AP History LEQ Rubric (6 Points) Reporting Category Scoring Criteria Decision Rules To earn this point, the thesis must make a claim that responds A 1 pt. to the prompt, rather than merely restating or rephrasing the Responds to the prompt with a prompt. The thesis must consist of one or more sentences historically defensible thesis/claim that located in one place, either in the introduction or the (0–1 pt.) establishes a line of reasoning. conclusion. To earn this point, the response must relate the topic of the B prompt to broader historical events, developments, or 1 pt. processes that occur before, during, or continue after the time Describes a broader historical context CONTEXTUALIZATION frame of the question. This point is not awarded for merely a relevant to the prompt. (0–1 pt.) phrase or a reference. 1 pt. Provides specific examples of evidence relevant to the topic of the prompt. To earn one point, the response must identify specific C historical examples of evidence relevant to the topic of the OR prompt. EVIDENCE To earn two points the response must use specific historical (0–2 pts.) 2 pts. evidence to support an argument in response to the prompt. Supports an argument in response to the prompt specific and relevant examples of evidence To earn the first point, the response must demonstrate the use of historical reasoning to frame or structure an argument, although the reasoning might be uneven or imbalanced. 1 pt. Uses historical reasoning (e.g. To earn the second the response must demonstrate a comparison, causation, CCOT) to complex understanding. This can be accomplished in a variety or structure an argument that addresses of ways, such as: the prompt. D A response may demonstrate a complex understanding in a OR ANALYSIS AND variety of ways, such as: REASONING Explaining nuance of an issue by analyzing multiple • 2 pts. (0–2 pts.) variables Demonstrates a complex understanding • Explaining both similarity and difference, or explaining both of the historical development that is the continuity and change, or explaining multiple causes, or of the prompt, using evidence to explaining both cause and effect corroborate, qualify, or modify an • Explaining relevant and insightful connections within and argument that addresses the question. across periods • Confirming the validity of an argument by corroborating multiple perspectives across themes
AP History LEQ Rubric (6 Points) Reporting Category Scoring Criteria Decision Rules A (0–1 pt.) 1 pt. Responds to the prompt with a historically defensible thesis/claim that establishes a line of reasoning. To earn this point, the thesis must make a claim that responds to the prompt, rather than merely restating or rephrasing the prompt. The thesis must consist of one or more sentences located in one place, either in the introduction or the conclusion. B CONTEXTUALIZATION (0–1 pt.) 1 pt. Describes a broader historical context relevant to the prompt. To earn this point, the response must relate the topic of the prompt to broader historical events, developments, or processes that occur before, during, or continue after the time frame of the question. This point is not awarded for merely a phrase or a reference. C EVIDENCE (0–2 pts.) 1 pt. Provides specific examples of evidence relevant to the topic of the prompt. OR 2 pts. Supports an argument in response to the prompt specific and relevant examples of evidence To earn one point, the response must identify specific historical examples of evidence relevant to the topic of the prompt. To earn two points the response must use specific historical evidence to support an argument in response to the prompt. D ANALYSIS AND REASONING (0–2 pts.) 1 pt. Uses historical reasoning (e.g. comparison, causation, CCOT) to or structure an argument that addresses the prompt. OR 2 pts. Demonstrates a complex understanding of the historical development that is the of the prompt, using evidence to corroborate, qualify, or modify an argument that addresses the question. To earn the first point, the response must demonstrate the use of historical reasoning to frame or structure an argument, although the reasoning might be uneven or imbalanced. To earn the second the response must demonstrate a complex understanding. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, such as: A response may demonstrate a complex understanding in a variety of ways, such as: • Explaining nuance of an issue by analyzing multiple variables • Explaining both similarity and difference, or explaining both continuity and change, or explaining multiple causes, or explaining both cause and effect • Explaining relevant and insightful connections within and across periods • Confirming the validity of an argument by corroborating multiple perspectives across themes
0f5q3vU85MHVxy5EL18tdqXzR41mmXIDkxKAsyedse8Huiuy.docx