AP Seminar PT2 Individual Essay Rubric (IWA)

The response demonstrates the relevance of at least one of the stimulus materials to the argument by integrating it as part of the response (for example, as providing relevant context for the research question, or as evidence to support relevant claims). Responses earning 5 points include a reference to the stimulus material that:

• Reflects an accurate understanding of the source and demonstrates an understanding of its context (e.g., date, region, topic).
• Performs a relevant and authentic function within the argument (i.e., it serves a purpose that enhances, forwards and/or directly supports the argument).

The response does not incorporate any of the stimulus material, or, at most, it is mentioned in only one sentence. OR the response includes a discussion of at least one of the stimulus materials; however, it does not contribute to the argument. Responses earning 0 points include a reference to the stimulus material that:

• Is tangential.
• May misrepresent what the sources are discussing/arguing or may use the source in such a way that ignores its context.
• Is only used for a definition or facts that could be obtained from other, more relevant sources.
• Is no more than a jumping-off point for the student's argument, no more than a perfunctory mention.
• Could be deleted with little to no effect on the response.

The response explains the significance or importance of the research question by situating it within a larger context. Responses earning 5 points:

• Address an area of investigation that is narrow enough to address the complexity of the problem or issue. The context, once established, remains relevant throughout the argument.
• Provide specific and relevant details (i.e., who, what, where, when) for all elements of the research question and/or argument.
• Make a specific and compelling case for the urgency or the importance of the research question and/or argument.

The response either provides no context, OR the response makes simplistic references to or general statements about the context of the research question. Responses earning 0 points:

• Identify too many aspects of the topic to address complexity.
• Provide unsubstantiated assertions without explanations (e.g., "this is important").
• May provide contextual details, but they are tangential to the research question and/or argument.
• Provide overly broad, generalized statements about context.
• Provide context for only part of the question or argument.

The response evaluates multiple perspectives (and synthesizes them) by drawing relevant connections between them, considering objections, implications, and limitations. Responses earning 9 points:

• Elaborate on the connections among different perspectives.
• Use the details from different sources' arguments to explain specific relationships or connections among perspectives (i.e., evaluate comparative strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives by placing them in dialogue).

The response describes multiple perspectives and identifies some relevant similarities or differences between them. Responses earning 6 points:

• Make general comparisons between perspectives describing only basic agreement or disagreement.
• Explain that disagreement/agreement exists, but do not develop a nuanced, detailed discussion of how they relate.
• At times present perspectives that are clearly derived from specific sources, but may lapse into opinions or stakeholder perspectives that are not clearly linked to specific sources.

The response provides only a single perspective. OR the response identifies and offers opinions or unsubstantiated statements about different perspectives that may be overly simplified. Responses earning 0 points:

• Provide only one perspective.
• May use a lens or lenses that all work to convey the same point of view.
• Convey perspectives as personal opinions or assertions without evidence.
• Provide perspectives that are isolated from each other without explicit comparison.
• Provide perspectives that are oversimplified by treating many voices, stakeholders, or stances as one.

The response is a clear and convincing argument. The response is logically organized and well-reasoned by connecting claims and evidence, leading to a plausible, well-aligned conclusion. Responses earning 12 points:

• Organize the argument in a way that is often signposted or explicit.
• Provide commentary that explains fully how evidence supports claims (i.e., the commentary will engage with the content of the evidence to draw conclusions).
• Provide an argument that is driven by student voice (commentary).
• Integrate alternate views, perhaps by engaging with counterclaims or using them to demonstrate a nuanced understanding.
• Provide a conclusion that is fully aligned with the research question.
• Present enough detail to assess the plausibility of the conclusion (perhaps with an assessment of limitations and implications).

The argument presents a claim with some flaws in reasoning. The response is logically organized, but the reasoning may be faulty or underdeveloped OR the response may be well-reasoned but illogical in its organization. Responses earning 8 points:

• Organize the argument well OR link evidence and claims well in discrete sections, but do not do both.
• Provide evidence that often drives the argument, rather than contributing to the response's argument.
• Present an argument that simply repeats but does not develop.
• Present claims that lack cohesion. There is no single articulated controlling argument.
• Provide a conclusion that lacks either enough detail to assess plausibility or is not fully aligned with the research question.
• At times lack clarity on what is student generated and what is derived from sources.

The response provides only unsubstantiated opinions or claims. OR the response summarizes information (no argument). The response employs inadequate reasoning due to minimal connections between claims and evidence. Responses earning 0 points:

• Base the argument on opinion(s).
• Seek to explain a topic, rather than take a position (e.g., report, summary, chronicle).
• Completely lack a conclusion or offer an overly-general, vastly-simplified conclusion.
• Provide an argument that is very difficult to discern, that contradicts itself, or is invalid.
• Provide an argument or claims that do not allow for alternate views.

The response includes relevant, credible and sufficient evidence to support its argument. Responses earning 9 points:

• Include research sources that are relevant to the topic and appropriate for an academic argument on this topic.
• Establish credibility of the sources of evidence (through effective citation, attribution or explanation) consistently.
• Provide purposeful analysis and evaluation of evidence used.
• Make effective use of well-chosen evidence from scholarly work.
• Provide relevant and credible evidence that fully supports claims.

The response includes mostly relevant and credible evidence. Responses earning 6 points:

• Include research sources that are mostly relevant to the topic, only some of which are appropriate for an academic argument (e.g., may be overly reliant on journalistic sources).
• Establish credibility of the sources of evidence inconsistently.
• Include many sources that are merely referenced when they require justification.
• Draw upon outdated research without providing a rationale for using that older evidence.
• May cite several scholarly works, but select excerpts that only convey general or simplistic ideas.
• Provide evidence that at times fully supports claims (e.g., there are sometimes gaps) or provides evidence that only generally supports claims.

Any evidence presented in the response is predominantly irrelevant and/or lacks credibility. Responses earning 0 points:

• Include many sources that are not credible for the context in which they are used.
• Include no well-vetted sources beyond the stimulus materials.
• May include a well-vetted source that is not used effectively.

The response attributes, accurately cites and integrates the sources used through the use of in-text citations or footnotes. The bibliography or works cited accurately references sources using a consistent style. Responses earning 5 points:

• Contain few flaws.
• Provide a clear organizational principle in bibliography/works cited.
• Provide consistent evidence of linking internal citations to bibliographic references.
• Include consistent and clear attributive phrasing for paraphrased material and/or in-text parenthetical citations.

The response attributes or cites sources used through the use of in-text citations or footnotes, but not always accurately. The bibliography or works cited references sources using a generally consistent style with some errors. Responses earning 3 points:

• Provide some uniformity in citation style.
• Provide an organizational principle in bibliography/works cited which may be uneven in some places.
• Include unclear references or errors in citations (e.g., citations with missing elements).
• Provide some successful linking of citations to bibliographic references.
• Provide some successful attributive phrasing for paraphrased material and/or in-text parenthetical citations.

The response is missing a bibliography/works cited OR the response is largely missing in-text citations/footnotes. Responses earning 0 points:

• Include internal citations, but no bibliography (or vice versa).
• Demonstrate no organizational principle in bibliography/works cited.
• Provide little or no evidence of successful linking of in-text citations to bibliographic references.
• Include poor or no attributive phrasing with paraphrased material (e.g., "Studies show..." with no in-text citation).

The response creates variety, emphasis, and interest to the reader through the use of effective sentences and precision of word choice. The written style is consistently appropriate for an academic audience, although the response may have a few errors in grammar and style. Responses earning 3 points:

• Contain few flaws which do not impede clarity for understanding complex ideas.
• Demonstrate word choice sufficient to communicate complex ideas.
• Use clear prose that maintains an academic or scholarly tone.

The response is mostly clear but may contain some flaws in grammar or a few instances of a style inappropriate for an academic audience. Responses earning 2 points:

• Contain some lapses in sentence control (e.g., run-ons, fragments, or awkward syntax when integrating quoted material).
• Lapse into colloquial language.
• Demonstrate imprecise word choice insufficient for communicating complex ideas.
• Use overly dense prose at the expense of coherence and clarity.

The response has many grammatical flaws, is difficult to understand, or is written in a style inappropriate for an academic audience. Responses earning 0 points:

• Contain multiple grammatical errors that make reading difficult.
• Use an overall style that is colloquial or in other ways not appropriate for an academic paper.
• Provide too few sentences to evaluate or the student's own words are indistinguishable from paraphrases of sources.