Two Summaries of the Same Article
Students read a 400-word article about a city that replaced its diesel buses with electric ones. The article states that the city bought 60 buses, that each bus costs more upfront than a diesel bus, that fuel and maintenance savings repay the extra cost in about seven years, and that air-quality monitors near bus routes recorded a drop in one pollutant. A student named Priya writes: "The city bought 60 electric buses. They cost more at first, but the city saves money on fuel and repairs, so the extra cost is paid back in about seven years. Pollution near the routes went down." A student named Marco writes: "The city spent too much money on 60 electric buses and pollution did not really change." The teacher must give feedback that helps both students and assign a grade for summarization.
1. Evaluate Priya's and Marco's summaries against the article's content.
Read the worked answer
Priya's summary is accurate and well organized. She includes the key facts: 60 buses, higher upfront cost, savings on fuel and maintenance, a seven-year payback, and a measured drop in one pollutant. She correctly frames the cost issue as a trade-off rather than a loss. Her one weakness is that she writes "pollution went down" without specifying that the article reported a drop in one pollutant near bus routes, not a general improvement. That is a minor overgeneralization.
Marco's summary misrepresents the article in two ways. First, "spent too much money" is an opinion, not a fact from the text; the article presents the higher price as something recovered over time. Second, "pollution did not really change" contradicts the monitoring data. Marco appears to have replaced the article's qualified finding with his own prior belief, which is the central summarizing error the task is meant to catch.
2. Write the feedback the teacher should give each student, including one concrete revision for each.
Read the worked answer
To Priya: "Your summary captures the main facts and the cost trade-off clearly. One fix: the article says monitors recorded a drop in one pollutant near bus routes, not that pollution generally went down. Revise your last sentence to: 'Monitors near bus routes recorded a drop in one pollutant.' That keeps your summary faithful to the evidence."
To Marco: "Your summary states an opinion ('spent too much money') and a claim the article does not support ('pollution did not really change'). Go back to the paragraph about costs and find the sentence about the seven-year payback, then rewrite your summary using only what the text says. Start with: 'The city bought 60 electric buses, which cost more upfront but...' and finish with the payback information."
Both revisions point to specific sentences rather than giving a general instruction to 'be more accurate,' so each student knows exactly what to change.
3. The teacher must convert these summaries into a grade. Propose a 4-point rubric and apply it to both students.
Read the worked answer
Rubric (4 points): (1) includes the central idea; (2) includes at least three supporting facts from the text; (3) contains no opinions presented as facts; (4) contains no claims that contradict the text.
Priya: point 1 yes (city switched to electric buses and the switch pays off). Point 2 yes (60 buses, upfront cost, seven-year payback, pollution drop). Point 3 yes. Point 4 mostly yes, but her last sentence overgeneralizes the pollution finding, so award 0.5 rather than 1. Total: 3.5 of 4.
Marco: point 1 partial, because he names the topic but frames it as a waste of money, which is not the article's central idea (0.5). Point 2 no, because he cites no supporting facts (0). Point 3 no, because "spent too much money" is an opinion stated as fact (0). Point 4 no, because the pollution claim contradicts the text (0). Total: 0.5 of 4.
The gap is large, so the teacher should also require Marco to resubmit after the revision exercise, and grade the resubmission separately so that the original score does not become permanent.