| Purpose/OrganizationHow clearly the essay states and holds a claim, and how well its structure and transitions carry the argument from introduction to conclusion.0–4 points | Fully addresses the task with an effective structure: the essay feels complete, coherent and connected, and a controlling idea runs throughout. - Introduces the claim and states it clearly; keeps the controlling idea firmly in view for the purpose, audience and task.
- Uses varied, well-chosen transitions to link ideas and to show how they differ.
- Has a strong structure with an effective introduction and conclusion.
- Develops ideas logically from start to finish, with strong connections between and among them.
| Adequately addresses the task with a visible structure and a sense of completeness, though some ideas may be loosely connected; the controlling idea is sufficiently developed. - States a claim that is mostly clear; keeps the controlling idea adequately in view for the purpose, audience and task.
- Uses an adequate variety of transitions to link and differentiate ideas.
- Has an evident structure with an adequate introduction and conclusion.
- Develops ideas adequately from start to finish, with appropriate connections between them.
| Addresses the task with an inconsistent structure; the essay is somewhat developed and may drift from the controlling idea. - States a claim that may be somewhat unclear; the controlling idea may not be held well enough for the purpose, audience and task.
- Uses few or simple transitions to link and differentiate ideas.
- Has an inconsistent structure; any introduction or conclusion may be weak.
- Develops ideas unevenly from start to finish, with unclear connections between them.
| Attempts the task with little or no visible structure; the essay may relate to the claim but offers only a minimal controlling idea. - States a claim that may be confusing or vague; the response may be too brief, and the controlling idea is minimal and may drift from the purpose, audience or task.
- Uses few or no transitions to link or differentiate ideas.
- Has minimal structure; the introduction and/or conclusion may be absent.
- Develops ideas only in a limited way, with some unrelated or irrelevant content; ideas may be in an arbitrary order.
| Undeveloped and/or not appropriate to the task, purpose and audience. - The claim may be unclear or missing.
- There may be no visible organizational structure.
| |
|---|
| Evidence/ElaborationHow well the essay supports its claim with evidence from the sources, explains that evidence, and uses language suited to the audience and purpose.0–4 points | Addresses the task with thorough support for the claim, using relevant sources, facts and details effectively; ideas are elaborated effectively with precise language. - Brings in comprehensive, relevant evidence from the sources and integrates it skillfully.
- Shows comprehensive understanding through skillful, logical reasoning backed by thorough evidence; support can include relevant facts, experiences, descriptions, quotations, specific details and examples.
- Uses varied, precise vocabulary that is highly appropriate for the audience and purpose.
- Varies sentence structure throughout, showing fluency and engaging the reader.
- Uses an effective, appropriate style and tone that fit the task and purpose.
| Addresses the task with sufficient support for the claim, using sources, facts and details; ideas are elaborated sufficiently with a mix of precise and general language. - Brings in adequate, relevant evidence from the sources and integrates it appropriately.
- Shows adequate understanding with some logical reasoning and some evidence from the sources; support can include relevant facts, experiences, descriptions, quotations, specific details and examples.
- Uses vocabulary that is appropriate for the audience and purpose.
- Varies sentence structure somewhat, showing adequate control and generally engaging the reader.
- Uses a generally appropriate style and tone.
| Addresses the task with superficial support for the claim and partial use of sources, facts and details; ideas may be expressed in basic or simple language. - Includes some evidence from the sources, but it may be weakly integrated, vague or repetitive.
- Shows basic understanding with weak or uneven reasoning; the response may be mostly a summary of the sources.
- Uses vocabulary that is simple, repetitive or somewhat ineffective for the audience and purpose.
- Uses limited sentence variety that may only partly engage the reader.
- Style and tone are inconsistent or weak.
| Attempts the task with minimal support for the claim and little or no use of sources, facts and details; the response is unclear or confusing. - Evidence from the sources is minimal or irrelevant, missing, or used incorrectly.
- Shows minimal understanding with little or no reasoning; attempts at support may be unclear or confusing.
- Vocabulary may be limited, vague or ineffective for the audience and purpose.
- Uses little or no sentence variety and shows little or no awareness of the reader.
- Shows little or no appropriate style and tone.
| Undeveloped, with no elaboration and no support related to the claim. - Uses no source material, facts or details to support the claim.
- Shows little or no understanding and no elaboration.
| |
|---|
| ConventionsControl of sentence formation, grammar, usage and mechanics, judged holistically across the whole response.0–2 points | —Not used for this criterion | —Not used for this criterion | Shows adequate control of conventions. - Sentence formation, grammar, usage and mechanics are adequately correct.
| Shows partial control of conventions. - Sentence formation, grammar, usage and mechanics are correct only to a limited degree.
| Shows little or no control of conventions. - Correct sentence formation, grammar, usage and mechanics appear only infrequently.
| |
|---|
