Criteria for assessing the exam in the Russian language fipi. criteria for evaluating a written statement with elements of reasoning. Involving the text of the work for argumentation
What changes in the KIM USE await its participants in 2019? We will find the answer to this question on the official website of FIPI, where, together with the demo versions of the USE in 2019, a certificate of planned changes in KIM in all subjects was published.
This help contains brief information, in more detail the changes are described in the demo versions of the exam in the specification file.
Changes in the Unified State Examination 2019 - a certificate from FIPI
Changes in KIM USE 2019 from the official website of FIPI
| Subject | Changes in KIM USE 2019 |
| Maths | No changes |
| Russian language | - The number of tasks in the examination paper has been increased from 26 to 27 due to the introduction of a new task (21), which tests the ability to conduct punctuation analysis of the text. The format of tasks 2, 9–12 has been changed. The range of tested spelling and punctuation skills has been expanded. The level of difficulty of individual tasks has been clarified. The wording of task 27 with a detailed answer has been clarified. The criteria for assessing task 27 have been clarified. |
| Biology | The task model in line 2 has been changed (instead of a two-point multiple-choice task, a one-point task for working with a table has been proposed). The maximum primary score for completing the entire job has been reduced from 59 to 58. |
| Geography Physics Chemistry Informatics and ICT | No changes |
| Foreign languages | There are no changes in the structure and content of KIM. The criteria for evaluating the performance of task 40 of the “Writing” section in the written part of the exam were clarified, as well as the wording of task 40, in which the exam participant is offered a choice of two topics of a detailed written statement with elements of reasoning “My opinion” |
| Literature | The criteria for evaluating the performance of tasks with a detailed answer have been clarified: corrections have been made to the evaluation of tasks 8 and 15 (the wording of criterion 1 with a description of the requirements for an answer for 2 points, the rules for calculating actual errors in criterion 2), tasks 9 and 16 (in criteria 1 and 2, possible variants of flaws in the answer), tasks 17.1–17.4 (counting logical errors was added to criterion 4). |
| Social Studies | The wording of task 25 has been detailed and the scoring system has been redesigned. The maximum score for completing task 25 has been increased from 3 to 4. The wording of tasks 28, 29 has been detailed, and their scoring systems have been improved. The maximum primary score for completing the entire job has been increased from 64 to 65. |
| History | There are no changes in the structure and content of KIM. In task 21, an additional condition was added that determines the requirement for formatting the answer. Accordingly, the criteria for assessing task 21 have been supplemented. |
First of all, everyone is interested in changes in KIM in compulsory subjects: mathematics and the Russian language.
There are no changes in KIM USE 2019 in mathematics.
Comments on planned changes in KIM 2019 in Russian
The content of the examination paper in the Russian language allows you to check the extent to which secondary school graduates have formed each of the four competencies: language, linguistic, communicative and cultural studies. Most of the tasks of the 2018 examination paper with a short answer tested the language discrepancy) of any speech unit to the language norm.
Several multiple-choice items tested linguistic competence - the ability to recognize language units and classify them - and communicative competence - the ability to understand a statement, to coherently and logically build a text. Based on the fact that the formation of linguistic, linguistic and communicative competencies are equally important tasks of teaching the Russian language, the elements of verification related to the formation of linguistic competence have been strengthened in the 2019 examination paper.
Taking into account the importance of the Russian language in the development of the student's personality, his general and cognitive culture, the most important value orientation - the attitude towards the native language, it is advisable to consider the formation of linguistic competence not only as an obligatory and necessary condition for mastering speech activity, but also as a means of language development, expanding the linguistic horizons of students, their knowledge of the language as a specific sign system and social phenomenon, ultimately the formation of a linguistic personality.
All changes in the examination work in 2019 are due to the strengthening of the linguistic component in the test.
Below are the criteria for evaluating an essay (essay) at the Unified State Examination in the Russian language for 2019. In the new Russian language demos 2019 evaluation criteria have been changed K2 And K4.
What can give the most points:
- 5 points - for a comment on the source text problem - K2
- 3 points - for literacy: spelling (K7) and punctuation (K8)
Arguing your own opinion on the problem - REMOVED in 2019!
Criteria for evaluating the answer to task 27
K1 Statement of source text problems
- 1 point The examinee (in one form or another in any part of the essay) correctly formulated one of the problems of the original text. There are no factual errors related to the understanding and formulation of the problem.
- 0 points. The examinee could not correctly formulate any of the problems of the source text. *If the examinee did not formulate or formulated incorrectly (in one form or another in any part of the essay) one of the problems of the source text, then such a work according to the criteria K1-K4 is estimated at 0 points
K2 Commentary on the formulated problem of the original text
- 5 points. 2 examples-illustrations from the read text that are important for understanding the problem. An explanation is given for the 2 given examples. The semantic connection between them is revealed. There are no factual errors related to understanding the problem of the original text in the comment.
- 4 points. The problem formulated by the examinee is commented on based on the source text. The examinee brought at least 2 illustration examples from the read text, important for understanding the problem. An explanation is given for the 2 examples given, but no semantic connection between them is revealed,
or a semantic connection between the examples is revealed, but an explanation is given for only one example. There are no factual errors related to understanding the problem of the original text in the comment - 3 points. The problem formulated by the examinee is commented on based on the source text. The examinee brought at least 2 illustration examples from the read text, important for understanding the problem, but an explanation is given for only one example, the semantic connection between the examples is not revealed, or the examinee brought 1 illustration example from the read text, important for understanding the problem, and gave an explanation to it. There are no factual errors related to understanding the problem of the original text in the comment.
- 2 points. Examinee led 2 illustration examples from the read text, important for understanding the problem, but did not explain their meaning.
- 1 point Examinee led 1 illustration example from the read text, important for understanding the problem, but did not explain its meaning.
- 0 points. Examples-illustrations from the read text that are important for understanding the problem are not given, or
the problem is commented without relying on the source text, or the comment contains factual errors (one or more) related to the understanding of the source text, or commented on another problem not formulated by the examiner, or instead of a comment, a simple retelling of the text is given, or instead of a comment, a large fragment of the source text is quoted.
K3 Reflection of the position of the author of the original text
- 1 point The examinee correctly formulated the position of the author (narrator) of the source text on the commented problem. There are no actual errors related to understanding the position of the author of the source text.
- 0 points. The position of the author of the original text by the examinee is formulated incorrectly, or the position of the author of the original text is not formulated.
K4 Attitude to the position of the author on the problem of the source text
- 1 point The examinee expressed his attitude to the position of the author of the text on the problem (agreeing or disagreeing with the author) and substantiated it.
- 0 points. The examinee did not express his attitude to the position of the author of the text, or the examinee's thoughts do not correspond to the formulated problem, or the examinee's opinion is stated only formally (for example, "I agree / disagree with the author")
II. Speech design of the essay
K5 Semantic integrity, speech coherence and sequence of presentation
- 2 points. The examinee's work is characterized by semantic integrity, speech coherence and consistency of presentation: - there are no logical errors, the sequence of presentation is not broken; - there are no violations of paragraph articulation of the text in the work.
- 1 point The work of the examinee is characterized by semantic integrity, coherence and consistency of presentation, but 1 logical error was made, and/or there is 1 violation of paragraph articulation of the text in the work.
- 0 points. In the work of the examinee, a communicative intent is visible, but more than 1 logical error was made, and/or There are 2 cases of violation of paragraph articulation of the text.
K6 Accuracy and expressiveness of speech
- 2 points. The work of the examinee is characterized by the accuracy of the expression of thought, the variety of the grammatical structure of speech. * The highest score for this criterion is received by the examinee only if the highest score is obtained according to criterion K10.
- 1 point The work of the examinee is characterized by the accuracy of the expression of thought, but the monotony of the grammatical structure of speech is traced, or the work of the examinee is characterized by a variety of grammatical structure of speech, but there are violations of the accuracy of the expression of thought.
- 0 points. The work of the examinee is distinguished by the poverty of the dictionary and the monotony of the grammatical structure of speech.
III. Literacy
K7 Compliance with spelling rules
- 3 points. There are no spelling errors (or 1 minor error).
- 2 points. No more than 2 mistakes were made.
- 1 point 3-4 mistakes were made.
- 0 points. More than 4 mistakes were made.
K8 Compliance with punctuation rules
- 3 points. There are no punctuation errors (or 1 minor error).
- 2 points. 1–3 mistakes made
- 1 point 4-5 mistakes were made.
- 0 points. More than 5 mistakes were made.
K9 Language Compliance
- 2 points. There are no grammatical errors.
- 1 point 1-2 mistakes were made.
- 0 points. More than 2 errors were made.
K10 Compliance with speech norms
- 2 points. No more than 1 speech error allowed.
- 1 point Made 2-3 mistakes.
- 0 points. More than 3 errors were made.
K11 Ethical Compliance
- 1 point There are no ethical errors in the work.
- 0 points. Ethical errors made (1 or more).
K12 Maintain factual accuracy in background material
- 1 point There are no actual errors in the background material.
- 0 points. There are factual errors (1 or more) in the background material.
Maximum amount points for the entire written work (K1–K12) - 24 points.
- When assessing literacy (K7-K10), the volume of the essay should be taken into account.When counting words, both independent and auxiliary parts of speech are taken into account. Any sequence of words written without a space is counted (for example, "after all" - one word, "yet" - two words). Initials with a surname are considered one word (for example, "M.Yu. Lermontov" - one word). Any other characters, in particular numbers, are not taken into account when calculating (for example, "5 years" - one word, "five years" - two words.
- The assessment standards indicated in the table are designed for an essay of 150-300 words. If the essay contains a partially or completely rewritten text of the review of task 26 and / or information about the author of the text by the examinee, then the volume of such work is determined without taking into account the text of the review and / or information about the author of the text.
- If in an essay less than 70 words, then such work is not counted and 0 points are evaluated, the task is considered unfulfilled.
- When evaluating an essay with a volume of 70 to 150 words, the number of permissible errors of four types (K7–K10) decreases.
2 points for these criteria are given in the following cases:
- K7 - there are no spelling errors (or one minor mistake was made);
- K8 - there are no punctuation errors (or one minor mistake was made).
1 point for these criteria is given in the following cases:
- K7 - no more than two errors were made;
- K8 - one or three mistakes were made;
- K9 - no grammatical errors;
- K10 - no more than one speech error was made.
The highest score according to the K7–K12 criteria is not given for a work of 70 to 150 words.
- If the essay is a paraphrase or a completely rewritten source text without any comments, then such work for all aspects of the test (K1-K12) is estimated at 0 points.
- If the work, which is a rewritten or paraphrased source text, contains fragments of the text of the examinee, then only the number of words that belongs to the examinee is taken into account during the check. A work written without relying on the text read (not on this text) is not evaluated.
Solve in Russian
Changes in the Unified State Examination 2019 - a certificate from FIPI
Information about changes in KIM USE 2019
In KIM for all academic subjects, additional reminder instructions have been introduced for USE participants on checking the records of answers on forms No. 1 and No. 2 under the corresponding task numbers.
All changes in the KIM USE are not of a fundamental nature. For most subjects, the wording of assignments is being clarified and the system for assessing assignments is being improved to increase the differentiating ability of the examination work.
Table of changes in KIM USE 2019 from the official website of FIPI
| Subject | Changes in KIM USE 2019 |
| Mathematics Geography Physics Chemistry Informatics and ICT | No changes |
| Russian language | The number of tasks in the examination paper has been increased from 26 to 27 due to the introduction of a new task (21), which tests the ability to conduct punctuation analysis of the text. The format of tasks 2, 9–12 has been changed. The range of tested spelling and punctuation skills has been expanded. The level of difficulty of individual tasks has been clarified. The wording of task 27 with a detailed answer has been clarified. The criteria for assessing task 27 have been clarified. |
| Biology | The task model in line 2 has been changed (instead of a two-point multiple-choice task, a one-point task for working with a table has been proposed). The maximum primary score for completing the entire job has been reduced from 59 to 58. |
| Foreign languages | There are no changes in the structure and content of KIM. The criteria for evaluating the performance of task 40 of the “Writing” section in the written part of the exam were clarified, as well as the wording of task 40, in which the exam participant is offered a choice of two topics of a detailed written statement with elements of reasoning “My opinion” |
| Literature | The criteria for evaluating the performance of tasks with a detailed answer have been clarified: corrections have been made to the evaluation of tasks 8 and 15 (the wording of criterion 1 with a description of the requirements for an answer for 2 points, the rules for calculating actual errors in criterion 2), tasks 9 and 16 (in criteria 1 and 2, possible variants of flaws in the answer), tasks 17.1–17.4 (counting logical errors was added to criterion 4). |
| Social Studies | The wording of task 25 has been detailed and the scoring system has been redesigned. The maximum score for completing task 25 has been increased from 3 to 4. The wording of tasks 28, 29 has been detailed, and their scoring systems have been improved. The maximum primary score for completing the entire job has been increased from 64 to 65. |
| History | There are no changes in the structure and content of KIM. In task 21, an additional condition was added that determines the requirement for formatting the answer. Accordingly, the criteria for assessing task 21 have been supplemented. |
The most difficult, in my opinion, task for the exam in English is task 40, which is a written statement with elements of reasoning (opinion essay). To complete it qualitatively, you must familiarize yourself with the rules for writing an essay and the criteria for evaluating this assignment.
The maximum score you can get for task 40 — 14 points.
5 criteria for evaluating a written statement with elements of reasoning:
1) Solving a communicative task (3 points)
Experts evaluate
- does your work have an introduction with a problem statement (rephrase the problem);
- whether the opinion of the author on the proposed problem with arguments is expressed;
- whether your essay presents the opposite point of view;
- is there an explanation why the author does not agree with another point of view (counterarguments);
- is there a final phrase with a conclusion at the end of your essay;
- did you choose the right style for the design of the statement (neutral)
2) Organization of the text (3 points)
Experts evaluate
- how logically you built the statement;
- whether you used the means of logical connection (conjunctions, introductory words, pronouns);
- Is there a division into paragraphs ( there should be 5)
3) Lexical design (3 points)
Experts evaluate
- whether the vocabulary that you used in the statement corresponds to the set communicative task;
- the correct use of lexical phrases and ways of word formation (e. g. to go on foot);
- your vocabulary and the variety of vocabulary used (synonyms, antonyms, idioms -give up smoking)
4) Grammar (3 points)
Experts evaluate
- whether the choice of grammatical constructions corresponds to the purpose of the statement;
- absence of gross grammatical errors (2-3 errors are allowed);
- the variety and complexity of the grammatical means used
5) Spelling and punctuation (2 points)
Experts evaluate
- do you follow the rules of punctuation in English (capital letter, period, comma, exclamation point and question mark);
- do you follow the rules of spelling in English
Undoubtedly, when starting this assignment, you should be familiar with its format in practice. Task 40 is communicative in nature. You will be asked to express my personal opinion on a specific issue. In completing this assignment, you must follow a detailed response plan:
Write 200 - 250 words.
Use the following plan:
- Make the introduction (state the problem)
- Express your personal opinion and give 2 – 3 reasons for your opinion
- Express the opposing opinion and give 1 – 2 reasons for this opposing opinion
- Explain why you don't agree with the opposing opinion
- Make a conclusion restating your position
On the Internet, you can find many different essay samples written by both professionals and ordinary students. Check out interesting options and write your own version on a given topic.
In this article, I offer you for consideration an essay-reasoning that attracted my attention on one of the training sites.
Using the 5 criteria for assessing a written statement with elements of reasoning, you can determine the approximate score that you can get for this work.
Task 40
sample answer
Inventions of email and text messaging have been wonderful for communication between people.
Nowadays email and text messaging are widespread all over the world. Thousands of people can communicate, sending each other short and long messages. But some people think that it is not a convenient way to contact and find a lot of disadvantages of it. (44)
in my mind, email and text messaging is an excellent way to connect and converse with people.
Firstly, this kind of communication can save our time. For test le, if you need to say some information to several people, you can send it using an email and contact a group of people at once. Secondl y, when you do not have any possibility to make a phone call being on a noisy bus or at an important meeting, texting will be a great solution in these situations. moreover, sending emails and messages are cheaper and sometimes without any cost. for instance, some telecommunication companies make a good offer like free text messages. (154)
However, some people find a lot of disadvantages in using these technologies. They believe that a person who prefers such a way of communication loses speaking skills. What is more he becomes a phone addict as he gets stuck to his phone and does not notice what is happening around him. (204)
I cannot fully agree with this point of view because there are a lot of shy people. They obviously become more sociable using emails than when they talk with others face to face. (237)
in conclusion, I want to say that invention of email and text messages simplifies our life and makes communication between people more convenient. (260)
Remember!
If the examinee receives 0 points according to the "Content" criterion, the entire task is evaluated at 0 points!
Criteria for checking and evaluating the performance of tasks with a detailed answer
in Literature for 2018-2019 academic year year
- Criteria 8, 15
- Criteria 9, 16
- Criteria 17.1., 17.2., 17.3.
Performance evaluation tasks 8 and 15
If according to criterion 1(“The correspondence of the answer to the task”) is set to 0 points, then the task is considered not completed and is not checked further. According to other criteria, 0 points are set in the "Protocol for checking answers to tasks" of form No. 2. If according to criterion 2 (“”) 0 points are given, then according to criterion 3 (“”) the work is not evaluated, in the “Protocol for checking answers to tasks” form No. 2 according to criterion 3, 0 points are given.
If according to criterion 2(“Involving the text of the work for argumentation”) is given 0 points, then according to criterion 3(“Logic and compliance with speech norms”) the work is not evaluated, in the “Protocol for checking answers to tasks” of form No. 2, according to criterion 3, 0 points are given.
Relevance of the answer to the task
- The answer to the question is given and testifies to the understanding of the text of the given fragment/poem, the author's position is not distorted. - 2 points.
- The answer is meaningfully correlated with the task, but does not allow to judge the understanding of the text of the given fragment/poem, and/or the author's position is distorted. - 1 point
- The answer is not meaningfully correlated with the task. - 0 points.
Involving the text of the work for argumentation
- For the argumentation of judgments, the text is involved at the level of analysis of fragments, images, micro-themes, details, etc. important for the task, there are no actual errors. - 2 points.
- For argumentation, the text is involved at the level of retelling the work or general reasoning about its content, AND/OR There is one factual error. - 1 point
- Judgments are not supported by the text of the work, AND/OR two or more factual errors were made. - 0 points.
Logic and compliance with speech norms
- 2 points.
- 1 point
- Two or more errors of the same type were made (regardless of the presence/absence of errors of other types). - 0 points.
Maximum score - 6
Performance evaluation tasks 9 and 16 requiring writing a detailed answer in the amount of 5–10 sentences
The indication of the volume is conditional, the assessment of the answer depends on its content (with deep knowledge, the examinee can answer in a larger volume, with the ability to accurately formulate his thoughts, the examinee can answer quite fully in a smaller volume).
Criteria 1 and 2 (“Comparison of the first selected work with the proposed text” and “Comparison of the second selected work with the proposed text”) are the main ones. When assessing, the sequence of examples for comparison is determined by their sequence in the work of the examinee.
If by both criteria 1 and 2 put 0 points, then the task is considered unfulfilled and is not checked further. According to other criteria, 0 points are set in the "Protocol for checking answers to tasks" of form No. 2.
If according to criterion 3 (“Involving the text of the work for argumentation”), 0 points are given, then according to criterion 4 (“Logic and compliance with speech norms”), the work is not evaluated, in the “Protocol for checking answers to tasks” of form No. 2, according to criterion 4, 0 is set points.
When completing the task, the examiner independently selects two works by different authors for contextual comparison (in one of the examples, it is permissible to refer to another work by the author of the source text). When specifying the author, initials are necessary only to distinguish between namesakes and relatives, if this is essential for an adequate perception of the content of the answer (for example, L.N. Tolstoy and A.K. Tolstoy, V.L. Pushkin and A.S. Pushkin).
Comparison of the first selected work with the proposed text
- 2 points.
- OR the work is named, and/or its author is indicated, the work is formally (Formal comparison is the case when the examinee is limited to repeating words from the task statement to indicate the aspect of comparison) compared with the proposed text in a given direction of analysis, the author's position is not distorted OR OR 1 point
- AND/OR 0 points.
Comparison of the second selected work with the proposed text
- The work is named, and its author is indicated, the work is compared with the proposed text in the given direction of analysis, the author's position is not distorted. - 2 points.
- The work is named, or its author is indicated, the work is compared with the proposed text in the given direction of analysis, the author's position is not distorted OR the work is named, and/or its author is indicated, the work is formally compared with the proposed text in the given direction of analysis, the author's position is not distorted OR the work is named, and/or its author is indicated, the work is compared with the proposed text in the given direction of analysis, but the author's position is distorted OR the work is named, and/or its author is indicated, the work is formally compared with the proposed text in the given direction of analysis, but the author's position is distorted. - 1 point
- The work is not named, and its author is not indicated, AND/OR the comparison of the work with the proposed text in the given direction of analysis was not carried out. - 0 points.
Involving the text of the work for argumentation
- For argumentation, the texts of the two selected works are used at the level of analysis of fragments, images, micro-themes, details, etc. that are important for the task, and there are no actual errors. - 4 points.
- For argumentation is involved at the level of analysis of fragments, images, micro-themes, details, etc., important for the task; - at the level of his retelling or general reasoning about the content, AND/OR There is one factual error. - 3 points.
- For argumentation, the texts of the two selected works are involved at the level of retelling or general reasoning about their content (without analyzing fragments, images, microthemes, details, etc. important for completing the task) OR the text of the only selected work is involved at the level of analysis of fragments, images, microthemes, details, etc. important for the task. OR the text of one selected work is involved at the level of analysis of fragments, images, microthemes, details that are important for the task, and the text of another selected work is not involved, AND/OR There are two factual errors. - 2 points.
- For argumentation, the text of the only selected work is involved at the level of a retelling of the work or general reasoning about its content (without analyzing fragments, images, microthemes, details, etc. important for completing the task) OR text of one selected work is involved at the level of retelling the work or general reasoning about its content (without analyzing fragments, images, microthemes, details, etc. important for completing the task), and text of another selected work not attracted AND/OR There are three factual errors. - 1 point
- The text of any of the selected works is not involved in the argumentation of judgments, AND/OR four or more factual errors were made. - 0 points.
Logic and compliance with speech norms
- There are no logical, speech errors. - 2 points.
- No more than one error of each type (logical and / or speech) was made - no more than two errors in total. - 1 point
- Two or more errors of the same type were made (regardless of the presence/absence of errors of other types). - 0 points.
Maximum score - 10
Evaluation of tasks 17.1–17.4 requiring writing a detailed reasoned answer in the essay genre of at least 200 words
Criterion 1 (“Relevance of the essay to the topic and its disclosure”) is the main one. If, when checking the work, the expert gives 0 points according to criterion 1, the task of part 2 is considered not completed and is not checked further. According to other criteria, 0 points are set in the "Protocol for checking answers to tasks" of form No. 2.
When evaluating the performance of the tasks of part 2, the volume of the written essay should be taken into account. Examinees are recommended to have at least 200 words. If the essay contains less than 150 words (all words, including service words, are included in the word count), then such work is considered incomplete and 0 points are assessed (The rules for counting words are the same as the rules for the Unified State Examination in the Russian language: “When counting words, both independent and service parts of speech are taken into account. Any sequence of words written without a space is counted (for example, “after all” - one word, “yet” - two words). Initials with a surname are considered one word (for example, "M.Yu. Lermontov" - one word). Any other characters, in particular numbers, are not taken into account when calculating (for example, "5 years" - one word, " five years" - two words).
When the volume of the essay is from 150 to 200 words, the maximum number of errors for each point level does not change.
The number of the alternative shall be entered in column 20 of the protocol.
Correspondence of the essay to the topic and its disclosure
- The essay is written on a given topic, the topic is revealed deeply, multilaterally, the author's position is not distorted. - 3 points.
- The essay is written on a given topic, the topic is disclosed superficially, one-sidedly, the author's position is not distorted. - 2 points.
- The essay is written on a given topic, the topic is disclosed superficially, one-sidedly, the author's position is distorted. - 1 point
- The topic is not open. - 0 points.
Involving the text of the work for argumentation
- For the argumentation of judgments, the text is involved at the level of analysis of fragments, images, micro-themes, details, etc. important for the task. (in an essay on lyrics, at least three poems are used for analysis), there are no factual errors. - 3 points.
- For the argumentation of judgments, the text is involved at the level of analysis of fragments, images, micro-themes, details, etc. important for the task, but one or two factual errors were made OR for argumentation, the text is involved at the level of general reasoning about its content (without analyzing fragments, images, microthemes, details, etc. important for the task), there are no factual errors, AND/OR in the essay on lyrics, only two poems are used for analysis. - 2 points.
- For argumentation, the text is used at the level of general reasoning about its content (without analyzing fragments, images, microthemes, details, etc. important for completing the task), one or two factual errors were made OR for argumentation, the text is used at the level of retelling, there are no factual errors, or one or two factual errors were made, AND/OR in an essay on lyrics, only one poem is involved in the analysis. - 1 point
- Judgments are not supported by the text of the work(s) OR in the argumentation (with any level of involvement of the text of the work(s)) three or more factual errors were made. - 0 points.
Reliance on theoretical and literary concepts
- Theoretical and literary concepts are included in the essay and used to analyze the text of the work(s) in order to reveal the theme of the essay, there are no errors in the use of concepts. - 2 points.
- Theoretical and literary concepts are included in the essay, but are not used to analyze the text of the work(s), AND/OR One mistake was made in the use of concepts. - 1 point
- Literary-theoretic concepts are not included in the essay, or more than one error was made in the use of concepts. - 0 points.
Compositional integrity and consistency
- The essay is characterized by compositional integrity and sequence of presentation: there are no logical errors, the sequence of presentation is not broken. - 3 points.
- The essay is characterized by compositional integrity and consistency of presentation, BUT one or two logical errors were made. - 2 points.
- Compositional intent is traced in the composition, BUT there is no compositional integrity and consistency of presentation, AND/OR Three or four logical errors were made. - 1 point
- There is no compositional intent in the essay, gross violations of the sequence of presentation make it difficult to understand the meaning, AND/OR more than four logical errors were made. - 0 points.
Compliance with speech norms
- There are no speech errors, or one speech error was made. - 3 points.
- Two or three speech errors were made. - 2 points.
- Four spelling mistakes were made. - 1 point
- Five or more speech errors were made. - 0 points.
The maximum score for an essay is 14