Scribd
Upload
76 views

Analytic Grid Example

This document provides a grading rubric for evaluating student writing in Spanish for a foreign language immersion program. It includes scales for assessing content, organization, language use/grammar/morphology, vocabulary, mechanics, and overall composition on both first and second drafts. Areas are scored on scales of excellent to very good, good to average, fair, and poor based on criteria like addressing the prompt, idea development, organization, variety of grammar, sentence structure, word choice, spelling, and mastery of conventions.

Uploaded by

gocan12-1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views

Analytic Grid Example

This document provides a grading rubric for evaluating student writing in Spanish for a foreign language immersion program. It includes scales for assessing content, organization, language use/grammar/morphology, vocabulary, mechanics, and overall composition on both first and second drafts. Areas are scored on scales of excellent to very good, good to average, fair, and poor based on criteria like addressing the prompt, idea development, organization, variety of grammar, sentence structure, word choice, spelling, and mastery of conventions.

Uploaded by

gocan12-1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Fig. Fx.

Analytic Writing Scale for the Spanish Foreign Language Immersion Program
University of Minnesota, Revised July, 1996

CONTENT 30 POINTS POSSIBLE

Score Range

Criteria

Comments

Excellent to Very Good .addresses all


aspects of the prompt .provides good
30 - 27
support for and development of all ideas
with range of detail .substantive

Good to Average .prompt adequately


addressed .ideas not fully developed or
26 - 22
supported with detail, though main ideas are
clear .less substance

Fair .prompt may not be fully addressed


(writer may appear to skirt aspects of
21 - 17 prompt) .ideas not supported well, main
ideas lack detailed development .little
substance

Poor .doesnt adequately address


16 - 13 prompt .little to no support or development
of ideas .non-substantive

ORGANIZATION 20 POINTS POSSIBLE

Score Range

Criteria

Excellent to Very Good .well-framed


and organized (with clear introduction,
20 - 18
conclusion) .coherent .succinct .cohesive
(excellent use of connective words)

17 - 14 Good to Average adequate, but loose


organization with introduction and
conclusion (though they may be limited or

Comments

one of the two may be missing) .somewhat


coherent .more wordy rather than succinct
.somewhat cohesive (good use of
connective words)

Fair .lacks good organization (no


evidence of introduction, conclusion) .ideas
13 - 10 may be disconnected, confused .lacks
coherence .wordy and repetitive .lacks
consistent use of cohesive elements

9-7

Poor .confusing, disconnected


organization .lacks coherence, so much so
that writing is difficult to follow .lacks
cohesion

LANGUAGE USE/GRAMMAR/MORPHOLOGY 25 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Score Range

Criteria

Excellent to Very Good .great variety of


grammatical forms (e.g., range of indicative
verb forms; use of subjunctive) .complex
sentence structure (e.g., compound
25 - 22 sentences, embedded clauses) .evidence
of "Spanish-like" construction .mastery of
agreement (subj/verb; number/gender)
.very few errors (if any) overall with none
that obscure meaning

Good to Average .some variety of


grammatical forms (e.g., attempts, though
not always accurate, of range of verb forms,
use of subjunctive) .attempts, though not
always accurate, at complex sentence
21 - 18 structure (e.g., compound sentences,
embedded clauses) .little evidence of
"Spanish-like" construction, though without
clear translations from English .occasional
errors with agreement .some errors (minor)
that dont obscure meaning

17 - 11 Fair .less variety of grammatical forms

Comments

(e.g., little range of verb forms; inaccurate, if


any, attempts at subjunctive) .simplistic
sentence structure .evidence of "Englishlike" construction (e.g., some direct
translation of phrases) .consistent errors
(e.g., with agreement), but few of which may
obscure meaning

Poor .very little variety of grammatical


forms .simplistic sentence structure that
contains consistent errors, especially with
10 - 5
basic aspects such as agreement .evidence
of translation from English .frequent and
consistent errors that may obscure meaning

VOCABULARY/WORD USAGE 20 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Score Range

Criteria

Excellent to Very Good .sophisticated,


academic range .extensive variety of words
20 - 18
.effective and appropriate word/idiom
choice and usage .appropriate register

Good to Average .good, but not


extensive (less academic), range or variety
.occasional errors of word/idiom choice or
17 - 14
usage (some evidence of invention of "false"
cognates), but very few or none that obscure
meaning .appropriate register

Fair .limited and "non-academic" range


(frequent repetition of words) .more
consistent errors with word/idiom choice or
13 - 10 usage (frequent evidence of translation;
invention of "false" cognates) that may
(though seldom) obscure meaning .some
evidence of inappropriate register

9-7

Poor .very limited range of words


.consistent and frequent errors with
word/idiom choice or usage (ample evidence
of translation) .meaning frequently

Comments

obscured .evidence of inappropriate


register

MECHANICS 5 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE

Score

Range

Criteria

Excellent to Very Good


.demonstrates mastery of conventions
.few errors in spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, and use of accents

Good to Average .occasional errors in


spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and
use of accents, but meaning is not
obscured

Fair .frequent errors in spelling,


punctuation, capitalization, and use of
accents that at times confuses or obscures
meaning

Poor .no mastery of conventions


.dominated by errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and use of
accents

Total Score_____ COMMENTS:

Composition Grading Sheet analytic


(first draft: 20 points; second draft: 10 points)
French 1001/1002/1022

Name: ______________________________________

GRAMMAR (6 / 3 points possible)

Comments

1st Draft 2nd Draft

6/5

No or very few grammatical errors; meaning always clear.

2.5

1.5

Very frequent grammatical errors often interfere with meaning.

1/0

1/0

Incomprehensible or not enough material to evaluate.

Occasional grammatical errors do not interfere with meaning.

Frequent grammatical errors sometimes interfere with meaning.

VOCABULARY (6 / 3 points possible)

1st Draft 2nd Draft

Wide range of vocabulary, used appropriately in all instances and with


very few or no spelling errors.

6/5

2.5

Good range of vocabulary, occasional or very few errors in usage or


spelling errors.

Vocabulary somewhat limited; fairly frequent errors in usage and/or


spelling.

1.5

Very limited vocabulary; frequent errors in usage and/or spelling; literal


translations from English.

1/0

1/0

Extremely limited vocabulary; excessive errors in usage and/or


spelling or not enough material to evaluate.

STYLE (4 / 2 points possible)

1st Draft 2nd Draft

Varied sentence length and structure with some cohesive elements.


Descriptive language. Writer's voice engages reader. French is as
natural as possible.

3/2

1.5 / 1

Information is basic, with little elaboration, sentence variety, or use of


cohesive elements. Some interference from English.

1/0

.5 / 0

Simple sentences with few or no attempts to connect them. Significant


interference from English.

CONTENT (4 / 2 points possible)

1st Draft 2nd Draft

4 / 3.5

3/2

1.5

1.5

1/0

.5 / 0

Topic clearly and fully developed. Details, descriptions, examples, and


anecdotes explain and clarify information. All task requirements more
than adequately fulfilled.

Topic adequately developed with relevant information and some


details. Task requirements adequately fulfilled.

Topic partially developed; some relevant information is missing; few or


no details. Task requirements partially fulfilled.

Topic poorly developed and/or task requirements not fulfilled. Or not


enough material to evaluate.

TOTALS

You might also like