Can I defend how language changes across translation, revision, and performance?
Part A · Four-Poem Portfolio
Poem 1
Week 10 image/diction poem
Poem 2
Week 10 revised free-verse poem
Poem 3
Week 11 formal/patterned poem
Poem 4
Week 12 voice-and-cadence poem
Include planning or Draft 1 evidence and at least one meaningful revision for each portfolio piece.
Part B · Comparative Translation Analysis
Write 500–700 words comparing two English translations of one poem. Use an authentic pair from the Poetry Hall when accessible. Identify translators and source information. Develop a defensible claim about at least two dimensions: image/diction, syntax/lineation, sound/rhythm, ambiguity, cultural reference, tone, or implied speaker.
Fallback: if an authentic lawful pair is not accessible, use the Day 56 course simulation and explicitly label it a simulation. Analyze versioning choices; do not claim historical or linguistic accuracy.
Part C · Formal Oral Reading
Perform one portfolio poem in approximately 2–3 minutes including a brief introduction. Submit the annotated performance map showing breath, emphasis, pace, and the poem’s turn. Your introduction should name the poem and one interpretive choice—not explain the whole poem in advance.
Part D · Portfolio Reflection
Write 200–300 words: Which revision across the four poems most changed meaning? Which performance choice most changed meaning? What do you now understand about the relationship among page, sound, reader, and interpretation?
Mastery Rubric · 10 Points
Dimension
2
1
0
Four-Poem Portfolio
Complete, revised, intentional craft
Partly complete or revision evidence thin
Missing/insufficient
Translation Analysis
Defensible comparison with precise attribution and reasoning
Mostly accurate but shallow/general
Unsupported or inaccurate
Performance Interpretation
Voice/timing choices are deliberate and text-based
Some deliberate choices
Unprepared or unsupported
Language & Craft Control
Precise vocabulary, syntax, punctuation, lineation, and conventions
Some lapses without obscuring meaning
Control interferes with meaning
Reflection & Revision Evidence
Specific, honest, evidence-based reflection
General reflection
Missing/minimal
Mastery = 8/10. Below mastery: identify the lowest rubric dimension, complete targeted corrective practice, revise that dimension, and resubmit. The standard does not decrease.
Part A · Original Four-Poem Portfolio
Use the import controls to copy existing student work from Weeks 10–12. All source lessons retain their saved records. Provide original and revised versions, with a specific revision explanation for every poem.
Poem 1 · Week 10 · Image / diction
Poem 2 · Week 10 · Revised free verse
Poem 3 · Week 11 · Formal / patterned
Poem 4 · Week 12 · Voice & cadence
Part B · Comparative Translation Analysis
Write 500–700 words. If comparing genuine translations, identify poet, translators, original-language source (when known), editions and consulted links. If authentic lawful sources are not available, use the Day 56 simulation and clearly label it as course-created versioning—not historical translation.
0 words · 500–700 required
When using the simulation, analyze additions, omission, syntax and uncertainty only. Do not infer original-language accuracy or identify fictitious translators.
Part C · Oral or Accessible Performance
Perform one of your portfolio poems for approximately 2–3 minutes including an introduction. Approved AAC, recorded reading, text-to-speech or other accessible delivery can meet the same interpretive standard.
Part D · Portfolio Reflection
0 words · 200–300 required
Portfolio not yet submitted.
Human-Entered Five-Criterion Rubric
Use the curriculum's five 0–2-point criteria (total 10). Mastery is 8/10. Below that, complete targeted corrective revision and submit a new assessment.
Authority boundary: This local browser record cannot authenticate a teacher or certify official grades. A school-authorized private service is needed for official review permissions.