Poetry Analysis Rubric

TPCASTT

9-8        These papers address all parts of the prompt, examine all or most of the elements represented by the acronym TPCASTT: Title—literally; Paraphrase—the “plot” of the piece; Connotation—the interpretive or figurative aspects of the language, including imagery, poetic devices, syntax (a good place to talk about meter and rhyme, too); Attitude—the speaker’s or the poet’s or both, tone; shifts—may be subtle, changes in tone, emphasis, plot of the piece; Title—as it relates to any of the above, or to the interpretive aspects of the piece; Theme—central idea.  These papers go beyond merely mentioning or commenting on the elements of the poem.  The writer offers specific details, words and lines, to support his/her conclusions/analysis.  The writer demonstrates mastery of sentence structure, diction, and organization, as well as spelling, grammar, and usage.

 7-6    Papers in this range: address the prompt; cover most of the elements of  TPCASTT; and offer supporting details and specific examples from the poem to support many of the writer’s conclusions. What may be lacking is the quantity or quality of the evidence provided; precision in the writer’s choice of words; and/or demonstrated mastery of one or more of the structural and/or mechanical aspects of composition. These papers are often less insightful, less astute in their presentation.

 5     While these papers offer some reflection on the prompt and the elements of  TPCASTT, as they relate to the poem, explanation and supporting details tend to be sparse, and perhaps randomly related throughout the writing. These papers may be less fluent, less skillfully organized than papers in the upper half, and may be hampered by a lack of clarity, awkward syntax, or weak mechanics.

 4-3  These lower half papers may not address all parts of the prompt or may demonstrate an inaccurate or superficial analysis of the piece.  Examples and evidence tend to be brief, sketchy, or nonexistent.  The writing offers few, if any insights into the poem and omits important features or concepts found in the poem.

 2-1    These papers demonstrate a slippery grip on either the prompt, the poem, or both.  There is little, if any, evidence of the writer’s deliberate analysis of the poem.  The supporting details, if offered, are inadequately or vaguely presented. There may be serious flaws in the structural and/or mechanical elements of the composition.