Classic Text Rubric

English Education Rubric 1: “Classic Text” Commentary on a STUDENT-CREATED ARTIFACT in an English Course

 

  Exceeds Meets Emerging Not Evident Score
  3 2 1 0
1.1 The commentary summarizes the artifact for the analytical purposes of the commentary with clarity, succinctness, and thoroughness. The commentary summarizes the artifact sufficiently for the analytical purposes of the commentary. The commentary summarizes the artifact but not fully enough for the analytical purposes of the commentary. The commentary does not summarize the artifact for the analytical purposes of the commentary.
1.2 The commentary provides a clear explanation of how the artifact does or does not address issues of “classic text” as relevant to English studies, as well as contextualizing the artifact in a theoretical tradition. The commentary provides a clear explanation of how the artifact does or does not connect to the category of “classic text” as relevant to English studies. The commentary explains how the artifact does or does not address issues of “classic text” as relevant to English studies in a largely correct fashion, though the artifact analysis may be lacking in depth or thoroughness. The commentary shows little understanding of the artifact and how the artifact might address issues of “classic text” as relevant to English studies.
1.3 The commentary presents a concept of “classic text” that is relevant to the artifact and makes connections to or engages a broader discussion of canon issues in English studies. The commentary provides an implicit or explicit definition of the term “classic text” in English studies. The commentary shows some awareness of “classic text” as a concept in English studies, though this awareness is not yet formulated in terms of an explicit or implicit definition. The commentary fails to show awareness of “classic text” as a concept in English.
1.4 The style and substance of the commentary approach the standards of publishable literary criticism. The commentary exemplifies the discourse conventions of literary/rhetorical commentary. The commentary shows incipient understanding of the discourse conventions of literary/rhetorical commentary The commentary shows little to no understanding of the discourse conventions of literary/rhetorical commentary.
Total: