AP German Language and Culture Sample Student Responses and

2019

German Language

and Culture

Sample Student Responses

and Scoring Commentary

Inside:

Task 1—E-mail Reply

• 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.

GERMAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2019 S

CORING GUIDELINES

Identical to Scoring Guidelines used for French, Italian,

and Spanish Language and Culture Exams

Interpersonal Writing: E-mail Reply (Task 1)

5: STRONG performance in Interpersonal Writing

• Maintains the exchange with a response that is clearly appropriate within the context of the task

• Provides required information (responses to questions, request for details) with frequent elaboration

• Fully understandable, with ease and clarity of expression; occasional errors do not impede comprehensibility

• Varied and appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic language

• Accuracy and variety in grammar, syntax, and usage, with few errors

• Mostly consistent use of register appropriate for the situation; control of cultural conventions appropriate for

formal correspondence (e.g., greeting, closing), despite occasional errors

• Variety of simple and compound sentences, and some complex sentences

4: GOOD performance in Interpersonal Writing

• Maintains the exchange with a response that is generally appropriate within the context of the task

• Provides most required information (responses to questions, request for details) with some elaboration

• Fully understandable, with some errors that do not impede comprehensibility

• Varied and generally appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic language

• General control of grammar, syntax, and usage

• Generally consistent use of register appropriate for the situation, except for occasional shifts; basic control of

cultural conventions appropriate for formal correspondence (e.g., greeting, closing)

• Simple, compound, and a few complex sentences

3: FAIR performance in Interpersonal Writing

• Maintains the exchange with a response that is somewhat appropriate but basic within the context of the task

• Provides most required information (responses to questions, request for details)

• Generally understandable, with errors that may impede comprehensibility

• Appropriate but basic vocabulary and idiomatic language

• Some control of grammar, syntax, and usage

• Use of register may be inappropriate for the situation with several shifts; partial control of conventions for

formal correspondence (e.g., greeting, closing), although these may lack cultural appropriateness

• Simple and a few compound sentences

2: WEAK performance in Interpersonal Writing

• Partially maintains the exchange with a response that is minimally appropriate within the context of the task

• Provides some required information (responses to questions, request for details)

• Partially understandable with errors that force interpretation and cause confusion for the reader

• Limited vocabulary and idiomatic language

• Limited control of grammar, syntax, and usage

• Use of register is generally inappropriate for the situation; includes some conventions for formal

correspondence (e.g., greeting, closing) with inaccuracies

• Simple sentences and phrases

1: POOR performance in Interpersonal Writing

• Unsuccessfully attempts to maintain the exchange by providing a response that is inappropriate within the

context of the task

• Provides little required information (responses to questions, request for details)

• Barely understandable, with frequent or significant errors that impede comprehensibility

• Very few vocabulary resources

• Little or no control of grammar, syntax, and usage

• Minimal or no attention to register; includes significantly inaccurate or no conventions for formal

correspondence (e.g., greeting, closing)

• Very simple sentences or fragments

0: UNACCEPTABLE performance in Interpersonal Writing

• Mere restatement of language from the stimulus

• Completely irrelevant to the stimulus

• “I don’t know,” “I don’t understand,” or equivalent in any language

• Not in the language of the exam

- (hyphen): BLANK (no response)

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

4BNQMF"

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

4BNQMF#

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

4BNQMF$

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

GERMAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2019 SCORING COMMENTARY

Task 1: E-mail Reply

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

Overview

This task assessed writing in the interpersonal communicative mode by h aving the student write a reply to a n e-

mail message. Students were allotted 15 minutes to read the message and write the reply. The response received

a s ingle, holistic score b ased on how well it accomplished the assigned task. Students needed to be able first to

comprehend the e-mail and then to write a reply using a formal form of address. The reply must address all the

questions and requests raised in the message, as well as ask for more details about something mentioned in the

message.

In this exam, within the theme of Contemporary Life (Alltag), st

udents replied to an e-mail from Kirsten

Niemann, program coordinator from the organization committee of “Youth Votes!” (Die Jug

end stimmt!). In the

opening of her message, Niemann says that the purpose of the international Youth P arliament is to discuss

solutions to common problems and to bring these into the political arena. Niemann identifies the recipients of

the e-mail as students who, through work for student clubs and associations, have gained leadership

experience and are familiar with the interests and problems of their peers. She extends an invitation to these

student leaders to represent the youth of their regions at the meeting in Berlin.

In order to structure the work of the youth parliament m

ore clearly, she poses two questions to the recipients of

the e-mail: 1) Could you p lease t ell us something about your experience i n s chool groups or other

organizations? ̈ (Könnten Sie

uns b itte etwas uber Ihre Erfahrungen in Schulgruppen oder anderen Organisationen

erzählen?) and 2) In your opinion, what is an important problem for young people that we should discuss in the

outh parliament? (Was ist Ihrer Meinung nach ein w ichtiges Problem fur Jugendliche in Ihrer Gegend, uber das

ir im Jugendparlament diskutieren sollten?) Niemann closes the e-mail by thanking the student for the

edback and by o ffering assistance with a ny a dditional questions the e-mail recipient might have.

̈ ̈

Sample: 1A

Score: 4

This response is an example of a good performance in Interpersonal Writing. It maintains the exchange about

eing a representative in the youth parliament, with a generally appropriate response that briefly but accurately

addresses the sender’s request for information. With some elaboration, the student describes a personal

experience as president of a political club (“Ich bin in einem Club für

Politik”) and mentions that the use of

chnology and social media is a potential problem (“Ein wichtiges Problem für Jugendliche ist wie viel Technologie

ir benutzen”). The student also asks two relevant questions (“Wie viele anderen Schülerinnen kommen?”; “Welche

eit beginnt es?”). The response thus demonstrates both comprehension of the stimulus and attention to the

equirements of the assigned task. The answers are fully understandable with some minor errors (“interressiert

ich”; “eine Repräsentanten zu sein”). The vocabulary is varied, and there is some idiomatic language (“Wir treffen

uns

”; “über Sozialemedien s prechen”). Overall the language is varied and generally appropriate, but it lacks ease of

exp

ression (“Ich liebe mit anderen Schülerinnen sprechen”). The s tudent shows general control of grammar (“ich

be sehr viel über Politik … studieren”) and uses register correctly w ith a formulaic formal greeting and closing

(“Sehr geehrte Frau Niemann”; “Danke für Ihre Email!”; “Danke schon im Voraus für Ihre Hilfe”; “Mit freundlichen

üßen”). The language contains mostly sim ple sentences with so me compound (“Es interressiert mich sehr eine

epräsentanten zu sein”) and complex sentences

(“Ein w ichtiges Problem für Jugendliche ist wie viel Technologie

wir benutzen”). The response accordingly earned a score of 4.

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

GERMAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

2019 SCORING COMMENTARY

Task 1: E-mail Reply (continued)

Sample: 1B

Score: 3

This response is an example of a fair performance in Interpersonal Writing. While the response provides a

ll the

required information, it maintains the exchange on a level that is only somewhat appropriate with a series of

simple sentences that have noticeable linguistic flaws. It briefly answers the questions about the student’s

experience in school organizations (“Ich bin in Band”) and a

bout a problem that could be discussed in the youth

parliament (“Ein wichtiges Problem für Jugendliche sein rauchen”). The student expresses interest in being a

rep

resentative (“Ich interessiere mich für politik”) and manages to fulfill task requirements by asking two simple

estions (“Was soll ich tragen?”; “Haben Wir einen Club T-Shirt?”). The student shows some control of grammar,

syn

tax, and usage, although there are significant errors (“mehr tun über rauchenverbot können”) that make the

res

ponse only generally understandable. Most of the text uses simple sentences and basic vocabulary, with a few

compound sentences (“Meiner Meinug nach soll kein Studenten rauchen aber Sie rauchen”) and one unsuccessful

mplex sentence (“Ich denke Schule und unserer Generation mehr tun über rauchenverbot können”). The register is

propriate with an appropriate opening and closing phrase and formal form of address in the body of the e-mail

(“Danke für Ihre Email”). This response accordingly received a score of 3.

Sample: 1C

Score: 1

This response is an example of a poor performance in Interpersonal Writing. It is an unsuccessful attempt to deal

with th

e questions addressed in the e-mail and demonstrates that the student did not understand the stimulus.

The student uses some formulaic language in the greeting and the opening sentence, but even here, inaccuracies

appear (“sehr Geehrte Kirsten Niemann”). Confu

singly, the student offers thanks for feedback (“Vielen dank für

dieses Feedback”), even though it is the student who is supposed to provide the sender with feedback in the form

responses to the questions posed in the e-mail. The student does mention the youth parliament (“Wir Schreiben

üb

er die Jugendparlament”) and other organizations but does not actually answer any questions from the e-mail.

e sentences lack coherence and are thus barely understandable within the context of the task. Although the

grammar and syntax appear somewhat correct, many of the phrases are borrowed from the letter itself (“anderen

Org

anisationen erzählen”); thus, they demonstrate little control. The closing shows a minimal understanding of

con

ventions for formal correspondence (“unsere Meinung”). This resp

onse accordingly received a score of 1.

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