Assignments focused specifically on literary devices, foreshadowing and metaphor in particular, are common when The Old Man and the Sea is used to introduce or reinforce these concepts. The novella offers rich, teachable examples, from Santiago's dream of lions foreshadowing his eventual struggle to the extended metaphor comparing his fight with the marlin to broader human endurance.

A common grading pitfall with device-focused essays is rewarding correct identification too generously, giving strong scores to essays that simply spot the lion dream as foreshadowing without explaining what it actually predicts or how that prediction shapes the reader's experience of later events.

A stronger rubric explicitly separates identification from analysis, requiring students to explain not just that a device is present but what specific effect it produces, treating identification as a necessary but insufficient condition for full credit.

This distinction matters because literary device instruction often gets reduced to a spotting exercise in earlier grades, and a well-designed rubric at this level should explicitly push students past that habit toward genuine analytical engagement with how devices function.

Building a Rubric That Rewards Effect, Not Just Identification

The rubric should make clear that identifying a foreshadowing moment or metaphor earns only partial credit, with the majority of points reserved for a clear, specific explanation of what that device accomplishes within the story.

• Correctly identifies a specific instance of foreshadowing or metaphor with textual evidence
• Explains what the foreshadowing predicts or what the metaphor compares
• Analyzes the effect of the device on the reader's understanding or emotional experience
• Connects the device to a broader theme in the novella
• Distinguishes the chosen device clearly from other similar literary techniques

Common Confusion Between Devices

Students frequently confuse foreshadowing with simple repetition, or metaphor with simile, particularly in earlier grades where these terms were introduced together and haven't been fully distinguished through practice. Grading should flag this confusion directly and clearly, rather than simply marking the answer wrong without explanation.

A brief, specific correction, noting exactly why a particular example is repetition rather than foreshadowing, does more to build lasting understanding than a general comment suggesting the student review literary terms without pointing to the specific confusion in their own writing.

Grading a Mix of Device Choices Consistently

Since students may choose different devices to analyze, foreshadowing versus metaphor versus symbolism, from a broader list of options, the rubric needs criteria general enough to apply consistently across different device types while still being specific enough to guide meaningful feedback.

Focusing the rubric on the underlying skills, accurate identification, clear explanation of function, and connection to theme, rather than device-specific criteria, allows for this consistency without requiring an entirely separate rubric for each possible literary device a student might choose.

Using This Assignment to Prepare for Standardized Testing

Literary device identification and analysis appears frequently on standardized reading assessments, which makes this kind of essay assignment doubly useful as both a literature unit component and direct preparation for test formats that ask students to analyze an author's use of specific techniques.

Framing the assignment this way for students, explaining that these exact skills will reappear on future assessments, tends to increase engagement even among students who might otherwise see a device-focused essay as a less exciting assignment than a broader thematic one.