Skip to Main Content

Achievement First Achievement First

Families, you can find our 2021-22 school back-to-school info here.

Contextualization 

There are two primary criteria that make up Contextualization:

Framing:
The framing criterion is the broader umbrella within contextualization. Framing often occurs within the introduction and thesis statement. Framing incorporates any information relevant to the entire paper, versus context, relevant to a specific evidence chunk. Does the author include only the basic frame (novel, historical event) or is the argument framed within the greater discourse of historical ideas and movements?

Context:
Context is more specific and concrete than framing; it refers to the background information around the evidence chunks. Does the author set up the reader with enough background information for the paragraphs to be read smoothly and cohesively?

Selection 

Selection primarily evaluates evidence selection – relevance, persuasiveness, and concision. Included in this strand is evidence presentation – how smoothly the argument is incorporated into the paragraph.

Choice:
When we evaluate choice, we are analyzing the type of evidence selected – is it pertinent, is it relevant, is it credible?

Presentation: 
Evidence must be presented clearly within an essay; this criterion addresses the blending, chunking, and overall weaving of evidence into an argument.

Interpretation 

Interpretation deals with logic, analysis, and reasoning. The Ideas strand within Argument is comprehensive and evaluates the synthesis of ideas. The interpretation strand is much more specific to the paragraph level.

Analysis:
Analysis evaluates the discussion of evidence. At the lower level, is the interpretation explaining the evidence accurately? At a higher level, students are expected to analyze thoughtfully, linking the evidence explicitly to the assertion.

  • Click Numbers to View Standard Bearers

  • Framing

  • Context

  1.  
    • Makes no attempt to frame the text or content.
    • Provides one piece of framing about the text or content (eg title, author, or setting).
    • Provides some general framing about the text or the content (eg title, author, or setting).
    • Provides mostly reasonable background of the text and content.
    • Provides primarily accurate, general background of text/ content.
    • Attempts to frame the larger argument.
  1.  
  2.  
  3.  
    • May attempt to provide context that is inaccurate, random, or confusing.
    • Provides necessary context to some evidence although it may be rough or missing in some places.
  4. 6th and 7th Grade
    • Provides necessary context to most evidence presented, although it may be rough in some places.
    • Smoothly and mostly judiciously incorporates accurate basic background information about almost all of evidence.
    • Smoothly and judiciously incorporates accurate basic background information about almost all evidence.
    • Context may hint at interpretation.
  • Click Numbers to View Standard Bearers

  • Choice

  • Presentation

  1.  
    • Some evidence selected is connected to the main idea of the paper.
    • Most evidence selected is connected to the main idea of the paper.
    • Most evidence selected is connected to the topic of the paragraph.
    • All evidence selected is connected to the topic of the paragraph.
    • Almost all evidence selected is directly relevant to assertion; Some evidence strongly supports assertion; attempts to create a progression of evidence.
    • Evidence is adequate in amount, and when applicable, drawn from multiple sources.
    • Almost all evidence selected strongly supports assertion, generally creating a purposeful progression of evidence; .
    • Evidence is adequate in amount and drawn from multiple sources and parts of the text(s). Attempts to persuade the audience by incorporating two different rhetorical appeals.
    • Almost all evidence selected strongly and accurately supports assertion and creates a purposeful progression of evidence.
    • Evidence is appropriate in amount and drawn from multiple sources and varied parts of the text(s). Successfully persuades audience through incorporating multiple rhetorical appeals.
  1.  
    • Evidence is recognizable (i.e. the reader knows when the writer is referencing the text) and mostly paraphrased correctly.
    • Evidence selected is used correctly indirectly (paraphrased) and directly (quotations) when appropriate.
    • Student may choose to only paraphrase (as a natural precursor to direct quotations).
    • Evidence selected is used indirectly (paraphrased) and directly (quotations) when appropriate.
    • Student attempts to use both paraphrased evidence and direct quotations.
    • Some direct evidence selected is roughly incorporated into sentences (i.e., quotations are grammatically incorporated into other sentences.). While there are no isolated quotes, some generic blends are used. Attempts to use both paraphrased and direct quotations.
    • Most direct evidence selected is roughly incorporated into sentences (i.e., quotations are grammatically incorporated into other sentences.) Few generic blends are used. Paraphrased evidence is generally accurate and used appropriately.
    • All direct evidence selected is roughly presented (i.e., quotations are grammatically incorporated into other sentences.), and no generic blends are used. Paraphrased evidence is primarily accurate and mostly used appropriately.
    • Momentum of writing is enhanced by effective and strategic choice of type of evidence (direct, paraphrased, chunked). Direct evidence selected is correctly presented with effective blends. Paraphrased evidence is concise, accurate and properly used
  • Click Numbers to View Standard Bearers

  • Analysis

  1.  
    • Analysis consists entirely of repetition of the assertion/topic sentence.
    • The analysis is mostly repetitive of the assertion/topic sentence, but there is an attempt at summary of the evidence.
    • The analysis is mostly summary of the evidence, but does not simply repeat the evidence or assertion.
    • Analysis goes beyond summary, but explanation of how/why evidence proves assertion may be unconvincing (i.e. not plausible and logical).
    • The analysis is generally effective in explaining how or why the evidence proves the assertion (e.g. generally plausible and logical).
    • The analysis is mostly effective in explaining how or why the evidence proves the assertion (e.g. mostly plausible and logical).
    • The analysis is 100% plausible and logical.
    • The analysis is 100% plausible and logical. The analysis enhances the efficiency and momentum of the argument via strong language and logic choices.