The document appears to be a rubric for evaluating wildlife conservation essays. It rates essays on a scale of 1 to 5 in categories such as content, organization, expression, word choice, and writing conventions. Higher scores indicate more compelling content, purposeful organization, expressive writing, vivid word choice, and strong grasp of writing conventions. Lower scores suggest limited or unclear content, weak organization, limited expression, unclear word choice, and frequent errors.
The document appears to be a rubric for evaluating wildlife conservation essays. It rates essays on a scale of 1 to 5 in categories such as content, organization, expression, word choice, and writing conventions. Higher scores indicate more compelling content, purposeful organization, expressive writing, vivid word choice, and strong grasp of writing conventions. Lower scores suggest limited or unclear content, weak organization, limited expression, unclear word choice, and frequent errors.
The document appears to be a rubric for evaluating wildlife conservation essays. It rates essays on a scale of 1 to 5 in categories such as content, organization, expression, word choice, and writing conventions. Higher scores indicate more compelling content, purposeful organization, expressive writing, vivid word choice, and strong grasp of writing conventions. Lower scores suggest limited or unclear content, weak organization, limited expression, unclear word choice, and frequent errors.
Outstanding content, full of intriguing details, clear, focused
5 Compelling and seamless organization, easy to follow Extremely
expressive, explodes with energy, hard to put down Consistent use of vivid verbs, words paint a picture, precise Outstanding grasp of conventions-revised, edited, and correct
Strong content, clear, focused Purposeful organization, easy to
4 follow Expressive, sincere, engaging-often brings subject to life
Frequent use of vivid verbs, often precise Strong grasp of conventions, very few errors
Adequate content, usually clear, focused Predictable organization,
3 generally easy to follow Expressive, sincere, functional voice
Predominant use of functional words-needs more imagery Good grasp of conventions, readable with few errors
Limited content, somewhat unclear but has a discernible focus
2 Weak and inconsistent organization, hard to follow Limited
expression, rarely brings the subject to life Words are rarely vivid, clear, or precise Frequent errors in writing conventions, affects readability Very limited content, unclear, topic not defined Awkward,
1 disjointed, very hard to follow-no flow Impersonal, no apparent
voice to bring the subject to life Words lack clarity and are ineffective or overdone Conventions: Frequent errors in writing conventions, seriously affects readability