Developmental Rubric for Year 9 English: Cohesive Devices
Overview
This developmental rubric is designed to assess Year 9 students on their understanding of cohesive devices, specifically how they employ nominalisation and other techniques to condense information, link ideas, and structure their texts. The rubric is aligned with the Australian Curriculum and encourages the development of coherent and cohesive writing skills.
Content Descriptor
Students are expected to understand how a range of cohesive devices, including nominalisation, condense information in texts and link, expand, and sequence ideas.
Rubric Criteria
The following criteria will be used to evaluate student performance:
1. Understanding of Cohesive Devices
- Excellent (A): Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of a wide range of cohesive devices, including nominalisation. Effectively explains how these devices function to condense information and enhance text coherence.
- Good (B): Shows a clear understanding of several cohesive devices. Accurately explains how these devices condense information and contribute to text coherence.
- Satisfactory (C): Demonstrates basic understanding of cohesive devices. Recognizes some instances of nominalisation and links, but explanations may lack detail.
- Needs Improvement (D): Limited understanding of cohesive devices. Struggles to provide examples and explanations of their functions in texts.
2. Application of Cohesive Devices in Writing
- Excellent (A): Uses a diverse range of cohesive devices effectively and purposefully throughout the writing. Demonstrates skillful use of nominalisation to condense complex ideas without losing clarity.
- Good (B): Utilises a good variety of cohesive devices. Uses nominalisation appropriately but may not always achieve maximum clarity or conciseness.
- Satisfactory (C): Employs basic cohesive devices but with limited variety. Occasional use of nominalisation that may not effectively condense information or link ideas clearly.
- Needs Improvement (D): Rarely uses cohesive devices in writing. Minimal use of nominalisation, resulting in unclear or poorly structured texts.
3. Clarity and Coherence of Ideas
- Excellent (A): Ideas are presented logically and coherently, with strong linking phrases that guide the reader through the text. Excellent use of sequencing enhances the flow of information.
- Good (B): Ideas are mostly clear and coherent, with appropriate linking. Some minor lapses in sequencing may occasionally disrupt the flow but do not significantly hinder understanding.
- Satisfactory (C): Ideas are presented in a basic sequence but may lack clarity or coherence at times. Linking phrases are used, but their effectiveness may vary.
- Needs Improvement (D): Ideas are often unclear and poorly sequenced. Lacks effective linking, making it challenging for the reader to follow the argument or narrative.
4. Mechanics and Language Use
- Excellent (A): Demonstrates mastery of language conventions, including grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Language is varied and well-suited to the intended audience.
- Good (B): Generally accurate use of language conventions with minor errors that do not impede understanding. Language choices are appropriate for the audience.
- Satisfactory (C): Some errors in language conventions are evident but do not significantly distract from comprehension. Language choices are basic and occasionally repetitive.
- Needs Improvement (D): Frequent errors in language conventions that hinder readability and understanding. Language choices are limited and may not fit the intended audience.
Conclusion
This rubric serves as a comprehensive tool for assessing Year 9 students’ grasp of cohesive devices, particularly nominalisation. It supports educators in identifying areas of strength and opportunities for growth in students' writing skills. The framework encourages students to focus on coherence, clarity, and effective communication in their texts.
Note: This rubric can be adapted or expanded based on specific classroom needs, including additional criteria or a different scoring system.