So begins the second Sunday post. This time around we were supposed to pick a prompt, read a few sample student responses and analyze them. It's all fun and games until you realize how much you hate handwriting. Reading handwriting to be precise.
The AP Literature prompt for the 2006 exam asked for the student to read "Evening Hawk" and analyze how the setting, specifically the country setting, builds and adds to the meaning and substance of a work. Well, the prompt actually asks the student to analyze how the setting "functions in the work as a whole" but that pretty much means the same thing as "how does the setting add to the meaning of the piece?"
Student 1A:
The student opens up the essay well enough. After addressing the prompt by stating, with sophisticated language, that the poem "Evening Hawk" establishes the country setting as a "severe judge of humanity's mistakes", the student proceeds to spell out two literary elements to support his/her argument: diction and imagery. True to the rubric's 8-9 policy, the writer uses specific references with multiple quotations along with concise and focused language. Although the writer only has one body paragraph, it is done well and detailed. Opening a direct link to the prompt, stating that the language enhances the meaning of the piece, the reader instantly knows both what the paragraph is about and that the writer remains focused and on task. The evidence for the opening statement is devoid of any plot summary, instead focusing on how the language augments the meaning of the piece. For example, the writer states that "the hawk is not a gentle bird" as the poem describes the hawk in cold, calculating terms, for which the writer pulls direct quotations such as "planes" and "geometric" to contrast with the "fallacy of man". The writer also emphasizes the focus on dark language, such as "black" and "heavy" and skillfully connects the language to the opening statement on how language is used to "drive the mood and meaning". An overall well written piece with a well deserved "8" by the AP reader, who stated that the writer was "in complete control" with the prompt. A logically sound conclusion.
Student 1B:
The AP reader called this essay "competent" which pretty much sums it up here. The opening paragraph is a bit wanting in terms of flair, but it does address the prompt and is, well, "competent". The writer says that the language of "Evening Hawk" adds to the meaning of the poem, which is true. Nothing wrong with that, on to the body paragraphs. Although the writer goes through the body paragraph stanza by stanza and line by line, the argument seems a bit wanting. Evidence is brought up, and the opening statement, about how the language about the setting creates and insecure feeling, is mentioned, however, the writer does little to really connect the two. Specific instances of language are lacking, and the writer becomes dangerously closer to describing the poem and analyzing. The questions of "how" the language is used to affect the mood and meaning of this piece is never really asked. The writer seems to simply expect it and accept it. The writer seems to be like "it just is". Once again, competent, but not really the flair or sophistication needed to demonstrate a level 8-9 thought process. Although I disagree with the 6 given by the AP reader (I was leaning to a 4) I do agree that analysis was "brief and flatfooted".
Student 1C:
Well, the AP reader states "The weakness of this essay is signaled from the very start." Ouch. However, the professional is correct. The writer for 1C states that the author of "Evening Hawk" uses language and diction to describe an admiration of the hawk. Even if this was true, such an assertion does little to describe how the country setting, or nature in general, promotes and enhances the meaning of the poem. Admiration and awe are feelings, not necessarily meaning. What do these emotions mean? The writer does not address this issue. Instead, the writer continues to blindly and resolutely march down the path of incompetence. Although the writer does have a few examples in the body paragraph, such as the quotations of "ancient and immense" and descriptions of the hawk as "tumultuous", the writer insists upon the description of the hawk and the awe it inspires instead of probing deeper. The meanings and connections between the rest of the poem are completely ignored. Most of the second body paragraph are statements proclaiming that syntax is used, however, no examples are ever used to back such a claim, and the analysis of how such a claim is relevant is completely non-existent. I could easily say the world is upon the brink blowing up into multiple pieces of happy flower-shaped rainbows with more credibility and evidence than what is demonstrated. As the AP reader says, this writer "fails to offer an adequate analysis of the language of the poem."
Well, that's all folks.
Ms Holmes,
ReplyDeleteI did come back into this blog and revise it, just saying. No, I did not just post and came back later with the blog done. There was a missing quotation mark, and it was driving me insane.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYour last analysis was hilarious, I have to say; it was so wonderfully sardonic. And good job as a whole; I should use this as a template for myself the next time we have to write one of these, because as you know, mine was not as hot. Your criticisms were plentiful and informed, your writing was both natural and precise, and it just all seemed to flow together well. I like how you detached yourself from the formatting of the AP reader response, something I didn't do, because it obviously freed you up to say a lot more. In short, I enjoyed this post. I haven't anything very critical to say about your writing in this post, other than to keep your voice the way it is. It's doing you quite a lot of good.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, thank you for giving me a good laugh. Your response to the first student was well done. You pulled good evidence such as referencing that, "The Hawk is not a gentle bird," in support of your warrant. Additionally, you hit on all the main points that the writer did well, such as their usage of Imagery and Diction as explanations. One aspect I questioned was why the student deserved an 8 opposed to a 9. Was there a flaw you saw? It would strengthen your response if you included both the good and bad elements of the essay. However, In your response to student 2 you did a better job of this. Particularly when you analyzed that the writer was describing rather than analyzing at points. From what it sounds like, your scoring was pretty accurate! In your third response, I liked the way you referenced the AP grader, and derived your scoring somewhat based on his thoughts. Overall, your responses are well-written, and backed by good evidence from the students essay. Keep up the good work!
Andrew! This is an amazing post. Once again, it's SO nice to hear your voice through the blog post. I like how you keyed in on the most important aspects on the AP Lit essay in your first response: the student's use of DIDLS. In addition, you supported your claims with many examples which makes for a great analysis on your part. Overall, you are strong in citing examples to support why you think a student deserved the score they were given. In the 2nd response, based on the discrepancy between your score and the AP reader's score, their line between summary and analysis is different than yours. Wow! Great analysis of the 3rd response - it's fun to critique incompetent essays, isn't it? Awesome job, Drew Liu.
ReplyDelete