Few plays invite argumentative essays as naturally as Jean de France, which centers on a young Dane who abandons his own culture for a borrowed French identity. Students can argue about whether imitation is harmless, whether national pride is overrated, or whether Holberg is mocking Hans or defending a narrow idea of Danish identity. These debates make for lively writing, but they also create grading challenges. Teachers need to reward the strength of an argument without letting personal opinions about the topic influence the score.

Begin by clarifying whether the assignment is a literary argument or a broader position paper. A literary argument must be grounded in what the play shows, while a position paper may draw more freely on modern examples. If students are meant to write about the play, make sure the rubric requires textual evidence for every major claim. This prevents essays from drifting into general opinions about globalization.

Argument quality rests on a handful of identifiable features. These include a clear claim, logically ordered reasons, relevant evidence, and engagement with a counterargument. A student who argues that Hans deserves ridicule should address the possibility that his curiosity about the wider world is not entirely foolish. Essays that confront the strongest opposing view usually reach the top of the scale.

Evaluating Counterarguments

Counterarguments are often the weakest part of student essays, appearing as a token sentence with no development. Reward students who present an opposing view fairly and then explain why it fails or needs qualification. For example, a student might acknowledge that Hans's travels have given him genuine knowledge before arguing that his arrogance wastes it. That level of nuance demonstrates real thinking.

• States a clear, arguable position about the play.
• Supports reasons with specific scenes and lines.
• Addresses a serious opposing view fairly.
• Explains why the counterargument is limited or qualified.
• Maintains a logical progression from claim to conclusion.

Staying Neutral About Opinions

Topics about identity and culture can stir personal feelings, so graders must be careful to evaluate reasoning rather than agreement. A student who argues that cultural imitation is positive may be taking a position you disagree with, yet the essay may still be well constructed. State in the rubric that scores depend on argument quality and evidence, not on the conclusion. Reviewing your own comments for loaded language can also help.

Be especially thoughtful when students bring personal experience of immigration, language loss, or cultural belonging into their essays. These perspectives can enrich analysis and deserve respect. Grade them as you would any other evidence, asking whether they are connected to the text and used purposefully. A personal reference that illuminates Hans's behavior can strengthen an essay considerably.

Feedback That Sharpens Reasoning

Questions again prove more effective than corrections. Ask what a defender of Hans would say, or whether the ending of the play supports or undermines the student's claim. These prompts push students to test their own thinking. They also model the habits of mind that argumentative writing is meant to build.

To manage the volume, a rubric tied to argument features allows quick, consistent scoring. Tools that apply such a rubric can flag essays lacking a counterargument or relying on assertion, giving you a map for your own reading. You then add the human judgment that decides whether an unusual argument is brilliant or merely strange. That combination keeps grading both efficient and fair.