2. Solid response: demonstrated good comprehension of prompt and poem�s form, content, and main theme; generally convincing ideas; thesis is a clearly identifiable, reasonable interpretation but might lack specificity, complexity, or full development. Some passages may still be predictable, repetitive or vague; clear & readable overall.
3. An adequate response: demonstrates understanding of prompt and poem�s basic meaning and form but does not reveal full comprehension of theme/rhetorical devices/context; some analysis offered but mainly descriptive/paraphrase; thesis might be an overly literal/simplistic claim, an unconvincing or undeveloped interpretation, or a broad claim that requires focus; understandable but uneven.
4. An inappropriate response to the assignment: reveals only partial or superficial comprehension of poem/s; might misread passages or take them out o context; demonstrates no knowledge of poetic terms or rhetorical devices; writer may have misunderstood prompt; thesis may be difficult to identify, to broad/vague, illogical, impossible to prove with textual evidence, or a factual observation that makes no interpretaive claims about theme; ideas may be incoherent or seemingly unconnected to the assigned topic.
2. Good: solid organization, using a primarily logical progression of ideas, focused paragraphs (though some may require further development), generally clear transitions, used time well and produced a complete essay.
3. Less effective: choppy/sequential rather than logical organization; may read like list rather than argument; missing or awkward transitions between sentences/paragraphs; some undeveloped/unfocused paragraphs; may end abruptly or show signs of time pressure.
4. Weak structure: ideas presented randomly, incoherent passages, unclear paragraph topics, no transitions; may be short/incomplete.
2. Solid support: evidence offered for all claims; some support less convincing or awkwardly presented; most quotes clearly set up, a few may lack contextualization or be longer than needed; solid reasoning, but occasional logical lapses; competent use of poetic terms.
3. Uneven or inadequate support: offers general, less convincing evidence; may paraphrase excessively without making clear connections to interpretive ideas; some claims remain unsupported; quotations maybe ineffective and/or lack proper set up or contextualization; may use personal experience inappropriately; weak or undeveloped reasoning; insufficient use of poetic terms.
4. Unsupported: offers little or no textual evidence; may misinterpret tquoted passages; may list facts or irrelevant details because it has mad no interpretive claims; may be personal narrative or summary rather than analytical essay; incorrect (or no) use of poetic terms.
2. Clear/readable narrative voice: prose is coherent; grammar is solid; most words well chosen (but a few may be repetitive, vague, or ineffective), most sentences well structured, but might benefit from more variety/complexity; some awkward constructions.
3. Problematic narrative voice: difficult to read because of poor word choice and convoluted or ungrammatical sentence structures (fragments, weak/passive verbs, vague/wordy passages) may contain some/many errors in :agreement, modification, word choice.
4. Weak or ungrammatical narrative voice: many awkward or incorrect sentence structures, overly simple or inappropriate word choice, and/or confusing and convoluted phrasing, some problems so severe as to impede the reader's understanding.
2. Well presented and carefully proofread: correctly formatted, only a few mino errors in punctuation, spelling, or citation, which do not greatly distract or confuse the reader.
3. Reasonably well presented: format errors (did not skip lines, leave margin, or give essay title), but made effort to follow instructions; every page contains distracting errors in citation/punctuation/spelling; errors in possessives, capitalization, comma usage, line/page cites.
4. Incorrect or sloppy presentation: errors in formatting, apparently did not consult/follow instructions, every paragraph contains multiple egregious errors in citation/punctuation/spelling that reflect lack of knowledge of basic mechanics or failure to proofread.
Go back to Mary's Home Page.