughly and distinguished from your claim
|
The response has a clear and effective organizational structure creating unity and completeness:
● effective, consistent use of a variety of transitional strategies ● effective introduction and conclusion for audience and purpose that supports argument ● body includes all components of an analysis
|
The response provides thorough and convincing support/evidence/data:
● use of evidence from novels is smoothly integrated, comprehensive, relevant, and concrete ● acknowledgement of source(s) ● clear citations or attribution to source material |
The response is clear and effectively expresses ideas, using precise language:
● words are precise and accurate and chosen to enhance purpose and meaning ● establishes and maintains style appropriate to audience and purpose |
The response demonstrates a strong command of conventions:
● few, if any, errors are present in grammar/usage and sentence construction that do not hinder the reading ● effective and consistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and/or spelling |
|
4 |
The response is generally focused:
● thesis is clear and for the most part maintained, though some loosely related material may be adequate ● alternate claim(s) are addressed ● reasoning is logical |
The response has an evident organizational structure and a sense of completeness, though there may be minor flaws, but does not interfere with overall coherence:
● adequate use of transitional strategies with some variety ● body includes most components of an analysis ● adequate introduction and conclusion |
The response provides adequate support/evidence/data:
● some evidence from sources is integrated ● general acknowledgement of source(s) ● adequate use of citations or attribution to source material
|
The response adequately expresses ideas, employing a mix of precise with more general language
● An easily understood message is clearly communicated through careful word choice ● establishes style appropriate to audience and purpose |
The response demonstrates and adequate command of conventions:
● some errors in grammar/usage and sentence construction may be present, and are becoming distracting ● adequate use of punctuation, capitalization, and/or spelling |
|
2 |
The response may have a minor drift in focus:
● thesis on the issue may be somewhat unclear and unfocused ● alternate claim(s) may be acknowledged, but not developed ● supporting ideas lack clarity and logical reasoning |
The response has an inconsistent organizational structure, and flaws are evident and some ideas may be loosely connected:
● inconsistent use of basic transitional strategies with little variety ● body includes some components of an analysis ● conclusion and introduction, if present, are weak |
The response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence for the writer’s thesis that includes partial or uneven use of sources, facts, and details, and achieves little depth:
● evidence from sources is weakly integrated ● uneven acknowledgement of source(s) ● weak use of citations or attribution to source materials |
The response expresses ideas unevenly, using simplistic language:
● words are adequate and correct in a general sense; message is emerging and can be inferred ● style is sometimes appropriate to audience and purpose |
The response demonstrates a partial command of conventions:
● frequent errors in grammar/usage may hinder understanding ● inconsistent use of punctuation, capitalization, and/or spelling |
|
1 |
The response may be related to the purpose but may offer little relevant detail:
● thesis may be confusing or ambiguous ● no alternate claim addressed ● no logical reasoning among supporting ideas |
The response has little or no discernible organizational structure:
● few or no transitional strategies are evident ● body missing key components of an analysis ● lead/conclusion missing |
The response provides minimal support/evidence for the writer’s thesis that includes little or no use of sources, facts, and details:
● use of evidence from sources is minimal, absent, in error or irrelevant ● no acknowledgement of source(s) ● insufficient use of citations or attribution to source material |
The response expresses ideas that are vague, unclear or confusing:
● words are vague and general so message is limited and unclear (e.g., “good,” “bad,” “nice”) ● style is not appropriate to audience and purpose |
The response demonstrates a lack of command of conventions:
● errors lead to a complete breakdown of meaning |
| NS | ● Insufficient (includes copied text)
● In a language other than English ● Off-topic ● Off-purpose |
● Insufficient (includes copied text)
● In a language other than English ● Off-topic ● Off-purpose |
● Insufficient (includes copied text)
● In a language other than English ● Off-topic ● Off-purpose |
● Insufficient (includes copied text)
● In a language other than English ● Off-topic ● Off-purpose |
● Insufficient (includes copied text)
● In a language other than English ● Off-topic ● Off-purpose |
