Task 2 peer-correction rubric
Writer: Reviewer:
Film: Word count:
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Developing (2) | Needs revision (1–0) | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Accuracy and selection | Accurately and concisely presents the film’s premise, central conflict, key characters and relevant context. Selects details that help the reader understand the evaluation; avoids an uncontrolled plot recap or invented details. | Presents the main film information accurately, with only minor excess detail or a small omission. | Includes relevant information, but selection is uneven: important context is missing, vague or crowded out by plot recap. | Omits or misrepresents essential information, invents details, or retells the plot without selecting what matters. | _ / 4 |
| 2. Genre, purpose, and audience | Clearly works as a 200–240-word review for a film-opinions website. Uses the required heading, an appropriate review voice, spoiler-conscious disclosure and a precise recommendation for a particular kind of viewer. | Follows review conventions and addresses a plausible audience, with one minor lapse in heading, tone, disclosure or recommendation. writes less than suggested | Shows partial awareness of the review genre or intended reader; the recommendation is generic, or several conventions are inconsistently applied. writes less than suggested | Purpose or audience is unclear; the text does not function as a review, or it reveals a major twist or the ending without a clear spoiler warning. write less than 100 words | _ / 4 |
| 3. Organisation and coherence | Moves smoothly from identifying and framing the film to selective summary, criteria-based evaluation and precise recommendation. Each move contributes to a focused overall judgement. | Includes the four moves in a clear order, though one transition or section is abrupt, repetitive or underdeveloped. | Has a recognisable structure, but moves are missing, poorly balanced or difficult to follow in places. | Lacks a clear progression or central focus; summary, evaluation and recommendation are disconnected or largely absent. | _ / 4 |
| 4. Cohesion and language | Uses a clear reference chain, a lexical chain linked to a central theme, and contrast connectors purposefully. Discusses the film in third person; at least three appropriate evaluative expressions, grammar, punctuation and register support precise meaning. | Uses the required cohesive resources and third-person discussion effectively overall. Minor language or connective problems do not impede understanding. | Uses some required cohesive resources, but links are repetitive, unclear or missing; evaluative wording or third-person discussion is inconsistent. Language errors sometimes affect precision. | Links between ideas are largely ineffective; frequent problems with wording, grammar, punctuation or register make the review difficult to understand. | _ / 4 |
| 5. Evidence, evaluation, and source use | Clearly identifies the film through the required details. Evaluates at least two specified film elements using explicit criteria and well-chosen examples; judgements are fair and supported rather than merely personal reactions. | Identifies the film and evaluates at least two elements with relevant support, though one criterion, example or explanation needs development. | Evaluation is present but largely general; criteria or examples are unclear, limited or weakly connected to the judgements. | Film identification is unclear or inaccurate; evaluation is missing or consists mainly of unsupported claims such as “It is perfect” or “It is terrible.” | _ / 4 |
Total: __ out 20
final grade = total / 2
For a score of 1, the criterion is attempted but substantially unsuccessful. Use 0 when there is no meaningful evidence of that criterion in the draft.
Peer-review procedure
- Read once as a website reader. What do you understand about the film, and would the recommendation help you decide whether to watch it?
- Read again with the task instructions. Check the 200–240-word range; the Film, Director, Year, Genre and Audience heading; all four rhetorical moves; at least two evaluated film elements; at least three supported evaluative expressions; and the three specified cohesive resources.
- Score each row and mark evidence. Underline one passage that justifies each score. Do not penalise the same problem mechanically in multiple rows: for example, a missing recommendation primarily affects genre and audience, while its effect on the text’s progression may also inform organisation.
- Give revision-oriented feedback. Identify a strength, the most important change, and a concrete way to make it.
Feedback to the writer
- Effective passage: “Your review succeeds when you write ‘’ because .”
- Evaluation to develop: “You describe as . To support that judgement, you could refer to .”
- Most important revision: “I suggest revising first because .”
- Question for the writer: “?”
task 3
Rubric
Peer-Review Rubric — Poem Thematic Summary
Writer: Reviewer: Poem/song:
Assess the thematic summary using the rubric below. Count only the summary body, excluding the heading. Total: 10 points.
| Criterion | Fully meets the requirement | Partially meets the requirement | Does not yet meet the requirement | Score | Peer feedback: evidence or suggested revision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Heading, text selection, and word count | Selects a poem/song originally written in English; includes the title, poet/composer/lyricist, publication year if known, and source/link; the summary contains 150–180 words. (1.0) | Uses an eligible text, but a required heading field is missing/incomplete or the summary falls outside the word limit. (0.5) | Does not use a text originally written in English, or both the heading and word-count requirements are substantially unmet. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 2. Central concern | Clearly identifies the poem’s dominant theme or tension and establishes a focused thematic interpretation. (1.0) | Identifies a relevant topic, but the central theme or tension is broad, vague, or insufficiently explained. (0.5) | Does not identify a central concern or offers an interpretation unsupported by the poem. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 3. Key images, motifs, or contrasts | Explains two or three significant images, motifs, symbols, or oppositions and connects them to the central theme. (2.0) | Identifies relevant features but explains only one adequately, or makes weak connections to the central theme. (1.0) | Does not identify relevant features, substantially misinterprets them, or merely lists them without explanation. (0) | _ / 2.0 | |
| 4. Movement of thought | Explains how the poem’s central idea develops, shifts, resolves, or remains unresolved, connecting that movement to its theme. (1.0) | Recognises some development or shift, but the explanation is incomplete or weakly connected to the theme. (0.5) | Does not explain the movement of thought or substitutes a stanza-by-stanza account without thematic connections. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 5. Thematic implication | Clearly explains what the poem ultimately suggests about its central issue, consistently with the preceding analysis. (1.0) | Offers a concluding interpretation, but it is vague, repetitive, or only partly supported by the analysis. (0.5) | Provides no thematic implication or imposes an unsupported message or moral. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 6. Selective synthesis | Integrates themes, images, and development into a focused summary rather than paraphrasing every line. Any discussion of sequence serves a thematic purpose. (1.0) | Generally maintains a thematic focus but includes unnecessary line-by-line or stanza-by-stanza paraphrase. (0.5) | Mainly paraphrases or translates the poem instead of synthesising its thematic meaning. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 7. Textual support | Includes one accurate brief quotation of no more than one line, or an accurate paraphrase of a key image, and connects it to the interpretation. (1.0) | Includes relevant textual support, but its connection to the interpretation is unclear, it contains a minor inaccuracy, or the quotation exceeds one line. (0.5) | Provides neither the required quotation nor an accurate image paraphrase, or relies on unsupported personal reactions. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 8. Theme-related lexical chain | Uses a deliberate set of related words to develop and maintain the central theme throughout the summary. (0.5) | Includes theme-related vocabulary, but the chain is limited or inconsistently developed. (0.25) | Does not establish an identifiable lexical chain around the central theme. (0) | _ / 0.5 | |
| 9. Development and contrast connectors | Uses appropriate connectors, such as “initially”, “however”, “by contrast”, or “ultimately”, to clarify thematic development or contrast. (0.5) | Uses relevant connectors, but some are mechanical, unclear, or inappropriate to the relationship expressed. (0.25) | Uses no relevant connectors, or their misuse obscures the relationships between ideas. (0) | _ / 0.5 | |
| 10. Present tense and language clarity | Consistently uses the present tense for literary analysis; writing is clear, and vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation support understanding. (1.0) | Includes occasional unnecessary tense shifts or recurring language problems, but the overall meaning remains understandable. (0.5) | Frequent inappropriate tense shifts or language problems significantly interfere with understanding. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| Total | _ / 10.0 | ||||
| Overall strength | Identify the summary’s strongest feature and explain why it works, referring to a specific passage. | — | |||
| Main revision priority | Identify the most important change and suggest how the writer can make it. | — |
Task 4
Assess the summary and writer’s note using the rubric below. Count them separately: the summary must contain 180–220 words, and the writer’s note must contain 50–70 words. Exclude the required heading from both counts. Total: 10 points.
| Criterion | Fully meets the requirement | Partially meets the requirement | Does not yet meet the requirement | Score | Peer feedback: evidence or suggested revision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Required heading and word counts | Includes Source, Chosen summary genre, Intended audience, and Purpose. The summary contains 180–220 words, and the writer’s note contains 50–70 words. (1.0) | A heading field is missing/incomplete, or one text falls outside its required word count. (0.5) | The heading is absent/substantially incomplete, both texts fall outside their word limits, or the summary or writer’s note is missing. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 2. Genre conventions and function | Clearly fulfils the selected genre’s function: informative/descriptive—essential information; narrative—selected events in controlled chronological order; academic abstract—purpose, method/approach, central finding/claim, and significance; executive—decision/action-oriented information; research-findings—evidence, results, and implications; evaluative—summary, supported assessment, and audience suitability. (2.0) | The chosen genre is recognisable, but a central feature is missing or underdeveloped, or the text includes features that weaken its main function. (1.0) | Does not fulfil the chosen genre’s main function or substantially follows a different genre from the one identified. (0) | _ / 2.0 | |
| 3. Audience adaptation | Adapts vocabulary, explanation, detail, and tone to the intended audience. Provides the context that this reader needs without unnecessary explanation. (1.0) | Shows some audience awareness, but parts assume too much knowledge, overexplain, or use unsuitable language or detail. (0.5) | Shows little adaptation to the stated audience, making the text difficult to use or understand for that reader. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 4. Purpose-driven selection and concision | Selects the information most relevant to the stated purpose and omits distracting details, repetition, and unnecessary commentary. (1.0) | Includes mostly relevant information, but some essential content is missing or unnecessary material reduces focus. (0.5) | Includes substantial irrelevant material or omits information essential to achieving the stated purpose. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 5. Source accuracy and faithful representation | Accurately represents the selected source or passage, preserving its essential meaning. Distinguishes source content from the writer’s assessment where relevant and does not invent information. (1.0) | Generally represents the source accurately, but includes minor inaccuracies, oversimplifications, or unclear distinctions between source content and commentary. (0.5) | Substantially misrepresents the source or invents events, arguments, methods, findings, or other information. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 6. Organisation and coherence | Organises information in a sequence appropriate to the genre and purpose. Relationships between ideas are understandable, and the reader can follow the text as a meaningful whole. (1.0) | The overall organisation is recognisable, but some transitions, contextual gaps, or misplaced information interrupt the reader’s understanding. (0.5) | Information is disconnected or poorly sequenced, preventing the reader from following the summary’s central meaning. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 7. Cohesive resources | Uses effective cohesive resources, such as reference chains, lexical chains, or connectors, to link information clearly and avoid ambiguity. (0.5) | Uses cohesive resources, but some references or connections are repetitive, unclear, or inappropriate. (0.25) | Provides few effective links between ideas, or misuses cohesive resources in ways that obscure meaning. (0) | _ / 0.5 | |
| 8. Language clarity and appropriateness | Uses clear, concise language appropriate to the selected genre, with consistent and suitable tense choices. Occasional errors do not interfere with understanding. (0.5) | Contains recurring grammar, vocabulary, tense, or punctuation problems, but the overall meaning remains understandable. (0.25) | Language problems significantly interfere with understanding or make the text unsuitable for its stated function. (0) | _ / 0.5 | |
| 9. Writer’s note: genre, audience, organisation, and omission | Explains why the genre meets the audience’s needs, how the information was organised, and what was omitted and why. Explanations are specific and consistent with the summary. (1.0) | Addresses these choices, but one is missing, explanations are generic, or some claims do not match the summary. (0.5) | Does not meaningfully explain the choices or gives explanations largely inconsistent with the summary. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| 10. Writer’s note: cohesion and reader-supplied coherence | Identifies two cohesive resources actually used and explains the background knowledge or inference the reader must supply to make sense of the text. Clearly distinguishes textual links from the reader’s contribution to meaning. (1.0) | Identifies only one cohesive resource, gives vague examples, or inadequately explains what the reader must supply for coherence. (0.5) | Does not identify relevant cohesive resources or reader-supplied knowledge/inference, or confuses the two concepts. (0) | _ / 1.0 | |
| Total | _ / 10.0 | ||||
| Overall strength | Identify the strongest way the text connects genre, audience, and purpose. Refer to a specific passage. | — | |||
| Main revision priority | Identify the most important change needed to help the intended reader use the summary for its stated purpose. Suggest a concrete revision. | — |