Cultural Comparison
|
|
|
Strong
5 pts
|
Good
4 pts
|
Fair
3 pts
|
Weak
2 pts
|
Poor
1 pts
|
|
|
Effective treatment of topic within the context of the task
|
Generally effective treatment of topic within the context of the task
|
Suitable treatment of topic within the context of the task
|
Unsuitable treatment of topic within the context of the task
|
Almost no treatment of topic within the context of the task
|
|
|
Clearly compares the student's community with the target culture, including supporting details and relevant examples
|
Compares the student's own community with the target culture, including some supporting details and mostly relevant examples
|
Presents information only about the student's own community or only about the target culture, including a few supporting details and examples
|
Presents information only about the student's own community or only about the target culture, but may not compare them; consists mostly of statements with no development
|
Presents information only about the student's own community or only about the target culture, and may not include examples
|
Understanding the target culture
|
Demonstrates understanding of the target culture, despite a few minor inaccuracies
|
Demonstrates some understanding of the target culture, despite minor inaccuracies
|
Demonstrates a basic understanding of the target culture, despite inaccuracies
|
Demonstrates a limited understanding of the target culture; may include several inaccuracies
|
Demonstrates minimal understanding of the target culture; generally inaccurate
|
|
|
Organized presentation; effective use of transitional elements or cohesive devices
|
Organized presentation; some effective use of transitional elements or cohesive devices
|
Some organization; limited use of transitional elements or cohesive devices
|
Limited organization; ineffective use of transitional elements or cohesive devices
|
Little or no organization; absence of transitional elements and cohesive devices
|
|
|
Fully understandable, with ease and clarity of expression; occasional errors do not impede comprehensibility
|
Fully understandable, with some errors which do not impede comprehensibility
|
Generally understandable, with errors that may impede comprehensibility
|
Partially understandable, with errors that force interpretation and cause confusion for the listener
|
Barely understandable, with frequent or significant errors that impede comprehensibility
|
Vocabulary and idiomatic language
|
Accuracy and variety in grammar, syntax, and usage, with few errors
|
Varied and generally appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic language
|
Appropriate but basic vocabulary and idiomatic language
|
Limited vocabulary and idiomatic language
|
Very few vocabulary resources
|
|
|
Mostly consistent use of register appropriate for the presentation
|
Generally consistent use of register appropriate for the presentation, except for occasional shifts
|
Use of register may be inappropriate for the presentation with several shifts
|
Use of register is generally inappropriate for the presentation
|
Minimal or no attention to register
|
Grammar, syntax, and usagea
|
Accuracy and variety in grammar, syntax, and usage, with few errors
|
General control of grammar, syntax, and usage
|
Some control of grammar, syntax, and usage
|
Limited control of grammar, syntax, and usage
|
Little or no control of grammar, syntax, and usage
|
Pronunciation, intonation, pacing
|
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response comprehensible; errors do not impede comprehensibility
|
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response mostly comprehensible; errors do not impede comprehensibility
|
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response generally comprehensible; errors occasionally impede comprehensibility
|
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response difficult to comprehend at times; errors impede comprehensibility
|
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response difficult to comprehend; errors impede comprehensibility
|