Credit           

  Uses correct format (date, paragraphs) showing clear command of  conventions of standard English

  Writes clearly (word choice, organization) – few, if any, errors that do not detract from the meaning

  Uses sharp details to discuss entry topic (specific names, events, places…)

  Shows “deep” thinking (connections, questions - with hypotheses or predictions) to bring meaning to the entry

  Thinking relates to science and is supported with effective and convincing textual evidence

Credit!

  Uses correct format (date, paragraphs) showing reasonable command of  conventions of standard English

  Writes clearly (word choice, organization) - few, if any, errors that do not detract from the meaning

  Uses details to discuss entry topic (specific names, events, places...)

  Shows thinking (connections, questions- with hypotheses or predictions) to bring meaning to the entry

Thinking relates to science and is supported with accurate and relevant textual evidence

AFC

  Uses correct format (date, paragraphs) showing limited command of  conventions of standard English

  Writes clearly, at times (word choice, organization) –  errors in grammar or usage that impede understanding

  Uses few details to discuss entry topic (specific names, events, places…)

  Shows “very little” thinking (connections, questions- with hypotheses or predictions) to bring meaning to the entry

Thinking alludes to science topics or analysis is inaccurate or lacking in appropriate textual evidence

No credit

  Does not use correct format (date, paragraphs) and shows limited command of  conventions of standard English

  Does not write clearly (word choice, organization) and many errors in grammar or usage that impede understanding

  Does not show thinking (connections, questions- with hypotheses or predictions) to bring meaning to the entry

        Does not relate thinking to science and analysis is inaccurate, missing, or lacking in appropriate textual evidence