AP Language and Composition

Miss Armor
Rubric for Thoughtful Discussion When in discussion and/or asked questions in regards to
the reading, student should demonstrate METACOGNITION (the ability to read deeply and explain
thinking and reasoning behind the answers, ideas, and reflections shared). The following rubric is
designed to rate metacognition in whole class and/or small group discussions. Be prepared to use
the following in self and peer evaluation, as well as to reflect on scores provided to your
periodically by your teacher to show your progress as an Active Thinker! KEEP THIS RUBRIC AS A
GUIDE.

LEVEL of METACOGNITION
OBSERVED

INFERENCE

SYNTHESIS

LEVEL 5

Makes deeper meaning

of textual evidence that
is left up to
interpretation and makes
connections to other
texts, history, pop
culture (allusion).

Uses prior knowledge and

the literal evidence
provided in the text to
support response

Thinks outside the box. Comes up with

unique ideas and interpretations of the
text.
Shows complete understanding of the
prompt and/or text
Provides answers and thoughts that
extend beyond the question providing a
digression into new ideas and thoughts
beyond the prompt/question itself.
Little to no prompting or probing
questions needed

LEVEL 4
Provides a solid interpretation of the

prompt/text that is both inferential and

literal
Shows complete understanding of the
prompt and/or text
Prompting needed to stretch beyond the
basic response required, or provide any
deeper analysis

LEVEL 3
Provides a superficial interpretation of

the prompt/text
Some prompting and probing questions
needed to reach an inferential level of
analysis
Shows understanding of the prompt and
can apply literal examples to support
response and/or text

LEVEL 2
Some prompting and probing questions

needed to reach an inferential level of

analysis
Inferential Interpretation of the
prompt/text is flawed

Makes deeper meaning

of textual evidence that
is left up to
interpretation and
extends beyond it with
prompting

SEE ABOVE

Provides irrelevant
interpretation of
ambiguous text and/or
connections. Some or all
thoughts seem to be
done just for the sake of
showing inferential
thought. Does not use
this to contribute to
overall understanding of
the text
Incorrect analysis of
ambiguous content and
connections

SEE ABOVE

SEE ABOVE

Shows understanding of the prompt and

can apply literal examples to support
response

LEVEL 1

Some prompting and probing questions

needed to reach a literal level of analysis
Analysis may have minor inaccuracies
prior to prompting

No attempt made at
Inferential thought

NON-SCORABLE

Poor selection and or

interpretation of evidence
based on prior knowledge
and the text.

SEE ABOVE

No attempt made at
Synthesis

Insufficient or incomplete answer due to

lack of understanding of topic
Inability to show work or explain
thought process that helped student
arrive at answer

METACOGNITIVE DISCUSSION
BASELINE ABILITY EVALUATION

In a One-On-One Discussion on _____________________________________________________ was

called upon to answer a question. Their answer should have demonstrated literal understanding
through the synthesis of knowledge pulled from text (direct), the use of inference to make
meaning of what is not explicitly stated or proven in text (indirect), and an ability to connect text
with prior knowledge, other readings, other courses, and/or the world in which we live.
Average Level of METACOGNITION Demonstrated in
Discussion

3
NS

TEACHER COMMENTS:

Average Level of METACOGNITION Demonstrated in

Discussion

5
NS

STUDENT SELF-REFLECTION: What do I need to do to improve in this area?

This score sheet goes with the Rubric for Thoughtful Discussion and is designed to rate
metacognition to show students ability level and improvement in discussing course topics using
metacognitive strategies like: making connections, inference, and synthesis. The score above is
reflective of their starting point. No grade will be awarded for this discussion, but teacher will
expect growth in this area in the future when they WILL be award a grade through both teacher
evaluation and self-reflection.