ap® english language and composition 2015 scoring guidelines

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION

2015 SCORING GUIDELINES

Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

Question 1

The essay’s score should reflect the essay’s quality as a whole. Remember that students had only 15

inutes to read the sources and 40 minutes to write; the essay, therefore, is not a finished product and

should not be judged by standards appropriate for an out-of-class assignment. Evaluate the essay as a

draft, making certain to reward students for what they do well.

All essays, even those scored 8 or 9, may contain occasional lapses in analysis, prose style, or mechanics.

Such features should enter into your holistic evaluation of an essay’s overall quality. In no case should you

give a score higher than a 2 to a paper with errors in grammar and mechanics that persistently interfere

with your understanding of meaning.

_______________

____________________________________________________________________________

9 – Essays earning a score of 9 meet the criteria for the score of 8 and, in addition, are especially

sop

histicated in their argument, thorough in development, or impressive in their control of language.

8 – Effective

Essays earning a score of 8 effectively a

rgue a position on whether a school should establish, maintain,

reconsider, or eliminate an honor code or honor system. They develop their argument by effectively

synthesizing* at least three of the sources. The evidence and explanations used are appropriate and

conv

incing. Their prose demonstrates a consistent ability to control a wide range of the elements of

effective writing but is not necessarily flawless.

7 – Essays earning a score of 7 meet the criteria for the score of 6 but provide more complete

explanation, more thorough development, or a more mature prose style.

6 – Adequate

Essays earning a score of 6 adequately a

rgue a position on whether a school should establish, maintain,

revise, or eliminate an honor code or honor system. They develop their argument by adequately

synthesizing at least three of the sources. The evidence and explanations used are appropriate and

sufficient. The language may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but generally the prose is clear.

5 – E

ssays earning a score of 5 argue a position on whether a school should establish, maintain, revise, or

eliminate an honor code or honor system. They develop their argument by synthesizing at least three

sources, but how they use and explain sources may be uneven, inconsistent, or limited. The writer’s

argument is generally clear, and the sources generally develop the writer’s position, but the links between

the sources and the argument may be strained. The writing may contain lapses in diction or syntax, but it

usually conveys the writer’s ideas.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION

2015 SCORING GUIDELINES

Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

Question 1 (continued)

4 – Inadequate

Essays earning a score of 4 inadequately argue a position on whether a school should establish,

maintain, revise, or eliminate an honor code or honor system. They develop their argument by synthesizing

at least two sources, but the evidence or explanations used may be inappropriate, insufficient, or

unconvincing. The sources may dominate the student’s attempts at development, the link between the

argument and the sources may be weak, or the student may misunderstand, misrepresent, or oversimplify

the sources. The prose generally conveys the writer’s ideas but may be inconsistent in controlling the

elements of effective writing.

3 – Essays earning a score of 3 meet the criteria for the score of 4 but demonstrate less success in

arguing a

position on whether a school should establish, maintain, revise, or eliminate an honor code or

honor system. They are less perceptive in their understanding of the sources, or their explanation or

examples may be particularly limited or simplistic. The essays may show less maturity in their control

of writing.

2 – Little Success

Essays earning a score of 2 demonstrate little success in a

rguing a position on whether a school should

establish, maintain, revise, or eliminate an honor code or honor system. They may merely allude to

knowledge gained from reading the sources rather than citing the sources themselves. The student may

misread the sources, fail to develop a position, or substitute a simpler task by merely summarizing or

categorizing the sources or by merely responding to the prompt tangentially with unrelated, inaccurate, or

inappropriate explanation. The prose often demonstrates consistent weaknesses in writing, such as

grammatical problems, a lack of development or organization, or a lack of control.

1 – Essays earning a score of 1 meet the criteria for the score of 2 but are undeveloped, especially

simpl

istic in their explanation, weak in their control of writing, or do not allude to or cite even one

source.

0 – Indicates an off-topic response, one that merely repeats the prompt, an entirely crossed-out response, a

draw

ing, or a response in a language other than English.

— Indicates an entirely blank response.

∗

For the purposes of scoring, synthesis means using sources to develop a position and citing them

accurately.

Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION

2015 S

CORING COMMENTARY

Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

Question 1

Overview

its label “Synthesis” suggests, Question 1 was intended to test students’ abilities to combine and

coordinate several academic literacy skills in concert. These skills in reading, writing and thinking may be

categorized as follows: 1) comprehension of the prompt; 2) comprehension and critique of individual verbal

and visual texts; 3) synthetic or “holistic” comprehension of a multiperspectival inquiry — the “academic

conversation” represented by the sources collectively; 4) academic argumentation, the student’s own entry

into the conversation; 5) acknowledgement and explanation of other sources’ contributions to the students’

argument.

This year’s prompt directed students to apply their reading of the sources to their own lives, developing

independent arguments on whether and/or how their own schools should “establish, maintain, reconsider, or

eliminate” an honor code. The prompt defined honor codes as “sets of rules or principles that are intended to

cultivate integrity” and that “often take the form of written positions on practices like cheating, stealing, and

plagiarizing as well as on the consequences of violating the established codes.” The prompt also directed

students to synthesize a minimum of three of the six sources and to clearly identify the sources they decided

to use, offering two citation style options — author’s names or letters A-F. The prompt specified that

citations are needed regardless of the form in which the sources’ contributions are presented — as

quotations, paraphrases, or summaries. Students were cautioned not to confuse the argument task of this

question with a demand for “mere summary,” i.e., mere comprehension of the sources without critical

analysis of their arguments and critical consideration of their multiple perspectives. Instead, they were to

“use” the sources in constructing their own independent arguments. By asking students to focus their

responses on their own schools, this year’s synthesis prompt invited students to bring first-person

experiences and observations into conversation with the sources.

Sample: 1A

Score: 7

This essay adequately argues that honor codes “should be implemented in all schools because they foster

honest academic environments, they are proven to reduce levels of cheating when put into practice, and the

codes are adaptable to fit any environment.” Recognizing that some might dispute the effectiveness of honor

codes and “the creation of a ‘big brother’-esque environment,” the essay refutes the skeptics’ arguments by

pointing out that schools with honor codes are able to rely on peer-monitoring of exams (Source F) and to

reduce the likelihood of cheating through punishment and social disapproval (Source C). This line of

argument is developed by synthesizing appropriate and sufficient evidence from the sources. However, at

times, the essay makes a more general claim than the sources support, demonstrating an adequate but not

effective argument. For example, the essay concludes by arguing that all schools should implement honor

codes without considering the nuances of the issue. Nevertheless, the essay demonstrates a more thorough

development and more mature prose style than an essay scored 6, so it earned a score of 7.

Sample: 1B

Score: 4

This essay inadequately argues that the honor system at the student’s school “should be maintained because

of its fairness to students while also punishing them for their actions.” Using only two sources (Sources B and

C), the essay exhibits an insufficient synthesis of the sources as well as inadequate support for the argument.

For example, the essay inaccurately draws upon Source B to claim that Alyssa Vangelli “admits that her

school of Lawrence Academy is over the top with the honor system”; what the source actually says is that

students at Lawrence revised a draft of the honor code which would have required students to write an honor

pledge on all assignments, not that this requirement was ever instituted. More importantly, this

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION

2015 SCORING COMMENTARY

Question 1 (continued)

source is not employed to support the argument for maintaining an honor code. The essay asserts that the

student’s school has a “solid” honor system but provides insufficient evidence for this claim. Midway through

the essay, the student introduces a new idea, that “schools across the nation” should incorporate “a peer-

enforced honor system.” This argument is neither adequately explained nor supported. The prose generally

conveys the student’s ideas; however, this essay earned a score of 4 for the weak link between its argument

and the sources, its unconvincing arguments, and its inadequate explanations.

Sample: 1C

Score: 2

This essay demonstrates little success in arguing whether a school should establish, maintain, revise, or

eliminate an honor code. Instead, the essay largely substitutes the simpler task of arguing for the value of

honesty and other values in honor codes that have existed “for thousands of years.” Relying heavily on

summary rather than synthesis, the essay consistently fails to develop an argument or go beyond repeating

information from the sources; for example, the essay repeats Source F’s observation that a “common violation

of an Honor code … is plagiarism” but shows little success in using the source to develop or support an

argument. The essay confusingly concludes that the “frugality of an honor code can be reinforced by

applicable teachings early in a child’s schooling career.” For its inappropriate explanations, lack of

development, and failure to address the prompt, the essay earned a score of 2.

Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.