English Education Rubric 7: “Theory” Commentary on a STUDENT-CREATED ARTIFACT in an English Course
|
Exceeds |
Meets | Emerging | Not Evident | Score | |
| 3 | 2 | 1 |
0 |
||
| 7.1 |
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. | |
| 7.2 | The commentary provides a clear explanation of how the artifact does or does not address an issue or issues of theory, and comments on how the artifact might be interpreted differently in a different theoretical framework. | The commentary provides a clear explanation of how the artifact does or does not address an issue or issues of theory. | The commentary explains how the artifact does or does not address issues of theory 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 theory as relevant to English studies. | |
| 7.3 | The commentary presents a concept of the role of theory in general in English studies, and provides comparisons of two or more interpretive theoretical traditions. | The commentary provides a discussion/definition of the role of theory in English studies. | The commentary shows some awareness of the role of theory in English studies, though this awareness is not yet fully formulated. | The commentary fails to show an awareness of the role of theory in English studies. | |
| 7.4 | 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: |
|||||