Fig. Fx.
Analytic Writing Scale for the Spanish Foreign Language Immersion Program
University of Minnesota, Revised July, 1996
CONTENT 30 POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range
Criteria
Comments
Excellent to Very Good .addresses all
aspects of the prompt .provides good
30 - 27
support for and development of all ideas
with range of detail .substantive
Good to Average .prompt adequately
addressed .ideas not fully developed or
26 - 22
supported with detail, though main ideas are
clear .less substance
Fair .prompt may not be fully addressed
(writer may appear to skirt aspects of
21 - 17 prompt) .ideas not supported well, main
ideas lack detailed development .little
substance
Poor .doesnt adequately address
16 - 13 prompt .little to no support or development
of ideas .non-substantive
ORGANIZATION 20 POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range
Criteria
Excellent to Very Good .well-framed
and organized (with clear introduction,
20 - 18
conclusion) .coherent .succinct .cohesive
(excellent use of connective words)
17 - 14 Good to Average adequate, but loose
organization with introduction and
conclusion (though they may be limited or
Comments
one of the two may be missing) .somewhat
coherent .more wordy rather than succinct
.somewhat cohesive (good use of
connective words)
Fair .lacks good organization (no
evidence of introduction, conclusion) .ideas
13 - 10 may be disconnected, confused .lacks
coherence .wordy and repetitive .lacks
consistent use of cohesive elements
9-7
Poor .confusing, disconnected
organization .lacks coherence, so much so
that writing is difficult to follow .lacks
cohesion
LANGUAGE USE/GRAMMAR/MORPHOLOGY 25 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range
Criteria
Excellent to Very Good .great variety of
grammatical forms (e.g., range of indicative
verb forms; use of subjunctive) .complex
sentence structure (e.g., compound
25 - 22 sentences, embedded clauses) .evidence
of "Spanish-like" construction .mastery of
agreement (subj/verb; number/gender)
.very few errors (if any) overall with none
that obscure meaning
Good to Average .some variety of
grammatical forms (e.g., attempts, though
not always accurate, of range of verb forms,
use of subjunctive) .attempts, though not
always accurate, at complex sentence
21 - 18 structure (e.g., compound sentences,
embedded clauses) .little evidence of
"Spanish-like" construction, though without
clear translations from English .occasional
errors with agreement .some errors (minor)
that dont obscure meaning
17 - 11 Fair .less variety of grammatical forms
Comments
(e.g., little range of verb forms; inaccurate, if
any, attempts at subjunctive) .simplistic
sentence structure .evidence of "Englishlike" construction (e.g., some direct
translation of phrases) .consistent errors
(e.g., with agreement), but few of which may
obscure meaning
Poor .very little variety of grammatical
forms .simplistic sentence structure that
contains consistent errors, especially with
10 - 5
basic aspects such as agreement .evidence
of translation from English .frequent and
consistent errors that may obscure meaning
VOCABULARY/WORD USAGE 20 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range
Criteria
Excellent to Very Good .sophisticated,
academic range .extensive variety of words
20 - 18
.effective and appropriate word/idiom
choice and usage .appropriate register
Good to Average .good, but not
extensive (less academic), range or variety
.occasional errors of word/idiom choice or
17 - 14
usage (some evidence of invention of "false"
cognates), but very few or none that obscure
meaning .appropriate register
Fair .limited and "non-academic" range
(frequent repetition of words) .more
consistent errors with word/idiom choice or
13 - 10 usage (frequent evidence of translation;
invention of "false" cognates) that may
(though seldom) obscure meaning .some
evidence of inappropriate register
9-7
Poor .very limited range of words
.consistent and frequent errors with
word/idiom choice or usage (ample evidence
of translation) .meaning frequently
Comments
obscured .evidence of inappropriate
register
MECHANICS 5 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score
Range
Criteria
Excellent to Very Good
.demonstrates mastery of conventions
.few errors in spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, and use of accents
Good to Average .occasional errors in
spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and
use of accents, but meaning is not
obscured
Fair .frequent errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and use of
accents that at times confuses or obscures
meaning
Poor .no mastery of conventions
.dominated by errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and use of
accents
Total Score_____ COMMENTS:
Composition Grading Sheet analytic
(first draft: 20 points; second draft: 10 points)
French 1001/1002/1022
Name: ______________________________________
GRAMMAR (6 / 3 points possible)
Comments
1st Draft 2nd Draft
6/5
No or very few grammatical errors; meaning always clear.
2.5
1.5
Very frequent grammatical errors often interfere with meaning.
1/0
1/0
Incomprehensible or not enough material to evaluate.
Occasional grammatical errors do not interfere with meaning.
Frequent grammatical errors sometimes interfere with meaning.
VOCABULARY (6 / 3 points possible)
1st Draft 2nd Draft
Wide range of vocabulary, used appropriately in all instances and with
very few or no spelling errors.
6/5
2.5
Good range of vocabulary, occasional or very few errors in usage or
spelling errors.
Vocabulary somewhat limited; fairly frequent errors in usage and/or
spelling.
1.5
Very limited vocabulary; frequent errors in usage and/or spelling; literal
translations from English.
1/0
1/0
Extremely limited vocabulary; excessive errors in usage and/or
spelling or not enough material to evaluate.
STYLE (4 / 2 points possible)
1st Draft 2nd Draft
Varied sentence length and structure with some cohesive elements.
Descriptive language. Writer's voice engages reader. French is as
natural as possible.
3/2
1.5 / 1
Information is basic, with little elaboration, sentence variety, or use of
cohesive elements. Some interference from English.
1/0
.5 / 0
Simple sentences with few or no attempts to connect them. Significant
interference from English.
CONTENT (4 / 2 points possible)
1st Draft 2nd Draft
4 / 3.5
3/2
1.5
1.5
1/0
.5 / 0
Topic clearly and fully developed. Details, descriptions, examples, and
anecdotes explain and clarify information. All task requirements more
than adequately fulfilled.
Topic adequately developed with relevant information and some
details. Task requirements adequately fulfilled.
Topic partially developed; some relevant information is missing; few or
no details. Task requirements partially fulfilled.
Topic poorly developed and/or task requirements not fulfilled. Or not
enough material to evaluate.
TOTALS
