AP Seminar Samples and Commentary from the 2019 Exam Administration: Performance … · AP Seminar Samples and Commentary from the 2019 Exam Administration: Performance Task 1 - Individual
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2019
AP®
Seminar Performance Task 1Sample Student Responses and Scoring Commentary
The report identifies an overly broad or simplistic area of investigation and/ or shows little evidence of research. A simplistic connection or no connection is made to the overall problem or issue.
2 Pts
The report identifies an adequately focused area of investigation in the research and shows some variety in source selection. It makes some reference to the overall problem or issue.
4 Pts
The report situates the student’s investigation of the complexities of a problem or issue in research that draws upon a wide variety of appropriate sources. It makes clear the significance to a larger context.
6 Pts
6
2 UNDERSTAND AND ANALYZE ARGUMENT
The report restates or misstates information from sources. It doesn’t address reasoning in the sources or it does so in a very simplistic way.
2 Pts
The report summarizes information and in places offers effective explanation of the reasoning within the sources’ argument (but does so inconsistently).
4 Pts
The report demonstrates an understanding of the reasoning and validity of the sources' arguments.* This can be evidenced by direct explanation or through purposeful use of the reasoning and conclusions.
6 Pts
6
3 EVALUATE SOURCES AND EVIDENCE
The report identifies evidence from chosen sources. It makes very simplistic, illogical, or no reference to the credibility of sources and evidence, and their relevance to the inquiry.
2 Pts
The report in places offers some effective explanation of the chosen sources and evidence in terms of their credibility and relevance to the inquiry (but does so inconsistently).
4 Pts
The report demonstrates evaluation of credibility of the sources and selection of relevant evidence from the sources. Both can be evidenced by direct explanation or through purposeful use.
6 Pts
6
4 UNDERSTAND AND ANALYZE PERSPECTIVE
The report identifies few and/or oversimplified perspectives from sources.**
2 Pts
The report identifies multiple perspectives from sources, making some general connections among those perspectives.**
4 Pts
The report discusses a range of perspectives and draws explicit and relevant connections among those perspectives.**
6 Pts
6
5 APPLY CONVENTIONS
The report includes many errors in attribution and citation OR the bibliography is inconsistent in style and format and/or incomplete.
1 Pts
The report attributes or cites sources used but not always accurately. The bibliography references sources using a consistent style.
2 Pts
The report attributes and accurately cites the sources used. The bibliography accurately references sources using a consistent style.
*For the purposes of AP Seminar, “validity” is defined in the glossary of the CED as “the extent to which an argument or claim is logical.” ** For the purposes of AP Seminar, “perspective” is defined in the glossary of the CED as “a point of view conveyed through an argument.” Additional Scores In addition to the scores represented on the rubrics, readers can also assign scores of 0 (zero) and NR (No Response). 0 (Zero) • A score of 0 is assigned to a single row of the rubric when the response displays a below-minimum level of quality as identified in that row of the
rubric. For rows 1 to 4, if there is no evidence of any research (i.e., it is all opinion and there is nothing in the bibliography, no citation or attributed phrases in the response) then a score of 0 should be assigned.
• Scores of 0 are assigned to all rows of the rubric when the response is off-topic; a repetition of a prompt; entirely crossed-out; a drawing or other markings; or a response in a language other than English.
NR (NO Response) A score of NR is assigned to responses that are blank.
Row/Proficiency Points earned for… MAX Points
6 APPLY CONVENTIONS
The report contains many flaws in grammar that often interfere with communication to the reader. The written style is not appropriate for an academic audience.
1 Pts
The report is generally clear but contains some flaws in grammar that occasionally interfere with communication to the reader. The written style is inconsistent and not always appropriate for an academic audience.
2 Pts
The report communicates clearly to the reader (although may not be free of errors in grammar and style). The written style is consistently appropriate for an academic audience.
3 Pts
3
How to Address the Heroin Epidemic of the United States: Foreign Considerations
According to Madison C. Ratycz, Thomas J. Papadimos, and Allison A. Vanderbilt of the
College of Medicine and Life Sciences at the University of Toledo, drug overdose deaths in the
United States more than tripled from 1999 to 2016 (Ratycz, Madison C., et al. 1). Ratycz and her
colleagues assert that heroin especially contributed to this increase in overdose deaths (Ratycz,
Madison C., et al. 1). Shane Darke of the National Drug Abuse and Research Center at the
University of New South Wales clarifies that “overdose” is a catch-all term used to describe
heroin-related deaths in general; most heroin-related deaths are caused by polydrug toxicity
(Darke 2061). As such, the issue discussed hereinafter is heroin-related mortality in general, not
heroin-related mortality caused by dosage. As stated, heroin-related mortality has reached
epidemic proportions in the U.S. However, the U.S. is not alone in its war on heroin; European
countries, Asian countries, and other North American countries are battling the opioid as well.
What can the United States learn from the successes and failures of other countries in addressing
their heroin epidemics and apply to its own heroin epidemic?
According to Kamil Alptekin of KTO Karatay University in Turkey and his colleagues,
“research regarding the nationwide prevalence of substance use” and, by extension, heroin use
“in Turkey has been limited” (Alptekin, et al. 578), but a study on the development of addiction
syndrome in Turkey conducted by Turkish researchers Melike Nebioğlu, Hacer Yalnız, Fatma
M. Güven, and Ömer Geçici revealed that an increase in heroin use has been seen among Turkish
people in younger age groups (Nebioğlu 37). In a study that researched the transit flows of
Afghan heroin through Turkey to southwest Asia and Europe, Behsat Ekici and Adem Coban of
the Department of Anti-Smuggling and Organized Crime in Turkey recommended, among other
Note: Student samples are quoted verbatim and may contain spelling and grammatical errors.
Overview
This task assessed the student’s ability:
• To investigate a particular approach or range of perspectives on a research topic selected by a student team;
• To conduct scholarly research relevant to the topic;
• To produce an evaluative, analytic report on the research conducted, analyzing the reasoning within the texts reviewed and the relevance and credibility of the evidence utilized in those texts.
Sample: A 1 Understand and Analyze Context Score: 6 2 Understand and Analyze Arg Score: 6 3 Evaluate Sources and Evidence Score: 6 4 Understand and Analyze Persp Score: 6 5 Apply Conventions Score: 3 6 Apply Conventions Score: 3
HIGH SAMPLE RESPONSE
Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context — The report earned a score of 6 for this row because, from the first sentence, it situates the topic in the research literature, which includes a deep list of academic journals, reviews, and reports. At first glance, the scope of the Works Cited list might appear to be scattered (sources about the U.S., Turkey, Europe, and India). However, the report continually brings the reader back to the focus on “foreign considerations,” on what the U.S. might learn from studying research literature from other countries. The introduction to the report draws on the research literature to underscore the significance of the problem: “drug overdose deaths in the United States more than tripled from 1999 to 2016,” reaching “epidemic” status.
Row 2: Understand and Analyze Argument — The report earned a score of 6 for this row because it leads the reader through the arguments in the research literature collected. Throughout, there are abundant markers that trace causation, problems and solutions or proposed solutions, or strengths and limitations of policies. The report also traces logic within individual sources. (E.g., see the treatment of the Jain source on the bottom of page 3, top of page 4: “They reason that buprenorphine and clonidine are equal in efficacy and that clonidine can reduce cravings for opioids.”)
Row 3: Evaluate Sources and Evidence — The report earned a score of 6 for this row because the sources for the report have been carefully selected and purposefully used. (There is no need for the report writer to tell us that these are “peer-reviewed” journals because the Works Cited does this work.) Attributive tags, on the whole, clarify either relevance or credibility or both. (E.g., on page 1: “Shane Darke of the National Drug Abuse and Research Center” tethers back to the journal Addiction and is clearly relevant in the context of heroin addiction.)
Row 4: Understand and Analyze Perspective — The report earned a score of 6 for this row because paragraphs consistently signal precise topics, present arguments from multiple sources, and explicitly link those sources. (E.g., on page 1 the writer draws from three separate academic sources to explicitly discuss the extent of heroin use in Turkey and the problem of how the drug enters the country. The next paragraph connects back to the U.S. context and looks to Turkey’s liaison officer as a possible model for the U.S.)
Row 5: Apply Conventions (Attribution) — The report earned a score of 3 for this row because the Works Cited page is consistent and complete. In-text citations clearly connect to each source on the Works Cited: The in-text and bibliography match with no extraneous sources. Within the body of the report, attribution of source material is clear.
Row 6: Apply Conventions (Grammar and Style) — The report earned a score of 3 for this row because the writing conveys complex information with clarity and precision. The tone is appropriate for an academic report. It contains few flaws.
Sample: B 1 Understand and Analyze Context Score: 4 2 Understand and Analyze Arg Score: 4 3 Evaluate Sources and Evidence Score: 4 4 Understand and Analyze Persp Score: 4 5 Apply Conventions Score: 2 6 Apply Conventions Score: 2
MEDIUM SAMPLE RESPONSE
Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context — The report earned a score of 4 for this row because the research is adequately focused on the health benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet on three “modern day health issues” — life expectancy, heart disease, and obesity. Any of these areas might form the basis for a more focused, complex report, but here, all are ambitiously grouped together. There is evidence of some variety in source selection, although it is frequently unclear what kinds of sources are being used to establish context. The report makes clear that diet choices significantly impact health.
Row 2: Understand and Analyze Argument — The report earned a score of 4 for this row because there is a mixture of effective explanation of source arguments combined with instances of misunderstood or simplistic interpretation. (E.g., Arias example, page 2: It is unclear from the evidence that the 3.6 years “is on top of the life expectancy increase already in place.” See also the Thorogood example, page 3: It is unclear how the student inferred that vegetarians die less often from heart disease than non-vegetarians.) In other places the analysis is brief but apt.
Row 3: Evaluate Sources and Evidence — The report earned a score of 4 for this row because the report writer’s references to credibility are frequently merely descriptive. While CDC information is used well, elsewhere there is insufficient attention paid to the type of source used: Attributive tags frequently refer generally to “papers,” with all papers treated equally. The exact source of the evidence is in many places unclear. The evidence used is generally relevant to the topic.
Row 4: Understand and Analyze Perspective — The report earned a score of 4 for this row because some perspectives are identified and appropriately signaled by paragraph organization (on heart disease, life expectancy, and obesity). The writer has appropriately grouped multiple sources in each paragraph, but connections among sources are general and must be inferred.
Row 5: Apply Conventions (Attribution) — The report earned a score of 2 for this row because there are some instances of unsuccessful linking between in-text citations and the bibliography (e.g., “Editors”), some in-text citations with missing bibliographic entries (e.g., Thorogood), and some additional bibliographic entries not used in the text (e.g., Dwyer).
Row 6: Apply Conventions (Grammar and Style) — The report earned a score of 2 for this row because the writing is generally clear, but there are some instances of imprecise language (e.g., “One thing that can determine”). In other places, the writer exhibits a lack of control over the flow of information. For instance, on page 2: “In a paper by Winston J Craig and Ann Reed Mangals, in association with the American Dietetic Association, titled ‘Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets’, says that ‘vegetarians [are] at lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease than non vegetarians’ (Craig et al, pg. 7).” Or, on page 3, consider the fragment “Thus inferring that a vegetarian diet is beneficial towards people looking to be less obese.”
Sample: C 1 Understand and Analyze Context Score: 2 2 Understand and Analyze Arg Score: 2 3 Evaluate Sources and Evidence Score: 2 4 Understand and Analyze Persp Score: 2 5 Apply Conventions Score: 1 6 Apply Conventions Score: 1
LOW SAMPLE RESPONSE
Row 1: Understand and Analyze Context — The report earned a score of 2 for this row because the area of investigation (“Killing animals isn’t art”) is overly broad. Additionally, the report becomes focused on animals — often at the expense of any mention of art (e.g., there is a lot of information about the rhino horn with only the briefest mention of its use in art). The writer’s opinions, rather than the research, establish the context.
Row 2: Understand and Analyze Argument — The report earned a score of 2 for this row because it mainly restates (possibly misstates) information from the sources. Where commentary is present, it is brief and illogical. (E.g., on the top of page 2, the paraphrased information points to a decrease in poaching, but the commentary reads, “In other words, rhino poaching has increased.”) Overall, information is presented; arguments are not articulated or analyzed.
Row 3: Evaluate Sources and Evidence — The report earned a score of 2 for this row because the statements concerning credibility and relevance are simple or absent. (E.g., in the first paragraph, the report states that “Africa is home to 80 percent of the worlds 29,000 rhinos” but does not reference a source and does not provide a discussion of the relevance of this information.) The only reference to credibility is found in the second paragraph where the response references “Edna Mole a South Africa environment minister.” Mole is not found in the Works Cited, so credibility cannot be established through source selection.
Row 4: Understand and Analyze Perspective — The report earned a score of 2 for this row because it does not clearly identify arguments from the sources presented, nor does it connect arguments from sources.
Row 5: Apply Conventions (Attribution) — The report earned a score of 1 for this row because, while it contains a well-organized Works Cited page with three sources, it provides no evidence of in-text citations that link to it. The National Geographic source used in the introduction is not included on the Works Cited page.
Row 6: Apply Conventions (Grammar and Style) — The report earned a score of 1 for this row because of its colloquial tone and many distracting errors throughout. Issues in grammar and tone begin with the very first sentences (“Have you thought about animals poaching? Or on animals being used for art.”). These issues persist throughout the response.