Grade 7

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Second Language Learning

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

Sentence structures are generally correct, but there are a few that are slightly awkward (e.g., “The kids are more open and curious to the language compared to other listed ages.” and “We don’t need any more pressure than what handed to us with the responsibilities.”). There is one fragment, but it is used for effect (“None whatsoever.”).

In the first paragraph, there is an error with capitalizing the pronoun “I”; in the second paragraph there is an unnecessary capitalization of the word “They.”

There should be a comma after the transition word “Also” in paragraph 2, as well as within the phrase “…the older we get[,] the more responsibilities we get.”

At the end of paragraph 1, a singular verb should be used to agree with the noun “reasoning”: “Here [is] some of my reasoning behind it.” There is a second subject/verb agreement issue in paragraph 4: “With bad grades comes upset parents….” In paragraph 2, there is a grammatical error in the phrase “If the correct accent doesn’t come out good.…” There are two instances of vague, ambiguous pronouns, one in paragraph 2 (“Also as they get older, They pick up more responsibilities…”), and another in paragraph 3 (“Going by those standards, it’d probably be best if they offer a language or two throughout school.”). In the final sentence of paragraph 4, the word “reasons” should be used in place of the word “reasoning.” Finally, there is a shift from third person to first person in paragraph 4: “…the older we get the more responsibilities we get.” As a whole, the letter shifts from third, to second, to first person pronouns, which is both confusing and distracting.

Support for this qualified claim (“foreign language should be a class that’s offered, not required”) is unevenly developed. The use of source-based evidence is not consistently or adequately integrated or sufficiently elaborated for the argument. For example, in paragraph 2, the idea that “They pick up more responsibilities through home, school, and jobs” is not developed sufficiently to support the idea that younger is better for learning a foreign language. Likewise, in paragraph 3, using a rhetorical question (“What good is it going to do if you can’t communicate? None whatsoever”) to develop the idea about global jobs does not adequately support that reason. Paragraph 4, on the other hand, is adequately developed with cause/effect (forcing foreign language instruction will lead to bad grades, which leads to upset parents and stress); however, the speculations are not grounded in sources. Although there are implied references to sources, there are no explicit attributions.

The vocabulary used is general and somewhat repetitive (“as I mentioned, responsibilities, reasoning, force/forced”), and at times, the vocabulary is ineffective (“That points me to my next destination; There’s my first idea about it”).

There is evidence of style, which is sometimes effective (“Note that I said ‘offer’ not ‘force’”) but at other times arguably inappropriate for the task (“What good is it going to do if you can’t communicate? None whatsoever”).

The response has a clear qualified claim about teaching a second language (should be offered, not required).

In addition to the claim, the introduction provides some context (&#8220;discussion recently taking place about…&#8221;) for the issue, but the conclusion &#8220;is weak (I hope my little letter here.&#8221;).

The focus on offering but not requiring a second language is somewhat maintained. For example, paragraph 2 supports teaching a second languages at a lower age. Paragraph 3, supports a position that “it’s probably best if they offer a language or two.” Paragraph 4 focuses on the dangers of “forcing” already-over-burdened students. However, information in paragraphs 2 and 4 is essentially repeated (&#8220;as they get older they pick up more responsibilities&#8221; and &#8220;the older we get the more responsibilities we get&#8221;) and neither of these ideas really supports claims about teaching a second language in elementary school. The support for the claim is ordered by source: paragraph 2 summarizes Source #1; paragraph 3 summarizes some information from Source #2; paragraph 4 reflects some information from one of the letters from Source #3.

Transitions (&#8220;First off,&#8221; &#8220;There’s my first idea about it,&#8221; &#8220;My second is that,&#8221; &#8220;That points me to my next destination,&#8221; and &#8220;And that’s one of my reasons&#8221;) are not effective, but they do signal a progression of events.

The use of a qualified claim (offer but do not require) implies some acknowledgment of the opposing point of view.

Sentence formation errors include a run-on (&#8220;Going on vacation is much easier when you know the native language to that country. take it from a letter sent to Gazette.&#8221;)

There is a grammar usage error with an unclear pronoun reference in the first sentence of the second paragraph ([let’s] “talk about their childhood”). Other grammar usage errors include an error with frequently confused words (multiple instances of “have” instead of “half”).

There are errors with below grade level use of capital letters including the failure to capitalize the personal pronoun “I,” a missing capital at the beginning of a sentence (“today they have…”), and an unnecessary capital (“Language”).

Punctuation errors include multiple instances of a missing apostrophe (“lets&#8221; instead of &#8220;let’s”). There are also multiple examples of needless commas (e.g., “…kids who are bilingual are getting the same education, and sometimes even better…”;“They retain the information… just as well as the other non-bilingual kids, and are often able…&#8221;; &#8220;I&#8217;m holding my argument firm, and will keep…”). In addition, source titles should be in quotation marks.

There are no evident problems with spelling (“ad” for “had” counts as a spelling error even though it is likely a typo).

The response uses a variety of source materials; these source materials are attributed, although the source number for the Lopez letter is missing. The integration and elaboration of the source material is mixed. For example, paragraph 2 is fairly basic, summarizing the information from Source #1 with little elaboration. Paragraph 3 narrowly focuses on a small part of Source #3 and doesn’t fully develop the information. For example, the implied connection between vacationing and having “a real reason to learn” would be stronger with more explanation. Paragraph 4 shows a more comprehensive use of source material. Although it’s impossible to draw a meaningful comparison between “200 million” in China with 18% of  US children, the writer then “guesses” that &#8220;…only about have of those [US] kids will retain the second language and be able to speak it.&#8221; This inference seems [grade 7] logical despite not being explicitly supported by the source materials.  Vocabulary use is overall adequate and occasionally effective (e.g., &#8220;retain,&#8221; &#8220;holding firm,&#8221; &#8220;pressing for&#8221;). There is a strong evidence of an emerging style (e.g., short sentence for emphasis: &#8220;China get this&#8221;; and an effective rhetorical question: &#8220;How are we supposed to work out of the U.S. if we can&#8217;t even speak a native Language?&#8221;). The repeated use of the word “today” in paragraph 4 may have been unintentional, but it is also rhetorically effective.

The response presents a claim (&#8220;should get a secondary language class&#8221;) that is somewhat confusing, depending on the meaning of the word “secondary” (arguably, secondary could refer to high school). In addition to the claim, the introduction provides some limited general context (&#8220;I have read and watched arguments about…strong feelings toward…&#8221;). The conclusion is adequate, beginning with some repetition (&#8220;…where I stand,&#8221; &#8220;…holding firm, will keep pressing&#8221;) but ending with a strong statement (&#8220;We need our kids of the 21st Century to be bilingual&#8221;).  The letter is organized by simple source summary (Source #1, #3, #2), but the focus on the claim is maintained throughout. &#8220;First off,&#8221; &#8220;Next on the agenda,&#8221; and &#8220;Finally&#8221; are not effective transitions, but they do signal a progression of ideas. There are some nice internal transitions that signal subtle relationships, especially in paragraph 4 (&#8220;Today,…&#8221;; &#8220;Of that number…&#8221;). There is, however, no acknowledgment of the opposing point of view.

Narrative

Mount Everest

Development/Elaboration

This response receives No Score because there is insufficient text upon which to base a score. Although there is the beginning of a story here, with a narrator and a conflict, the response is too brief to provide adequate evidence of the writer’s skills.

Two of the three sentences in this extremely brief response are run-on sentences.

For the most part, all three sentences of this response, appear to be punctuated correctly. However, within the run-on sentences, there are missing commas.

The pronoun “i” is not capitalized throughout the response. There is also an incorrectly capitalized word (Preparing) in the first sentence.

Some word choices make the response confusing, but may not be grammar usage errors; however, there are errors with commonly confused words (“its” for “it’s” and “their” for “there”).

Other than the word “clime”, which is repeatedly misspelled throughout the response, there are no spelling errors other than those mentioned as commonly confused words.

This response receives No Score because it is off-purpose. The assigned task is to “imagine you have the chance to climb Mount Everest” and to “tell a story about something that happens as you climb the mountain.” This response summarizes information found in the source material and is lacking in narrative elements such as characters and plot. It is clearly more of an explanatory essay than a narrative one.

This response receives a No Score because it is insufficient. The response is an almost direct copy of the first paragraph of Source 2.There is no original work of the writer evident in the response

Explanatory

Invasive Species

There are no errors with sentence formation.

There are many errors with missing commas to separate compound independent clauses, and several errors with missing commas following introductory elements (an example of both types of comma errors, “After a couple of years the kudzu took over the fence and it is no longer visible”). There are also errors with unnecessary commas (“They can crowd native plants, but are always adding new things…”). Despite the many comma errors, they represent just one type of punctuation. There are also two errors with missing apostrophes (“lets”).

There are missing capitals at the beginning of two sentences (“that”) and an unnecessary capital for a common noun (“Kudzu”).

There are errors with plurals (e.g., “Then the animals that feed off of that plants”) and some unclear pronoun references (“the soil holding down the ballast can have seeds in it without them knowing…” and “…the kudzu took over the fence and it is no longer visible. They then brought in goats…”). Overall, however, errors in this category are minor and infrequent.

There are some specific and accurate details from source materials that are somewhat integrated. Several details are inaccurately presented (e.g., understating the importance of spreading kudzu in North Carolina) or poorly integrated (the idea of “managing” non-native species).

Although various sources are referenced, there is no attempt to attribute the information.

Although the details included are adequately summarized, there is virtually no other development. For example, the source detail “non-native plants in New Zealand…have only wiped out three…native plants” is followed by the statement “that shows that non-native plants do not always wipe out a bunch of native plants.” This is an example of obvious restatement, not adequate elaboration. In other places, the failure to develop details causes confusion (e.g., “non-native plants can also be easily managed” and “adding the things to our food web every day”).

Most of the stronger language choices come directly from the sources (e.g., “transported”), but there are some concrete words (“destination”; “in check”; “migrate”; “typically”). Overall, there is some vague language use (“adding the things to our food web”) and repetition (“purpose”; “accident”; “wiped out”) that keep the response from earning a higher score for this trait.

The style is mechanical and repetitive. While not inappropriate for the task, the repetition discourages audience engagement.

The response initially includes a controlling idea supporting the idea that non-native species are not necessarily bad, and that central idea is generally validated in the conclusion (“not always are,&#8221; &#8220;not usually,&#8221; and &#8220;always adding new things,”). The supporting evidence is mostly relevant but repetitive.

Transitions are mixed. There are some effective and varied transitions to connect ideas (e.g., “Yes…But…Before”; “For an example…Then…As you can see”; “if…then”), but there is also some repetition between ideas that weakens the unity (the word “then” is overused). Overall, however, the transitions are adequate.

The introduction is adequate, suggesting that the response will focus on proving or disproving that invasive species are “bad.” The conclusion is a confusing repetition of vague ideas (“not always,&#8221; &#8220;not usually,&#8221; and &#8220;always adding”), providing a weak ending to the response.

The response moves clearly from a summary of how non-native species invade, to a summary of the dangers of non-native species invasion, and finally to a summary of harmless non-native species invasions. The response, however, loses focus at the end of paragraph four by failing to explain the statement about managing non-native species.

There is a run-on sentence (“In alot of places there may not have been the best weather it may storm…”).

Given the brevity of the response, there are many punctuation errors, including missing commas to separate compound independent clauses (“Many plants may be harmful…and some it may not matter&#8230;” and “…it may storm all the time or it may never storm”), a missing comma after an introductory element (“In alot of places there…”), and a missing apostrophe for contraction (&#8220;don&#8217;t&#8221;).

There are no errors with capital letters.

There is an error with frequently confused words &#8220;to/too&#8221; and a verb tense error (“They may not adapted”). Given the brevity of the response, these errors demonstrate partial control of this convention.

There is a single spelling error (“alot”).

The minimal details included are confusing (“it all just depends where the plants get blown to or taken to”) and/or irrelevant (“It may storm all the time or it may never storm”).

There are no clear references or attributions to any source materials.

There are no attempts to develop relevant details. Attempts to personalize the information (“here in Nevada”) are insufficient.

The response uses ineffective or inaccurate language, with very vague word choices (e.g., “some plants&#8221; and &#8220;some non-native plants”).

There is no evidence of an appropriate style.

There is no clear focus and no unity.

There are no appropriate transitions.

The response begins by listing two facts presented in the prompt, and the end is confusing.

The ideas are randomly presented, and many details are irrelevant to the task.

There are repeated errors with sentence fragments (e.g., “And should not be taken lightly for the future” and “All and all becoming a huge problem if ignored for too long”) and several run-on sentences (e.g., “They can be seen as good or bad, why are they good for environments?”). Given the length and complexity of the response, these errors demonstrate a partial control of this convention.

There are repeated errors with commas, including many unnecessary commas (e.g., “This shows that, killing native plants, wouldn’t allow…”).

There is a single error with the frequently confused words to/too, and several sentences demonstrate a lack of parallel structure, but overall the response demonstrates adequate use of this convention.

There is a lot of specific information included, but it is not well-integrated and frequently leaves the reader more confused than enlightened, largely due to repetition.

Despite many references to a variety of source materials, there is no effort to attribute that information.

There is some elaboration via inference, for example, paragraph 3 argues that the opportunity to study invasive species allows for continued research opportunities and “allowing more knowledge to be created and found.” Paragraph 4 uses the information from paragraphs 2 and 3 to analyze and then explain how the information leads to the eventual thesis (the negatives of invasive species outweigh any positives). Although much of the analysis is awkwardly expressed, it is adequate for the task.

Vague phrases such as “Allowing…another thing to look for in the wild” and needlessly complex sentences are confusing due to vague and repeated language (e.g., “The massive amount of money loss from these non-native plants can surely cause many problems, not to mention a lot of non-native plants don’t go away easily and take a lot to kill them”). The occasional strong wording (e.g., “allowing animals to survive and thrive” and “sparking problems”) does not compensate for the language use weaknesses.

The style is somewhat appropriate, but it demonstrates a weak understanding of an audience’s need for clarity.

There is a strong but awkwardly worded thesis first introduced in paragraph four and then repeated in the conclusion (“non-native plants are worse for the environment than helping the environment”). The ideas do support this eventual thesis, but the repetition interferes with the overall unity of the response.

There are many transitions, but they occasionally cause more confusion than clarification. Phrases such as “all and all” and “This shows that” lose their effectiveness when repeated. Further, some transitions do not logically connect information. For example, the question that begins paragraph 2 (“Why are…bad for the environment(s)?”) is followed by the imprecise transition phrase “For example” (the information that follows the question is actually a “reason why”).

The introduction is somewhat weak, turning information from the prompt into rhetorical questions (“why are they good for environments? Why are they a nuisances…?”) which are then repeated. The introduction finishes with a weak promise to answer “these questions.” The conclusion, however, is effective. It provides a thesis (“worse than helping”) that is a logical conclusion of the information presented in the body. That thesis is then repeated in several different versions, but it still provides adequate closure for the essay.

The response moves from information about the dangers of invasive species, to information about the benefits of invasive species, and finally to an analysis of why the dangers outweigh the benefits. However, long and arduous strings of details interfere with fluency; the reader has to work too hard to follow the progression of ideas (e.g.,  “This shows that, killing native plants, wouldn’t allow the animals or insects around that live in that environment to eat these plants they need to survive, leaving most of them without food and barely anything to survive or thrive”). The actual conclusion mostly repeats what was already established at the end of paragraph four. Overall, the essay progresses logically but awkwardly.

There are structural flaws in each of the sentences in this response with the possible exception of sentence 1, which borders on being a run-on, and sentence 2. Sentence 3 is a run-on (“as we vere climbing we saw a lot of intresting things we thought it was just snow and other disgusting things up there but ere were shining rocks and we meet other peoples dogs while we were up there.”). Sentence 4 has a comma splice and eventually becomes a run-on (“a few hours or minutes later we re staring to get highier and highier and we as we get higher we saw a wonderful wew, when we were going we saw alot of animlals wondering everywhere and we didnt know they were owned if they live up there or not se just peted them and said hi and let them wonder every where.”). The final sentence is also a run-on.
&nbsp;

The response fails to use capital letters for the beginnings of sentences, the pronoun “I,” and for proper names (“mount everest”). Capitalization is entirely absent in this response.
&nbsp;

Commas are missing before coordinating conjunctions (sentence 1: “one day i had a choice to climb mount everest[,] se me and my family…” sentence 2: “…we thought it was just snow and other disgusting things up there[,] but [th]ere were shining rocks[,] and we meet other peoples dogs…”). They are also missing after introductory elements (“once we got every thing[,] we headed up there…” “as we vere climbing[,] we saw a lot of intresting things…”). Apostrophes are missing to show possession (“other peoples dogs”) and to signal a contraction (“we didnt know they were owned…”).
&nbsp;

In the first sentence, “me and my family” should read “my family and I.” In addition, there are instances of shifts in tense (“but [th]ere were shining rocs and we meet other peoples dogs while we were up there…” and “we as we get higher we saw…”).
&nbsp;

There are numerous spelling errors of grade-level words (e.g., “everthing,” “statred,” “vere,” “animlals,” etc.). The response fails to observe spelling rules when making verbs past tense or adding an –ing ending (“tryed,” “geting,” “siting”). At times, errors in spelling tend to obscure the meaning of the text.

There are very general references to a setting (“mount everest” and a “wonderfil big wew”), characters (“me and my family” and “mom”), and some vague events (“intresting things” and “alot of animlals”), but there is no real plot.

Furthermore, connections to the source materials are so weak that it’s not clear the writer read the materials beyond getting a sense of the subject (climbing Mt. Everest). For example, references to “shining rocks” and petting animals are unexplained, do not connect to information from the source materials, and cause confusion. Narrative techniques are not evident.

The vague and repetitive language (e.g., “we re starting to get highier and higher,” “wondering everywhere”) and lack of appropriate narrative style further validates a low score point 1.

This response demonstrates minimal organization relevant to writing a narrative. There is a beginning, middle, and end, but the sequence of events is weak because it vaguely centers around climbing but is not specific to climbing Mount Everest.

The only indication that the narrator is climbing Mount Everest is in the opening line (“one day i had a choice to climb mount Everest.”) The writer fails to establish a setting or any characters.

The transitions, such as “once we got every thing” and “as we vere climbing,” are appropriate for a narrative but do not help the weak plot.

The second and final sentences are run-ons. Additionally, none of the dialogue is structured or punctuated correctly.
&nbsp;

There are multiple instances throughout the response in which the writer did not use a comma (e.g., after introductory elements, in dialogue, in compound sentences) making the response, at times, challenging to comprehend.
&nbsp;

The writer fails to capitalize “i” and proper nouns (“dale”) throughout the response.
&nbsp;

There are grammar usage errors with frequently confused words such as “than” for “then,” “there” for “their,” and “new” for “knew.”
&nbsp;

There are a few spelling errors (“comne,” “bringh,” “yeld,” “tryiung” (which might be a typographical error, but an error nonetheless), “yeled”).

This response is a very brief summary in which the elaboration attempts to establish characters but is made up of mostly irrelevant details about Susan and Bob. The writer fails to develop an actual story about climbing.

The response seems to attempt a sarcastic or comedic style, especially with the use of dialogue (e.g., “Susan called and said ‘I am not going to be able to make it because i have to stay home with the kids.’”; “‘My pants and jacket don&#8217;t fit. Bob and I yeled ‘WHAT are you talking about.’ ‘They don&#8217;t fit.’”), but the style is not appropriate to the task.

The writer makes no relevant reference to the source material.

This high 1-point response demonstrates minimal organization relevant to writing a narrative. The sequence of events is weak because it includes extraneous unconnected ideas such as Dale’s pants not fitting and Susan having to stay home with the kids. There is no beginning, end, or discernible plot.

The writer also fails to establish a setting. Although there are names listed, there is no characterization to provide the reader knowledge of the narrator or main character(s).

The transitions (“As we got ready…” and “Once we settled in…”) are appropriate for a narrative but do not compensate for the weak plot.

There are numerous instances of awkward sentence constructions that read like run-ons (e.g., “so that what i been doing for the past 3 years i have been training to climb mount everest,” “the next morning we we start to climb but found out there wasent much air up were we were so we had to stop and get uses to the air up there.”).

There are errors in grammar usage (e.g., the switch from “i” to “we” in the second paragraph in which the writer makes no mention of there being any characters other than the narrator). There are errors with verbs (e.g., “i got,” “i been doing”). Additionally, the writer makes the mistake of using “were” for “where” (“up were we were”) and “of” for “have” (“we could of sliped”).

There are numerous spelling errors (“wonted,” “trianing,” “eequipment,” “takkes,” “sliped,” “rockes,” “clime,” “mountin,” “moutin,” “carefull,” “beacuse,” “wasent,” “maskes”).
&nbsp;

The writer fails to capitalize the personal pronoun “I” and fails to use capitals at the beginnings of sentences. Mount Everest should be consistently capitalized as a proper name.
&nbsp;

There are missing commas in several sentences (e.g., “the next morning i got up[,] packed my things[,] and started to climb.”).

The writer confuses the reader by switching personal pronouns from “i” to “we” indicating that there is more than one character; however, no character names are mentioned.

There is a vague reference to the source material in the first paragraph in which the writer mentions having trained for 3 years (“it takes years of trianing and some necessary climbing eequipment. so that what i been doing for the past 3 years i have been training to climb mount Everest.”).

This response provides minimal elaboration with no discernable use of narrative techniques and few details. The writer makes no use of sensory or figurative language although the style is appropriate to the task.

The narrative has an extremely minimal and only somewhat effective beginning. There is a weak ending to the story (“that is my story on how i was able to climb mount Everest.”).

The writer attempts to set up the story but fails to establish a setting; however, the point of view is consistent throughout.

There is no real plot, although there is a sequence of events.

There are some decent transitions (“after a while,” “the next morning,” “from there on”).

There are two instances of run-on sentences within dialogue (“‘Hey calm down we&#8217;re barley there yet are you&#8217;re already shaking.’”; “‘I want to do this I&#8217;ve been training for almost four years.’”).
&nbsp;

Shifts in verb tense are somewhat distracting. It begins in present tense (“It’s currently early in the day”), but shifts to past tense when the dialogue starts (“‘Are you ready?’ I asked James.”). Two lines later it shifts to present, then immediately to past again (“As we get there I started to shake.”). There is a shift back to present tense one last time in the next-to-last paragraph (“It’s been about almost two months.”) where it remains for the rest of the story. The misuse of “are” instead of “and” causes confusion in one line of dialogue (“we’re barley there yet are you’re already shaking”) and a missing preposition also causes some confusion (“I start feel accomplished.”).

Spelling is generally correct except for the use of the word “barley” instead of “barely.”

The dialogue has some errors in both capitalization and punctuation (e.g., “‘Yeah, I am.’ He responded.” should be “‘Yeah, I am,’ he responded.”).

In addition to an unnecessary comma in the second sentence (“I get up and eat a hearty breakfast, because today is the day I climb Mt. Everest.”), there are also some missing commas following introductory elements (“As we are driving in[,] I can already picture myself…”; “When I get there[,] I walk in his house…”).

This response provides superficial elaboration using dialogue. Other than dialogue, narrative techniques are lacking in this response.

The two main characters, the narrator and the Sherpa, James, are underdeveloped.

The writer hints at details from the sources by alluding to the amount of time the main character states he has trained for the event and the fact that he is taking a Sherpa along on the climb.

The writer uses some concrete language (“mumbled,” “scolded”); however, it does little to advance the purpose of the response. The response is brief but appropriate to the style. There is a strong sense of style (e.g., the last two paragraphs describing the exhaustion and struggle are nicely captured via several short sentences).

The response has a structure that includes a beginning, middle, and end. Overall, the limited sequence of events follows a logical order, using dialogue to advance the story. This response provides a weak and unsatisfying closing to the narrative.

The writer attempts to create a setting in the opening paragraph (“I am currently in Nepal right now staying at a fancy hotel.”). However, the setting for the actual climb is not described at all. Although the narrative includes the mention of a character, James, the narrator fails to establish characterization other than the fact that James is a Sherpa. Additionally, the narrative spends too much time describing arriving at the trail head and almost no time describing the actual climb.

There are a few transitions, used primarily to indicate changes in time (“When we get there…,” “As we are driving in…,” “Hours later…”).

There is a pattern of errors in sentence structure including fragments (e.g., the second and last two sentences in the first paragraph), run-ons (e.g., the first sentence in the third paragraph), and the dialogue is not structured or punctuated correctly. Arguably, the writer may have inserted the fragments as a stylistic choice, but because the response does not show adequate control of other sentence structures, it’s difficult to dismiss them as stylistic.
&nbsp;

There are punctuation errors like the comma splice in the first paragraph (“The pain was excruciating from the cold wind, it was cold, snowy, and icy.”). There are missing end marks for sentences (“on the &#8216;satt&#8217; phone She was so happy…”). There is a missing apostrophe (“families” instead of “family’s”).

There are some errors in grammar usage (e.g., the last sentence in the second paragraph has a subject/verb agreement error that should read “There were my dad, my mom, and I,” not “There was my dad, my mom, and I”). There are errors with frequently confused words (e.g., “your” for “you’re”).
&nbsp;

There are a few capitalization and spelling errors (“riggid,” “sattleite,” “oxegyn,” “thatn,” “throught”).

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

This response provides brief elaboration using some description and dialogue (e.g., “‘Sure’,he said,‘only if your up to the hard preparation.’”). There is a partial description of the character’s past, in which the narrator lists other mountains climbed, but little of this information is elaborated and does nothing to characterize the story’s narrator.

The writer integrates some information from the sources (e.g., “burning six thousand calories a day”).

There are a few examples of attempted elaboration in which the writer uses descriptive language (“it was cold, snowy, and icy…Mount Fujiyama it was steep and riggid”), but the response is lacking in sensory details or figurative language. Overall, the language is general and the style is appropriate for the task.

This response has a structure that includes a beginning, middle, and end. Overall, the sequence of events follows a logical order with references to Mt. Fujiyama and Mt. Ash, but these trips are only weakly related to the story of climbing Mount Everest, which should be the focus of the narrative. There is an ending to the narrative that the writer attempts to tie back into the introduction (“a legacy thatn would be passed on throught my families history.”).

The writer attempts to create a setting in the opening paragraph (“The pain was excruciating from the cold wind, it was cold, snowy, and icy.”), but other attempts to describe the setting are repetitious (“It was also steep and riggid, it was cold but we made it there.”). There is no attempt at establishing a character or narrator.

The response uses basic transitions (“beginning,” “My second,” and “Last mountain”) to progress from one event to the next.

The response generally uses appropriate sentence structures with only occasional lapses into awkward wording (in paragraph 1: “As I lifted my ice axe to pull up mysef up farther…” and “I sometimes laugh at myself, remembering the moment that same day I started to climb that Mount Everest was filled with snow.”). There is one instance of a fragment (sentence 3 in paragraph 6: “Even if that meant having a cast on your right foot for the next couple of months”), but this may have been intentional for effect.

There are no errors in capitalization.
&nbsp;

Punctuation is generally correct, with three instances of unneeded commas (paragraph 1: “Everything in life seemed amazing, which was obviously a lie, because then, how will you learn?”; paragraph 5: “I got up, very slowly because…”; and the final paragraph: “I slowly rose up like that time I fell, and went to the kitchen where the cookies waited.”).
&nbsp;

There is one instance of a tense shift (paragraph 1: “…because of the ice forming around the place I’m supposed to hold on to” should be: “…because of the ice forming around the place I was supposed to hold on to.”). In paragraph 5, the first sentence should read “I got up very slowly because I was sure I had broken my foot.” There is an inappropriate shift in person in the fragment “Even if that meant having a cast on your right foot for the next couple of months.
&nbsp;

There are a few misspellings of grade-level words: “amazng,” “pleasureable,” “mysef,” “claories,” “siting,” and “rasin.”

This response provides adequate elaboration using descriptive details and information from the source materials. The events are adequately developed over the course of the narrative. Throughout the narrative, the writer effectively uses information from the sources to add details to the story (e.g., “The process of burning 6000 calories a day instead of 2000 claories as tiring”) to help make the story believable.

The writer uses a variety of narrative techniques to create an engaging story.

There is an adequate use of concrete language (e.g., “I pulled out my bag of oatmeal rasin and chocolate chip cookies and a packet filled with soup. I began to bod the soup as I munched on the cookies. They tasted like what my mom made for me at home, which was almost half-way across the world. A tear almost spilled out, but I held it in. I didn’t want to take off my goggles in this cold weather!”). Stylistically, the response is appropriate and there is enough detail and description to advance the purpose of the writing.

This response adequately demonstrates organization that is appropriate for a narrative writing task. Although a bit repetitive (the word “amazing” is used three times in the first three sentences), the narrative opens with an engaging beginning that briefly describes the setting. The ending is contrived (a dream sequence) but does provide closure.

The writer establishes a setting using descriptive language (e.g., “I grabbed on to the first rock that jutted out”). The writer uses a consistent first-person point of view from the perspective of the main character.

The sequence of events adequately follows a logical order as the story progresses. However, there are some confusing parts that interrupt the flow (e.g., &#8220;I sometimes laugh at myself, remembering the moment that same day I started to climb that Mount verest was filled with snow&#8221;).

There are a variety of transitional strategies used by the writer (“Later on,” “As I lifted my ice axe,” “Siting down”) to connect ideas and help the progression of the plot.

Sentence structures are generally correct and effective.

There are no capitalization errors.

Most of the punctuation errors are missing hyphens: “snow-covered rocks,” “sixty-degree slope,” “thirty-pound backpack,” and “three-quarters of the way.” There is a missing apostrophe to indicate possession in the first sentence: “The wind[’]s volume…” and again later in the phrase “other people[’]s ice axes.” Punctuation should also be present around the two instances of dialogue in the final paragraph.
&nbsp;

There are tense shifts in paragraphs 2 and 4. In paragraph 2, there is a shift to present tense with the sentence that begins “Our crew has more gear….” and a shift back to past tense with the sentence that begins “Before we even began the hike…” In paragraph 4, the response again shifts to present tense with the sentence that begins “He tells me the next stopping point” with a shift back to past tense near the end of that paragraph with the sentence “It was so lonely and cold up there.” The wrong form of the word “too” is used in the phrase “I realised that if I yelled to much.…” Near the end of the story, the word “quick” should likely be “quickly,” although the meaning of the full sentence is not entirely clear.

There are just a few misspelled grade-level words: “eachother” should be two words; “realised,” “stoping,” “mountian,” and “disapeared.”

The response uses many relevant text details to enhance the narrative.

For example, the setting is well described in the first paragraph. Similarly, the writer uses details such as what the climbers carried with them, even going as far as to define lesser known words for the reader (&#8220;…he pulled on his hiking rope with the jumar holding his position on the side of the mountain. His crampons, steel studs attached to warm boots that are used to walk on ice, grated on a piece of rock due to how difficult his facemask and goggles made it for him to see&#8221;). Technical details are well integrated in paragraph #4 to increase the tension in the story. Dialogue is not used (except briefly at the end), and there are a few places where further explanation would clarify some events (e.g., &#8220;&#8230;crampons grating on rocks because goggles made it difficult to see&#8221;), but overall the narrative is well developed.

The writer effectively utilizes vocabulary (&#8220;monotonous,&#8221; &#8220;howl&#8221;) and figurative language (&#8220;The winds volume reached a howl on the snow covered rocks surrounding us. Snow swirled in mini tornadoes and lodged itself in any open spots in our clothing”) to make the story more exciting. The style is effective and appropriate to the task.

This response is an interesting story with an engaging beginning. The ending of the narrative however, lacks any true falling action, leaving the reader feeling a little less than satisfied that the narrative has ended.

The writer establishes a setting using descriptive language (“The winds volume reached a howl on the snow covered rocks surrounding us. Snow swirled in mini tornadoes and lodged itself in any open spots in our clothing.”). Additionally, the writer establishes a consistent first-person point of view from the perspective of the main character.

The sequence of events follows a logical order building suspense as the story progresses to the rather unexpected climax. The plot helps to create a sense of cohesion with the writer establishing a conflict and providing a resolution to the conflict.

There are a variety of transitions used by the writer (“At this point,” “As I climbed,” “Suddenly”) to connect ideas and help the progression of the plot.

While most sentence structures in this extensive response are effective, there are several instances of awkwardness (paragraph 2: “Quickly was the only manner in which he could do this…”; “He snuggled his hulking body of coats within his thermal sleeping bag…”; paragraph 3: “The snow was beginning to come down a bit more heavily and [it] occasionally hailed.”; “A blizzard was beginning to sweep in throughout the clearing that John was set up in the middle of!”). Paragraph 3 also contains a comma splice: “Thinking about this just made him hungry and he kept a balanced diet of calories, he did this so he would stay alive even after burning a good 6,000 calories a day.”

Capitalization is generally correct; &#8220;mountain&#8221; appears to be capitalized twice for effect, although this is not done consistently.

Hyphens are needed in “24 year old,” and there are a couple instances where commas are not used correctly. A comma is not needed after the phrase “clink, clink, clink,” and one should be present in the sentence “His lifelong goal had been accomplished[,] and he felt amazed behond what words could describe” since this is a compound sentence.

There are no major issues with grammar usage in this response. (Saying John “started to rush towards the trees” instead of “toward the trees” is more preferential than incorrect.)
&nbsp;

There are just few misspellings in this response: “occured,” “incedent.”

The response provides thorough and effective elaboration using a variety of narrative techniques.

The events in the story are well developed with relevant details and description.

The writer’s effective use of figurative language and sensory details paints a vivid picture that helps the reader experience the scene the writer describes (e.g., “began to sweep over the sparkling white trail…,” “The top was like a beacon of triumph…,” “glazed in sparkling ice”). The writing is illustrative rather than being solely descriptive.

The writer effectively and seamlessly integrates information from the sources such as what the climbers wore, ate, and carried with them (e.g., “crampons,” “ice pick,” “jumar”) to add details and description to enhance the narrative.

The narrative style is effective and appropriate to the task. Word choices such as “clink, clink, clink” (onomatopoeia) and similes like “It looked like more of a trophy sitting…” all contribute to a mature and engaging sense of style.

This response is a strong narrative with a beginning that draws the reader in. The ending is appropriate to the task, audience, and purpose and makes the story feel complete.

The plot is effective in creating a sense of cohesion and completeness.

The writer establishes a setting using descriptive language to introduce the reader to the cold mountain environment. There is a consistent third-person point of view throughout the narrative. The writer effectively establishes a strong sense of the character’s preparedness and determination.

The writer utilizes a variety of transitions and transitional strategies effectively.

The sequence of events follows a logical order in which the writer establishes a conflict and provides a resolution to the conflict that is satisfying to the reader.

Sentence structures are generally correct, but there are occasional wording issues: in paragraph 3, there is an extra word in the dialogue (“This it is it brother”); in paragraph 10, the phrase “Although Krish rarely spoke, once he did tell Sarah” should read “Although Krish rarely spoke, once he did he told Sarah…” Later in the story, the sentence “The man began to come with it” does not make sense in context. The sentence “Sarah chose a one of the five ropes on the slope and clinged he crampons to the slope” also suffers from weak construction. Near the end of the story, the phrase “The three climbed to remaining of the mountain” needs rewording. There is one fragment in this essay (“The Hillary Step.”), but it is clearly intended for effect.

There are a few instances of missing hyphens (“dark[-]skined, dark[-]haired man,” “thirty[-]pound backpack”) and a missing apostrophe to indicate possession in paragraph 4 (“Tears began to roll down the woman[’] s cheeks.”). Commas are generally used appropriately, although there are instances where a comma is missing (paragraph 3: “This is it[,] brother”) or unnecessary (after the word &#8220;passed&#8221; in the sentence “Weeks passed, as the two ate chocolate, cookies, and boil-in-bag meals.”). The use of a semicolon in paragraph 9 should actually be a comma to avoid creating a fragment.

There are two instances of tense shifts, one in paragraph 10 (a shift to present tense: “Sarah told Krish that she also knows about them…”) and another shift to present tense in paragraph 11 (“There is only one obstacle left until they reach their life goal.”).
&nbsp;

There are just a few spelling errors in this detailed response: “breif” and “happenned,” are misspelled, while “with out” should be one word in paragraph 10 and “some what” should be spelled as one word later in the essay.

This response provides effective elaboration using relevant details, dialogue, and description. The events are clearly described, and the relationship between the two main characters is well developed. The writer’s physical description of Krish helps the reader to picture the character from the perspective of the narrator. Additionally, Krish’s character traits are developed through both explicit and implicit details (e.g., “He may be quiet, but he speaks up when someone needs help.”), assisting the reader to understand the character better.

The writer utilizes a variety of narrative techniques to engage the reader. The writer’s effective use of dialogue (“’There is a frozen body at the bottom of Hillary, but he is alive. I see him struggling to move. I know I do not say much, but this I need to say. We must help him,’ said Krish.”) helps to enhance the story.

Throughout the narrative, the writer effectively integrates information from the sources, such what the climbers wore, ate, and carried with them, to create a sense of realism for a fictional story.

The style is effective and appropriate to the task.

The opening to this response skips the planning stages of the climb, beginning instead at the point of the departure when Sarah meets her co-climber. The beginning effectively engages the reader by introducing the reader to the main characters of the narrative. There is a consistent third-person limited point of view throughout the story. The narrative’s ending, in which the main character reflects on her experience climbing Mt. Everest, is appropriate and follows seamlessly from the events that make up the rest of the story.

The writer makes consistent use of various transitions and transitional strategies (e.g., “until night fell,” “As Sarah came closer…”).

The plot is effective with a naturally occurring sequence of events.

Sentences are generally constructed correctly, although a few would benefit from restructuring (e.g., “Anthony, and Ingo, my friends had stamina, and would also climb with me.”).
&nbsp;

Other than &#8220;mount&#8221; being lowercase in paragraph 1, capitalization is completed correctly in this response.

The response contains minor errors in the use of commas: there is an unnecessary comma in paragraph 3 (“First we found a ledge, and hooked the rope around it.”), a comma is misplaced in paragraph 4 (“A little over a week, after that we finally reached [the] summit.”), and there is an unnecessary comma later in paragraph 4 (“I took out the camera, and took a picture of the three of us…”).

The response is generally grammatically correct, although there are a few instances where extra words or typos give the appearance of errors (e.g., “My friends were so exhausted they the fell down right when they reached to summit.”). In the third sentence of paragraph 4, “This pane process of climb, stop, rest” likely is meant to say “This painful process of climb, stop, rest….”
&nbsp;

Several typos result in spelling errors: “te” instead of “to,” “thee” instead of “there,” “and” instead of “an,” “shill” instead of “still,” “fiends” instead of “friends,” “i” instead of “is.”

This response provides adequate elaboration using details and description that are appropriate to a narrative writing task. The writer uses a variety of narrative techniques to adequately develop the events in the narrative.

Throughout the narrative, the writer uses information from the sources, such as what the climbers carried with them, to add details and description in the story (e.g., “We started out by taking out what we brought: harnesses, jumars, carabiners, ice axes, headlamps to see in the dark, crampons to make it easier to walk on snow, and altimeter, lots and lots of food and water, a camera to remember the moment, and a rappel device for climbing back down.”). However, this example also shows how details are sometimes listed and do not become an integral part of the narrative.

Other than technical vocabulary from the sources, the vocabulary choices are adequate if somewhat general and occasionally repetitive (&#8220;We have heard stories …and we heard that it was very challenging and took a lot of stamina; and [we] got on te the ledge, we got the rope and threw it up to another ledge. It felt like a miracle that thee were ledges&#8221;).

There is, however, some evidence of an emerging style (e.g., &#8220;This [process] of climb, stop, rest, wake-up, climb, step, rest, wake-up continued…; Sadly, our joy was limited&#8221;).

The narrative includes an adequate plot, with the challenge of climbing Mount Everest providing a general conflict.

The characters are introduced at the end of the first paragraph, and the setting and point of view are also established. The first-person point of view is maintained throughout.

The narrative has an adequate beginning despite some shortcomings (e.g., the clever detail, &#8220;[We] trained Inigo to [not] be afraid of heights comes before the characters are actually introduced, which causes some brief confusion&#8221;). The closing seems abrupt (&#8220;down…was easy&#8221;) and contrived (&#8220;That was the end of our exciting, and tiring journey&#8221;).

The sequence of events is obvious but sustained with events, leading to the summit and back, progressing logically.

A variety of transitions—traditional phrases (&#8220;First,&#8221; &#8220;Then,&#8221; &#8220;When&#8221;) as well as some less typical devices (“It was 6:00 in the morning”; “You Guys ready?”)—combine to show the progression of ideas.

There are a few awkward sentences that are confusing to the reader (e.g., “Although, I remember from my 3 years of training that when I came to the spot where i see a huge peice if ice that i should use my ice axe and break off as much as possible.”). Overall, the most problematic sentence structure errors are found in the way in which the writer structured the dialogue. There is a run-on sentence in the last paragraph of the response (“‘Now hurry and get home I made your favorite dinner and for dessert there is choclate icecream.’”).

Search Annotated Student Responses

Grade

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy

Examples

Grade

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy