AP Japanese Language and Culture Sample Student Responses and Scoring Commentary

2019

Japanese Language

and Culture

Sample Student Responses

and Scoring Commentary

Inside:

Presentational Writing—Compare and Contrast Article

• Scoring Guideline

•

Student Samples

•

Scoring Commentary

registered trademarks of the College Board. Visit the College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.

AP Central is the ocial online home for the AP Program: apcentral.collegeboard.org.

JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2019 SCORING GUIDELINES

Presentational Writing: Compare and Contrast Article

TASK COMPLETION DELIVERY LANGUAGE USE

6 EXCELLENT

Demo

nstrates

excellence in

presentational

writing

• Article addresses a ll aspects of

prompt with thoroughness and

detail, including expression

preference and

reasoning

•

Well

organized

d coherent, with

a clear progression of ideas; use of

appropriate transitional elements

and cohesive devices

•

Natural,

easily flowing expression

•

Orthography and mechanics virtually error

free

•

rtually no

mist

akes in use

of kanji

according to AP

Japanese kanji list

•

Consistent use of

reg

ister and

style

appropriate to situation

•

Rich vocabulary and idioms

•

riety

of appropriate

ammatical and

syntactic

structures with minimal

no errors

5 VERY GOOD

ggests emerging

excellence in

presentational

writing

• Article addresses all aspects of

prompt, including expression of

preference and

reasoning

•

Well

organized

d coherent, with

a progression

of ideas that is

generally clear; some use of

transitional elements and

cohesive

devices

•

Generally exhibits ease

expression

•

Infrequent

or i

nsignificant errors in

orthography and mechanics

•

Occasional mistakes in use of

kan

according to AP

Japanese kanji list

•

Consistent use of

reg

ister and

style

appropriate to situation

except for occasional

lapses

• Variety of vocabulary and

ioms, with sporadic errors

•

Appropriate

use

grammatical and

syntactic

structures with sporadic

errors in complex structures

4 GOOD

Demo

nstrates

competence in

presentational

writing

• Article addresses a ll aspects of

prom

pt, including expression of

preference

and reasoning, but may

lack detail or elaboration

•

Generally organized and coherent;

use o

transitional

elements and

cohesive devices

may be

inconsistent

•

Strained or unnatural flow

of e

xpression

does not interfere with comprehensibility

•

Error

s in

orthography

and mechanics do not

interfere with readability

•

May include several

mist

akes in use of

kanji

according to AP

Japanese kanji list

•

May include several

lap

ses in

otherwise

consistent

use of register and style

appropriate to situation

•

Appropriate

but

limited

vocabulary and

idioms

•

Appropriate

use

grammatical and

syntactic

structures, but with several

errors in complex structures

or limited to simple

structures

3 ADEQUATE

ggests emerging

competence in

presentational

writing

• Article addresses topic directly but

may n

ot address all aspects of

prompt

•

Portions may

lack organization or

coherence;

infrequent use of

transitional elements and

cohesive

devices

•

Strained or unnatural flow

expression

sometimes interferes with comprehensibility

•

Errors in

ortho

graphy

and mechanics may be

frequent

or interfere with readability

•

May include frequent

mist

akes in use of

kanji according to AP Japanese kanji list

•

Use of

sty

le appropriate

situation

inconsistent

or includes many

errors

•

Some inappropriat

voc

abulary and

idioms

interfere with

comprehensibility

•

Errors in grammatical

and

syn

tactic structures

sometimes interfere with

comprehensibility

2 WEAK

Sug

gests lack of

competence in

presentational

writing

• Article addresses topic only

marginally or addresses only some

aspects of

prompt

•

Scattered information generally

lacks organization and

coherence;

minimal or no use of transitional

elements

and cohesive devices

• Labored expression frequently interferes

with comprehensibility

•

Errors

in orthography and

chanics

frequent

or interfere with readability

•

Frequent mistakes in

use

of kanji according

AP Japanese kanji list

•

Frequent use of

reg

ister

and style

inappropriate to situation

• Insufficient, inappropriate

vocab

ulary and idioms

frequently interfere with

comprehensibility

•

Limited

control of

ammatical and

syntactic

structures frequently

interferes with comprehen-

sibility or results in

fragmented language

1 VERY WEAK

Demo

nstrates lack

of competence in

presentational

writing

•

Article addresses p

rompt only

minimally

•

Lacks organization and

coherence

•

Labored expression constantly interferes

with comprehensibility

•

Errors in

orthography

and mechanics very

frequent

or significantly interfere

with

readability

•

Minimal use

of kanji according

to AP

Japanese kanji list

•

Constant use

of r

egister and style

inappropriate to situation

•

Insufficient, inappropriate

voc

abulary and

idioms

constantly interfere with

comprehensibility

•

Limited

control of

ammatical and syntactic

structures significantly

interferes with comprehen-

sibility or results in very

fragmented language

0 UNACCEPTABLE

ntains nothing

that earns credit

Visit the College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.

•

Mere restatement of the prompt

•

Clearly does not respond to the prompt; completely

irr

elevant to the topic

•

Not

in Japanese

• B

lank

JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2019 SCORING COMMENTARY

Presentational Writing: Compare and Contrast Article

Sample: A

これから日本語を話すことと日本語を書くことを比べてみます。日本語を話すことと日本語を書くことは面白い

ですが、いろいろな違うことと同じことがあります。

まず、よく日本語を勉強したら、話すことの方が書くことより大変です。クルスで、話すことはあまり練習しま

せんが、よく書くことを練習します。だから、書くことはやさしくなりますが、話すことはやさしくなりませ

ん。

つぎに、日本語を話ことをしたら、違う人と話していたら、日本語はちょっと違います。たとえば、友達と話し

たら、「うん」とか「かわいい」と言います。でも、先生と話したら、この話すことはだめです。人は「はい」

とか「かわいいです」と言ったほうがいいです。日本語を書いたら、このことがありません。作文を書くとテキ

ストを書くを比べて、ちょっと違いますが、たいてい書くことで、たくさんのことは違いません。

最後に、日本語を話すことも日本語の書くことも、同じ言葉とか文法を使います。両方で、日本語の言葉と文法

は同じです。だから、本当に違いません。話したら、書いたら、また日本語を使います。

私は全部の日本語の勉強が好きですが、ちょっと日本語を書くことの方が好きです。日本語の話すことはあまり

上手じゃないですから、話すことはちょっと大変です。でも、練習したいです。将来、私は日本に行ったら、練

習が出来るでしょう。

Sample: B

日本語を話すと日本語を書くのけんぶつを書いてます。違うと同じです。

いっつ目に同じは日本語を話すと日本語を書くがむずかしいです。高校で日本語勉強をする時にとてもむずかし

いです。私は十七さいで日本語勉強をしてやさしくじゃありません。

二っつ目に同じは日本語を話すと日本語を書くがおもしろいです。また、新しい日本語勉強をするのがいいで

す。楽しいです。

三っつ目に違うは日本人と話すがむずかしいです。日本へ行く時に日本人と話しているのがこわいですね。それ

から、書く時に日本人と話します。

けつろんとして私は日本語を書くが好きです。日本へ行きたくてすみたいです。でも、かんじを書くはやさしく

じゃありません。日本語が好きです。

Sample: C

日本語話してるより日本語を書いての方がべんでです。それから日本語を書いてより日本語を話してるの方が

日本語を書いてより日本語を話し手るのひお

日本語話してると日本語を書いてを時間をあげる

私は日本を話してるが大好きです。

Visit the College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.

JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2019 SCORING COMMENTARY

Presentational Writing: Compare and Contrast Article (continued)

Note: Student samples are quoted verbatim and may contain spelling and grammatical errors.

Overview

The Compare and Contrast Article task assesses presentational writing skills by having students write an

article for the student newspaper of a school in Japan. The prompt is given in English. It asks students, based

on their own experience, to compare and contrast two sides of a single topic by identifying three aspects of the

topic and highlighting similarities and differences between the sides. In addition, students are asked to express

their preference for one or the other of the sides and to provide their reasoning for that choice. The responses

are expected to demonstrate the ability to identify, to compare and contrast, to elaborate, to choose, and to

explain in presentational writing. Students are also expected to display their ability to write using the AP kanji,

to make use of a robust vocabulary, and to demonstrate control over grammatical structures. The 2019 prompt

asked students to compare and contrast speaking Japanese versus writing Japanese.

Sample: A

Score: 6

This response demonstrates excellence in presentational writing. It addresses all aspects of the prompt with

thoroughness and detail (e.g., 違う人と話していたら、日本語はちょっと違います。たとえば、友達と話した

ら、「うん」とか「か

わいい」と言います) , including expression of preference and reasoning. It is well

organized and coherent, with a clear progression of ideas and use of appropriate cohesive devices and

transitional elements (まず; つぎに; 最後に). The expression is natural and flows easily ( e.g., 将来、私は日本

に行ったら、練習が出来るでしょう). Minor errors in orthography and mechanics do not interfere w ith the flow

of expression (e.g., クルス; 日本語を話ことをしたら) . There are virtually no errors in the use of AP kanji. The

use of register and style is consistent and appropriate to the situation. The language use includes rich

vocabulary and expressions (e.g., 将来; 練習が出来るでしょう) and a variety of appropriate grammatical and

syntactic structures with minimal errors (e.g., 作文を書くとテキストを書くを比べて).

Sample: B

ore: 4

his response demonstrates competence in presentational writing. It addresses all aspects of the prompt,

inc

luding preference and reasoning (私は日本語を書くが好き

です。日本へ行きたくてすみたいです ). It is

generally coherent, with some use of transitional devices (e.g., また; それから ; でも). The strained flow of

expression does not interfere with comprehensibility (e.g., 日本語勉強をしてやさしくじゃありません) . There

are some errors in orthography and mechanics that do not interfere with comprehensibility (いっつ目に; 二っ

つ目に; 三っつ目に ). Despite an inappropriate word (けんぶつ) in the opening line, the meaning of the sentence

is comprehensible. The use of register and style is consistent and appropriate to the situation. Basic

vocabulary and expressions are used. The use of grammatical and syntactic structures is appropriate, but there

are several errors in complex sentences (e.g., 日本語を話すと日本語を書くがむずかしいです for 日本語を話す

ことと日本語を書くことがむずかしいです) . Th

is response could have earned a higher score had it contained

fewer orthographic errors and more complex grammatical structures.

Visit the College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.

JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2019 SCORING COMMENTARY

Presentational Writing: Compare and Contrast Article (continued)

Sample: C

core: 2

his response suggests lack of competence in presentational writing, tho

ugh it did address the topic directly

(日本語話してるより日本語を書い

ての方がべんでです) . However, the information is scattered and lacks

coherence, making the points of comparison difficult to identify (e.g., 日本語話してると日本語を書いてを時間

をあげる). There is minimal use of transitional devices and cohesive expressions (それから ). The labored

expression frequently interferes with readability, as in 日本語を話し手るのひお. There are frequent errors in

orthography (e.g., べんでです ; 話し手るのひお ), and the use of register and style is inconsistent (日本語話して

ると日本語を書いてを時間をあげる; 私は日本を話してるが大好きです) . Language use shows limited control of

grammatical structures that frequently interferes with comprehensibility (e.g., 日本語を書いてより日本語を話

してるの方が) . This r

esponse could have earned a higher score with greater control over grammatical

structures, more attention to organization, and consistency in style.

Visit the College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.