English Education Rubric 2: “Contemporary Text” Commentary on a STUDENT-CREATED ARTIFACT in an English Course
|
Exceeds |
Meets | Emerging | Not Evident | Score | |
| 3 | 2 | 1 |
0 |
||
|
2.1 |
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. | |
| 2.2 | The commentary provides a clear explanation of how the artifact does or does not address issues of “contemporary 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 “contemporary text” as relevant to English studies. | The commentary explains how the artifact does or does not address issues of “contemporary 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 “contemporary text” as relevant to English studies. | |
| 2.3 | The commentary presents a concept of “contemporary 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 “contemporary text” in English studies. | The commentary shows some awareness of “contemporary 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 “contemporary text” as a concept in English. | |
| 2.4 | The style and substance of the commentary approach the standards of publishable scholarship. | 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: |
|||||