AP
®
English Language and Composition 2022 Scoring Commentary
© 2022 College Board.
Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.
Question 1
Note: Student samples are quoted verbatim and may contain spelling and grammatical errors.
Overview
Students responding to this question were expected to read six sources on the topic of STEM
education and then write an essay that synthesized material from at least three of the sources and
developed their position on the value, if any, of initiatives to improve STEM education and increase
the number of students in the STEM disciplines. Students were expected to respond to the prompt
with a thesis that takes a defensible position; use evidence from at least three provided sources to
support their line of reasoning clearly, properly citing the sources; explain how the evidence
supports their line of reasoning; and use appropriate grammar and punctuation in presenting their
argument.
As per the Course and Exam Description (CLE-1.M, CLE-1.1), students were expected to be able to
read the prompt, understand the task, use sources provided to write paragraphs that reflect their
ability to establish claims and provide evidence, and demonstrate their understanding of prose and
their ability to write using cogent, meaningful discourse.
Sample: 1A
Score: 1-4-1
Thesis (0–1 points): 1
The defensible thesis is found at the end of paragraph 1: “In a sense, it would make sense to pour more
resources into this field of education; however, this newfound opportunity should not squander the
prevalence of other fields such as literature or the arts. Therefore, although there should be more value
placed on the development of STEM education, there should be no diminishing of other subjects in
order to achieve this goal.”
Evidence and Commentary (0–4 points): 4
The response establishes a line of reasoning, acknowledging the “desire that lays in increasing STEM
education” in paragraph 2 before devoting paragraph 3 to a nuanced look at the need to “establish an
education system that places subjects in unison instead of undermining each other.” The response has
adequate evidence, clearly explained throughout, using multiple sources in each paragraph (in order,
Sources B, A, and F in paragraph 2 and Sources C and D in paragraph 3). Further, the concession that
“there lacks focus on the field” in paragraph 2 uses two well-chosen paraphrases before returning to
the central argument. The discussion of Source D in paragraph 3 illustrates the response’s consistency
in supporting all claims, as seen in the assertion that “[a]s a whole, the importance of a well rounded
STEM education not only emphasize the development of students, but the fact that success becomes a
byproduct due to the skills obtained.”
Sophistication (0–1 points): 1
The response’s overall style is vivid and persuasive, as demonstrated in statements such as “Both the
increase in demand as well as the shifting economy work in tandem to establish the fact that those in
STEM professions benefit not only large businesses, but the people as well” (paragraph 2) and
“Placing a focus on STEM education does not mean a whole displacement of other fields of education
though, as more often than not it is found that all subjects work together in unison to produce a
successful STEM based student” (paragraph 3). While the response combines sources in support of its