CUMULATIVE PORTFOLIO A comparative literary casebook Curate an argument about how readers judge people through incomplete information. Use at least two course texts, preserve a changed interpretation, and test your method on an unfamiliar passage.
Loading saved English work…
Portfolio workspace Choose your briefHigh-school scaffold College extension Create a 700–1,000-word casebook or equivalent annotated exhibit: a comparative argument, four cited details from at least two texts, one serious alternative reading, and a revision note.
Build it in stages Choose a question and two texts. Save your initial interpretation before returning to the worked examples. Collect at least four line-based annotations from two lessons. Explain a warrant for each. Draft a comparative argument and save its baseline. Ask a reader where the argument overreaches, or conduct a clearly labeled self-review. Revise in response to a substantial objection. Record what changed, what stayed and why. Complete the unfamiliar passage response, assemble the portfolio and use the rubric to plan further work. Your lesson evidence These links open your original saved investigations. The portfolio download includes their passages, annotations, source cards, performance cues, drafts and first/latest transfer responses.
Draft and revise Portfolio draft 0 / 16,000 characters · length is a storage limit, not a quality score Preserve this draft before revision Revision commentary — explain one substantive change and one choice you retained 0 / 16,000 characters · length is a storage limit, not a quality score Companion artifact or manuscript continuation Use this space for the adaptation, second medium, exhibit captions or a continuation of a longer manuscript requested by your brief. Label the material clearly. It is saved and exported with the portfolio; this field has its own 16,000-character allowance. Keep an earlier companion version below before revising it.
Companion artifact / manuscript continuation 0 / 16,000 characters · length is a storage limit, not a quality score Preserve companion before revision Portfolio sources and references Keep new project sources here; your lesson source cards also remain in the downloadable portfolio. Record a source once where it belongs. Use the notes for a reference list, synthesis matrix and research-route declaration. A filled card does not verify a source or count as independent research.
Your source dossier Keep source wording, your paraphrase and your reasoning in separate fields. Locators are stored as plain text; the site does not fetch or verify them. Label fictional teaching sources as fictional.
Add source card (0/8) References, synthesis notes and research route 0 / 16,000 characters · length is a storage limit, not a quality score Review criteria Use these descriptions to seek feedback or conduct a labeled self-review. The site records your account; it cannot verify a reviewer’s identity or certify quality.
Interpretation Still developing: Summarizes events or makes a broad character judgment.
Convincing evidence: Makes a precise, contestable claim and accounts for complicating details.
Evidence and reasoning Still developing: Includes quotations without explaining their relevance.
Convincing evidence: Locates accurate details in both texts and explains the inference connecting each to the claim.
Form and comparison Still developing: Names devices or discusses each text in isolation.
Convincing evidence: Explains how language, viewpoint or structure produces a meaningful comparative insight.
Revision and limits Still developing: Corrects surface errors without reconsidering the argument.
Convincing evidence: Responds to a serious alternative, documents substantive revision and marks unresolved uncertainty.
Review record — self-review or reader feedback, evidence from your draft, and next steps 0 / 16,000 characters · length is a storage limit, not a quality score Unfamiliar transfer task Unfamiliar case: “The caretaker locked the unused theater each night. When the council sold it, she gave the new owner a box of ticket stubs. Every stub was from a different year; every seat number was the same.” Write two possible interpretations of her collection and then a qualified argument. Discuss one formal choice. Compare it with a course text without inventing who occupied the seat. Preserve your first response before revising.
Your independent response 0 / 16,000 characters · length is a storage limit, not a quality score Save project transfer response Apply the same rubric to this new case. There is no automatic correctness verdict.
Assemble for review ○ Still needed — An artifact and saved transfer response for each of the 6 investigations ○ Still needed — At least 4 explained annotations drawn from 2 investigations ○ Still needed — A portfolio draft and preserved comparison draft ○ Still needed — A revision commentary and rubric-based review ○ Still needed — A saved response to the unfamiliar project passage These checks establish that evidence is present. They do not assess its accuracy, originality or quality. Skipping alone does not satisfy evidence requirements; saved artifacts and transfer responses are checked independently.
Mark portfolio submitted for review Download readable portfolio
Not submitted for review.
Return to the course · All saved English work
