Grade 3

Opinion

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Islands

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

This response receives No Score because it is Insufficient. Other than the insertion of the phrase “I like” at the start of the essay, the rest of the text is copied directly from Source 2. There is not a sufficient amount of original work from the student to determine trait scores.

There are no grade-appropriate issues with sentence structure.

There are no grade-appropriate issues with punctuation.

There are errors with capitalizing the pronoun “i” which is capitalized only once throughout the response. There is an error with capitalizing proper nouns. Additionally, the beginning words of sentences are not consistently capitalized.

There are no grammar usage errors. Errors with frequently confused words (e.g., its for it’s) are not relevant for grade 3.

There is one spelling error (“cloth”).

This response receives a No Score because it is Off-Purpose. The assigned task is to “give your opinion about which type of island would be better to visit—a hot island or a cold island.” While this response is on-topic in that it deals with visiting a “hot” island, and it does reflect a preference for going to a hot island rather than a cold island, it is a fictional narrative and does not possess the characteristics of an opinion essay.

There are no errors with grammar usage.

There are no errors with sentence structure.

There is a single spelling error: &#8220;Maby&#8221;

There is an unnecessary use of a capital letter: Island.

There is a missing endmark (period) between “ice skating” and “All.”

There are nearly no specific references to text details and no attributions to source materials in this response.

The few details that are included refer to cold weather (snowman, skiing, ice skating) but do not reflect a close reading of the sources. References to sledding and bears, only vaguely related to the text details about dog-sledding and polar bears, are relevant enough to make this response scoreable even if only at the lowest score point category.

This brief response introduces a clear statement of opinion about the writer’s choice and concludes with a statement that generally matches that position.

There are no real transitions other than the phrase “All in all.”

The response is too brief to determine a purposeful progression of ideas. Instead, there is a seemingly random list of reasons that do not reflect the content of the source materials; they are relevant only in that they reflect cold weather activities.

It is difficult to separate how this response demonstrates competence with sentence structure and punctuation skills. Although grade 3 writers are not accountable for formal sentence errors such as run-ons and fragments, this response shows limited understanding of the need to separate ideas into punctuated sentences. This lack of understanding also causes confusion.

There are no identifiable errors with grammar usage.

There are no errors with capital letters (presumably “DANGERIS” is an attempt at style).

There are multiple spelling errors.

There are a few unattributed details from source materials in this response.

The attempted elaboration is limited to interpretations that don’t necessarily support the stated opinion (“dangeris” animals and “stuf” in the water) or are irrelevant as presented (“weapons” and “But you get a house”).

The language is general, and there is no evidence of style appropriate for the task.

There is a clear position in this response.

There is no distinct introduction, with the opinion combined with a list of reasons. There is a brief, one line conclusion.

There is no apparent progression of ideas and no appropriate transitions connecting the seemingly random reasons that do not always, as presented, support the opinion (“DANGERIS animals live there be care full with weapons,” “the water has dagneris stuf…” and “Cold islands have snow you half to hunt a lot its freezeing cold”).

There are no grade 3-specific errors with sentences.

There are no errors with grammar usage. Note that frequently confused words (e.g., “Their” for &#8220;There&#8221;) do not reflect grade 3 expectations.

The errors in punctuation are not relevant for grade 3.

There is an unnecessary capital letter for “More.”

This response does integrate (and in a simplistic way, synthesize) details from both sources (e.g., “you won’t have much of a food choice but you won’t have to have many hurricanes”). There is also some copying (“live in brightly colored houses that dot the hill side”) and close paraphrasing (“rocky…covered in ice, but they are very pretty” versus “rocky and are covered in ice but are very beutiful”).

Elaboration is limited to a few hypothetical connections (“You might be able to skate on the ice,” “you will be able to stay inside a house and it won’t get hot,” “you can bring coats,” and the somewhat specious connection: “if you run out of water…”).

Overall, the language use is general.

There is no separate introduction in this response, and the conclusion is missing entirely.

There is a clear statement of opinion (“you should visit the cold islands”).

There are few transitions other than “Also.”

The paragraphing is arbitrary, with the progression of ideas being mostly a list-like presentation of reasons to compare the cold and hot islands and support the position favoring “cold.”

There are no grade 3-relevant errors with sentence structure.

There are no grade 3-relevant errors with capitalization.

There are no grade 3-relevant errors with punctuation.

There is an error with subject/verb agreement with a close subject and verb (“…tropical island have…”). In the last sentence of the first paragraph, “hill” should be plural.

There are frequent spelling errors (e.g., “beutiful,” “swiming,” “baots”). “Vaction” and “chimpanzee” (which are in the source materials) as well as “uniqe” are probably not grade 3 words.

There are appropriate details used (but not attributed) primarily from source 2 in this response.

There is, however, almost no elaboration with only a few brief extensions going beyond the text (e.g., “You may get lucky” and “go exploring”).

Language use is appropriate, with words such as “unique” and “amazing” enhancing the response.

There is also a strong sense of style (e.g., use of imperative sentences such as “Try to find these unique animals” and “Do these amazing activities”). Despite the distinctive style, there is insufficient elaboration to earn more than a 2.

There is no separate introduction or conclusion in this response.

The first paragraph does present a clear position, and the final sentence offers closure.

It is somewhat difficult to distinguish the progression of ideas, with animals and activities being covered in both paragraphs.

There are few transitions (with  the exception of “and”) to clarify relationships in the list of details included.

There are no grade 3-appropriate errors with sentences (run-on sentences are not considered errors until grade 4).

There are no grade 3-appropriate errors with punctuation (commas in compound sentences and following introductory elements are not grade 3 errors).

There are no errors with capitalization.

There are no errors with  spelling.

Responsibility for subject/verb agreement begins in grade 3 as a “language progression skill,” meaning competency with the skills is dependent on the complexity of sentence compared with the grade level. Arguably, “there is soft, sandy beaches” has enough distance between the subject and verb to be above grade 3 level; however, the subject and verb in “there is vines” are close enough that the lack of agreement should count as an error. There are no other grade 3-appropriate errors in this category (3rd graders are not accountable for frequently confused words such as “your” for &#8220;you’re&#8221;).
&nbsp;

As would be expected, most of the details in this response come from source 2, about warm islands. However, paragraph 2 also references source 1, explaining what the writer deems as inferior food offerings on cold islands compared with what’s available on warm islands.

There are no specific attributions to the source materials (a distinctive weakness for this score point, but representing only one bullet point on the rubric).

There is some elaboration, although it is uneven. Paragraph 2 has no elaboration, although the writer has made some implied value judgments about preferable food. Paragraphs 3 &amp; 4 show some elaboration via inferences: “you don’t need as many clothes,” (although it’s not clear why that’s an advantage), and “vines to climb” (again, explaining that climbing vines would be fun would help).

The language use is general and often self-evident (“The island heat is a lot warmer than the cold islands”), and the repetitive transitions are distracting.

There is evidence of an emerging sense of (if not skill with) style: the rhetorical questions used to frame the essay attempt to engage the reader with a conversational style. Otherwise, the style is overall perfunctory but consistent. When considering the overall rubric descriptors, this essay edges into the score point 3 category.

There is a clear statement of opinion (“warm islands”), and the rhetorical question (“You want to know why?”) is used to set up the road map for the essay.

The last sentence in the introduction provides a transition that sounds artificial (“keep reading to find out…”). The transitions between paragraphs are predictable and repetitive (“The first/second/third reason I want to visit”). And the final sentence in each body paragraph echoes the first sentence (“That’s the first/second/last reason I want to visit”), rendering these transitions more distracting than appropriate. Internal transitions in paragraphs 2 and 3 are subtle (“On cold islands….But on warm islands…” and “If….than [then]…”), but in paragraph 4, they once again become needlessly repetitive (“first of all…second of all…last of all…”). Although the redundant and artificial transitions diminish the effectiveness of this response, it has enough qualities of a score point 3 to move into that scoring category.

Although the introduction is perfunctory, it is adequate. The conclusion, however, is inadequate, posing a rhetorical question that is ineffective to conclude an essay, providing only a limited sense of completeness.

The progression of ideas does maintain the focus (and roadmap) described in the introduction.

Although there are some awkward constructions (e.g., the last sentence in paragraph 5), there are no grade 3-appropriate sentence errors.
&nbsp;

The only grade 3-relevant error in grammar usage is the use of “a” instead of “an” to precede “island” (paragraph 2). Note: errors with frequently confused words (“your” instead of you’re and “then” instead of than) are grade 4 errors.
&nbsp;

There are no grade 3-relevant errors in punctuation.
&nbsp;

There is a missing capital letter for the pronoun I in paragraph 3. Note: the seemingly unnecessary capital on “Some” in paragraph 3 is likely there because it should have been the beginning of quoted material.
&nbsp;

There are numerous spelling errors of grade 3-appropriate words (e.g., “wheater,” “alot,” “mountins,” “opion/opioin,” “diffrent,” “islnds,” “bannanas,” “chmps”).

In this response, there are sufficient details selected from source #2; however, source #1 is not referenced other than to clarify the task – hot versus cold weather islands).  Many source details are copied, especially in paragraphs 3 and 4, which are word-for-word copies in some places. Failing to use quotation marks to indicate what material is quoted is a weakness.

The attributions to source materials are somewhat awkward (“I got this information on…”), but they are there.

However, there is an adequate amount of the student’s own writing in other paragraphs to evaluate for elaboration. Specifically, paragraphs 3 and 4 end with commentary : “That is something you would want to go see” and “How cool would it be to see….”  Paragraph 2 and the conclusion also develop the writer’s ideas (via personal connection: “When I want to go swimming…I want it to be warm” and advice: “Listen to me and take my advice”). Some parts of the response lack development. Paragraph 5, for example, lists the “tropical stuff” but doesn’t explain why these are special (presumably, coconuts and other fruits are tasty, but these qualities are implied rather than developed).

The language used is mostly general (“stuff”).

The style is appropriate, and the writer has attempted to utilize voice to persuade the audience (e.g., “Pack up all your things”). Although there are some weaknesses in this response, overall it has enough qualities of the score point 3 category to earn that score.

The introduction to this response begins by summarizing the task (although it says “reading a book” instead of “making a book”) followed by a statement providing context (“there are two types”) and a clear choice or opinion. The mildly repetitive conclusion is adequate, summarizing the “reasons” but also adding some personal spin (“Listen to me and take my advice”). The final advice to move to a tropical place (“But don’t sell your house.”) is somewhat distracting and off-task, but it doesn’t alter the focus of the writing.

Although the opinion is somewhat muddled (“If your planning…to go a nice, tropical island…go to a hot island”—as if there were any other kind of tropical island), this does not interfere with meaning.

Overall, the progression of ideas is quite clear and is clarified with formulaic transitions between paragraphs: “My first reason,” “Another reason,” etc. There are few internal transitions, and most of the details provided (those that aren’t copied from the sources) are listed.

There are no sentence structure errors. Note that phrases such as “Even adults” are deemed stylistic, not errors.

The few errors in punctuation do not reflect grade 3 requirements.

There are no errors in capitalization.

There are no errors in grammar usage.

This essay does integrate details from both sources primarily by drawing relevant comparisons (“You wouldn’t want to do this on a cold island because…,” “interesting plants on both…but it’s warmer…so plants might thrive…”).

The references to source materials are attributed.

There are a variety of effective elaborative strategies employed throughout. For example, paragraph 2 begins with an analogy about a zoo to help readers connect to the variety of wildlife in the tropics. Paragraph 4 turns negatives into positives, addressing the downsides of the rainy season first (lots of rain and hurricanes) and then contrasting by pointing out the upsides of the season (playing in puddles and homes built to withstand hurricanes). The response also includes commentary and comparisons such as “You wouldn’t want to do this on a cold island because that the water would probably be cold…”.

The language used is mostly effective with words (e.g., “thrive” and “relaxing”) and phrases (e.g., “sipping from a tall glass of ice-cold lemonade”), although there are occasional lapses (some repetitions, e.g., “tropical islands are better/best…”).

The style is mature for a third grader with the introduction serving as a good example of mixing effective rhetorical questions/answers, inviting readers to “imagine” themselves in this environment. Wording such as “Well…” show further evidence of an intentional conversational style.

This response has an engaging introduction that effectively defines “tropical,” invites readers to imagine themselves in the setting, and states a clear position on the question of hot or cold. The conclusion is not as effective as the introduction, although it does offer clear closure.

The essay progresses from tropical animals, to nature, to activities. That progression of ideas is sustained with two exceptions: Arguably, the middle of paragraph 2—about swimming—should have been in paragraph 5—about activities, and sentences 4 and 5 in paragraph 5 (“You can look at wildlife…Beautiful places everywhere.”) should have been in paragraph 2.

This response has an engaging introduction that effectively defines “tropical,” invites readers to imagine themselves in the setting, and states a clear position on the question of hot or cold.

Some transitions seemed forced, especially between body paragraphs. For example, the sentences “tropical islands are better”; “Tropical islands are the best!”; “Now do tropical islands seem comforting and warm?”; and “Obviously, you should either visit or move to a tropical island” appear to be tacked on: they are mildly distracting and more characteristic of a 3 paper than a 4. Internal transitions are appropriate and varied (“For example,” “But,” “In fact,” “Well,” “Now…”).

There are no sentence structure errors in this response.

There appears to be some struggle with compound words, evident by multiple word choice errors. For example, when the student uses “a” instead of “an” before the word&#8221; assortment.&#8221; Additionally, in the same paragraph, paragraph 3, “any where” is used instead of “anywhere.&#8221; The same error is later made with the word “water falls.&#8221;

There is a capitalization error in the fourth paragraph. The word “The” is capitalized in the second line when it does not need to be.

There are no spelling errors in this response.

There are a couple of places where the student missed and apostrophe (e.g., “cant” and “its”). Additionally, a period is used as an end mark to a question instead of a question mark in paragraph five.

This response contains convincing details that are attributed to source #2.

Overall, the response demonstrates a variety of elaboration strategies. For example, there is elaboration via commentary (“You cant do that anywhere else” “What an experience that would be”).  Much of the development comes through inferences. For example, there are some mature inferences (e.g., “You will be so occupied there will be no time to be bored”) along with a few somewhat obvious inferences (e.g., “it [source 2] says tropical islands are near the equator which means the ocean water is warm”), and some inferences that aren’t necessarily text-supported (e.g., “palm trees that you can’t find any where else!”).

However, some text details are directly copied (but not quoted) along with an additional brief comment (e.g., “Did you know that [copied detail about lagoons]?” “[copied detail about sea creatures] just to name a few”).

Despite some general language (especially transitions), there are many effective words (e.g., “escape,” “occupied,” and “terrifyingly”) along with phrases (e.g.,  “Interestingly enough” and “entertaining place”) that successfully engage the reader.

These same phrases, along with some well-chosen (if not well-punctuated) comments and question/answers (“You can’t do that….can you!”) establish a conversational style that is effective for the audience.

The introduction to this response begins by providing a context via a rhetorical question, along with a clear opinion about a comparison between tropical and cold islands. This is followed by a list of the support to be used. The conclusion basically repeats this list of topics and is not effective.

The introduction to this response begins by providing a context via a rhetorical question, along with a clear opinion about a comparison between tropical and cold islands.

The obvious progression of ideas is sustained, along with predictable transitions between paragraphs (“To begin with,” “Second,” “Third,” “Lastly,” “That is why I…”). Within paragraphs, there are some subtle transitions (“Amazingly enough,” “Interestingly enough”) as well as more typical connectors such as “also.”

Because there are so many missing or inappropriate words, and only one period, it is difficult to assess where sentences begin or end  (e.g., “so thats it id pick the hot island only if and my there was water so the winner is hot island yea and…bye”).

Again, missing and/or inappropriate phrases make it difficult to assess control of grammar usage.

Errors with spelling cause confusion (“head aces,” “becouse,” “thermea”).

There are missing capital letters for the personal pronoun “I” and at the beginning of sentences.

There are missing apostrophes with contractions (“that[’]s,” “i[’]d”) and the response has only one period.

There are no specific references to text details. The few details that are included refer to “thermea and coldness and head aces”.

There are no attributions to source materials in this response.

The few details that are included refer to “thermea and coldness and head aces”.

The vocabulary is limited and ineffective in that it is difficult to understand what the writer is trying to convey.

As a result, there is also no style evident that would be appropriate for the audience.

This brief response introduces a clear statement of opinion about the writer’s choice, and concludes with a statement that matches that position.

This brief response introduces a clear statement of opinion about the writer’s choice and concludes with a statement that matches that position.

The writer does not utilize any real transitional strategies.

The response is too brief to determine a purposeful progression of ideas. However, there is a brief list of difficult to comprehend reasons why the student would prefer a hot island over a cold island.

This response has no grade 3-appropriate errors in sentence structure. However, there are places where missing words (e.g., “My opinion is to [go] to a hot…”) and odd sentence order (“Hot islands i sugest you go to…”) cause confusion.

The personal pronoun “I” lacks capital letters.
&nbsp;

Overall, there are few errors with grammar usage although awkward or imprecise use of prepositions (“My opinion for a cold island…”) cause confusion.
&nbsp;

There are errors with missing end marks (“on a cold island My opinion…”) and the apostrophe is missing from the contraction “that[’]s.”
&nbsp;

There are relatively frequent errors with spelling (“can not” for “cannot,” “swiming,” “realy,” “sugest,” “vaction”).

There are nearly no specific references to text details, and no attributions to source materials in this response.

References to fishing, swimming, and vacation, only vaguely related to the text details about islands, are relevant enough to make this response scoreable even if only at the lowest score point category. The few details that are included refer to cold weather (fishing) and warm weather (swimming) but do not reflect a close reading of the sources.

The vocabulary is somewhat ineffective for the audience in that the writer directly addresses the reader by using the personal pronoun “you.”

The style of directly addressing the reader by using the personal pronoun &#8220;you&#8221; is not appropriate.

This response introduces a statement of opinion about the writer&#8217;s choice and concludes with a statement that generally matches that position.

This response introduces a statement of opinion about the writer&#8217;s choice.

The writer’s use of transitional strategies is basic (e.g., “you can also,” “Another reason,” and “If you choose”).

The response is brief, but the progression of ideas is distinguishable, although inconsistent and repetitive. There is a list of reasons that vaguely reflect the content of the source materials; they are relevant in that they reflect both hot and cold weather activities like swimming and fishing.

Although there are run-on sentences, these are not considered grade 3 skills.
&nbsp;

There are a few grade 3-appropriate errors with grammar usage (e.g., there is an error with what should be a single, not a plural noun–“hats”). There is an error with adverbs (the comparative eas[i]er should either be “more easily,” or the sentence should be [it is] easier to find…”). There is also an awkward or imprecise use of prepositions (“reason to lve in a warm island…”). Note also that grade 3 students are not accountable for frequently confused words (“witch” instead of which, “cloths” for clothes).
&nbsp;

There are missing apostrophes with contractions (wont, cant), and there are missing commas in a simple list (“your coat[,] your hats[,] or gloves”).
&nbsp;

There is an unnecessary initial capital letter in the word “Summer.”
&nbsp;

There are some spelling errors (“wam,” “helthy,” “caan,” “lve,” “alot”).

There are not many specific references to text details and no attributions to source materials in this response.

The details that are included refer to ease or difficulty of finding food based on whether the island is warm or cold, but do not reflect a close reading of the sources.

References to the inability to grow food on a cold island; not needing “your coat your hats or gloves”; and “helthy food to eat like fruits,” vaguely relate to the text details about islands.

The vocabulary is somewhat ineffective for the audience contributing to the inconsistency of the style.

This response introduces a statement of opinion about the writer’s choice but concludes with an extraneous statement about animals that strays from that position.

The writer’s use of transitional strategies is basic (e.g., “If you were…”, “Another reason”, “…you also…”, and “One thing”).

The progression of ideas in this response focuses on a formulaic comparison and contrast of ease or difficulty of accessing food and clothing on an island based on whether it is warm or cold. The list of reasons vaguely reflects the content of the source materials.

Informational

Astronauts (Informational)

The first (of four total) sentence is a run-on.

There is an apostrophe missing for the contraction &#8220;that’s.&#8221; Given the brevity of the response, no more than partial control can be assumed.

There are no capital letters used.

There are no errors with grammar usage, but given the brevity of the response, no more than partial control can be assumed.

There are relatively frequent spelling errors (“astronuat”; “evrything”; “team work”).

There is minimal evidence for the vague main idea (training and teamwork).

There are no apparent references to the source materials with the possible exception of the very vague idea of “plans” and “team.” The information is not attributed to sources.

The very few supporting details are not elaborated.

The language is vague (“evrything require”; “plans”) and 
repetitive (“require;” “require”).

The response is too brief to show any evidence of style suitable for the task and purpose.

This brief response has a weak focus with little or no discernible organizational plan.

There are no transitional strategies to connect the random details.

Presumably, “to be an astronaut requiure lots of training” and “thats what you need” constitute a minimal and vague introduction and conclusion, but they are minimal.

The response lacks cohesion; it is too brief for the purpose and task.

There are run-on sentences (the first sentence in paragraph three should be four separate sentences, and the last paragraph is also a run-on).

There are many above-grade-level errors, which do not impact the score, but there are also unnecessary commas (“THE job of a astrnot is like, floating in a tin can…” and “THIS is beause, I like wringing…”), missing apostrophes for contractions (“thats”), and a missing endmark in the final sentence.

There are unnecessary capital letters (“THE” and “THIS”) and missing capitals (“earth”).

There are errors with articles “a/an,” but no other grade-relevant errors.

Spelling errors include “astrnot”; “wehr”; “Sometims” ;“apinyon/ a pinyon”; “favrot”; “diffront”; ”timse”; “wringing” (writing); “siontist/siintistt” (scientists); “whit” (what). Some words may not represent grade-level errors (&#8220;meteors and astrology&#8221;).

This response addresses the topic, but most details are either unexplained (“astrnots try to stop meders and as-troys”) or irrelevant (“thats my apinyon .you may have a diffront a pinyon” and “I like wringing”).

There is minimal evidence that source details are used (&#8220;no gravity&#8221;, &#8220;robots&#8221;), and there are no efforts to attribute any information.

Some elaboration is effective ([being an astronaut] 
&#8220;is like, floating in a tin can out in a place wehr there is no gravity&#8221;), but most other attempts at elaboration are irrelevant and ineffective (&#8220;thats my apinyon .you may have a diffront a pinyon&#8221;).

The language is very vague (“scared sometimes”; “being a astrnot is hard work”; “favrot thing to do”) and often causes confusion.

The response is brief and confusing, showing no evidence of style beyond the first simile about an astronaut’s job being similar to “floating in a tin can.”

The focus is confusing: the main idea lacks clarity (“the job of an astronaut”), and there are drifts (“I like wringing” and “my apinyon”).

Attempted transitions are minimal and ineffective.

There is a vague attempted introduction about what it means to be an astronaut (“floating in a tin can”), but there is no conclusion.

This response has little or no discernible organizational plan.

There is a run-on sentence (the first paragraph).

There are no grade-relevant errors with punctuation.

There are no errors with capital letters.

There are errors with articles/determiners (“an job as a astronaut”) but no other grade-relevant errors. Given the brevity of the response, this demonstrates only partial control of the convention.

Spelling errors are relatively frequent: “planits”; “benn”; “can not” (cannot); “nead”; “beleav”; “trane”; “owers.” Some words, such as &#8220;robot&#8221; and &#8220;galaxies&#8221;, may not be grade 3-appropriate spelling words.

Some cursory evidence from the source materials is used, but it is weakly integrated.

There are a only few specific references to source materials (“roebot;” “trane for 100s of owers”) and a few general references (e.g., “work hard on traning”). None of the details are attributed to sources.

Elaboration is either weak and confusing ( “&#8230;have roebot thingys that can go too other planits that the asonausts can not go to”) or not supported by text (“many astronauts benn on the moon; many astronauts beleav that there are many galixys”).

Word choices are weak and confusing (“roebot thingys”) and repetitive (“many;” “work hard”).

There is no evidence of style appropriate for the task and purpose.

There is a stated focus about astronauts working “hard to get a job,” but some of the details are not clearly connected to that focus (“close view at other planits” and “many astronauts beleav that there are many galixys”).

Transitions between ideas are weak and repetitive (“And many astronauts&#8230;”; “And astronauts have&#8230;”; “And many astronauts&#8230;”).

The introduction is present but weak, and there 
is no conclusion.

There is an evident progression of ideas, from details about what astronauts do to a brief statement about training along with another brief statement about their physical condition. However, too many other details are irrelevant to “hard work.”

There are no errors with sentence formation.

There are no grade-relevant errors with capital letters.

There are errors with articles (“a atmosphere”). Some other errors (e.g., shifts in verb tense and pronoun use) are not grade-relevant.

There are a few spelling errors ( “alot”; “exept”), but some (“ordanary”; “oxigen”) are beyond grade level.

The details used to support the assigned task – an article about the job of an astronaut – are inadequate. In particular, details from paragraphs two and three are neither relevant nor source-based (e.g., information about “bad gasses;” “it is not fair;” “Red Giant star”). The few details provided in paragraph one are relevant but insufficient for the task.

There are very few relevant references to source materials, and none are attributed.

Search Annotated Student Responses

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy

Examples

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy