rubric.docx

AP SCORE OF 1 - Report on Existing Knowledge As the holistic descriptor of a 1 states, the paper is just a report on existing knowledge without even the “simplistic use of a method” we see in a 2. The paper just summarizes existing information and makes no attempt to generate new evidence through a...

AP SCORE OF 1 - Report on Existing Knowledge As the holistic descriptor of a 1 states, the paper is just a report on existing knowledge without even the “simplistic use of a method” we see in a 2. The paper just summarizes existing information and makes no attempt to generate new evidence through a method.  Additionally, the topic of inquiry is overly broad throughout the paper, and there needs to be a real attempt at narrowing the focus or scope.  Remember, sometimes the paper will “identify” or name a method, but that is not the same as describing a method and the analysis process.  And remember that while a paper might name a method, if what they are ultimately describing is just a “search and report process,” then the paper should earn a 1.  Remember that 1s and 2s only differ on rows 1 and 3 of the rubric. Pay attention to these rows when deciding between a score of 1 and 2.  AP SCORE OF 2 - Report on Existing Knowledge with Simplistic Use of a Research Method. The focus or scope is narrowing, but that focus or scope is not carried through in the method and/or conclusion. Think of the hourglass shape. The literature review has one focus or scope, but then the method/conclusion addresses a different research question.  The paper attempts to describe the steps of a method that would allow them to generate new evidence.  It is incomplete, oversimplified, or described in a non-replicable way, but there seems to be a stab at a method, and there must be a “simplistic use” of that method.  The paper discusses how they will analyze their data instead of just telling us how they will gather their sources (which would just be a search and report). There is a halfway attempt to try and generate evidence. But what keeps these papers at a 2 instead of a 3: You might see elements of a new understanding in a 2 paper. Still, the method is not described reasonably, and the “new understanding” is not based on student-generated evidence. If there is student-generated evidence, but we don’t understand how they got it, then that student-generated evidence does not count. Evidence not generated by a reasonably replicable research method is not evidence. The paper also features errors in communication that distract or confuse the reader.  The paper most likely contains multiple errors in citation and/or needs to use a discipline-specific style consistently.  The literature review either has a single scholarly perspective or features mostly non-scholarly sources.  Remember that 2s and 3s differ on every row of the rubric. AP Score of 3 - Ineffectual Argument for a New Understanding  What makes the paper at least a 3: The paper has a narrow focus or scope and some questions with a decent review of the literature related to the topic. The paper’s focus or scope might still be narrowing, but what they talk about in the literature review generally relates to what they are presenting in their new understanding. (Think of a V shape) The paper has a reasonably replicable research method. It can be questionably aligned and still earn a 3. The paper gives us every single survey question / every interview question and every element of their method.  Their new understanding comes from evidence generated by a method described in a reasonably replicable way.  For example, the new understanding is based on some of the survey responses to questions the student provided for us in the paper.  The paper makes it possible for us to follow the line of reasoning of how the paper is doing the process to generate the evidence so that someone could reasonably replicate it.  The new understanding/conclusion is based on evidence that was generated in a way that could be reasonably replicated.  The paper did Research and reported it, not in a very sophisticated way. It might even have sections we see in 4 or 5 papers (i.e. gap/limitations/implications).  Overall, the communication is competent and doesn’t distract the reader. The three “neighborhood is very big. Many papers will be 3s. 3s and 4s on the rubric differ on rows 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. But what keeps these papers at a 3 instead of a 4: There might be pieces of the literature review that are not entirely tied to the actual research goal, and sometimes a gap isn’t even mentioned or is mentioned in a superficial way.  The paper might assert there is a gap rather than explaining and constructing the gap through how they structure their literature review. The paper doesn’t seem to understand the bigger picture of their field or study. They rarely put their findings back into communication with the previous researchers. They might not mention their literature again after the literature review or make any suggestions for the field. The paper must remember that they were supposed to build a puzzle piece to fit into a larger whole. The sources in the literature review usually need to be in the conversation. It reads like an annotated bibliography. And some sources in the literature review might seem out of place and not connected to the paper’s focus or scope. The paper’s argument is ineffectual and lacks sufficient evidence to support its claims. Claims are too broad.  The evidence they use to back up their conclusion is simple and weak, and the argument needs to be developed more. There needs to be an underdeveloped line of reasoning. What they did in their method and what they are now trying to argue using their data might need to be clarified. The length of the paragraphs might be hard for the reader to process, and there might not be subheadings to help guide the reader.  The charts/tables/graphs (if present) don’t necessarily help the reader understand the data, often because the paper does not textually explain what the data means. There might be some citation errors in-text or on the works cited, and using a discipline-specific style may only sometimes be consistent.  AP SCORE OF 4 - Well-Supported, Articulate Argument Conveying a New Understanding What makes the paper at least a 4: The paper has a focused and narrow scope throughout the entire paper, and there are clear and narrow parameters.  We may see these clear and narrow parameters in the method section. (Think of a funnel shape) There is a logical progression throughout the literature review. Instead of seeing a collection of summaries of sources, you see the conversation between the sources and the student. The connection between the sources is explicit. The paper constantly discusses why and how certain studies are related to their study and doesn’t leave it up to the reader to guess how a piece of literature relates to the student’s inquiry. The literature review is designed in a way that demonstrates something is missing from the academic conversation (a gap in the knowledge base) Building the puzzle for the reader, but with one piece missing (which will be the student’s research) As readers, we can say, “Oh, I see; this is the piece that is missing. We need your study to find that information. This is the conversation you are joining and shifting. These are the scholarly voices you will discuss in your discussion section.” There is a detailed and replicable method.  The paper presents a logical defense of the method. And the method is aligned with their actual research goal. The paper presents logical rationales for why they made certain choices in the design and implementation of their method. They might explain that other scholars in their field use similar methods.  The paper presents a new understanding based on the evidence they generated through their research method, and there is a logically organized line of reasoning AND sufficient evidence. The paper presents their new understanding in a way that demonstrates that they understood their research project. The argument has clear claims and strong reasoning/commentary. They defend their conclusions.  The paper is well-written and has very few grammatical or citation errors. There is a consistent use of a discipline-specific style. But what keeps these papers at a score of 4 instead of 5… The paper needs to demonstrate a strong awareness of the bigger picture and put their new understanding back in conversation with their literature. The implications and limitations (if present) are written oversimplified way. The paper may only mention their method's limitations rather than their actual new understanding.  The paper may be providing superficial limitations or excuses. I am a high school student I didn’t have enough time  The communication is competent but not necessarily enhanced.  It is important to remember that 4s and 5s only differ on rows 4 and 5 of the rubric. AP SCORE OF 5 - Rich Analysis of a New Understanding Addressing a Gap in the Knowledge Base What makes the paper at least a 5: The paper justifies its new understanding. There is a logical progression of inquiry choices and sufficient evidence. The paper elaborates on the limitations of the actual conclusion rather than just their method. The paper might make suggestions for future research that shows they understand the extent to which their new understanding is limited.  The paper attempts to “go meta” by putting their new understanding back in conversation with the researchers and ideas discussed in the literature review and the field. The paper attempts to situate its new understanding into the gap its research was addressing. Think of the shape of a martini glass instead of a funnel.  The paper explains the implications of the new understanding to the community of practice. The paper is hypercritical. The new understanding is hyper-focused. The paper features enhanced communication as described in row 5 of the rubric. Notes about Ethical Concerns:  When a student is working with hazardous materials or vulnerable populations (minors, prisoners, pregnant women, homeless individuals) and their research would be considered risky/harmful to an educated person, the student should mention the ethical safeguards they put in place in their study. It is very difficult to be missing a well-defended method and have a 4, and if there is no mention of informed consent forms for these types of risky projects, then the paper will most likely score a 3 (assuming they meet the requirements of a 3 on the rubric). Some students may mention going through an IRB process, but that is not required. (Not all students have access to an IRB) Sometimes the informed consent forms will be found in the appendix. The thinking here is that a risky research endeavor that doesn’t mention ethical safeguards that were in place is not well-defended and logical, which will hurt the student in row 4 of the rubric, as their new understanding will now be weaker and ineffectual. Remember, they only need to discuss informed consent forms and ethical safeguards for possibly risky/harmful projects.  Create Papers The “evidence” and “new understanding” will look a bit different in “create” papers. View the creation as the data of the paper generated from a method. The paper is held to the same rubric guidelines, but the creation is the data, and the data analysis should include a reflective/evaluative piece by the student.  The student does not have to ask anyone what they think about their creation.  When considering the 4 / 5 line on the rubric, create papers can still go meta by trying to situate their creation in relation to other creative works. Narrating the process of creation is the method. They will explain how they are going to create something. And at the 4 / 5 level, the student will also provide rationales and defenses for why they made specific choices during the creation process.  The gap is sometimes called “aesthetic rationale.”  Findings and conclusions can be intertwined throughout the paper. Literary/Film Criticism/Analysis Papers In these types of papers, the student has a source text they are analyzing. Data might look different in these types of papers. The data is a two-layer process: The text itself The interpretative lens that is applied to the text will generate the data.  These papers feature qualitative research. Findings and conclusions can be intertwined throughout the paper. There should be sufficient analysis to support a reasonable conclusion. The student still needs to tell us how they will conduct their method and describe it reasonably.  And at the 4 / 5 level, the student will also provide rationales and defenses for why they made specific choices during the process.