“`html
| Criteria | A (Excellent) – 5 Points | B (Good) – 4 Points | C (Satisfactory) – 3 Points | D (Basic) – 2 Points | E (Limited) – 1 Point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding of Themes | Demonstrates an insightful and nuanced understanding of art, identity, and connection; themes are explored with depth and originality. | Shows a clear and well-developed understanding of themes, with generally strong analysis. | Demonstrates a basic understanding of themes with some relevant analysis, though may lack depth. | Displays a limited understanding of themes; may miss some key aspects or contain underdeveloped ideas. | Shows little to no understanding of the themes of art, identity, or connection in the novel. |
| Use of Textual Evidence | Skillfully selects and integrates a wide range of relevant quotes and examples that clearly support the analysis of themes and characters. | Uses relevant quotes and examples effectively to support points, though may lack subtlety in integration. | Uses some relevant quotes and examples, though they may be minimal or loosely connected to the argument. | Uses few quotes and examples; connections between evidence and analysis may be unclear or underdeveloped. | Lacks relevant quotes or examples, or uses them in a way that does not support the argument. |
| Analysis of Language Features | Provides insightful analysis of Crowley’s language features (e.g., metaphor, imagery) to convey themes of art and self-expression. | Effectively discusses language features, though analysis may lack depth or subtlety. | Identifies some language features, though analysis may be basic or only partially relevant to themes. | Shows limited identification of language features, with minimal analysis of their effect. | Does not identify language features or fails to analyze their significance to the themes. |
| Structure and Coherence | Response is logically structured and coherently organized, with strong flow between paragraphs; clear planning is evident. | Structure is clear and mostly coherent, with minor issues in flow or transitions. | Response has a basic structure, though some ideas may be underdeveloped or lack flow. | Response has minimal structure, with unclear organization of ideas and limited flow. | Lacks structure and coherence; ideas are disjointed and poorly organized. |
| Use of Sentence Starters and Style | Skillfully incorporates sentence starters to create a sophisticated, fluent, and engaging response; language is polished and varied. | Effectively uses sentence starters with a clear and mostly fluent writing style; language is engaging with some stylistic variation. | Uses sentence starters appropriately, though language may be basic or repetitive; some attempts at engaging style are evident. | Uses sentence starters awkwardly or inconsistently; language lacks variety and may be overly simplistic. | Does not use sentence starters effectively; response lacks engaging language or coherent style. |
“`