Grade 6

Explanatory

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

World's Fair

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

Errors in punctuation make deciphering sentence structure errors challenging; however, there does not appear to be any errors in sentence structure.

Much of the dialogue is punctuated incorrectly which constitutes nearly all of the punctuation errors in this response.

There are no errors in capitalization.

There are no grammar usage errors.

This response receives a No Score for Evidence/Elaboration because it is off-purpose. While the information relates to the topic of a world’s fair, it is primarily a narrative response about a classroom of students who create and rehearse some sort of talent show act based on the 1893 Chicago Fair. Other than the final sentence of the first paragraph, there is virtually no information exploring the impact of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, which was the original assignment of the task.

This response receives a No Score for Organization/Purpose because it is off-purpose. While the information relates to the topic of a world’s fair, it is primarily a narrative response about a classroom of students who create and rehearse some sort of talent show act based on the 1893 Chicago Fair. Other than the final sentence of the first paragraph, there is virtually no information exploring the impact of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, which was the original assignment of the task.

This response receives No Score because there is insufficient original student writing that can be scored; the majority of the essay is copied. Each paragraph has a brief, original introductory phrase (e.g., “In source #1 it states that…”) which is followed by a direct copy of information from that source. There is not enough original student writing to determine a score.

Narrative

Robots

Development/Elaboration

Three sentences of the six-sentence response are run-on sentences.

There are missing commas, including missing commas in compound sentences (e.g., &#8220;he…shot it with a ray gun but it had no effect so he went…&#8221;). Arguably, the fourth sentence is a question and should end with a question mark.

With the exception of “THE END,” no capital letters are used in the response.

The responses is too brief to assess grammar usage, but other than reversing the traditional word order with the phrase &#8220;March 13th on Friday,&#8221; there are no errors in this category.

There are no grade-level spelling errors (e.g., “scientes,” “phinoex,” and “smitherines” are all above grade 6).

Although the events are clear, the experience lacks details and the narrator/characters are undeveloped (Who is the mad scientist? What did the robot look like?).

References to the robot talking, playing, running, and cooking vaguely connect to the source materials.

Narrative techniques such as dialogue and/or description are minimal or absent and do not illustrate or advance the narrative (mad scientist; &#8220;[the robot] could jump, talk, ply, run, and even cook&#8221;).

A few examples of figurative language (&#8220;bonkers,&#8221; &#8220;in the blink if an eye,&#8221; &#8220;blew the x-bot6969 to smitherines&#8221;) are effective, but in other places the language is too general to illustrate the experience (&#8220;so amazing,&#8221; &#8220;huge ball of fire&#8221;).

The response is too brief for any discernable or consistent style. Phrases such as &#8220;dark and stormy&#8221; night can’t compensate for a scarcity of details.

The brief, basic plot is little more than a series of events. Although the events are related, the response is more of a series of events than a story: an amazing robot [inexplicably] turns destructive on Friday the 13th, and the mad scientist finally succeeds in destroying him.

The response is too brief for any meaningful establishment of characters or setting.

The response demonstrates some emergent understanding of event sequence; however, major gaps in the storyline exist. There is the “before,” when the most amazing robot ever is created; the turning point (&#8220;it all went wrong on march 13th&#8230;&#8221;); and the “after,” when the robot becomes destructive and the scientist focuses on destroying the robot (&#8220;&#8230;have to destroy the best creation ever.&#8221;).

There are some appropriate transitions (&#8220;it all went wrong on&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;so what else could the scientes do but&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;in the blink of an eye&#8230;&#8221;), but they fail to advance the plot meaningfully because there are too few details. In addition, some transitions are repetitive (&#8220;so,&#8221; &#8220;and,&#8221; &#8220;but&#8221;) and contribute to the sense of the response being a list rather than a narrative.

Although there is a story beginning (&#8220;dark and stormy night&#8221;), there is no context for the presence of “the mad scientist” or his invention. The ending is abrupt and unsatisfying (&#8220;THE END&#8221; does not constitute an ending).

There are no grade-relevant errors with sentence construction.

There are frequent errors with punctuation conventions: there are many comma errors, including a missing comma/conjunction (&#8220;…Frank and I were going to get some groceries and when we came home, we both took a nap&#8221;) and several missing commas after introductory elements (&#8220;When I woke up i couldn’t find him&#8221;; and at the end of paragraph 2, &#8220;…as soon as I walked in he said…&#8221;). There are commas missing from the list in the final paragraph (&#8220;I suddenly screamed ran out of the house moved to…&#8221;). The dialogue in paragraph 2 is not properly punctuated, with a period instead of a comma after &#8220;said&#8221; and an unnecessary period after the exclamation/quotation mark (&#8220;Jacob!”.). Finally, apostrophes are missing for contractions (&#8220;dont,&#8221; &#8220;thats,&#8221; &#8220;doesnt&#8221;).

There are two errors with capital letters: a missing capital to begin the last sentence in paragraph 2 and a failure to capitalize the personal pronoun “I.” Although not really an error, the use of capital letters for emphasis in paragraph 1 (LOT) is unnecessary. Further, “tv” is usually capitalized.

In the first sentence of the response, there are two grammar usage errors: the use of “awesome” as an adverb would not be considered a serious error at this grade level, but there is also a more serious error with the lack of agreement (&#8220;…thing are going awesome&#8221;).

There are few spelling errors (&#8220;controled,&#8221; &#8220;couln’t&#8221;).

There is no description of the robot other than that it can carry a lot and is tiny at first but then magically becomes ginormous. This lack of development and the random setting may cause confusion for the reader.

Other than mentioning that the robot can carry a lot, there are no real connections to the source materials.

There are a few descriptive details (e.g., &#8220;tiny remote controled robot…&#8221;; &#8220;…he can carry a lot&#8221;), but overall they are insufficient to illustrate the experience. The reader is left with more questions than answers (Why was Frank the robot taking a nap? How did it become “ginormous”? Why was Jacob so frightened? Why Bruce, Wisconsin and a name change?). The brief attempt at dialogue (“Hi Jacob!”) does little to advance the story.

The language is very vague and general (&#8220;stuff,&#8221; &#8220;a lot&#8221;).

There is little if any awareness of style elements that might enhance the story.

The brief, basic plot is little more than a series of events that are not necessarily logically related (went to get groceries, took nap, Frank mysteriously grows, narrator moves to Wisconsin), and there is no real conflict (presumably, Frank, the now “ginormous” robot, scared Jacob).

Although the narrator briefly introduces himself, telling us he has few friends, other narrative elements are not clearly relevant (e.g., Albany, New York, and Bruce, Wisconsin seem like extraneous details). The narrator also introduces the robot (“he doesn’t do much stuff, but he can carry a lot”) but gives no justification for why he has this cool robot.

There are some general transitions to connect the few details (&#8220;one day…&#8221;; &#8220;when…&#8221;; &#8220;as soon as…&#8221;).

The sequence of events is confusing, mostly due to the gaps in the story (most notably, how and why Frank became &#8220;ginormous&#8221;).

The response has a clear if very general beginning that sets up a narrative, but the ending does not offer a satisfying closure (&#8220;changed my name to Connor. I never saw Frank again&#8221;).

There are no errors with sentence structure.

There are some errors with punctuation, including commas missing before conjunctions in compound sentences (&#8220;…it had to go into the volcano though so it started climbing&#8221;) and commas missing after introductory elements (&#8220;When the scientist put the last part in the robot it was ready to work&#8221;; &#8220;When it reached the top he started slowly going to collect the samples&#8221;; &#8220;While climbing the volcano he wondered why…&#8221;).

There is a single incident of a needless capital letter for the common noun volcano.

There are several grammar usage errors. There is a frequently confused error with pronoun case (&#8220;…wondered why they looked different than him.&#8221; The pronoun should be “he” &#8211; &#8220;…why they looked different than he [did].&#8221;) Given how often this error is observed in the “real world,” this would not be considered a serious error at this grade level. However, the new-to-grade emphasis on maintaining consistent and appropriate verb tense is limited in this response (e.g., &#8220;Now the robot is collecting information about the gases. It was sending the information back to the lab so it can be studied&#8221;).

There are relatively few errors in spelling (&#8220;Valcono,&#8221; &#8220;alot,&#8221; &#8220;informaton&#8221;).

Some details are offered (the robot’s job to collect samples of volcanic gases), but the narrative-related elaboration weakly develops the overall experience.

The ideas of the robot working in a lab setting, exploring a volcano, and having eight legs all show connections to the source materials.

The use of narrative techniques is cursory. The shift from pure exposition about the mechanical robot to the reflections of a self-aware robot begins to develop a plot (the robot overhears a scientist talking, and the robot wonders why it has eight legs), but these details are not sufficiently integrated to advance or illustrate the narrative purpose.

Much of the language is too general (&#8220;climbing slowly,&#8221; &#8220;give information&#8221;), and although the language does not interfere with the purpose, there is no evidence of sensory or figurative language to illustrate the experience.

For the vast majority of the response, the style is not reflective of a narrative; rather, it is more typical of an expository response (events are told rather than shown). More than halfway through the story, the switch from “it” to “he” signals more of a narrative style, but that shift is not successful enough to warrant a higher score.

Despite its length, the response has an inconsistent plot that does not extend beyond that of the robot climbing the tallest volcano.

The response unevenly or minimally establishes narrative elements: the setting and the character of the robot are minimally established.

There are a few transitions used (&#8220;when,&#8221; &#8220;while,&#8221; &#8220;now&#8221;), but overall the narrative is somewhat choppy and lacks cohesion (&#8220;It&#8230;,&#8221;&#8221;It&#8230;,&#8221; &#8220;It&#8230;&#8221;). The narrative shift from “it” to “he,” which occurs abruptly in paragraphs 4 and 5, does provide some sense that the robot is a character, but this transition is abrupt.

There is an uneven sequence of events. For example, there is a gap in the sequence between the time the robot successfully mounts the volcano and returns to the lab, causing some brief confusion.

The beginning of the response seems more like an informational report rather than a narrative. The end is brief (&#8220;He still thought his job was the coolest&#8221;) and, because the robot is never really introduced as a character, that ending provides only a weak sense of closure.

Although many of the sentences are awkward because they string together independent clauses, these are style (and punctuation) errors rather than sentence structure errors (e.g., &#8220;He was shocked and his mom went running to him all worried and he told her that his robot was alive and she went to go check and she grabed Andrew and her car keys and left the house&#8221;).

There are minor punctuation errors that include a missing apostrophe in the contraction &#8220;couldnt.&#8221; However, there are also serious patterns of errors with commas. There are missing commas after many introductory elements (e.g., &#8220;When his mom came home…&#8221;; &#8220;Then the enxt day after school…&#8221;; &#8220;When they got to the store…&#8221;; &#8220;Before he went in the shower…&#8221;) and missing commas in many compound sentences (e.g., &#8220;…he changed it to the news and they both watched it&#8221;; &#8220;It was barely the new toy and Andrew was just about to buy the first one&#8221;). Note: The lack of spacing between end marks and new sentences is distracting but does not constitute an error.

There are minor errors with incorrect or missing articles (&#8220;He played with his toy for a hour and then went to go take shower&#8221;). There are also some verb errors with tense and mood (e.g., &#8220;…he looked everywhere and had found his robot in his closet&#8221;; and &#8220;…mom took him to the store so that he can buy a new toy…&#8221;).

There are no errors with capital letters.

Much of the vocabulary is repeated, so although the number of misspelled words is low (&#8220;Loooking,&#8221; &#8220;wierd,&#8221; &#8220;grabed&#8221;), the ratio of correctly to incorrectly spelled words is high enough to justify a score of 1 in this category.

The characters, setting, and events are mostly listed and fail to meaningfully develop a story. Furthermore, some undeveloped details cause confusion (e.g., there is no explanation for why Andrew’s mom bought him a toy and no explanation for how the robot came alive).

The very vague reference to “playing” with a robot is a connection to source materials.

The response does not utilize narrative techniques such as dialogue or description, and there is no showing or expanding of details to illustrate the experience (e.g., what did the robot look like?).

There is no use of sensory, figurative, or descriptive language of the main character, the robot, or the story setting. The general (&#8220;good things&#8221;) and repetitive (&#8220;toy&#8221;; &#8220;shocked&#8221;) language further confirm a score of 1 for this category.

The response is choppy, reflecting no evidence of narrative style.

There is evidence of an inconsistent plot with the conflict (the robot comes to life and is found under the bed and later in the closet) leading to the resolution (gets to become a member of the police department), which gives more credibility to the plot than just a list of the events at the beginning.

The setting and the characters are minimally established (e.g., we know little about the narrator except that he studies math and watches TV, and neither the setting nor the robot is described at all).

The overuse of the transition &#8220;then&#8221; and, to a lesser degree, &#8220;when&#8221; are so repetitive that they interfere with the flow; other details are connected only with &#8220;and&#8221; (&#8220;He was shocked and his mom went running to him all worried and he told her that his robot was alive and she went to go check and she grabed Andrew and her car keys and left the house&#8221;).

This organization is clear (chronological), but the sequence of events is interrupted by extraneous details (e.g., &#8220;study really hard for the next test and changed the TV to the news channel&#8221;). The actual conflict (his robot was alive), does not come until the end of the story. Furthermore, there are significant gaps in the narrative (e.g., What was the relationship between the narrator and his mother watching news one night to going to a toy store the next day?).

The beginning of the story fails to set up context for events or advance the plot, and although the idea presented at the end is intriguing (police use the robot for good), the story concludes too abruptly to provide closure.

There is a single run-on sentence (&#8220;she went upstairs to the bathroom,when she came out wet tire tracks were all over her room and there in the corner was the robot&#8221;). Note: sentence formation errors that are part of dialogue could be considered purposeful (&#8220;oh crud, the robots alive&#8221; she said aloud &#8220;oh crud the robots alive&#8221; the robot said).

Errors with punctuation are frequent and severe, appearing throughout the response and causing reader confusion at times. In addition to occasionally failing to change paragraphs between speakers, the dialogue consistently lacks proper punctuation especially separating dialogue and speaker (e.g., &#8220;&#8216;now I gonna win for sure&#8217; she thought&#8221;; and &#8220;&#8216;oh crud, the robots alive&#8217; she said aloud &#8216;oh crud the robots alive&#8217; the robot said&#8221;). In addition to errors with dialogue, there are several other kinds of punctuation errors including errors with apostrophes showing possession (&#8220;brothers room,&#8221; &#8220;moms car&#8221;) and contracted forms (&#8220;…the robots alive…&#8221;). There are several errors with commas missing before conjunctions in compound sentence structures. For example, there are three commas missing in the 8th paragraph: &#8220;OK mom, first of all I&#8217;m almost 13 and i don&#8217;t play anymore OK? secondly i have a big contest that i have to win and my project is done so can i go now?&#8221; There are also commas missing separating tag, direct address, or other introductory elements (&#8220;OK I’m gonna go outside&#8221;; &#8220;yes outside wanna come&#8221;; &#8220;Jack did you move my robot?&#8221;).

There are many missing capital letters, including the repeated failure to capitalize the first word of a new sentence. In addition, there is a consistent failure to capitalize the pronoun I. Note that capitalizations presumably used for emphasis (e.g., “OOOOOGGGGGGGGG!”) are unnecessary but aren’t noted as errors.

There are some errors with verb tenses, but it isn’t always clear if they are intentional when they occur in dialogue (&#8220;now i gonna win for sure&#8221;; &#8220;[T]here in the corner was the robot. she couldn&#8217;t be happier.&#8221;). The word “went” is used instead of “said” (“OOOOOGGGGGGGG!” went the robot).

The response is free from spelling errors.

The response introduces the narrator, Brianna (&#8220;she was a very curious girl, and if she was not reading she would be inventing something&#8221;), the concerned mother (&#8220;Brianna, why don’t you go outside and play, not stay cooped up in your room all day?&#8221;), and the exasperating brother, Jack. Events unfold adequately as the audience understands that “something went terribly wrong” as well as Brianna’s confusion as she discovers the unexplained movement of the robot in her room, and, ultimately, the discovery that the robot is alive.

There are some general references to source materials (e.g., the dog-like behavior).

Dialogue, the primary elaborative technique, is used to reveal the character’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings. For example, dialogue with Brianna and her mother adequately shows their relationship: mom is concerned that Brianna, the bookish inventor, hasn’t been outside to play. Brianna’s response shows her attitude (&#8220;I don’t play anymore, ok?&#8221;; She then crosses her fingers behind her back after “promising” to go outside and play). The exchange with her brother, Jack, shows “the annoying brother” and effectively allows the plot to advance.

The response includes some sensory/figurative language (&#8220;Brianna had a titanic moment&#8221;) and concrete language (&#8220;parrot,&#8221; &#8220;cooped up&#8221;). There is some concrete description (e.g., &#8220;the little robot, crushed with tire marks all over him and parts were missing&#8221;; and &#8220;fingers crossed behind her back&#8221;).

The style is lively and supports the narrative purpose. As one example, the integration of brother Jack singing “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” as the narrator is talking to him nicely shows the sibling relationship.

The plot is clear, and for the most part, the story has a sense of completeness.

The response establishes the narrator’s character, immediately giving the reader a sense of her personality (&#8220;if she was not reading she would be inventing something&#8221;) and setting up the events by building suspense (&#8220;something went terribly wrong&#8221;).

The story includes a variety of transition strategies including traditional chronological transition words/phrases (e.g., &#8220;One day&#8221;; &#8220;When she woke up&#8221;; &#8220;But one day&#8221;). Dialogue with other characters (mom and brother, Jack) also functions as an effective transitional strategy in many places (&#8220;Jack did you move my robot?&#8221;; and &#8220;OK I&#8217;m gonna go outside&#8221;).

Overall, the sequence of events proceeds logically. We are introduced to the character, and through dialogue with her mother, we know why she is inventing her robot (&#8220;I have a big contest…&#8221;). After more character development and plot suspense (&#8220;Brianna heard rustling in her room&#8221;), the robot comes alive (&#8220;oh crud, the robots alive&#8221;). Within the response, problems are presented and overcome (e.g., falling into the pool; Brianna’s struggle to determine if the robot is real; and the robot’s disappearance). There are some minor gaps in the sequence of events (how did the robot get from the pool to her bedroom, and how did it get to the dump?). However, these gaps do not detract from the overall adequate sequencing of the response.

The opening of the story introduces the narrator adequately (&#8220;there was once a girl named Brianna, who was 12 years old, 13 in a week. She was a curious girl…&#8221;). The closure is a bit rushed (&#8220;but one day she walked by a dump and there was the little robot, crushed.…&#8221;).

There are many run-on sentences from beginning to end, including the second sentence in paragraph 1 (e.g., &#8220;…all went well he made a robot…&#8221;), the first sentence in paragraph 2 (&#8220;he thought to himself&#8230;he sighed…with that he rushed inside…&#8221;), and run-on sentences with dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;…we have to destroy him so the rest will power down&#8217; with that they were…&#8221;).
There are also some “on-and-on” sentences (e.g., the final sentence of the response) that interfere with fluency; however, these there are style weaknesses (with faulty punctuation) but not conventions errors.

There are too many punctuation errors to list; however, the following are representative examples of these errors. Errors with commas are the most obvious, including but not limited to the following: missing commas with the nonrestrictive appositive phrase describing Danny in the first sentence: &#8220;an average young scientist born in Rhode island.&#8221; There are many missing commas in compound sentence constructions (e.g., the final sentence of the response) and/or many missing commas after introductory elements (e.g., &#8220;Danny then fainted and as he woke up he thought to himself…&#8221;). Some missing commas, especially after introductory elements, cause confusion (&#8220;Once they got to it his friends distracted the robot…&#8221;). There are commas missing in a list (&#8220;the TV blared to life stood up and ran off…&#8221;) and missing commas to introduce and finish a quote (&#8220;…news saying &#8216;breaking news…'&#8221; and &#8220;&#8216;…destroy those machines&#8217; Danny said&#8221;). There is a missing question mark (&#8220;how much damage can he do in one hour&#8221;), and some end marks with quotes are misplaced (&#8220;&#8216;were all gonna die&#8217;.&#8221; instead of &#8220;die&#8221; ).

There are some missing capital letters at the beginning of sentences (&#8220;then he realized…&#8221; in paragraph 3 and &#8220;he realized…&#8221; in paragraph 4) and with dialogue (&#8220;…he thought to himself &#8216;hmm how much damage…;&#8221;).

There are errors with frequently confused words, most notably &#8220;we’re,&#8221; which is written as &#8220;were&#8221; and &#8220;where.&#8221; There are some minor shifts in verb tense (e.g., &#8220;he made a robot that acts…&#8221;). There are some minor problems with pronoun references including a confusing reference in the last sentence of paragraph 2 (&#8220;as it ran off&#8221;) and inconsistent pronoun references for the robot, which is referred to as both “he” and “it.”

There are no spelling errors, despite some typos that occasionally cause confusion (e.g., the “y” is missing in “they” in the first sentence of paragraph 4).

Although there are some questions (e.g., why the narrator decided to &#8220;try to make his own HRP-4c robot&#8221;?; how did his robot create/control the other robots?), overall the narrative details develop the events adequately.

Some general details reflect information from source materials (e.g., &#8220;[the robot] was able to play sports with him, watch TV with him, and even ride on him as a car with the click of a few button&#8221;) and adequately contribute to the story.

A variety of dialogue types are used to show the events: Inner dialogue (&#8220;…he thought to himself &#8216;hmm how much damage can he do in one hour'&#8221;); dialogue from the TV (&#8220;&#8216;breaking news an army of electrical units are attacking the state leaving us trapped here on Rhode island. Someone please help us!'&#8221;); and outer dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;There are too many&#8217; Danny yelled over the sound of the blasters&#8221;). Description is adequate. For example, more description would help readers understand some events (e.g., &#8220;the TV blared to life stood up and ran off along with all of his electrical units including his I phone&#8221;; and &#8220;[the robot] acts like a middle age man&#8221;).

Some concrete language enhances the response (e.g., &#8220;[the robot] transformed into an eight foot giant&#8221;; &#8220;the TV blared to life…&#8221;). There is some figurative/sensory language used (e.g., &#8220;an army of electrical units…&#8221;).

The adventure story style is appropriate and mostly maintained (&#8220;That all changed…&#8221;; “Someone help us!”; &#8220;The town was saved…&#8221;).

The conflict occurs when Danny spills coffee on the robot’s manual controls (&#8220;That all changed one day…&#8221;), and the plot is adequately sustained from there with a clear resolution. There are some plot lapses (why did coffee trigger a weaponized robot; why would his first instinct be to run to turn the TV on?), but the narrative structure is overall adequate.

The beginning of the narrative includes sufficient context for the story and introduces the main character Danny (&#8220;an average young scientist born in Rhode island&#8221;).

Basic sequence transitional words/phrases (&#8220;Five minutes later&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;Then…&#8221;; &#8220;A while later…&#8221;) and more subtle transition strategies (e.g., inner dialogue such as &#8220;How are going to defeat those giant monsters he thought&#8221;) advance the action.

The events are adequately sequenced from beginning to end. There is an introduction of the robot prior to the transformation from the coffee spill. Then we are introduced to the coffee-transformed robot and learn other machines are affected by Danny’s robot, although we don’t know how; Danny contemplates what to do, and he and his friends arm to fight; while fighting the machines, Danny realizes his robot is the source of the machines (the other robots); while distracting Danny’s robot, Danny disables the robot and saves the town. While some of the events are far-fetched (e.g., blasters and armor are conveniently stored in the basement), and there are some minor gaps between events (&#8220;Five minutes later&#8221;: what did Danny do during the 5 minutes before his friends came?), the sequencing is still logical.

The beginning of the narrative adequately establishes the narrator and the robot, although there are some questions about the narrative situation (e.g., why did the narrator decide to make the robot?). Although the closing action is somewhat rushed (Danny dismantled the robot and everything went back to normal), the ending does wrap up remaining questions regarding injuries, damage, and the late-in-life death of the narrator.

There is a single run-on sentence (a comma splice in paragraph 4: &#8220;He was too fast, I couldn’t catch him&#8221;).

There are numerous punctuation errors, primarily with commas. There are many unnecessary commas including after “talk” in sentence 5 of the first paragraph and two unnecessary commas in paragraph 4: after &#8220;mom&#8221; and &#8220;intently&#8221;.  There are missing commas with introductory elements (&#8220;So after dad got home we ate…&#8221; and &#8220;…just as I said it he was out my door&#8221;) and/or compound constructions (&#8220;I rolled over and to my great surprise there was a robot…&#8221;). There are errors with punctuation marks placed outside quotation marks (&#8220;Hello&#8221;, instead of &#8220;Hello,&#8221;) and an error with an unnecessary period after a quote (&#8220;…him?&#8221;.&#8221;) Additionally, &#8220;nights&#8221; in the last sentence of the third paragraph should be &#8220;night’s&#8221; to show possession, but &#8220;cheerio’s&#8221; should not have an apostrophe.

There is a capitalization error (“cheerio’s”) in the second paragraph.

There are some errors with verbs including problems with verb tense shifts (and/or missing verbs) such as &#8220;I woke up. I look at the clock. It 7:00 a.m.&#8221; There is also a grammar usage error (“had went” should be “had gone”) in the fourth paragraph.

This response has a spelling error (“dissapointed”) in the third paragraph.

Overall, the events, characters, and setting are well-developed and effectively show the events and experience.

There are few, if any, references to information in the source materials: wanting a “real robot who does real robot things” and having the robot talk, dance, sing, and play games are extremely general references.

Narrative techniques effectively elaborate the story details. Characters are revealed through dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;Happy Birthday honey!&#8217; said mom. &#8216;Happy Birthday squirt.&#8217; said dad. And baby Jane tried to muster out a &#8216;Haffy Birfday!'&#8221;), and descriptions of the narrator’s thoughts show his personality as well (&#8220;It had a picture of a robot on it. That made me even more sad, knowing my robot would never be real. But it was my birthday! I had to be happy with the other things I got&#8221;).

Concrete words/phrases (&#8220;muster,&#8221; &#8220;listened intently&#8221;) enhance the narrative. There is some general sensory language (&#8220;woke up groggy and tired&#8221;; &#8220;very needed socks&#8221;) but little, if any, actual figurative language (&#8220;I am your birthday wish come true!&#8221;). Overall, the language is effective enough to support a score of 4 for this category.

The style is lively and promotes the mysterious tone of the narrative (&#8220;Somewhere very special, Henry. Somewhere very, very special&#8221;).

The plot is cohesive: there is an evident conflict (the narrator wants a robot and is always disappointed when he doesn’t get one) and resolution. Although the reader never learns how Risto-Bot got there, this uncertainty doesn’t diminish the overall sense of unity, creating instead a sense of mystery.

The narrator’s personality is well-established through his thoughts (&#8220;That day at school everyone wished me happy birthday! I couldn&#8217;t wait to get home and open my presents! Maybe this year I would get a real robot!&#8221;), and the family is revealed through their dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;Happy Birthday honey!&#8217; said mom. &#8216;Happy Birthday squirt.&#8217; said dad. And baby Jane tried to muster out a &#8216;Haffy Birfday!'&#8221;). The setting is similarly well-established (&#8220;My mom is making me breakfast of eggs and toast, and my dad is reading the paper. My baby sister is eating her cheerio&#8217;s&#8221;).

There is an over-reliance on the simplistic transition “then” in paragraph 2, and there is some abruptness, although that could be an attempt to establish a quick pace (&#8220;I woke up. I look at the clock. It 7:00 a.m. and it&#8217;s my birthday! I jump out of bed and run downstairs&#8221;). But overall, the transitions are adequate (&#8220;When I was finished…&#8221;; &#8220;So after dad got home…&#8221;).

The chronological sequence is appropriate for the events, which take place over two days, and the events are logically connected, leaving the reader with few questions. There are minor gaps (e.g., if the robot was “poking” the narrator, how did it suddenly appear in the middle of the room drawing with markers?), but they don’t interfere with the overall strong sense of unity.

The beginning paragraph nicely sets up the narrator’s excitement, with the final line of the first paragraph (&#8220;&#8230;that all changed on one special morning&#8221;) successfully hooking the reader. The second paragraph nicely sets up the setting. The ending is [6th grade] effective, again playing up the mystery of the inexplicable.

There are some errors with sentence structure. There are run-on sentences in paragraph 1 (&#8220;Mrs.Janice was about to assign the class’s science assisgnment everyone stood waiting wondering&#8221;), paragraph 2 (&#8220;When she got home she was still alone knowing this she tried to remember why&#8221;) and paragraph 5 (&#8220;Then she heard her teacher talking she was about to announce who was presenting first&#8221;). There are sentence fragments in paragraph 2 (&#8220;Threw a dash of glitter, smeared a little paint and pasted pictures&#8221;) and in paragraph 5 (&#8220;First Carl&#8217;s, then Bob&#8217;s, third Sally&#8217;s and so on&#8221;). Arguably, both fragments could be purposeful, intended for style.

The student struggles with comma usage throughout the response, and the errors are too numerous to list. Paragraph 1 contains a representative sample of each type of comma use error, including missing commas with compound clauses/sentences and missing commas when introducing direct quotes. For example, &#8220;Amy… raised [her] hand and Mrs.Janice asked what Amy needed and Amy said &#8216;What kind of robot? And….&#8217; Mrs.Janice ignored her for a second and then replied &#8216;Well, you buy the parts and design your own.'&#8221;
Again, using paragraph 1 as an example, commas are missing after introductory elements: &#8220;After everyone finish reading the paper the bell rang and the students went home.&#8221;

There is a missing capital letter to begin a sentence (paragraph 3: it instead of It).

There are a few grammar usage errors. The student struggles with using the correct form of “to, too” (e.g. “And Mrs.Janice loved them all to.” And “‘That sounds to difficult!’”). Additionally, there are errors with verb tense (e.g., paragraph 1: &#8220;After everyone finish reading the paper the bell rang and the students went home,&#8221; and in paragraph 4: &#8220;Her robot step into school&#8221;). Note that the mildly confusing use of will instead of “would” is not a grade 6-appropriate error.

This response has a few spelling errors (“assisgnment”, “awhile”, and “To day”).

The experience, including the problems with creating the robot, are clearly developed.

Several details about the robot and its creation reflect information presented in the source materials. However, having the fictional teacher assign an authentic article to the fictional class is particularly effective.

The description is precise (e.g., &#8220;…she put the cute little puppy stickers inside of each colorful little polka-dot&#8221;) with some dialogue (&#8220;&#8230;The presenter will be&#8230; Amy!&#8221; and &#8220;Wow, give Amy a round of applause!&#8221;). Overall, the experience is thoroughly developed.

The use of sensory details and figurative language (e.g., &#8220;…as a cool breeze blew through her hair&#8221;; &#8220;…she felt a knot in her throat&#8221;; &#8220;students rushed inside like a stampede&#8221;) and the use of concrete language (&#8220;Amy felt clueless&#8221;; &#8220;She got dressed in her spotted polka-dot dress with her hot pink flats&#8221;) enhance the narrative.

The style is appropriate and consistent.

The narrative establishes and maintains a clear plot. Although there is no dramatic conflict, several problems are introduced, including building the robot, controlling the robot, and finally, insulating/ waterproofing the robot. Each problem has a clear solution (including appropriating parts from dad’s new computer!), and the story ending brings the experience full circle (Amy showcases her robot for the suitably impressed classmates).

There is a clear context for the story (a class assignment), and readers are introduced to the main character, Amy, whose character is consistently described throughout (&#8220;She realized it would be easier if she didn’t complain&#8221;; &#8220;She was a loner anyway and did not like help&#8221;; &#8220;Amy felt clueless&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;She blushed at the thought of everyone liking her robot&#8221;).

The story events transition evenly from one to another, moving from the initial assignment to the construction and refinement of the robot to the day of the presentation and subsequent excitement over the presentations. Simplistic transitions (&#8220;First,&#8221; &#8220;next,&#8221; &#8220;so&#8221;) are combined with more subtle ones (&#8220;Eventually,&#8221; &#8220;After a while&#8221;).

The sequence of events (chronological) is easy to follow: Mrs. Janice assigns the project; Amy makes the poster board and robot; Amy test drives the robot; Amy waterproofs and insulates her robot. Finally, the day of the presentation arrives, Amy rides her robot to school, and the response concludes with the successful presentation. Occasional verb tense/mood shifts cause very minor confusion (&#8220;Her robot step into school&#8221;; &#8220;She walked outside wondering what the presentation will be like&#8221;). Note: There are very minor lapses with point-of-view (e.g., &#8220;Mrs. Janice started to wonder what was so hard about it&#8221;), but point-of-view is not a grade 6 scoring criterion.

The beginning nicely sets up the context for the story (a class assignment). The response closes effectively: Amy presents her impressive robot successfully, ending with reflection (&#8220;she really didn’t have a favorite because she loved them all. And Mrs. Janice loved them all too&#8221;) that provides effective closure.

There are no sentence formation errors.

There are a few punctuation errors (missing commas before dialog, missing apostrophes in contractions, etc), but not enough to impede comprehension. And it must be noted that although students are not assessed on typing skills, it is evident that some errors may be due to the student&#8217;s lack of proficient typing skills.

There are a few capitalization errors with proper nouns and in the dialog.

This response has some spelling errors.

The experience is unevenly developed. The narrator’s character is adequately developed, as is the setting and the context for the robot project. However, unexplained key details (e.g., why the robot didn’t work or how it got fixed) keep the overall experience from being adequately developed.

Other than a vague reference to the robot talking and having an on/off switch, there are no connections to information from source materials.

Narrative techniques are used unevenly. There is some dialogue (e.g., &#8220;Is there anything in particular we have to do? &#8220;Yes actually you have to use your imagination!&#8221;).
The use of dialogue is somewhat effective in developing the relationship between Danny and Flynn, but there is no real reason for Danny to be in the story other than to compare his mediocre science “trick” with Flynn’s robot.
The use of description is also uneven. For example, there are details to describe the Chinese restaurant (its name, the wishing well, the fortune cookies), but there is little use of descriptive details to illustrate more important details/events/experiences, leaving the reader with questions about exactly what the robot was like, why it didn’t work, how it got fixed, etc.

Although there is little sensory or figurative language, overall the language is adequate (&#8220;Answes popped up everywhere but Flynn only stuck with one&#8221;), except at the end when it gets very general (&#8220;everybody loved it and asked him to make him talk and ms Flowers gave him and A and he went off happy…&#8221;).

There is an occasional sense of style especially with the dialogue (“Yes actually you have to use your imagination”; “Wow how are you going to pull that off”).

The response unevenly attempts to establish a plot. The initial events (the planning for the product, followed by the building of the robot) are adequate. However, the parts of the story that deal with the actual conflict (the robot doesn’t work) are weak. In addition, some details (Danny’s project) resurface throughout the response, but serve no real purpose.

Characters, including the narrator, are adequately established, although some of the characters serve no vital role in the events (e.g., Danny). There is, however, adequate information about the setting and context (school assignment, Chinese restaurant).

The use of transitions is uneven. There are some nice transitional words and phrases that work well to show the sequence of events (e.g., &#8220;Suddenly…&#8221;; &#8220;A while later…&#8221;; &#8220;With that&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;Once he got the materials…&#8221;). However, the transition word &#8220;when&#8221; is repeated so frequently in the second half of the narrative that it becomes distracting, reinforcing the feeling that the ending is rushed.

The sequence of events is uneven. The planning and building stages are logically presented, but there is some irrelevant (as presented) information (e.g., &#8220;Danny&#8217;s idea for his science project is putting a needle through the a balloon without it popping&#8221;). There is also a significant narrative gap: readers never know what the “problem” with the robot was, only that the narrator tossed a coin in the wishing well, wishing that the robot “would work,” and the “fix” was then mysteriously predicted by the fortune cookie. From there, the events quickly lead to a general ending (&#8220;…he showed everyone his robot. Everyone loved it….&#8221;).

The beginning is adequate, using dialogue to establish the narrative elements. The ending is rushed and somewhat general (&#8220;[Flynn] showed everyone his robot. They loved it….Mrs. Flowers gave him an A and he went off happy with his robot forever&#8221;).

There are many run-on sentences throughout the response. As representative examples just from paragraph 1, the second sentence of the response is a comma splice (&#8220;Joe Huckleberry, the dad of 1 child, he is a scientist, he likes to do wacky inventions and likes to watch the show, Berrybusters&#8221;) as is the final sentence of that paragraph (&#8220;As they start to get distracted, Billy starts heading down the flights of stairs to the Basement, luckily, he knows the combination to go downstairs, as he opens the door to the basement&#8221;). Also from paragraph 1, there is a sentence fragment (&#8220;And the last of the Huckleberrys&#8217;, Billy&#8221;).

This response has many punctuation errors that are too numerous to list, although most of these are with commas. There are commas missing to introduce quotes (as just one example from paragraph 3: &#8220;…he heard a voice saying &#8216;Hello there, Freda!'&#8221;).
Conversely, there are many errors with unnecessary commas. Just from the first paragraph, such errors include the first sentence of the response: &#8220;The Huckleberry Family is a special family, because they have…&#8221; and sentence 3 in paragraph 1: &#8220;…she is the freak of the family, and does not like germs in the house.&#8221;
Missing apostrophes contribute to many of the spelling errors (&#8220;Whats&#8221; and &#8220;doesnt&#8221;). In addition, the response either fails to punctuate the title of TV programs or inaccurately uses quotes; technically, the title of TV programs should be in italics or underlined.

There are missing capitals in the first words of sentences (e.g., as one example from paragraph 1: &#8220;not long before Billy’s bedtime&#8221;) and &#8220;Basement&#8221; should not be capitalized. There are missing capitals at the beginning of dialogue in paragraph 3 (“how could this happen?”) and missing capitals for &#8220;billy&#8221; and &#8220;dad&#8221; in that same paragraph. The personal pronoun &#8220;I&#8221; lacks a capital letter throughout.

There is an error with pronoun and antecedent agreement in paragraph 1: &#8220;Billy is playing outside and ding-dong ditching their neighbors&#8221; (note that since Billy is otherwise identified as “he,” this constitutes an agreement error). There is a minor problem with verb tenses: the response begins in present tense but then shifts between past and tense (e.g., paragraph 2: &#8220;…closes…turns…found…looks…found…takes…saw…&#8221;).

This response has many spelling errors (“up stairs,” “assortions,” “eariler,” “broom stick,” and “incedent”).

Characters and events are adequately developed. There are a few inconsistent details (e.g., why was Billy “shocked” when his dad told him the robot had come to life?) or marginally relevant details (e.g., “playing ding dong ditching their neighbors”), but overall the development is adequate.

Connections to the source materials are vague (conceivably, the robot performing kitchen tasks is an extension based on source materials).

Narrative elements develop the experience and events adequately. The dialogue is mostly effective (&#8220;&#8216;Where is Billy?&#8217; The robot replied &#8216;Behind the large crate, sir!'&#8221;), and some details effectively describe events (&#8220;He found vast assortions of machines, to Ray-Guns, to even the rare Automatic- Snowmaker-9000&#8221;).
There are some inconsistencies, however. For example, some details are developed more than they need to be (&#8220;[Billy] starts watching the TV show, &#8216;Berrybusters&#8217;. Billy goes up stairs, brushes his teeth, and heads up into his room&#8221;), while other more important details lack specificity and leave questions (&#8220;Billy discovers that his dad is making a robot. Billy watches and asks questions to dad all day long&#8221;).

The language use is somewhat uneven. There is some nice sensory/ figurative language (&#8220;hopped in bed like lightning&#8221;; &#8220;whacking her broomstick&#8221;) and some concrete precise language (&#8220;ruckus&#8221;; &#8220;beckoned&#8221;; &#8220;disessembled&#8221;). On the other hand, there are also some awkward constructions that cause occasional confusion (&#8220;One sunny, shiny day to come outside&#8221;; &#8220;it turned came to life&#8221;). Overall, however, the language adequately illustrates the experience.

The narrative style is somewhat effective with some lively descriptions of the characters’ interactions nicely illustrating the experience. As one example, the story establishes the narrator’s mother’s character early in the story: &#8220;Freda Huckleberry, the wife of Joe, and the mother of Billy, [who is] the freak of the family, and [who] does not like germs in the house.&#8221; This illustration is followed later with Freda &#8220;holding a broom stick head-up as she started yelling and screaming as she is whacking her broom stick at the robot.&#8221;

Plot elements are adequately established, although some of the information is only loosely related to the central conflict (e.g., &#8220;[dad] likes to watch the show, Berrybusters&#8221;).

Characters and the setting are adequately and consistently established (e.g., the mother, in particular, is well-presented: she is described in the beginning as &#8220;the freak of the family [who] does not like germs in the house,&#8221; which explains why she later enters a scene &#8220;holding a broom stick head-up&#8221;). Most of the setting is also adequately established (e.g., dad’s basement).

Overall, transitions are adequate (&#8220;This time…&#8221;; &#8220;As they start to get distracted…&#8221;; &#8220;The next day…&#8221;) despite occasional awkward connections (&#8220;Billy is playing outside and ding-dong ditching their neighbors. He always has lots of fun. This time, Billy always visits dad in the basement&#8221;).

While the chronological order is sustained, there are some gaps in the narrative sequence. For example, after Billy snuck up to bed, what happened between Freda, Joe, and the robot? Furthermore, inconsistencies with verb tenses contribute to occasional confusion about the sequence of events (e.g., the switch from present to past, which occurs throughout the narrative).

The beginning is effective in setting up the narrative. The ending, however, is abrupt and is less than satisfying (&#8220;Billy had many questions that evening, but he had solved them himself…and he loved Hubert&#8221;).

There are some run-on sentences, mostly comma splices. Examples include in paragraph 4 (&#8220;It was coming right towards him, it seemed like it was going to hit him&#8221;), and in the final paragraph (&#8220;…even just the way he walked, he flowed better&#8221;). There are also several run-ons in dialogue; however, these may be purposeful and more a matter of an attempt to sound like authentic dialogue than a lack of control of sentence conventions (e.g., paragraph 4 &#8220;It can&#8217;t hit him, he will always catch it, he&#8217;s a robot.&#8221; And then in the final paragraph &#8220;Wow, well that&#8217;s it, Marvin is a human now.&#8221;)

There are numerous punctuation errors with dialogue including incorrect punctuation before, after, or within the dialogue. As examples, there is a period instead of a comma after dialogue in paragraph 2: &#8220;&#8216;Good throw master.&#8217; said Marvin.&#8221;
In the final paragraph, there is a missing comma to introduce dialogue (&#8220;It got me thinking &#8220;I wonder if this could happen to anybodies robot.&#8221;&#8221;) and another missing comma later in that paragraph (&#8220;&#8216;…may be surprising,&#8217; it read &#8216;but this is not…'&#8221;).
There are missing commas in compound sentences at the end of paragraph 4 (&#8220;He fell to the floor and he started twitching&#8221;); another in paragraph 5 (&#8220;I wanted to do all that i could to help him so I went…&#8221;); and another at the end of the response (&#8220;It took me a couple days to get used to the idea of Marvin being human but that&#8217;s when I realized….&#8221;).
There is an error with apostrophes (&#8220;Anybodies robot&#8221; should be a possessive: &#8220;anybody’s&#8221;).
Note that the semi-colon is used both correctly and incorrectly in several places; however, the semi-colon is not a grade 6 skill, so the incorrect uses are not noted.

The student fails to capitalize “i” multiple times throughout the response.

In “That&#8217;s why he started to act different,” “different” should be “differently.”
Additionally, there is a missing preposition in “It took me a couple days to get used…” after the word “couple.”
There is also a subject-verb agreement error in “My plans for the day was just to play with Marvin…”: “was” should be “were.”

This response has no spelling errors.

The response develops the setting and a sense for what is to come (&#8220;they would be coming home to something far different&#8221;) while also establishing the narrator’s character (&#8220;I guess that’s where it all went wrong; my bad throw&#8221;).

The use of source materials is appropriate and subtle (Marvin “senses” the exterior situation in a similar way to the Google car, and the robot plays games and initially serves as a butler).

The response effectively combines explanation with dialogue. For example, the “exchange” between Marvin and the narrator (“Good throw Master”…“Thank you, and same”) moves into interior reflection (&#8220;&#8230;sometimes my throws were pretty bad. I guess that&#8217;s where it all went wrong; my bad throw. I thought it would just be another bad throw, but it wasn&#8217;t; it changed everything&#8221;). This type of development is used throughout and effectively advances the story. The response also develops the setting while foreshadowing what is to come (&#8220;they would be coming home to something far different&#8221;; &#8220;I guess that’s where it all went wrong&#8221;; &#8220;my bad throw&#8221;).

The only relative weakness in this response is with the use of general rather than precise language (e.g., &#8220;My throws were pretty bad&#8221;; &#8220;I rapidly clicked on the first thing that popped up&#8221;; &#8220;I attached the light blue instead of the dark blue. That&#8217;s why he started to act different. He started being funny and not acting so serious&#8221;). The lack of exceptional language does not interfere with the overall narration of the experience and is adequate.

The style is particularly effective. It shows the events (&#8220;&#8216;It&#8217;s OK sir, I hav-&#8216; That&#8217;s when it hit Marvin&#8221;), establishes pacing (&#8220;- It was coming right towards him, it seemed like it was going to hit him…. Everything was happening so slowly but yet so suddenly&#8221;), and overall crafts a sense of mystery.

Narrative elements are effectively integrated into a unified and sustained plot with an effectively crafted and resolved conflict: Marvin is damaged (the climax), but, after being repaired (the turning point), he comes to life.

The character of the narrator, as well as the character of both Marvin-the-robot (&#8220;&#8216;Good throw master.&#8217; said Marvin&#8221;) and Marvin-the-human (&#8220;He acted&#8230;smoother you could say&#8221;; &#8220;even just the way he walked, he flowed better&#8221;) are well-established. The setting is adequate. Of note is the effective point-of-view (a grade 7 skill): The use of inner and outer dialogue, in particular, helps show readers the narrator’s perspective (&#8220;It can&#8217;t hit him, he will always catch it, he&#8217;s a robot.&#8221; my brain told me).

Transitions are effective at showing connections (&#8220;It all started when we were playing baseball&#8221;; &#8220;That’s when it hit…&#8221;; &#8220;That&#8217;s where i made my mistake&#8221;; &#8220;There it goes&#8221;; &#8220;That’s when I realized…&#8221;).

The chronological order is logical, and effective pacing (an above-grade level skill) is maintained throughout. For example, sometimes the short sentences help establish the heightened moments (e.g., &#8220;It was coming right towards him, it seemed like it was going to hit him. &#8216;It can&#8217;t hit him, he will always catch it, he&#8217;s a robot.&#8217; my brain told me. &#8216;Watch out Marvin!&#8217; I told him&#8230;. Everything was happening so slowly but yet so suddenly&#8221;). There are no significant gaps in the narrative sequence.

The opening is very effective at establishing a sense of mystery (&#8220;it started out as a normal day…little did they know that they would be coming home to something far different than a normal robot&#8221;). The ending is somewhat simplistic, with the reader wanting to read more about what will happen next (&#8220;It took me a couple days to get used to the idea of Marvin being human but that&#8217;s when I realized; I will love Marvin no matter what happens or what he is&#8221;). But the narrator’s attachment to Marvin as a human is a [6th grade] logical extension based on the events and does provide closure.

In paragraph 4, there is a comma splice in the first clause of the writer’s list of wishes (&#8220;I wish my fear of the dark would go away, I&#8217;m 13 for goodness sake, I wish my mom…&#8221;). In paragraph 7, the internal dialogue (which is not punctuated as dialogue) strings thoughts together as with stream of consciousness writing rather than as grammatical run-ons (&#8220;This is your one chance to see what your mom has been working on, you&#8217;re such a bad daughter Grace, go on Grace, it will be fun!&#8221;).

The only serious grade-relevant errors come in the punctuation category, including missing commas with conjunctions in compound constructions. Paragraph 5 provides a good example of these errors: &#8220;Rain begins to pour outside and my heart races faster. It&#8217;s now 1:18 in the morning and still I haven&#8217;t been able to get to sleep&#8230; I run over to my door and I open it as well as turning on the lights….&#8221; However these repeated errors reflect only a single type of comma use error. Given the competence with other types of punctuation (colon, ellipsis), the response still demonstrates adequate use of punctuation overall.

There are no errors with capital letters, although the use of capitals for emphasis (&#8220;GO GRACE&#8221; and &#8220;A ROBOT&#8221;) is unnecessary.

There is a grammar usage subject/verb agreement error (&#8220;A lot of words was on the page…&#8221;). There are two minor uses of adjectives that should be comparative adverbs instead (&#8220;I’ll breathe easier&#8221; instead of &#8220;more easily,&#8221; and &#8220;I sighed, agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221; instead of “how slowly…is going”). There are minor issues with inconsistent verb tenses (as one example, from paragraph 7: &#8220;I walk over to a wooden work table in the middle of the lab. A metal body was lying there. The yellow eyes were dim and dead. I look over to the shelves…&#8221;).

There are numerous misspellings (e.g., secong, suddent, don’t’t, wether, panrty, and agrivated, which would not be a grade 6 word) and some inappropriate words used (&#8220;mad&#8221; instead of &#8220;made,&#8221; &#8220;clippers&#8221; instead of &#8220;slippers,&#8221; &#8220;encaves&#8221; instead of &#8220;encases&#8221; or something similar, etc.).

Vivid descriptive details effectively show the setting (descriptions of the pervasive darkness) and develop the narrator’s character (repeated references to her inhaler showing her anxiety; the inner conflict between “good Grace” and “bad Grace”).

There are connections to the source material including robots that “talk” and the fictional Asimov story in which the robot is a babysitter, who unlike the parents, “always has time to play.”

The response demonstrates effective use of narrative techniques to illustrate the experience. The response begins and ends with dialogue between the mother and daughter, with the intervening story being narrated via internal dialogue. For example, inner dialogue shows Grace’s conflict (&#8220;GO GRACE! This is your one chance to see what your mom has been working on, you&#8217;re such a bad daughter Grace, go on Grace, it will be fun!&#8221;). The narrative also uses description to illustrate Grace’s anxiety (&#8220;My worries and fears of darkness begin to bubble up in my throat. I start breathing hard again feeling my asthma attack near. I grab my inhaler from my nightstand and suck in the medicine&#8221;) as well as the mother’s laboratory (&#8220;I walk over to the wooden work table in the middle of the lab. A metal body was lying there. The yellow eyes were dim and dead….[then] a bright yellow light shudders on from the middle of the room. The light flickers on and off for a secong before it gets stable and strong and bright&#8221;). The details about the robot (Grace 500) play a small role, but its “coming to life” successfully creates the climax of the story, effectively revealing the mother’s good intentions.

The language is effective with figurative and sensory language enhancing the response (&#8220;…fears of darkness begin to bubble up in my throat&#8221;; &#8220;Black darkness sweeps around my bed swallowing me whole&#8221;; &#8220;I sigh agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221;).

The style enhances the narrative. Short, choppy sentences highlight the narrator’s anxiety (&#8220;I start breathing hard again feeling my asthma attack near. I grab my inhaler from my nightstand and suck in the medicine. I calm myself down and snuggle into bed. I close my eyes and whisper&#8221;) and may also emphasize the slow passing of time (&#8220;I turn on all the lights… I walk into the panrty&#8230; I slide into the chair… I glance at the clock. I sigh agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221;). Punctuation choices, especially with the ellipsis and also the colon,  show an awareness of style.

The plot is effectively unified. From the beginning, with the statement &#8220;And I’m left in utter darkness,&#8221; the writer is able to create tension; establish and maintain the problem (&#8220;Rain begins to pour outside and my heart races faster&#8221;); advance the plot line with the narrator exploring her mother’s lab (after struggling internally with the decision to do so); and, culminating with her discovery, bring resolution to her initial problem (&#8220;It jumps down from the table and crawls toward me. &#8220;I am yo-ur pro-tect-or in the ni-ight,” Grace 500 says slowly&#8221;).

The response effectively establishes the narrator and her point of view (a grade 7 skill). For example, the audience clearly understands Grace’s anxiety (&#8220;I feel sweat trickling down my neck… I bite my nails nervously&#8221;), as well as what she is thinking (&#8220;I had many wishes really: I wish mom wouldn’t have the Scientist’s Lab’s nightshifts, I wish I would quit dreaming that same stupid dream of mom leaving me forever in the dark of night&#8221;). The setting is also effectively established and carried throughout the response (&#8220;Black darkness sweeps around my bed swallowing me whole&#8221;; &#8220;I climb out of bed and shiver as my feet touch the cold floor of my bedroom&#8221;; &#8220;a bright yellow light shudders on from the middle of the room. The light flickers on and off for a secong before it gets stable and strong and bright&#8221;).

Transitions are adequate (&#8220;Then…&#8221;; &#8220;And I’m left…&#8221;; &#8220;Rain begins to pour&#8221;; &#8220;It&#8217;s now 1:18&#8221;; &#8220;All this time&#8221;; &#8220;As I turn of the lights&#8221;). Although the repeated use of “I” at the beginning of sentences is noticeable, it seems to be more of an attempt to focus on Grace’s inner struggle and anxiety rather than being a problem with transitions.

The sequence is chronological: the events progress from Grace’s mother leaving for work, to Grace’s failed attempts to sleep (revealing her anxiety to the audience), to Grace’s midnight snack where she contemplates investigating her mother’s lab, to Grace discovering the robot, to Grace understanding the purpose of the robot, and finally to the return of mother. This sequence is crafted throughout via several devices. For example, the slow passing of time is emphasized by repeated references to the clock (12:31…; 1:18…; 1:34…). Arguably, the short sentences that all begin with I further reinforce the slow pace of the seemingly endless night (&#8220;I turn on all the lights…&#8221;; &#8220;I walk into the panrty&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;I slide into the chair…&#8221;; &#8220;I glance at the clock. I sigh agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221;).

The beginning is compelling, effectively establishing the narrator and her mood. The response immediately establishes Grace’s anxiety by describing her physical response (&#8220;I feel sweat trickling down my neck… I bite my nails nervously&#8221;) and her emotions (&#8220;I had many wishes really: I wish mom wouldn’t have the Scientist’s Lab’s nightshifts, I wish I would quit dreaming that same stupid dream of mom leaving me forever in the dark of night&#8221;). The ending provides closure, moving from resolution (&#8220;Tears well up in my eyes as I realize my mom&#8217;s intentions&#8221;) to Grace’s lessened anxiety (&#8220;I lay gently back on the table&#8221;) to her mother’s return, bringing the narrative full circle.

Argumentative

Clean Communities

There are no sentence structure errors (the first sentence, technically a sentence fragment, is presumably purposefully incomplete). Note that some awkward constructions (e.g., “in which people could also purchase them for a cheaper price”) are style problems and not sentence errors.

Considering the length and complexity of the writing, the errors with punctuation are minor (e.g., unnecessary commas: “Throwing away electronics and not recycling them can contaminate water with lead for instance, and would result in poisonous water” and “This choice will not only help needy families, but also help spread…”).

Search Annotated Student Responses

Grade

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy