Volusia Literacy Test

VLT Rubric & ScoringFriday September 25th

AgendaVocab Quiz List 4VLT Rubric HandoutScore ExplanationPeer Score Practice VLTExit QuestionsVocab QuizYou MAY write on the yellow sheetsTurn it in to the drop box when youre finishedYou have 7 minutes Volusia Literacy Test (VLT)

+

Planning

Reading Text

=

Your EssayGrades 8-11Informative/Explanatory Text-Based Writing Rubric

This is the rubric that will be used to grade your writing for the Volusia Literacy Test, or VLT. (Pass this out)5Using your Informative/Explanatory Rubric:Read the entire rubric both sides.Highlight adjectives (descriptive words) as you read.

Informative/Explanatory (also used for Literary Analysis)

DomainsPurpose, Focus, and OrganizationEvidence and ElaborationConventions of Standard English

Domain 1: Purpose, Focus, and Organizationcontrolling idea/claim structureprogression of ideastransitioncohesionstyletoneaudienceintroduction and conclusion

40 %Domain 2: Evidence and Elaborationtextual supportreferences to sourcesexpression of ideaselaboration techniquesprecise languageacademic and domain-specific vocabularysentence structure40 %Domain 3: Conventions of Standard Englishusagepunctuationcapitalizationsentence formationspelling20 %The Rubric ScorePurpose, Focus, and Organization Score0 - 4 _____Evidence and Elaboration Score0 - 4 _____Conventions of Standard English Score0 - 2+ _____ESSAY SCORE:0 - 10Essays can earn 10 possible points321611Peer EditChoose a partner (ONE!)Switch papers, and read each others essay.Score the essay as best as you can according to the rubric. Write the score for each section and then total it on the blue score card stapled to the top of the essay.Then, somewhere on their essay, finish the following sentences:The strongest part of the essay was _________.One suggestion I would make to improve your score would be ___.I really liked ______.Earth's two moons? It's not lunacy, but new theoryThe Associated PressPublished: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 5:50 p.m.

This diagram provided by Martin Jutzi and Erik Asphaug, University of California, Santa Cruz via Nature, shows a simulation of four stages of a collision between the Moon and a companion moon, four percent of the lunar mass, about 4 billion years ago. Earth once had a second moon, until it made the fatal mistake of smacking its big sister, some astronomers now theorize. For a while when the Earth was young, it had a big moon, the one you see now, and a smaller "companion moon" orbiting above. Then one day that smaller moon collided into the bigger one in what astronomers are calling the "big splat." (The Associated Press)

1. WASHINGTON In a spectacle that might have beguiled poets, lovers and songwriters if only they had been around to see it, Earth once had two moons, astronomers now think. But the smaller one smashed into the other in what is being called the "big splat."2. The result: Our planet was left with a single bulked-up and ever-so-slightly lopsided moon.3. The astronomers came up with the scenario to explain why the moon's far side is so much more hilly than the one that is always facing Earth.4. The theory, outlined Wednesday in the journal Nature, comes complete with computer model runs showing how it might have happened and an illustration that looks like the bigger moon getting a pie in the face.5. Outside experts said the idea makes sense, but they aren't completely sold yet.6. This all supposedly happened about 4.4 billion years ago, long before there was any life on Earth to gaze up and see the strange sight of dual moons. The moons themselves were young, formed about 100 million years earlier when a giant planet smashed into Earth. They both orbited Earth and sort of rose in the sky together, the smaller one trailing a few steps behind like a little sister in tow.7. The smaller one was a planetary lightweight. The other was three times wider and 25 times heavier, its gravity so strong that the smaller one just couldn't resist, even though it was parked a good bit away.8. "They're destined to collide. There's no way out. ... This big splat is a low-velocity collision," said study co-author Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.9. What Asphaug calls a slow crash is relative: It happened at more than 5,000 mph, but that's about as slow as possible when you are talking planetary smashups. It's slow enough that the rocks didn't melt.10. And because the smaller moon was more than 600 miles wide, the crash took a while to finish even at 5,000 mph. Asphaug likened the smaller moon to a rifle bullet and said, "People would be bored looking at it because it's taking 10 minutes just for the bullet to bury itself in the moon. This is an event if you were looking at, you'd need a big bag of popcorn."11. The rocks and crust from the smaller moon would have spread over and around the bigger moon without creating a crater, as a faster crash would have done.12. "The physics is really surprisingly similar to a pie in the face," Asphaug said.13. And about a day later, everything was settled and the near and far sides of the moon looked different, Asphaug said.14. Co-author Martin Jutzi of the University of Bern in Switzerland said the study was an attempt to explain the odd crust and mountainous terrain of the moon's far side. Asphaug noticed it looked as if something had been added to the surface, so the duo started running computer simulations of cosmic crashes.15. Earth had always been an oddball in the solar system as the only planet with a single moon. While Venus and Mercury have no moons, Mars has two, while Saturn and Jupiter have more than 60 each. Even tiny Pluto, which was demoted to dwarf status, has four moons.16. The theory was the buzz this week in Woods Hole, Mass., at a conference of scientists working on NASA's next robotic mission to the moon, said H. Jay Melosh of Purdue University.17. "We can't find anything wrong with it," Melosh said. "It may or may not be right."18. Planetary scientist Alan Stern, former NASA associate administrator for science, said it is a "very clever new idea," but one that is not easily tested to learn whether it is right.19. A second moon isn't just an astronomical matter. The moon plays a big role in literature and song. And poet Todd Davis, a professor of literature at Penn State University, said this idea of two moons one essentially swallowing the other will capture the literary imagination.20. "I'll probably be dreaming about it and trying to work on a poem," he said.

Grades 6-11 Informative/Explanatory Text-based Writing Rubric (Score points within each domain include most of the characteristics below.)ScorePurpose, Focus, and Organization (4-point)Evidence and Elaboration (4-point)Conventions of Standard English(2-point - begins at score point 2)

4The response is fully sustained and consistently focused within purpose, audience, and task; clear and effective organizational structure; coherent and complete. Response includes most of the following:*Strongly maintained controlling idea w/ little or no loosely related material*Skillful variety of transitional strategies to clarify the relationships between and among ideas*Logical progression of ideas from beginning to end with a satisfying introduction and conclusion* Appropriate style and objective tone established and maintained The response provides thorough and convincing support citing evidence for the controlling or main idea; includes effective use of sources, facts, and details. The response includes most of the following:* Smoothly integrated, thorough, & relevant evidence, including precise references to sources* Effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques, (including definitions, quotations, and examples)* Clear and effective expression of ideas, using precise language*Academic & domain-specific vocabulary appropriate for the audience and purpose*Various sentence structures demonstrating language facility

3The response is adequately sustained and generally focused within the purpose, audience, and task; and it has evident organizational structure with a sense of completeness. The response includes most of the following:*Maintained controlling idea, though some loosely related material may be present*Adequate use of a variety of transitional strategies with to clarify the relationships between and among ideas*Adequate progression of ideas from beginning to end with a sufficient introduction and conclusion*Appropriate style and objective tone establishedThe response provides adequate support citing evidence for the controlling idea or main idea that includes the use of sources, facts, and details. The response includes most of the following:*Generally integrated and relevant evidence from sources, though references may be general or imprecise* Adequate use of some elaborative techniques*Adequate expression of ideas, employing a mix of precise and general language* Domain-specific vocabulary generally appropriate for the audience and purpose*Some variation in sentence structure

2The response is somewhat sustained within the purpose, audience, and task but may include loosely related or extraneous material; and it may have an inconsistent organizational structure. The response may include the following:*Focused on controlling idea but insufficiently sustained/unclear*Inconsistent use of transitional strategies with little variety*Uneven progression of ideas from beginning to end with an inadequate introduction or conclusionThe response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence for the controlling idea or main idea that includes partial use of sources, facts, and details. The response may include the following:*Weakly integrated source evidence and erratic or irrelevant references*Repetitive or ineffective use of elaborative techniques* Imprecise or simplistic expression of ideas*Some use of inappropriate domain-specific vocabulary* Most sentences limited to simple constructionsThe response demonstrates an adequate command of basic conventions. The response may include the following:* Some minor errors in usage but no patterns of errors* Adequate use of punctuation, capitalization, sentence formation, and spelling

1The response is related to the topic but may demonstrate little or no awareness of the purpose, audience, and task; and it may have little or no discernible organizational structure. The response may include the following:*Confusing or ambiguous ideas* Few or no transitional strategies*Frequent extraneous ideas impeding understanding* Too brief to demonstrate knowledge of focus or organizationThe response provides minimal support/evidence for the controlling idea/ main idea, including little if any use of sources, facts, and details. The response may include the following:* Minimal, absent, erroneous, or irrelevant evidence from the source material*Expression of ideas that is vague, unclear, or confusing* Limited/often inappropriate language or domain specific vocabulary* Sentences limited to simple constructionsThe response demonstrates a partial command of basic conventions. The response may include the following:* Various errors in usage*Inconsistent use of correct punctuation, capitalization, sentence formation, and spelling

0The response demonstrates a lack of command of conventions, with frequent and severe errors often obscuring meaning.