Parental Involvement scores

Row 1 - Understand and Analyze Context6CORRECT SCORE. The response earned 6 points for this row because the topic of inquiry is clearly stated on p. 11. The focus is described on p. 12 (with the variables pertaining to parental involvement). The purpose of the study is described as being exploratory on p. 11. The response also connected the topic of inquiry to the larger field by placing it in conversation with other studies listed on pp. 3-10 as well as identifying a perceived gap in this field of study (see bottom of p. 10). In this document, look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument6CORRECT SCOREThe response earned 6 points for this row because the paper clearly explains the relationships between multiple perspectives on the topic of inquiry as well as connecting these studies to the topic of inquiry. For example, on p. 5, the paper describes an “allostatic load” study that connected varying levels of working memory to varying socioeconomic statuses of individuals and then explains that there are more factors than just “allostatic load” that are connected to socioeconomic status and academic achievement (see middle of p. 6). And then sums up the findings of multiple studies in conversation with

each other (p. 9 “These studies suggest that familial wealth…”.) The paper uses the findings of multiple studies to refine the focus of its question about the variables associated with parental involvement and socioeconomic status on student achievement (see p. 12 on variables such as paternal versus maternal involvement that are used based on the study described on p. 7). In this document, look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence6CORRECT SCOREThe response earned 6 points for this row because prior to and after discussing previous works or studies, the connection between the studies and the student’s topic of inquiry is described. For example, on p. 7… “To clarify, while wealthier parents may have the luxury to expend more money in general, they are not necessarily more dedicated to the education of their son(s)/daughter(s)”. In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 4 - Research Design5Correct! The response earned 5 points for this row because the method is described in detail (see pp. 11-14). Although rationale is provided on the alignment of the use of the survey, types of questions, and data analysis tool to generate and interpret data in response to the research question, there is no rationale provided for limiting the target group to Asian parents when the research question

on p. 11 does not state Asian parents as the focus. In this document, look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row. _Row 5 - Establish Argument7CORRECT SCORECorrect! The response earned 7 points for this row because it presents the argument throughout the Data Analysis section on pp. 14-18, about the correlation of the different factors associated with parental involvement and socioeconomic status with academic achievement. The strength of the significance for each factor’s correlation to academic achievement is discussed and linked to the overall argument. The response summarizes the conclusion on p. 19 “in essence, it was found”. Further, the response describes the implications and limitations of the conclusion only to Asian parents used in the study (see p. 20…”to clarify, as the sample consists solely of Asians…”). In this document, look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence6CORRECT SCOREThe response earned 6 points for this row because each piece of evidence that is generated is effectively treated with the appropriate analysis tool to determine correlation to students’ academic achievement as well as to determine its significance to the overall argument (see pp. 14-18). The pertinent/significant evidence is effectively synthesized into a conclusion and qualified by statements pertaining to the limitations of the study

(see pp. 19-20). In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 7 - Engage Audience33CORRECT SCORECorrect! The response earned 3 points for this row because organizational and/or design elements such as headings, subheadings, and clearly labeled (and referred to) tables effectively emphasize the overall argument and demonstrate the credibility of the author. In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 8 - Apply Conventions6CORRECT SCOREThe response earned 6 points for this row because throughout the paper, the works of others are effectively attributed and cited using a consistent style. Further, it is easy to distinguish between the authors’ voice and the works of others (see p. 16 “to clarify, Grolnick and Maria determined that….However, since Table 2 shows that…”). Here is an example of where others’ figures are properly cited see p. 6 and 9. In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 9 - Apply Conventions2Correct! The response earned 2 points for this row because word choice and syntax consistently adhere

to established conventions of grammar. However, there are some errors in phrasing that, although they do not detract from the author’s meaning, do not enhance the communication of the message and therefore do not allow the response to earn 3 points (p. 3 “for understanding preludes…”). In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Facial Hair scores

Row 1 - Understand and Analyze Context6 The response earned 6 points for this row because the topic of inquiry is clearly stated on the bottom of p. 11 (measure the effects of facial hair on perception formation in high school students). The focus is described on p. 11 (with the levels of facial hair and positive perception factors described on the top of p. 11). The purpose is described as looking for correlation between varying levels of facial hair and positive perception factors (see p. 11). The response also connected the topic of inquiry to the larger field by placing it in conversation with other studies (see top of p. 10). In this document, look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument6 The response earned 6 points for this row because the paper clearly explains the relationships between multiple perspectives on the topic of inquiry as well as connecting these studies to the topic of inquiry. For example, on p. 5, the paper describes a study that showed positive correlation to facial hair and positive perception factors, and then goes on to put that study in conversation with another that showed negative correlation (“there are many reasons that can contribute…” bottom of p. 5). The response connects these previous works to the topic of inquiry by using them to define the levels of facial hair and positive perception factors to be studied (see top of p. 10). In this document, look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence6 The response earned 6 points for this row because in many instances of discussing previous works or studies (that are substantiated as credible and relevant), the connection between the studies and the student’s topic of inquiry is described. For example, on p. 9… “this study is directly related to perceptions formed because of facial hair”). In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 4 - Research Design5The response earned 5 points for this row because the method is described in detail (see pp. 10-11). The response did not earn 7 points because effective rationale is not provided to logically show the alignment of using different male images (with different levels of facial hair) to determine correlation of facial hair levels to positive perception factors (see the appendix starting on p. 24 for images used). The method would have been aligned if the author controlled for facial structure, hair color etc., by showing images of the same man with varying levels of facial hair to determine the correlation of facial hair levels to various positive perception factors. In this document, look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 5 - Establish Argument3The response earned 3 points for this row because it makes the claim that varying levels of facial hair are associated with certain positive perception factors (see discussion on pp. 12-15). However, the links between the evidence and the claims are illogical seeing as the author did not control for all factors in the picture except for facial hair. And the author does acknowledge this limitation (see p. 15…” Also, the men used…”). In this document, look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence2The response earned 2 points for this row because the evidence used is inconsistent in supporting the claims about facial hair and positive perception factors (see explanation for row 5). In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 7 - Engage Audience2 The response earned 2 points for this row because organizational and/or design elements such as headings and graphs help convey the paper’s message. However, the response did not earn 3 points because the graphs are not labeled nor referred to in the body of the text (see pp. 13-14) and subheadings would have been helpful in making the 7 page literature review more engaging or manageable to process. In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 8 - Apply Conventions4 The response earned 4 points for this row because throughout the paper, the works of others are effectively attributed and cited using a consistent style. However, the response did not earn 6 points here because there are no direct quotes in eight pages of the lit review to help distinguish between the author’s interpretation of several studies and the actual studies themselves (see pp. 3-10). In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this

row.Row 9 - Apply Conventions2 The response earned 2 points for this row because word choice and syntax consistently adhere to established conventions of grammar. However, there are some less “academic” word choices (see p. 7) that, although do not detract from the author’s meaning, do not enhance the communication of the message and therefore do not allow the response to earn 3 points. In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row

The Effect of Music scores

Row 1 - Understand and Analyze Context2The paper earns 2 because the topic of the effect of music on the acceptance of progressive ideas is

stated (p. 1). It did not earn 4 on this row of the rubric because, though there is an attempt to state the purpose, it is too disjointed of a description for the reader to discern. In this document, look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument4The paper earns 4 because multiple perspectives on music and the brain are summarized. It did not earn 6 on this row because each source is summarized individually, not discussed in combination with each other. The paper does not draw connections between (a) music and the brain and (b) music and progressive ideals. In this document, look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence2The paper earns 2 because it uses a large number of superficial, non-scholarly websites without offering any rationale about why they would be appropriate to the inquiry (see Works Cited pp. 18-20). It did not earn 4 on this row of the rubric because the sources are used to tell a generic history of American music, not to develop or address the paper’s stated topic of inquiry. In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 4 - Research Design

3 The paper earns 3 because it states how the student is going to write the paper (bottom of p. 2 to top of p. 3). It did not earn 5 on this row of the rubric because while it does offer a summary of the student’s approach to investigating the topic, it does not explain or describe in any detail the method/process that will be used to conduct research. In this document, look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 5 - Establish Argument3 The paper earns 3 because it presents a simplistic argument about American music reflecting progressive ideals (see p. 17). It did not earn 5 because this is not a new understanding or conclusion reached through scholarly inquiry but more a report on what is already known in the field. In this document, look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence2 The paper earns 2 because sweeping claims are insufficiently supported with evidence (see p. 15, bottom of first paragraph, for an example of an unsubstantiated claim). It did not earn 4 because the evidence is not robust enough to support the broad conclusion that music is the singular vehicle moving the country forward toward acceptance of “all peoples and cultures, as well as a powerful force on

the individual and individual happiness” (p. 18). In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 7 - Engage Audience2 The paper earns 2 because it includes titled subsections. It did not earn 3 on this row because the organization does not enhance communication. Information on music and the brain appears to be out of place in the paper (see p. 3). In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 8 - Apply Conventions2 The paper earns 2 points because where citations appear they are mostly correct. It did not earn 4 on this row because it uses sources inconsistently and, in some places, incorrectly, leaving ambiguity about where the source ends and the student’s voice begins (see p. 11). In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 9 - Apply Conventions2 The paper earns 2 because its grammar is generally correct. It did not earn 3 because word choices and style communicate the meaning, but the prose does not engage the reader or enhance communication. See the Conclusion section for an example (pp. 17-

18). In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.The Supreme Court scoresRow 1 - Understand and Analyze Context6 The response earned 6 points on this row because it demonstrates the significance of the inquiry into the relationships among popular opinion, Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) decisions, and compliance with those decisions (p. 3, Introduction section). The paper notes how the inquiry addresses a gap in the literature, especially in the very last paragraph (Significance section, p. 21). In this document look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument6 The response earned 6 points on this row because it explains complex relationships between the scholarship on Brown v. Board of Education and emerging research on Obergefell v Hodges. Much of the paper revolves around the relationship between the two cases and the scholarly analysis of the court's decisions. See bottom of p. 7 and bottom of p. 8 to see the beginning of the synthesis of various perspectives. In this document, look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence6 The response earned 6 points on this row because the sources are credible and relevant (e.g., SCOTUS justices and scholars published in peer-reviewed law and politics journals), and they are presented in dialogue with one another, building upon or departing from previous scholars' ideas. See in particular the first paragraph on page 6, the second paragraph on p. 7 and the last two paragraphs on page 9. The paper integrates other scholars' work with the student's own inquiry, especially in the last paragraph on page 10 (onto bottom of first paragraph on p. 11). In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 4 - Research Design7 The response earned 7 points on this row because it offers a thorough explanation and justification of its mixed-methods approach (bottom of p. 11 through top of p. 18). The paper defines "sentiment analysis" and defends that form of content analysis, showing how it aligns with the project goals (see bottom of p. 11 to top of p. 12). The paper provides details for the method and rationale for such details or steps (see pp. 11-18). In this document, look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 5 - Establish Argument7

The response earned 7 points on this row because the conclusion is strongly supported with directly relevant, authoritative evidence from pages 19-20. The evidence is described and linked to the claims being made and even connected back to the original assumption or hypothesis made. The conclusion or new understanding is also shown to be highly significant, with far-reaching implications for compliance by U.S. citizens with SCOTUS decisions into the future (see Significance section on p. 21). In this document, look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence6 The response earned 6 points on this row because it synthesizes complex evidence in a sophisticated manner, demonstrating how each piece of evidence contributes to the argument on the correlations among public opinion on a controversial issue, the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case on that issue, and the relative compliance level among the public after the court's ruling (see pp. 18–19 for examples of drawing conclusions from evidence and of explaining different types of evidence). In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 7 - Engage Audience3 The response earned 3 points on this row because although tables of results would be appreciated for

clarity, readers are helped by the table of contents, descriptive titles and subtitles of sections (like those on pp. 19-20), and the paper's logical organization, including transitions between paragraphs. The paper reads smoothly because it is well ordered, making a sophisticated and scholarly discussion understandable to non-experts. In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 8 - Apply Conventions6 The response earned 6 points on this row because not only does it accurately and consistently cite and attribute the works of others, it conducts a high-level integration of other scholars' findings to show relationships among public opinion, SCOTUS rulings, and compliance. The student's voice clearly emerges from the scholarship. See the paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 10 for an example of both integrating two scholars' work and maintaining the student's own voice. In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 9 - Apply Conventions3 The response earned 3 points on this row because its grammar and style are virtually flawless. It uses precise syntax and advanced vocabulary that (much like the organization of the piece) enhances the

reader's ability to understand the complex argument. In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Sensationalism ScoresRow 1 - Understand and Analyze Context4 This paper earned 4 points for this row of the rubric because it clearly states the topic, purpose (to identify the way sensationalism in the media is affecting the public), and focus of the inquiry through three different media cases. Although the topic, purpose, and focus of the inquiry are identified (p. 1 and p. 8), the response did not earn 6 points because the attempt to connect the need for the study into the broader field of knowledge is flawed. Sensationalism in the media and its effects on the public are already known (the student stated such-see pp. 4-6). In this document, look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument4 The paper earned 4 points for this row of the rubric because the paper summarizes multiple perspectives (see pp. 4-7) on the different elements of sensationalism in the various media events discussed (the Oregon shooting, Ebola, and the downing of the Malaysian flight). The paper did not earn 6 points for this row of the rubric because the connections between the multiple perspectives are hard to find and have to be inferred by the reader instead of described in the paper (see p. 3 for the lack of connection between Barton and Roberts and the focus of the purpose of the inquiry). In this document, look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence4 The paper earned 4 points for this row of the rubric because the sources appear to be appropriate to the inquiry (media sources as well as some scholarly foundational pieces) and are both relevant to the topic and credible (as shown in the paper and the bibliography). The paper did not earn 6 points for this row because it does not explain either the relevance/credibility of some of the lesser known sources or the explicit connection to the topic (e.g., why dictionary.com was a relevant choice, or why hg.org or study.com was appropriate-see p. 2 and p. 12). In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 4 - Research Design3 The paper earned 3 points (instead of 5) for this row of the rubric because while the content analysis approach is identified (see p. 8), it is not described in a way that would allow you to understand, let alone repeat what method the researcher actually performed (see pp. 8-10). It is not known what headlines will be looked at nor what sensationalistic language will be analyzed (see p. 9). The response did not earn 7 points because the method used is not aligned with the research question about identifying the effects of sensationalism in the media on the general public using the three cases provided (see p. 8). In this document, look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 5 - Establish Argument3 The paper earned 3 points for this row of the rubric because the response presents an already understood conclusion that sensationalism can have deleterious effects on the public. Additionally, this claim is unsupported by sufficient evidence gathered by the researcher instead of what is already known in the field. For example, the student did not present gathered evidence about the “sensationalized” reporting of the Oregon shootings and any copycat shootings that occurred thereafter (see pp. 10-11). It did not earn 5 points because the response does not

arrive at a new understanding, and the conclusion reached (sensationalism in news reporting is negative and potentially harmful) is not one that is justified within the paper by student generated evidence via a well-defined approach or method (see pp. 10-11). In this document, look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence2 The paper earned 2 points (instead of 4) for this row of the rubric because the evidence that is included basically supports the broad claim that sensationalism in the media has detrimental effects; but it is insufficient to support the conclusion that the three cases caused harm to both the people involved and the viewers of the reports. The evidence provided is a claim made by Holcomb and Mitchell (2015) instead of the content analysis performed by this researcher (see pp. 11-12). In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.Row 7 - Engage Audience2 The paper earned 2 points for this row of the rubric because the section headings match up with the content and certainly convey the findings and message of the paper, but it did not earn 3 points for this row because there is nothing that enhances the argument or message. Tables of results could have enhanced the message and demonstrated further credibility. See pp. 10-13 for the absence of content analysis evidence that would have been helpful in

presenting and supporting the conclusion being made. In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 8 - Apply Conventions4 The paper earned 4 points for this row of the rubric because it cites sources with general accuracy and consistency (see p. 7 and pp. 14-17). It did not earn 6 points because the use of sources is quite mechanical and does not include a smooth integration of others' ideas into the paper (e.g., p. 12 discussion of Grenny, or the approach to the literature review). In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 9 - Apply Conventions2 The paper earned 2 points for this row of the rubric because it is relatively well written with appropriate syntax and conventions throughout. While not flawless, it communicates effectively to the reader and the meaning is obvious. It did not earn 3 points for this row because a few of the syntactical lapses do not interfere, but are examples of why the writing does not enhance the paper's argument. See page 6 for an example: "Of the crisis the media but America into, there were only eight reported cases and people only contracted these diseases from Liberia, Sierra Leone, or having contact with the initial person who brought this disease over from Liberia." Further, in the Method section, there are several places where it

is difficult to decipher what is meant by the sentence provided (see pp. 8-10). In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Selective Mutism ScoresRow 1 - Understand and Analyze Context2 The response earned 2 points for this row (instead of 4) because the topic of understanding the psychological impact of selective mutism in young children on their families and communities is identified (see p. 3). However, “understanding how the psychological impact…” correlates to “understanding the disorder” is not a logical focus for a scholarly inquiry project nor fills a purpose or need in the broader field of understanding on selective mutism. Nowhere else is there a description of the focus or purpose of the research question. In this document, look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument2 The response earned 2 points for this row because the Background section relies on a single perspective from a single source, the professional organization ASHA (see pp. 3-9 and first entry on p. 19). There are

no additional perspectives considered, so the response did not rise above the "2" category on this row in order to earn 4 points. In this document, look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence4 The response earned 4 points for this row because the main source, the professional organization ASHA, is completely credible on understanding the topic of selective mutism (regardless of the focus). The response did not earn 6 points because the themes of the Background (symptoms, diagnosis, etc.) are not connected to the student's own study (see p. 9, where Background ends and Methodology begins, without transition or connection between them). In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 4 - Research Design3 The response earned 3 points (instead of 5) for this row because the meta-analysis approach is summarized but many important details are left out (see pp. 9−10). While there are glimmers of rationale for conducting a meta-analysis ("to identify relevant literature that identifies similar issues in a way that a missing link among the issues is fulfilled," p. 9), the reasoning is not made clear and is even undermined on page 11, where the response states that high school students do not have enough time to do research "properly" in a few months, so the paper did

not earn 7 points for this row. In this document ,look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 5 - Establish Argument3 The response earned 3 points for this row (instead of 5) because the conclusion stated on pp. 16−17 is simplistic or already known via the literature review. There aren’t any new nuances via a synthesis of the evidence provided by the meta-analysis approach. It did not earn 7 points because the response does not provide an explanation of implications or consequences for the conclusion being made above that which is already known or understood. In this document, look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence2 The response earned 2 points (instead of 4) for this row because the evidence that is presented is in fact a review of the literature of the field surrounding the topic of inquiry and not a true meta-analysis of studies that would have yielded a new understanding. In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 7 - Engage Audience1

The response earned 1 point for this row because the paper includes several organizing aids: table of contents, section headings and subheadings, and a table of inclusion criteria (p. 10). It did not earn 2 points because the titling of the section containing the meta-analysis findings "Literature Review" is confusing, and the Limitations section (p. 11) is too general to be useful. Further, there are subsections in the Background that don’t seem to have a place in the entire line of reasoning of the paper (see Causes, Symptoms, and Diagnosis, etc. on pp. 4-5). In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 8 - Apply Conventions4 The response earned 4 points for this row because sources are cited correctly in the body of the paper and the bibliography, though the "Works Cited" should be termed "References" (see p 10, 1, and 19). It did not earn 6 points for this row because the ideas of other scholars are not integrated with each other. In the Background section the student's voice is not clearly distinct from the official statements from ASHA (see pp. 3-9). In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 9 - Apply Conventions2The response earned 2 points for this row because grammar, mechanics, and usage are correct. Several passive-voice and repetitive sentences (see the last

paragraph on p. 10 for examples) prevent the paper from earning 3 points for this row. In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Islamic Caliphate ScoresRow 1 - Understand and Analyze Context6 The response earned 6 points for this row because it pursues a focused, timely topic for a significant purpose: evaluating the claims made by members of the "Islamic State" (ISIS) and other terrorist organizations that the establishment of a caliphate by violent force is consistent with teachings of the Qur'an (see p. 2). The research on scriptural bases for Islamic caliphates is distinctly tied to current debates in the U.S. and around the world about the ideologies of terrorism and the deeply divided scholarly interpretations of scriptural texts. In this document, look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument6 The response earned 6 points for this row because strongly opposing views on the "Islamic State" (ISIS), Sharia'a law, and interpretations of the Qur'an are summarized and explained. The response includes

the views of conservative and liberal Islamic scholars in the Middle East and in the West, providing nuanced explanations of different perspectives (see pp. 3-6). In this document, look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence6 The response earned 6 points for this row because it employs relevant, scholarly sources (see pp. 2-6) to inform the inquiry and places those sources in dialogue with one another (see last paragraph on p. 10 for example). The response also provides a description of the significance or relevance for types of sources used in connection with the topic of inquiry (see bottom of p. 6). In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 4 - Research Design7 The response earned 7 points for this row because the Research Methods (bottom of p. 6 through p. 8) are thoroughly described, justified with scholarly examples, and then carried out in the study. The study utilizes particular methods of scriptural exegesis and historical analysis in line with the topic and purpose of the study. In this document, look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 5 - Establish Argument7

The response earned 7 points for this row because it makes a strong argument that establishing a caliphate is an Islamic ideal (see bottom of p. 12 and bottom of p. 17) and supports it with extensive scriptural and academic evidence. The implications of the argument are evident in the response as well as in contemporary global discussions about terrorism and jihadism. In this document,look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence6 The response earned 6 points for this row because it makes compelling use of relevant textual evidence, interprets the evidence thoughtfully, and explains why each piece of evidence is important to the argument. See the last paragraph on page 14 (and onto the top of p. 15) for examples of integrated evidence. In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 7 - Engage Audience3 The response earned 3 points for this row for the following reasons: (a) a useful and referred to, color-coded map illuminates points of the paper (p. 11); (b) each section and subsection of the paper is titled appropriately; (c) sections and paragraphs are unified and coherent (see examples on pp. 12-13). In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row

Row 8 - Apply Conventions6The response earned 6 points for this row because the dozens of academic and scriptural sources are all cited correctly in the body of the paper and in the bibliography (see pp. 19-21). Furthermore, there is a clear distinction throughout the response between what various scholars have said (e.g., regarding interpretation of the Qu'ran) and what the student is asserting (see bottom of p. 14 to top of p. 15). In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 9 - Apply Conventions3 The response earned 3 points for this row because it uses sophisticated syntax and vocabulary in context (e.g., ideological, secularized, hermeneutics, exegetical), showing high-level understanding of the field of inquiry and also contextualizes such terms so that intelligent, non-expert readers can also understand the argument (see p. 2 and p. 7). Grammar, mechanics, and usage are nearly flawless. In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Freedom of Speech in China ScoresRow 1 - Understand and Analyze

Context4 The response earned 4 points for this row because the topic of restrictions on freedom of speech in China is identified and described as focusing on the government's practices of internet censorship and having a distinct purpose: to examine people’s perspectives of the correlation between internet censorship and public corruption in China (see p. 8). It did not earn 6 points for this row because, although the topic and purpose are timely and interesting, they are not shown to connect to a larger scholarly discussion of individuals’ perspectives on governmental corruption tied to decrease freedom of speech. The sources that are mentioned are a combination of governmental documents coupled with commentary on the situation (Encyclopedia Britannica) or news stories (CNN) and not scholarly discourse or studies on the issue of governmental corruption tied to a decrease in freedom of speech (see pp. 3-4). In this document, look for the yellow highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 2 - Understand and Analyze Argument2 The response earned 2 points for this row (instead of 4) because even though different lenses pertaining to such are presented (China's Cultural Revolution, economic reforms, internet restrictions, and government corruption) on pages 1−8, these lenses are only seen through one perspective, which is that of the author (see pp. 3-5). The response did not

earn 6 points for this row because it does not draw connections between the various sources and the student's own inquiry, other than in a brief allusion on page 8: "All prior research brings together, through several different lenses, the effects on the lack of freedom of speech in China as well as the effects of a corrupt Chinese government”. In this document , look for the green highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 3 - Evaluate Sources and Evidence2 The response earned 2 points (instead of 4) for this row because even though most sources of information are credible (such as news articles as opposed to scholarly articles), they are not necessarily relevant to the topic of perspectives on the correlation between governmental corruption and freedom of speech (see works cited pp. 12-13). The response did not earn 6 points for this row because the credibility and significance of the sources are not substantiated in the text, and the sources are not explicitly connected to the student's inquiry process. In this document, look for the blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 4 - Research Design5

The response earned 5 points for this row because the survey method, including some information about participants, is described at the bottom of page 8 to the top of p. 9. It did not earn 7 points for this row because while there is an explanation of what was done, it does not make sense in that there is no explanation of why the survey was administered in China (even with Survey Monkey versus Google docs) if the premise is that freedom of speech is restricted due to governmental corruption (see p. 8). How could the researcher be sure that they would receive any responses, let alone honest responses? In this document, look for the red highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 5 - Establish Argument3 The response earned 3 points for this row (instead of 5) because the argument about the Chinese government creating a hostile environment of censorship and corruption (on p. 8) is not supported with the evidence of the survey results or discussion given on pp. 9-11. In fact, the paper demonstrates evidence of the inquiry changing purpose midstream after the data was collected (see new question on p. 11). The researcher is now using the evidence gathered to address a different question on the difference between native Chinese and expatriate Chinese perceptions on the correlation between a lack of freedom of speech and governmental corruption in China and not the question that was

posed at the beginning of this paper (see pp. 9-11). In this document, look for the pink highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 6 - Select and Use Evidence2 The response earned 2 points for this row (instead of 4) because the quantitative survey responses (on a scale of 1−5) reported in Table 1 and Table 2 are not interpreted, leaving the reader without adequate understanding of the evidence in connection to the original inquiry (see pp. 10-12). The qualitative responses (answers to "why" questions) are likewise displayed without analysis to the original query (see pp. 10-12). Further, there is no explanation for the changing of the original inquiry from p. 8 to p. 9. In this document, look for the grey highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 7 - Engage Audience2 The response earned 2 points for this row because organizational and design elements are generally neat and straightforward. The tables on pages 9−10 show data in a clear format, and the section headings and subheadings are appropriately titled. The response did not earn 3 points for this row because some unusual formatting choices do not necessarily demonstrate the credibility of the author: (a) tables titled but not referred to in text on pp. 9-11, and (b) inconsistencies in formats of headings

(Introduction in all caps and bold type, p. 1; Method and Discussion not bolded, p. 8 and p. 11; Results bolded but not in caps, p. 9; etc.). In this document, look for the dark blue highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 8 - Apply Conventions6 The response earned 6 points for this row because it cites sources correctly in the footnotes and bibliography, and it synthesizes a plethora of sources while maintaining the student's own voice (see examples on p. 1 and Works Cited pp. 12-13). In addition, the long paragraph on page 3 shows the balance between opinions from primary and secondary sources and the author’s voice which analyzes the sources to explain how the Chinese government justifies internet restrictions. In this document, look for the brown highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.

Row 9 - Apply Conventions2 The response earned 2 points for this row because grammar, mechanics, and usage are generally correct. Some unusual word choices (e.g., "those living in China see freedom of speech as a perilous and tedious task," p. 6; "this concept elicits the main idea," p. 8) and usage of Chinese characters (see p. 2 and p. 5) do not detract from the author’s meaning

yet do not serve to enhance communication; so the response did not earn 3 points for this row. In this document, look for the purple highlighted phrases or sentences that show evidence for the scoring of this row.