Ideas

This strand evaluates at the holistic and synthesis level. The Ideas strand seeks to evaluate not only the accuracy of the ideas presented but also how well the Position is proven and how well the ideas are synthesized and interwoven. This strand is broader than the Interpretation strand – it encompasses the essay as a whole.

Quality:
Quality evaluates the correctness of ideas, the complexity of ideas, and the integration of ideas across a full spectrum.

Download the PDF

Click Numbers to View Standard Bearers
Quality

- Ideas show some understanding of the text/content and the task; includes a significant misunderstanding. Significant misunderstanding of task: The response is on-topic, but in the wrong mode (i.e. the prompt asks students to defend use of cell phones in schools & scholar writes a story about cell phones); OR the response demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of a text (i.e. student thought a character lived when he/she actually died – it’s like the scholar read a different text).
- Some understanding: The response is on-topic and in the right mode but the response is missing an important element like text evidence (i.e. the essay is just interpretation of the text with no support); OR the ideas contain many misunderstandings that impact the argument (the scholar seems to have read the same text, but has very different & inaccurate ideas about it).
- Basic/literal understanding: Scholar’s ideas are accurate, but do not move beyond summary or “right there” evidence. There may be a few small inaccuracies that do not impact the argument being made and/or one larger inaccuracy (i.e. wrong craft move). The response is on topic and in the right format. If scholars do not answer part of a question (i.e. never address a craft move demanded by the prompt), they should probably land here.
- Scholar’s ideas are accurate, and there is evidence of inferential/”deeper” thinking present in some (i.e. less than half) of the elements of the essay. There may be some vague, but not inaccurate, language. There may be a few small inaccuracies that do not impact the argument being made. The response is on topic and in the right mode.
- Scholar’s ideas are accurate, and most of the elements of the essay (thesis, assertions, evidence, analysis) are aligned to an inferential/deeper meaning. There may be some vague, but not inaccurate, language. There can be one small inaccuracy that does not impact the argument being made. The response is on topic and in the right mode. Counterclaim is named somewhere in the essay.
- Scholar’s ideas are accurate, and all elements of the essay are aligned to an inferential/deeper meaning. The language used to describe that deeper meaning is precise and accurate. There can be one small inaccuracy that does not impact the argument being made. The response is on topic and in the right mode. Counterclaim is named somewhere in the essay with an attempt at disproving it.
- Scholar’s ideas are accurate, and all elements of the essay are aligned to ideas that reflect the deepest meaning of the text OR most meaningful level of the argument. It is the teacher exemplar in terms of depth of thinking. There may be 1-2 small inaccuracies that do not impact the argument. The response is on topic and in the right mode. Accurate refutation of counter-claim.
- Scholar’s ideas are accurate, and all elements of the essay are aligned to ideas that discuss relevant complexities or nuances of the argument (i.e discussing text or author influences). There may be 1-2 small inaccuracies that do not impact the argument. The response is on topic and in the right mode. Refutation of counter-claim is logical & dismissed fairly (nothing makes you say “hmmm” or remain unconvinced)

Middle School Writing Rubric Bird's Eye View