Grade 8

Explanatory

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Memory Training

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There are errors with frequently confused words (“here” for &#8220;hear&#8221;; “then” for &#8220;than&#8221;). Note: because the gender identification of the “someone” and the “person” are not clear, the use of “they” is suitable.

There are missing commas after introductory elements in sentences #2 and #3.
&nbsp;

There are no capital letters used to indicate sentence beginnings.

There are too many spelling errors to list.

The few details describing people with disabilities versus people with no disabilities are irrelevant to the task and do not accurately reflect the information in the unattributed source materials. The references to text details about long- and short-term memory are not appropriately integrated and not elaborated.

Language use is vague and confusing (“things” and “stuff”), and there is no evident awareness of style.

The response is too brief to address the given task. There is a weak controlling idea, focusing on only the beginning information from the first source. There is no conclusion and inadequate transitions (“all so”; “then”). Because the essay is so limited, there are insufficient details to show a progression of ideas.

Two (of four) sentences are run-ons.

There is a missing comma after introductory elements (“When you go to the store[,] you have to remember…,” “If you can’t remember what you need at the store you can write it…,” and, arguably, after “For example”).

There are no errors with spelling.

There are no errors with capitalization.

There are no errors with grammar usage.

Other than a mention of a store list, there are no details from the source materials: Source # 1 does mention shopping lists, as does sentence #2 in this response, therefore making this brief response eligible for a score (mentioning “memory” alone would likely be insufficient to demonstrate that the writer had read the sources as “Memory” is listed as the task title and the word is included in the writing assignment/prompt).

The third sentence could be considered an attempt to elaborate the idea of needing to remember what to buy at the store. The last sentence is irrelevant.

The language is vague and repetitive (“remember what you have to do,” “use your memory to remember,” “If you can’t remember,” “you need to remember”), and there is no evidence of style.

There is a weak attempt at a controlling idea (“Memory is good because…”), but there is no real introduction and no conclusion.

There are transitions (“For example” and “Another example”), but they fail to provide meaningful cohesion as the response is too brief to establish a progression of ideas. Rather, the four-sentence response presents only loosely connected ideas (e.g., needing to remember how much money was counted is not a relevant or important reason that “Memory is good”).

There are several run-on sentences (the first sentence in paragraph 2 and the second sentence in the final paragraph), and there is a lack of parallel structure (e.g., “The brain is an amazing thing that we have and how it does everything for us….”). Other sentence structure problems do not constitute errors per se, considered instead to be style issues.

There are errors with frequently confused words (“Their” for &#8220;There&#8221;; “are” for &#8220;our&#8221;), and an error with the article “a” for &#8220;an&#8221; (“a average”).

Errors with missing commas, for both compound sentences and after introductory elements, are too numerous to list (As an example of both: “It also explains how we remember things for a short time and if we keep repeating a certin thing that [then] we will member it longer”). There are also errors with missing apostrophes in contractions (e.g., &#8220;cant,&#8221; &#8220;thats,&#8221; &#8220;dont&#8221;) and errors with quotation marks to identify source materials.

There are missing capital letters for source titles (“person+action+object=?”).
&nbsp;

Errors are too numerous to list. Although many of these could be typographical errors (still counted as errors), there are also many repeated errors that reflect a lack of command for frequently misspelled words and spelling patterns (e.g., “alot,” “retreive,” “certin”).

The details selected are mostly general and weakly integrated, simplifying (attributed) source materials to the point of being confusing at times (e.g., “bilingual people…have a bigger memory,” “you can lose memory by watching TV,” and “…it’ short term and long term working together and thats how you proces things you memorize”).

There are a few attempts at elaboration beyond summary/generalization (e.g., commentary: “thats alot of words to remember” and connection: “from memorizing poems and writings…”).

The language used is general and repetitive (“many things”; “alot of things”), and there is no evident awareness of style.

There is no clear introduction with the first sentence offering a weak controlling idea (“brain remembers things and forgets things too, but there are tricks…”) for the first paragraph.

The rest of the first paragraph vaguely describes the “tricks and tips.” Paragraph 2 summarizes source #3. The final paragraph describes the “amazing” brain and ends by summarizing and repeating the “many things about how the brain works” (paragraph 2) and “tips” (paragraph 1). Because the ideas are presented in a seemingly random fashion, the progression of ideas is weak, and there are no appropriate transitions (other than “also”).

There are sentence structure errors: back-to-back run-on sentences in paragraph 3 and a lack of parallel structure at the end of paragraph 1. Although there are many stylistically awkward sentences, these are not counted as errors, per se.

Passive voice, a stylistic problem, can slow down comprehension in places (e.g., “it is said that…”).

There are many errors with punctuation including missing commas in compound sentences (“I can see how this would be true and i’ve actually used this….” and “Theirs are just more exercised and they know how….”) and missing commas following introductory elements (“…if you use shortcuts and replace names with objects you can remember…”). There are errors with the placement of commas outside the quotation marks (“’Stan Lee’, the creator of Marvel” and “’working memory’,” ).

There are no spelling errors, although some words are incorrectly used (“is” for &#8220;in&#8221;).

Capitalization errors include with the proper noun &#8220;I&#8221; (“i’ve”).

Relative to the amount of available information, this response references few details; however, those that are included are attributed to specific sources. The details used are briefly listed with insufficient explanation and little or no elaboration. The exception is in paragraph 3, in which the writer makes a personal connection, explaining how to remember names by mentally replacing them with objects (despite the fact that Stan Lee is not an object).

Overall, the language is vague (“lots of things”), confusing (“memory- complex”), repetitive (“make your memory better and remember things longer”), and/or imprecise (“…more shaped to how you’ve been using it,” “interacting with”).

The style does not enhance the writing (e.g., use of passive voice—“it is said that”—and repetition of phrases such as “they talked about,” and “it talks a little about”).

The introduction for this response has an adequate controlling idea connecting the need to develop memory with the fact that it will be useful for “our entire lives.” The progression of ideas is announced in the introduction. The conclusion very generally summarizes the response, reiterating that memory is “important.”

The response seems to progress following the roadmap presented in the introduction, but a close examination reveals lapses. Paragraph 4 begins by describing how Dellis and Hu (source #2) exercise their brains, which seemed to be the focus of paragraph 2. Paragraph 4 then describes how Peregovoy used “tricks” to “shape up” her memory, yet tricks were also the focus of paragraph 3.

There are few transitions to clarify relationships in paragraphs 2 and 4, although transitions in paragraph 3 are more appropriate (“I can see,” “Another trick,” “For example”).

There are several sentence fragments (“For example, if you are at the grocery store, with your list stored in your short-term memory, and turn around to grab the sour cream, only to notice they&#8217;ve moved it” and “Starting out with knowing and understanding the three types of memory”). In addition, there are sentences that reflect other error types, mostly due to missing words (“Say, if you going shopping, and you need to remember your list ‘Picture a building you know well, perhaps your own house.’”). The use of passive voice (e.g., “After you are informed of …”) produces some awkward constructions.

There are some unnecessary or inconsistent verb tense shifts (e.g., “after you are informed of…,&#8221; &#8220;you are able….”—the verb should be “would be”). The first paragraph provides an example of potentially confusing shifts in pronouns (sentence 2 uses “one first needs” while sentence 3 shifts to “you”).

There are no grade 8-appropriate errors in punctuation.

There are no grade 8-appropriate errors in spelling.

There are no grade 8-appropriate errors in capitalization.

The response is long, including summaries or paraphrasing of many details from source materials #1 and #2 (source # 3 has not been used). Although the details have been attributed to sources, many should have used direct quotes as the paraphrasing is too close (e.g., compare the source “Long-term memory stores information, experiences, and ideas long after you stop thinking about them” with the writer’s version: “It remembers ideas, experiences, and information even after you have stopped thinking about them”).

Although there is also a heavy dependence on source summary, there is some elaboration of details; other elaborative strategies include providing some nice hypothetical examples to develop text details (e.g., “with your list stored in your short-term memory, and [you] turn around to grab the sour cream, only to notice they&#8217;ve moved it. When you go to look for the sour cream, within 20-30 seconds you will forget whatever else was on your list.” And, the example of how to remember a new classmate’s name—Briana).

Although the language is generally appropriate with occasional strong word choices (e.g., “abyss”), there are also some imprecise language uses (e.g., “memory place” should be “memory palace” and “abstract techniques” is confusing).

There is strong evidence of style intended to engage the reader, relying less on word choices and more on conversational voice, alternating sentence lengths, and rhetorical questions (e.g., “Say you just met that new kid in your class. Her name was Briana. Why would you remember this? Well, you used the technique where you associated the girl&#8217;s name with an object.”).

Rather than develop a targeted controlling idea or a thesis to manage the information presented in the source materials, this response attempts to integrate most if not all of the important information from sources # 1 and #2—and in general, it does so adequately. The introduction suggests a causal link that in order to exercise (to improve) memory, one must first understand three kinds of memory. Since the sources do not make that claim, this represents a plausible thesis. The conclusion is weak, providing a repetitive summary of information.

The progression of ideas is predictable, with the response describing each of the three types of memory, followed by paragraphs summarizing the techniques for “exercising” the brain.

Transitions between body paragraphs are uneven. For example, the last sentence of paragraph 2 presents a cause/effect statement about the topic in that paragraph—sensory memory; the last sentence in paragraph 3, however, attempts to suggest causality between short-term and long-term memory (the topic of paragraph 4), while paragraph 4 concludes by introducing the strategies covered in 3 and 4. While these strategies are not wrong, given the length of the response, clearer—or at least more consistent—connections would help. Other transitions are generally appropriate if obvious (“First of all,” “Another type,” “Last of all,” “Another thing,” and “To include”).

There are no errors with sentence structure (“Distractions” is a purposeful fragment, presumably used for emphasis).

Arguably, there is a confusing pronoun reference (“This ties in with…”) to begin paragraph 4. Other than that, there are no errors with grammar usage.
&nbsp;

There are numerous errors in punctuation including missing commas in compound sentences (e.g., the final sentence in the article), separating nonrestrictive information (“…adding complexity which makes it easier…”), and in a list (“record yourself…then shut your eyes, go in a quiet room, and play it over…”). There is an error with end punctuation (final sentence in paragraph 2 ends with a comma instead of a period) and improperly used punctuation marks for titles (‘Memory Masters’).

“Comrpomise” is misspelled. There are also typographical errors (“wth” and “stronge rif”), which nevertheless count as errors.

There are no evident errors with capital letters.

There are source-based details from all three sources, but there is no synthesis of the evidence as one would expect in a higher-scoring paper. The first body paragraph (paragraph 2) shows effective elaboration, beginning with a personal connection to the source material and ending with an extension via recommendation to take study breaks. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are less effectively developed: paragraph 3 and 4 have little elaboration except for their final lines (observation: “I bet that won’t let you down” and advice: “So if you have to remember groceries…”).

There is some effective language use (“drab,” “compromise”).

There is evidence of effective style including the juxtaposition of long and short (even fragmented) sentences and rhetorical questions, all providing a conversational voice (e.g., “Distractions. I know I get distracted easily, especially when studying for a boring, drab test when I&#8217;d rather be watching TV. To comrpomise, I&#8217;ll turn on the TV and then study as well, glancing up at the TV every few minutes. I claim I&#8217;m studying, but am I? Your brain would answer no.”).

The progression of ideas is somewhat uneven: the article begins with a strong beginning and second paragraph but fades toward the end. The body paragraphs are presented to reflect the same order as the source materials with no clear connection between them. Specifically, the introduction clearly sets the direction for the article, focusing on teens’ need to perform well in school and beyond while presenting a clear controlling idea via a rhetorical question about “how to remember.” The conclusion is weak, offering little other than vague generalizations.

The transitions are somewhat weak, ranging from the vague “This ties in with” (to begin paragraph 3) and a heavy reliance on “so.”

There are no grade 8-appropriate errors with sentence structure.

There are no grade 8-appropriate errors with spelling.

There are no grade 8-appropriate errors with capitalization.

There are errors with pronoun/antecedent agreement (“if information is not encoded…, they can cause” and “…never forget anyone’s names again”).

There is a relatively minor error with the placement of a comma outside the quotation marks (“‘memory palace’,”).

There is ample evidence attributed to all of the sources. That evidence is well integrated and synthesized. For example, paragraph 2 includes information from both source #1 and source #2, focusing on the idea of distractions, including TV—a nice synthesis of information. Furthermore, rank-ordering the strategies from least to most important represents an effective strategy for integration.

The elaboration, however, is overall weaker, relying on summary and somewhat obvious inference (e.g., “funny images and tricks will help stick the information into your memory”).

Although there is some repetition (see first and last sentences in each body paragraph or phrases such as “work together and cooperate”), the language is overall adequate with effective word choices in spots (“scenarios”).

The style is consistent and appropriate; the use of the narrative to introduce the controlling idea is stylistically effective. Overall the response has strengths (especially for integration of evidence) and relative weaknesses (especially for elaboration) but has enough merits to earn a score of 4 for this category.

Beginning an explanatory article with a hypothetical narrative is extremely effective, engaging readers with a hypothetical scenario they can all relate to. This mature introductory strategy makes up for finishing that paragraph with the somewhat ordinary presentation of three supports. The conclusion offers little more than a general summary of the writing, reiterating the controlling idea (“Simply by training the mind…”) and adding a final thought about “never forget[ting] anyone’s names again.”

Transitions between paragraphs are formulaic (“To begin,” “Next,” “Lastly”). Each body paragraph has a topic sentence that is basically repeated in the final line of that paragraph, producing some distracting repetition (e.g., paragraphs 3 and 4 have bookend sentences that practically repeat each another; the topic and concluding sentences of paragraph 2, however, echo each another more subtly). Within paragraphs, the transitions are varied if predictable (“Moreover,” “Therefore,” In addition,” “To sum up”).

The progression of ideas is thoughtful: rather than proceeding from source #1 through source #3, the writer presents the “most important” strategy last.

There are no errors with sentence structure; the evident fragments are purposeful and are used for effect (e.g., “Seems easy enough, right? Wrong.”).

Although not a CCSS grade 8 skill, in paragraph 4, an incorrect semicolon is used instead of a colon (“The gist of this trick is as follows;”). There are relatively minor errors with the placement of punctuation outside the quotation marks, but only when citing sources (e.g., “The last trick is also from ‘Memory Masters’.”).

There are no errors with grade 8-appropriate grammar usage.

There are no errors with grade 8-appropriate capitalization.

There are no errors with grade 8-appropriate spelling.

The source-based details come from across the sources, and they are attributed. The information is well paraphrased, integrated, and synthesized (e.g., the information in paragraph 2 combines information from both sources # 1 and #2).

The effective summarization of source materials is elaborated primarily at the end of each body paragraph with personal connections to hypothetical situations (e.g., “Next time you’re going to the store, conjure up…”; “Just imagine…. The sillier it is, the easier it will be, so try to think of some outrageous people, actions, and objects!”).

The language used is effective (e.g., “gist,” “fickle,” “conjure”).

The strong sense of style enhances the message (e.g., the introduction engages the reader by combining short and long sentences, rhetorical questions, etc. That style gives the article voice and is maintained consistently throughout).

This strong response is tightly organized as a “how to” article for a science website. The introduction sets the context for the writing (“we’ve all had it happen… mind goes blank, What was that formula?”) summarizing a controlling idea (“practice, practice, practice”) and integrating a well-chosen validating quote (“If you keep using your brain, …it shapes how your brain will be organized”). The final sentence in the introduction may be a bit exaggerated (“remember with ease”), but it transitions well into the body. The conclusion comes full circle back to the idea of the forgotten formula presented in the introduction and takes the advice to “practice” full circle as well (“practice makes perfect.”).

Overall, the thesis is embedded within the conclusion: “Memories can be fickle [but]….Having a good memory can really get you ahead in life….”

The progression of ideas is clear, presenting strategies to improve memory, with each paragraph ending with a statement providing cohesion by bringing the information back to the personal level.

Transitions are subtle and effective. The response avoids reliance on stock phrases/strategies (e.g., paragraphs 4 and 5: uses “Let’s say” instead of “for example”; places “however” mid-sentence rather than at the beginning) and utilizes other techniques to connect ideas such as rhetorical questions/answers (paragraph 3: “What does this help you do? It requires….”).

This response receives No Score because there is insufficient original student writing that can be scored. The essay is a direct copy from Source 1 with the exception of omitting some words and phrases. These few differences are not significant enough to indicate an attempt to paraphrase, and there is little evidence of original student writing.

This response receives a No Score because it is insufficient. The one-sentence response is too brief to provide enough evidence that would allow scoring in any of the three traits.

The first sentence of this response is awkwardly worded which sets the tone for the rest of the response. Awkwardly worded phrases throughout the response interfere with the reader’s ability to understand the response, and disguise run-on and fragmented sentences.

Overall, the challenge with punctuation in this response appears to be with the dialogue. However, these errors, while many, do not interfere with understanding.

There are many errors in capitalization. The pronoun “i” is not capitalized consistently throughout the response. Additionally, most sentences do not begin with a capital letter. There is also an incorrectly capitalized word in the second to last sentence (Slapped).

There are a few errors with grammar usage: “fail” in the first sentence of paragraph 3, should be in the past tense. There is an agreement error in paragraph 4 with the word “friend”. And in paragraph 5, the word “walking” should be “walked”.

Given the length of the response, there are relatively few spelling errors (“nto”, “’then’ next”, “after noon”).

This response receives a No Score because it is off-purpose. While the response is related to the general topic of memory, it is clearly a narrative rather than an informational essay.

This response receives a No Score because it is off-topic. There is no evidence in this story about Missy the cat that the writer read the sources or engaged in the assigned task.

Argumentative

Penny

Considering the brevity of the response, there are frequent run-on sentences (&#8220;Its the most pointless thing in the world it would help get rid of some of our odd prices&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;so if we got rid of them the only odd price we would have was a nickel, then we could soon and hopefully get rid of them too&#8221;; &#8220;And that is what i think we should do with the penny we could get rid of them any way and get them out of our registers&#8221;).

Comma errors are frequent, including missing commas in compound sentences (e.g., &#8220;All it is is just one cent and nothing even costs one cent&#8221;; &#8220;I mean I would understand if something costs one cent but nothing does so why do we still have it?&#8221;), and/or missing commas after introductory clauses (&#8220;If canada is willing to get rid of their pennies we should to&#8221;; &#8220;the pennies are what is giving us odd prices so if we got rid of them the only odd price we would have was a nickel&#8221;).

Errors include &#8220;canada&#8221; and the personal pronoun &#8220;i&#8221; as well as the failure to capitalize at the beginning of sentences (e.g., &#8220;the pennies are&#8230;&#8221;).

There are grammar usage errors including with frequently confused word (&#8220;its&#8221; instead of &#8220;it’s&#8221;; &#8220;to&#8221; instead of &#8220;too&#8221;), unclear pronoun references (&#8220;We need to just eliminate all penny from our cash registers to give it more room for a different coin like a fifty cent peice&#8221;), errors with agreement between pronoun and antecedent and verb mood (&#8220;&#8230;the only odd price we would have was a nickel, then we could soon and hopefully get rid of them too&#8221;), and plural verb forms (&#8220;eliminate all penny&#8230;&#8221;).

There are few spelling errors (peice).

There are few source-based details used; the response instead consists of marginally relevant and repetitive commentary (e.g., &#8220;&#8230;nothing even costs one cent&#8221;; &#8220;Its the most pointless thing in the world&#8221;).

Use of available source details is weak (limited to Source #1) and unattributed.

There are some weak attempts to elaborate, including inferences based on inaccurate use of source material (&#8220;&#8230;if we got rid of [the pennies] the only odd price we would have was a nickel, then we could soon and hopefully get rid of them too&#8221;), and a reliance on emotional appeal and marginally relevant commentary (&#8220;We need to just eliminate all penny&#8230; everyone scrap the pennies to get themselves some cash&#8221;).

The language/vocabulary is not convincing for the audience or purpose. The language is repetitive and limited (&#8220;thing,&#8221; &#8220;it,&#8221; &#8220;get rid,&#8221; &#8220;them&#8221;).

There is no evidence of an appropriate style.

The claim (&#8220;get rid of the pennies&#8221;) is repeated 7 times, including at the beginning and the end of this brief paragraph. As presented, other details are related to the topic but fail to maintain an argumentative focus.

No transitions are used, primarily because the same idea is simply randomly repeated with no clear connections.

The first sentence essentially states the claim and can be argued as a weak introduction. Similarly, the last sentence summarizes (again) the position to provide a weak conclusion.

The response has an unclear progression of ideas (&#8220;&#8230;just get rid of the penny&#8221;; &#8220;most pointless thing in the world&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;just eliminate&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230; get rid of odd prices&#8230;&#8221;) and includes information that is either extraneous or lacks sufficient explanation to be relevant (&#8220;fifty cent peice,&#8221; &#8220;get rid of [the nickel]&#8221;).

Arguably, there is a very weak acknowledgement of an opposing argument: &#8220;I mean I would understand if something costs one cent&#8230;.&#8221;

There are no sentence formation errors.

There are missing commas after two introductory elements (&#8220;Even though the penny cost 1.6 cents to produce it the penny’s worth…&#8221; and &#8220;…if they eliminated the penny then it would&#8230;&#8221;) and the last sentence of the response is missing a period.

There are capitalization errors with the first words of two sentences (e.g., &#8220;but in the future the worth&#8230;&#8221; and &#8220;so don’t discontinue&#8230;&#8221;).

There is a subject-verb agreement error in the first sentence of the second paragraph (“the penny cost 1.6 cents to produce&#8230;”).

This response has a couple of spelling errors (“nearst” and “nickle”).

Of the available source material, this response includes few details, and they are mostly copied (&#8220;The first penny in the series was created to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth&#8221;; &#8220;The penny has captured many meaningful images over its long history&#8221;). In addition, some details are inaccurately copied (e.g., &#8220;the penny cost 1.6 cents to produce&#8221; – it costs 1.6 Canadian cents).

Use of available source details is minimal (from Source # 1) and unattributed.

There is little or no attempt to elaborate or develop these ideas. In fact one inference (&#8220;In the future the worth of the penny will increase&#8221;) is not accurate as explained and provides more confusion than development.

The vocabulary that is not copied is general.

There is little evidence of a style appropriate for the argumentative purpose.

There is a clear claim stated at the beginning (&#8220;the penny should be preserved…because there is a lot of history&#8221;). The first paragraph maintains a weak focus on “history,” but paragraph 2 drifts.

While there are some appropriate transitions (&#8220;Even though,&#8221; &#8220;Also,&#8221; &#8220;so&#8221;), they do not clarify relationships nor connect ideas. For example, the word “So” leading into the conclusion does not represent a logical conclusion based on the preceding sentence.

The introduction is simplistic and the conclusion (&#8220;don’t discontinue the production of the penny&#8221;) is abrupt.

The progression of ideas is weak and confusing. Details, which are frequently copied from the source materials, are presented somewhat randomly, moving from history to cost to history and back to cost again. Many of the ideas are copied and/or repeated (e.g., worth of penny will increase).

Acknowledgment of an alternate/opposing argument is attempted but is confounded by repetitive rebuttal that is not text-based (&#8220;Many people want to eliminate the production of the penny because it costs too much&#8230;but&#8230;the worth of the penny will increase&#8221;).

Sentences are awkward in many places (&#8220;so what effect hasnt it done over the past 100 years , to all o0f a sudden come in effect to our goverment and become a thought to cancel it&#8221;). While awkwardness does interfere with fluency, it is a style problem and not an error per se. However, there are also some needless passive constructions that contribute to awkwardness (&#8220;&#8230;as shown in an article&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;the cost has been caught up to itself&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;the penny should continue to be made&#8230;&#8221;).

There are some punctuation errors, including the missing apostrophe in the misspelled word &#8220;hasn’t&#8221; and the unnecessary apostrophe in &#8220;100’s.&#8221; There are also unnecessary commas (e.g., &#8220;…the penny should continue being produced, or be canceled&#8221;). Arguably, there should be a comma in the awkwardly constructed compound sentence (&#8220;It has been around for the longest amount of time so what effect hasnt it done over the past 100 years&#8230;&#8221;), but that “sentence” has style problems that outweigh the missing comma.
Note: The space before periods at the end of sentences is distracting but not an error.

There are no errors with capital letters.

The only grammar usage errors are with frequently confused words (&#8220;To&#8221; for &#8220;too&#8221;).

There are numerous spelling errors including &#8220;tyhen&#8221; and &#8220;o0f&#8221; (both are probably typos but still classified as errors) as well as &#8220;overtime&#8221; (should be over time), &#8220;goverment,&#8221; &#8220;hasnt,&#8221; and &#8220;alot.&#8221;

There are some attempts to support the position by making new claims that are not necessarily source-based. For example, in paragraph 2, the response states that &#8220;overtime the cost [of manufacturing a penny] has been caught up [will catch up] up to itself and will no longer affect our goverment. If the penny costs way to much money , tyhen why is the goverment choosing now to cancel the penny though it has been around for over 100&#8217;s of years?&#8221; Not only is the logic spurious here, but the reader is totally confused by the imprecise language.

There is a passing reference to the source material from the Washington Middle School Chronicle article, but otherwise the use of sources is unattributed. The response does, however, use material from more than one source.

There is little elaboration other than the somewhat weak assertion of opinions (&#8220;I believe&#8221;). In addition, there are places where the response attempts to develop ideas by jumping to conclusions via unsupported generalizations (e.g., &#8220;[The penny] has saved many lives over the past years&#8221;).

The vocabulary is often repetitive (e.g., &#8220;A penny…can make a change&#8221;; &#8220;pennies can make a change&#8221;; &#8220;I believe&#8221;) and confusing (&#8220;…serves many causes and purposes&#8221;).

The style is ineffective and somewhat distracting (e.g., use of confusing rhetorical questions).

There is a general claim (&#8220;penny should continue being produced&#8221;). The focus is somewhat maintained, although it is not always clear how the details support the claim. As examples, the first two body paragraphs are not clearly different in focus, and some details confuse the issue rather than support the argument (&#8220;If the penny costs way to much money, ythen why is the government choosing now to cancel the penny when it has been around for over 100’s of years?&#8221;).

The response has appropriate, albeit formulaic, transitional words and phrases (e.g., &#8220;Second,&#8221; and &#8220;Finally&#8221;).

The introduction provides some vague context (&#8220;debate&#8221;), a brief but clear claim along with a general reference to “many reasons.” The conclusion is clear enough but merely repeats the introduction in general terms.

The progression of ideas is formulaic and not particularly effective with an introduction, followed by three body paragraphs that could be presented in any order. In fact, body paragraphs 1 and 2 are not clearly different in focus.

A weak opposing argument is acknowledged with the statement that the penny does cost more than it is worth.

The sentence formation errors include a comma splice (&#8220;Now compare that to someone who is preserving the penny, at an average wage, the person…&#8221;) and a sentence fragment (&#8220;Not even including what the Treasury looses every year just to make the penny, which is $100 million&#8221;).

The end punctuation on the first sentence of the last paragraph should be a question mark. There is a missing comma after an introductory element (&#8220;Because of this the Treasury…&#8221;).

There is one capitalization error.

There are multiple places throughout the response where the student has incorrectly used a frequently confused word, which also contributes to the multiple spelling errors in the response (e.g., “effect” should be “affect” and “loose” should be “lose”). Additionally, there is a missing article (“Even if buisness owners rounded their cents against the customer, customer would…”) that could be an agreement error depending on the student’s intended meaning. There is also an agreement error (&#8220;…how much it cost to make it&#8221;).

There are many spelling errors throughout the response (e.g., “buisness,” “tansaction,” “evern,” “answer,” “putiing”). Several forms of the word &#8220;lose&#8221; are misspelled more than once (e.g., &#8220;loose,&#8221; &#8220;looses,&#8221; &#8220;loosing&#8221;).

There are some specific details pulled from the available source materials, although many are copied.

Although there are no attributions of sources, the response pulls information from more than one source.

Elaboration techniques attempted are limited. The response develops ideas by personal appeal (e.g., &#8220;let me inform you of some things you should know&#8221;) and by posing and answering questions (e.g., &#8220;…is the penny a great waste of time[?] The answer is yes…&#8221;). Given that so much material is copied, these few attempts to develop ideas are overall weak.

Original language and vocabulary is somewhat general and repetitive (e.g., &#8220;waste of time,&#8221; &#8220;tell you&#8221;/&#8221;told you&#8221;).

The personal appeal and use of rhetorical question (and answer) contribute to a sense of style that is appropriate for the argumentative purpose.

The response has a clear claim (&#8220;abolishing the penny&#8221;) and that focus is adequately maintained throughout.

The transitions between supporting ideas are general and formulaic (&#8220;First off,&#8221; &#8220;Next,&#8221; &#8220;Finally&#8221;). The internal transitions are mostly copied from the original sources (&#8220;Just this year&#8221;; &#8220;Even if&#8221;); while these effectively connect the ideas, they are not original to the student writing.

The introduction has an effective hook and a clear claim that is couched as an effective call to action (&#8220;join me in abolishing the penny&#8221;). This is followed, however, by a less effective mechanical announcement of supports. The conclusion has a weak beginning (&#8220;Now that I’ve told you…&#8221;), and although it ends with a generalization, that generalization is merely a repetition of a conclusion presented at the end of paragraph 6 (&#8220;not worth the effort&#8221;).

While the organization of the ideas is logical, large chunks of the supporting information is copied verbatim (and sometimes inaccurately) and presented in the order of the source materials.

There is no acknowledgment or address of the opposing point of view.

Although there are some awkward sentences (e.g., “This method will overall be more costly than producing pennies already is”) and problems caused by needless passive voice (“Some American citizens have seen this penny be changed…and have seen the penny represent…”), there are no actual sentence formation errors.

There are commas missing after introductory elements (e.g., &#8220;In these next few paragraphs I will…&#8221; and &#8220;If there are no pennies to pay for the 96 cents then the price… and for these many reasons I think that…&#8221;). Additionally, there is a missing comma in a compound sentence (&#8220;The penny represents how ani who Americans used to be and that affects….&#8221;). The misplaced period in the second sentence of the second paragraph is likely a typo.

The “i” in the first sentence of the sixth paragraph should be capitalized.

There are several grammar errors with verb tense and mood. As one example, the shift from &#8220;If the penny was to be eliminated&#8221; (paragraph 1) and &#8220;if the penny were to be eliminated&#8221; (paragraph 2). As another example, the verbs in paragraph two move from “would take place,” “would be confusing,” and “could well be” to “will overall be more costly.” There is an error with a frequently confused word (paragraph 4: &#8220;it’s&#8221; should be “its”) and another error with the incorrect word &#8220;and&#8221; instead of &#8220;an” (paragraph 2).

The response includes a variety of specific details from multiple sources to adequately support the position.

There is no source attribution, although the response does incorporate information from more than one source.

Most of the development relies on summary, and sometimes cursory summary (paragraph 5), with little or no elaboration. As an example, in paragraph 3, there is the beginning of a nice analysis regarding the differing accounts of the penny’s manufacturing costs; however, the writer fails to account for the fact that one is the cost for Canada, while the other represents the cost for America. At other times, inferences drawn are unexplained (e.g., &#8220;This rounding system would be confusing, awkward, and pricey for the consumer and the business&#8221; &#8211; there is no subsequent explanation for why the system would be confusing or awkward). Other conclusions (e.g., &#8220;The penny represents how ani who American used to be and that affects how we are now&#8221;) resonate with the reader but again are subsequently unexplained, contributing to an overall uneven development of ideas.

The language use is inconsistent. Some phrasing (e.g., &#8220;Some American citizens have seen…the penny represent American culture in multiple ways&#8221;) and word choices (e.g., &#8220;confusing, awkward, and pricey&#8221;) are mature. However, in other places, the language is general, wordy, and repetitive (&#8220;My thought on…&#8221;; &#8220;I have thought out…&#8221;; &#8220;there are reasons…&#8221;) and is ineffective for the purpose.

There is an evident style, but it is somewhat formulaic and doesn’t enhance the argumentative purpose. (e.g. &#8220;In these next few paragraphs I will address every reason and explain them thoroughly…&#8221;).

The claim (&#8220;…the penny should be preserved&#8221;) is somewhat buried in the first sentence (&#8220;My thought on the penny being preserved or eliminated is that…&#8221;). Once established, however, the focus on that claim is generally maintained throughout.

Most transitions are adequate (&#8220;For example&#8221;; &#8220;Another reason&#8221;; &#8220;For this reason&#8221;), and the transitions between body paragraphs are generally effective (using generalizations to move to the next paragraph/idea. For example, building from cost of rounding to cost of the coin as well as transitioning from sentimental value to historical value).

The perfunctory introduction reads more like a rough draft with unnecessary introspective comments distracting the reader rather than clarifying the writer’s intent (e.g., &#8220;In these next few paragraphs I will address every reason and explain them thoroughly&#8221;). Further, the conclusion is weak for the argumentative purpose.

While the overuse of formulaic phrases is distracting and occasionally interferes with a smooth reading, the progression of ideas is overall logical (e.g., cost considerations, to sentimental and historical, to charity).

An opposing/alternate argument is presented (e.g., Some people that are on the sidle that thinks the penny should be eliminated state that the penny costs more to manufacture than its actual value&#8221;). The counterclaim is logically addressed in the final sentence of that paragraph (paragraph 3).

Except for some occasional awkwardness (e.g., &#8220;According to this article from the Washington Middle School Chronicle, Save the Penny-Save the Day!, that without pennies&#8230;&#8221;), there are no sentence construction errors.

There are errors with punctuation. There are numerous examples of unnecessary commas (&#8220;&#8230;has created many figures of speech, still used today.&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;has been changed over the course of U.S. history, yet still provides the same&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;to donate their pennies, than their quarters&#8221;; &#8220;They allow for easier donations to charities, and help the needy&#8221;). There are also examples of commas missing with compound independent clauses (&#8220;One would get rid of their dead weight and the money would go&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;It would hurt some charities if the penny is removed from the U.S. and that would&#8230;&#8221;) and a missing comma after an introductory phrase (&#8220;Instead of paying $29.96 you would have to pay&#8230;&#8221;). The title &#8220;Washington Middle School Chronicle&#8221; should have been italicized or underlined.

There are numerous grammar usage errors with pronouns and verbs. For example, there is an unclear pronoun reference (&#8220;by donating their coins it would become&#8230;&#8221;), errors with pronoun/antecedent agreement (e,g., &#8220;The penny provides sentimental value for people, holding a lot of history inside them&#8221;), and unnecessary shifts in pronouns (e.g., in paragraph 3: &#8220;you&#8230;people&#8230;you&#8221;; in paragraph 4: &#8220;people&#8230;one&#8230;people&#8230;one&#8221;). There are also some inconsistencies with verb tenses/moods (e.g., &#8220;It would hurt some charities if the penny is removed from the US&#8230;&#8221;) and the unnecessary use of passive voice (&#8220;some figures of speech has also been created due to the penny&#8230;&#8221;), which may have contributed to an error with subject/verb agreement (&#8220;some figures&#8230;has&#8221;).

Given the length of the response, there are relatively few spelling errors (&#8220;buisnesses,&#8221; &#8220;te,&#8221; and &#8220;Alot,&#8221; which is spelled correctly some places and misspelled in others).

The response includes a variety of supporting evidence from multiple sources; however, there is some vagueness and repetition in the development of the ideas.

Although multiple sources are used, only one article is attributed (&#8220;According to this article from the Washington Middle School Chronicle&#8230;&#8221;).

Overall, there is some adequate elaboration through inference (e.g., &#8220;it would hurt some charities if the penny is removed&#8221;). Yet some of the development in this response is really more repetition than elaboration. For example, the introduction includes the statement &#8220;[the penny] has created many memories for some Americans, and it has created many figures of speech, still used today.&#8221; Then the support in paragraph 2 contains the statements, &#8220;Some figures of speech has also been created due to the penny. The penny provides a large amount of sentimental value and memories.&#8221; Consequently, the reader is left feeling as though information has been repeated rather than developed. However, that same supporting information (provided in the introduction and then repeated in the first body paragraph) is then somewhat elaborated at the end of the paragraph with commentary: &#8220;For something so small, it can hold a lot of history.&#8221;

The language/vocabulary is adequate despite some occasional repetition (e.g., &#8220;money loss&#8221;/&#8221;cost a lot of money&#8221;; &#8220;created many memories&#8221;/&#8221;provides a large amount of memories&#8221;).

The style is overall consistent and appropriate for the argumentative purpose (e.g., effective rhetorical questions such as &#8220;If pennies help good causes and charities, wouldn&#8217;t that mean they are good for us?&#8221; and phrases such as &#8220;win-win situation&#8221;).

The claim is concisely stated as an imperative: &#8220;Preserve the penny! … The penny can provide some value….&#8221; Further, the focus is maintained throughout the response.

The transitions within paragraphs are adequate but there are some inconsistencies. For example, the word “this” sometimes has unclear referents, and some connections lack clarity (&#8220;[saving 2 cents] does not seem like alot to save, but along with a dollar, two cents can be alot for some people&#8221;). Further, the transition from the introduction to the first body paragraph is abrupt. Yet other transitions between body paragraphs are particularly effective (e.g., &#8220;for something so small, it can hold a lot of history&#8221;; &#8220;If pennies help good causes and charities, wouldn&#8217;t that mean they are good for us?&#8221;).

The introduction is adequate but somewhat inconsistent in its qualities: beginning with a moderately effective call-to-action (&#8220;Preserve the penny!&#8221;), it is followed by a context for the argument and a statement of claim (&#8220;I think this is a bad idea. The penny can provide some value…&#8221;). What follows then is presumably a roadmap for the essay, but it goes beyond concisely introducing the support, seeming more like specific supporting ideas rather than an introduction (e.g., &#8220;The penny has some sentimental value, for it has created many memories some figures of speech still used today&#8221;). The conclusion merely repeats the introduction, even ending with the same call to action.

The progression of ideas is adequate, following the organization of the relevant source materials: appreciate the penny for its historical value (paragraph 2) , save money (paragraph 3), which can then be donated to charity (paragraph 4).

The response acknowledges and effectively addresses the opposing argument/point of view at several points throughout the response (e.g., &#8220;Many people dislike the usage of the penny and…&#8221; and &#8220;Some people feel like their loose change would weigh them down. So how would one get rid of one&#8217;s extra coins? Well, some people donate them&#8221;).

There is one “sentence” that is not complete (&#8220;Additionally, some people say that since the penny was one of the first coins authorized for production by the federal government, was created to commemorate the 100th anniverseray of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, should hold much sentimental value&#8221;).

There are a few unnecessary commas (e.g. “News Register states that,…,” “an MIT scientists argues that,…,” “From saving money in the Treasury, to dropping prices…”). There is a comma missing from a compound construction (&#8220;…passage also shows that the penny costs more to produce and that once-cent coins provide…&#8221;). In addition, the titles for the articles &#8220;Penni Anti&#8221; and &#8220;Cost of a Penny&#8221; should be in quotation marks, and the publication Prairie New Register should be either italicized or underlined.

There are no capitalization errors.

There is an error with pronoun and antecedent agreement (&#8220;…the price of manufacturing pennies as opposed to its value and worth&#8221;), and a misplaced modifier (&#8220;make prices go up to consumers&#8221;).

This response has a few spelling errors (“anniverseray,” “Prarie,” “citzens”).

The response draws specific details from a range of available source material.

Although there are some unattributed source materials used, where direct quotes are used, citations are also used.

The elaboration is overall adequate, with some variety of techniques used. The development is fairly formulaic, with quoted material from the text subsequently “explained” in terms of its meaning and its significance to the argument (e.g., &#8220;&#8216;A penny currently costs the United States government 2.4 cents to mint.&#8217; This short passage also shows that the penny costs more to produce and that one-cent coins provide a complete and utter waste of tax payers&#8217; dollars and a waste of energy&#8221;). While the explanation for the rebuttal of the sentimental value of the penny is somewhat weak (at the end of paragraph 5), overall, the address of the opposing point of view is also adequate.

Overall, the language and vocabulary choices are effective. While there are a few imprecise phrases (e.g., &#8220;beneficial advantages&#8221; and &#8220;…Cost of a penny costs more…&#8221;), there are also some strong verbs that enhance the argument (e.g., &#8220;This quote demonstrates…&#8221;; &#8220;Jeff Gore…argues that…&#8221;; &#8220;…the quote helps reassure others…&#8221;).

Search Annotated Student Responses

Grade

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy

Examples

Grade

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy