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….”).

Grade 11

Sunflower

There are only two sentences to this response and both are run-on sentences.

There are many errors with below-grade level frequently confused words (“and”/&#8221;an,&#8221;  “were”/&#8221;we’re&#8221;) and an error with plurals (“kind”/&#8221;kinds&#8221;).
&nbsp;

There are numerous spelling errors (e.g., “ahve,” “tough,” “everyhting,” “abe,” and “alot”).

There are only two sentences in the response, and the second sentence fails to use a capital for the first word (“even”).
&nbsp;

There are missing commas, periods, and apostrophes in several places (e.g., “Sunflowers are being used for everyhting especially for biofuels and oils and other kind of things that we use in our lives so the process of being so tall is actually and advantage so that way we can ahve more of one plant and what were missing from another, and it wont abe much because we would already have that first part. even though we need alot of it alot of it can be…”).

The “evidence” provided in this response is minimal, random, and vague (e.g., “…it wont abe much because we would already have that first part. even tough we may need alot of it…”). With no thesis (or even a central idea) as a guide, the ideas presented are confusing. There are no citations/attributions to sources.

There is no identifiable use of elaborative techniques, although the response may be attempting to make low-level inferences (e.g., “even tough we may need alot of it alot can be produced by little also it just depends what or how youre using it”).

The vocabulary is limited and very ineffective (e.g., “it,” “tall,” “alot,” “little”), and there is no evidence of a purpose-specific style.

There is no discernable organizational structure in this very brief response. Rather, there are potentially relevant ideas strung together with no unifying thesis (e.g., “Sunflowers are being used for everyhting especially for biofuels and oils and other kind of things” vaguely summarizes an idea from one source). There are no transitional strategies, no introduction, and no conclusion.

Although there is only one formal sentence error (e.g., “See this what i don’t understand we have all these people working to fix a problem but what happens when they fix it and the people that worked on that problem lose there jobs?”), few if any sentences are structured well (e.g., “I agree not personally of course but for this paper i have too”).
&nbsp;

There are errors in grammar usage including errors with verbs  (e.g., “fix” instead of “fixed”), a problem with the unnecessary use of the passive voice in the first sentence, and missing verbs (“See this [is] what…”). Additionally, there are errors with frequently confused words (e.g., “Its”/&#8221;it’s,&#8221; “Ill”/&#8221;I’ll,&#8221; “too”/&#8221;to,&#8221; “there”/&#8221;their,&#8221; and “effect”/&#8221;affect&#8221; – all words that are below-grade level).

The writer misspells “apperently” multiple times.

In the second paragraph, the first word in a sentence lacks a capital (“but…”), the personal pronoun “i” lacks a capital, and “the midwest” should have a capital.
&nbsp;

There are missing commas in several sentences (e.g., in compound sentences: “I agree not personally of course but for this paper i have too” and after introductory elements: “Apperently they’d make diesel techs become biotechs” and “If we created a biofuel to power diesel tractors farmers would most likely…”).

This response provides minimal and sometimes confusing support for ideas. Concrete evidence from the source material is missing, and there are no citations/attributions. In part because there is no thesis, the weak use of elaborative techniques fails to develop relevant support (e.g., “See this what i don’t understand we have all these people working to fix a problem but what happens when they fix it and the people that worked on that problem lose there jobs?”). Rather than elaborate, the writer summarizes and/or provides illogical inferences (e.g., “If we created a biofuel to power diesel tractors farmers would most likely teach themselves to fix the machines.”).

Vocabulary is limited and ineffective for audience and purpose, and there is no evidence of an appropriate style (e.g., “Farmers would kill for,” “save some green,” and “I guess…”).

The response provides little or no organizational structure with an unclear focus. Instead of a thesis, the response provides a vague main idea (e.g., “Its been said that using a sunflower would be a smart new biofuel”).

The few transitional strategies (e.g., “So…,” “See this [is] what…,” “but at the same time&#8230;”) fail to further a progression of ideas.

The introduction is weak and the conclusion is missing.

There are relatively few errors with sentence structure, although there is a problem with parallel structure, a new-to-grade skill (“…they could end up losing it all or with more money in their pockets then they have seen in a long time”).
&nbsp;

There are errors with verb use (e.g., “began” for begun in two places). There are missing words in a couple of sentences, which make the sentences awkward and difficult to understand on the first pass. There are errors with the frequently confused word “then” instead of than.
&nbsp;

There are a few spelling errors (e.g., “Community’s,” “becuase,” and “recieving”).
&nbsp;

There are no errors with capitalization.
&nbsp;

There are relatively many missing commas throughout the response. For example, there are missing commas in compound sentences (e.g., “They were promised a chance at being paid more and in the process they would help the community and country”), missing commas after introductory elements (“In the small town of Dove Creek Colorado farmers have started…”), and a missing comma with an interrupter (“Farmers however, …”). There is also an error with hyphen use, which is a new-to-grade skill (“strong willed”), and a failure to use quotation marks to indicate a source title (Biofuel from Sunflower).

Because there is no strong unifying thesis in this response, the details provided seem randomly selected and weakly integrated. There is a single use of attribution of source material (e.g., “In Biofuel from Sunflower&#8230;”); however, that attribution is inaccurate: the ideas in paragraph two of the response actually come from source #2, “Sea of Sunflowers.”

Attempts at elaborating source ideas is mostly via summary of two sources: paragraph 2 summarizes Source #2, and paragraph 3 largely summarizes Source #3. However, the information provided for paragraph 3 fails to include the shift from biodiesel fuel to sunflower [cooking] oil, a critical omission.

The language use is somewhat inconsistent (e.g., “embrace” and “strive” vs. very general language such as “becoming something very great”).

The response shows some awareness of an appropriate explanatory style (e.g., “Across the United States we are beginning to see a change; people are looking for new and cheaper ways to produce fuel and sunflowers could be the next thing”).

Although the response is generally focused, the response lacks a clear thesis to guide it. Instead, there is a controlling idea that is somewhat vague (e.g., “Across the United States we are beginning to see a change; people are looking for new and cheaper ways to produce fuel and sunflowers could be the next thing”).

The progression of ideas relies on linking two paragraphs loosely dealing with “planting sunflowers” but with no clear relationship between the two examples.

There are a few transitional strategies (e.g., “In the small town of Dove Creek Colorado farmers have started to embrace the idea of planting sunflowers as well.”, “However&#8230;”).

The introduction is weaker than the conclusion: the introduction fails to provide a thesis (“many ways” is a self-evident main idea, not a thesis). Although the conclusion is not strong, it does provide some sense of closure (“showing signs of becoming something very great” and “excited to see what comes next…”).

The final paragraph contains a run-on sentence (comma-splice: “The use of the sunflower is continuing to be overlooked, it can be used well if we study and take the time to bring for new biofuel”). In addition, sentences such as “One of which that could be an anwer to many issues of today’s need for new sources of biofuel and alternative engergy than oil and gasoline” and “These wonderful yellow flowers can be used to create the biofuel we need to sustain our society’s better and economically more efficient” lack parallel structure, a new-to-grade skill, and cause confusion.

There is some unnecessary use of the passive voice (e.g., “In an artcile from NPR recently it was explained…”). There are some errors forming comparatives/ superlatives (“we need to sustain our society’s better and economically more efficient”), a below-grade level skill. There is a lack of agreement between pronoun and antecedent in paragraph two (“Sunflowers…” “It’s…”).

There are many spelling errors (e.g., “efficently,” “develpment,” “artcile,” “anwer,” “engergy”).

There are no errors in capitalization.

There are errors with missing commas after introductory elements (e.g., “When this is done economically countries can use…”). The two words “far overlooked” should be hyphenated, a new-to-grade skill.

This response includes specific evidence from two sources. There is some citation/attribution to source materials (e.g., “From an article of the U.S. Departnment of Agriculture it was stated&#8230;”, “In an artcile from NPR&#8230;”).

The response shows some attempts at elaboration via inference although those inferences are often either rather obvious (e.g. “When this is done economically countries can use this new fuel efficiently and better provide for their people and families”) or inaccurate/over-simplified (“In other words currently diesel fuel is only used for 1% of all of it that is produced”).

Language use is somewhat uneven with some nice vocabulary (“prevalent”) and then some less appropriate and repetitive vocabulary (“contraption”).

The style is uneven, using techniques such as an effective rhetorical question (“So why not use much more of it that can be produced efficently and for a cheap price?”) and imperatives (“We must unite”) but is also flawed by confusing sentences such as, “However the present time isn’t helping them because of the lack on attempting to study the sunflower oil.”

There is a thesis of sorts in paragraph two (“[Sunflowers’] potential as a bio-source for ethanol should be the new focus for all [research/development].”)

The progression of ideas is not immediately obvious although some transitional strategies help (e.g., “In other words&#8230;”, “For farmers as well&#8230;”, “However&#8230;”). The essay begins with a somewhat general introduction, is followed by a paragraph that moves toward a specific thesis, and is then followed by a paragraph used to support the thesis. This progression builds to a relatively strong conclusion that issues a call-to-action.

There are a few stylistically awkward sentences (e.g., “Biofuel could help by costing less because its reusable, which would save a community tons of money, which they could use on other projects; or it could run a society into debt if the environmental factors are not cooperating with the harvest”) and some problems with parallel structure (e.g., “Sunflower seeds can be used to create biofuel, but also may have economic implications that could be a benefit to our society”). There are, however, no run-on or sentence fragment errors.

There are errors with verbs, including an error with subject/verb agreement (e.g., “The oil from seeds are very useful because they can be used for cooking…”) and verb mood (e.g., “it could burn away all the sunflowers, so that all the hard work being put into keeping them intact goes to waste, and ends up…”). At the end of paragraph three, there is an error with frequently confused word “its” instead of it’s.

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

There is a pattern of errors with unnecessary commas with compound elements (e.g., “Sunflower seeds can be used to create biofuel, but also may have…;” “Planting sunflower seeds is a win-win situation because they are beautiful to look at, but also can be cultivated to create biofuel.”) and missing commas in compound sentences (“The oil from seeds are very useful because they can be used for cooking (which is cheaper and healthier than olive oil) and they can also be used…”). The use of a semi-colon (possibly for clarity) and the dubious choice of the relative adjectives (which/that) cause mild confusion, but the uses are not clearly wrong (e.g., “Biofuel could help by costing less because its reusable, which would save a community tons of money, which they could use on other projects; or it could run a society into debt if the environmental factors are not cooperating with the harvest”).

This essay unevenly integrates and develops ideas from the sources. Specifically, some general evidence from the source material is integrated and relevant, especially in paragraph two (e.g., “One way that they can make biofuel is by planting the sunflower seeds, harvesting them, taking the seeds, pressing them for their oil to create biodiesel…”).

Any elaboration in paragraph two relies on general summary [e.g., “The oil from seeds are very useful because they can be used for cooking (which is cheaper and healthier than olive oil”) and they can also be used to help run cars (which saves people money and is better environmentally)”].  However, the information in the third paragraph relies solely on drawing conclusions about the sunflower industry that are not entirely illogical but not source based either (e.g., “…the process…would call for many workers and employees. More employees and workers means more money needed …;” “Keeping the sunflowers well and growing is a tedious and arduous task and environmental factors could play a major part…;” “If for some reason there is a fire, it could burn away all the sunflowers, …Or if there is too much rain, it could drown all the sunflowers…”). Some details selected are attributed (e.g., “… so that people wouldn’t have to use as much fuel (Source #2).”, “&#8230; (Sourve #1).”).

Vocabulary is appropriate for the audience and purpose, and the style is appropriate for the explanatory purpose (e.g., “The economic implications for using sunflower seeds for biofuel is a risk that must be taken if society is ready to give up their hunger for fuel, and move on to a more environmentally productive source”).

This response shows an evident organizational structure with an adequately sustained focus. The introduction does not state a thesis, relying instead on a fairly obvious controlling idea (e.g., “Sunflower seeds can be used to create biofuel, but also may have economic implications that could be a benefit to our society.”). However, the essay leads to a thesis in the final sentence (“Starting this project as another fuel source could be a major boom, or a major bust, but it is a risk that is needed to be taken if society is ready to take a step forward to creating a greener and more efficient earth”).

The transitional strategies (e.g., “&#8230;many reasons, one of them being&#8230;”, “One way&#8230;”, “Although it will, in the end&#8230;”, “Therefore&#8230;”) function to clarify relationships within paragraphs. Between the two body paragraphs is a formulaic but adequate sentence connecting the ideas (“There are many ways sunflower seeds can be formed into biofuel, but there are also many economic implications of this process too”).

Overall, the progression of ideas from beginning to end is adequate with cause and effect structure used at the end of each body paragraph (e.g., “The oil from seeds are very useful because they can be used for cooking (which is cheaper and healthier than olive oil) and they can also be used to help run cars (which saves people money and is better environmentally” and “Biofuel could help by costing less because its reusable, which would save a community tons of money, which they could use on other projects; or it could run a society into debt if the environmental factors are not cooperating”).

There is a run-on sentence (one in which the new-to-grade skill semi-colon might have been employed) in the third paragraph: “They do not cause harm to the enviorment, in fact it will benefit our atmosphere and decrease global warming caused greatly by the use of oil dependent cars.”
&nbsp;

There are errors with verbs including with verb tense (e.g., “we have turn [turned] to new alternatives and hybrids”), and switches with verb mood (“If ships were to utilize this oil instead, oil leaks will [would] not harm animals as much”). There are occasional errors with unclear/misplaced modifiers (e.g., “Researching their nutrious content with high amoutns of oil and protein, the university has decided that it sunflowers …”) and unclear and/or agreement errors with pronouns (“Overall the sunflower can provide great things as long as we use its properties. They’re also renewable meaning we could reuse it”). There are errors with relative adjectives with (and the correct use of a comma with) which/that: “…benefit the Earth by lowering pollution which [that] is caused by the current fuel used for automobiles” and “…the facility grinds the wast rpoducts and presses the seeeds into small pellets [should have a comma after pellets] which a[re] fed to a gasifier chamber.”
&nbsp;

There are many spelling errors (e.g., “suprisingly,”“Philipines,” “nutrious,” “enviorment,” “downton,” “mutiple,” “wast,” “rpoducts,” “alot,” “continously,” and “delcious”).

There are a few errors in capitalization at the beginning of sentences (e.g., “whether roasting their delcious seeds…” and “why not use something beneficial to our society …” and “to convert seeds to useable oil…” and “this process is alot faster and cheaper…”).  Capital letters are also randomly and inaccurately used with sunflower and sunflower oil.
&nbsp;

There are missing commas after introductory elements (e.g., “During the 70’s the Philipines enjoyed their surpluses of Sunflowers,” “Since they are known for their oil content they might as well be used for oil purposes,” and “Overall the sunflower can provide great things as long as we use its properties.”). There are missing apostrophes in the word “theyre” at three different times within the response.

The essay relies on support from two sources (Source 1 and Source 2).  Each of the two body paragraphs integrates (and attempts to synthesize) some evidence from both sources.Some citation/attribution is attempted (e.g., “&#8230;(Sunflowers in the philipines)” should be “Biofuel from Sunflower” or “Source 1.” Sunflowers in the Phillipines was a source subtopic, not a title). Some evidence is accurately quoted from sources.

Some elaboration is via source summary, often paraphrasing information at the sentence level (e.g., “…as part of daily consumption” vs. “not for the edible oil”). There are also some inferences, sometimes text-based (e.g., “switching to Sunflower oil will actually benefit the Earth by lowering pollution which is caused by the current fuel used for automobiles”) but sometimes of questionable accuracy (“If ships were to utilize this oil instead, oil leaks will not harm animals as much”). Some of these inferences could be a result of apparent confusion between consumable sunflower oil and sunflower-sourced biodiesel fuel.

Overall, the language use is adequate although generalities can sometimes obscure meaning (e.g., “Overall the sunflower can provide great things as long as we use its properties”) or be too obvious (“They’re also renewable meaning we could reuse it and they could be used for multiple reasons”) or somewhat inaccurate (“mining for oil”). The essay shows an awareness of appropriate explanatory style.

The introduction develops a thesis, moving from the general (“Everything is connected into a whole. One small factor can greatly change the community and our lifestyles…”) to the more specific (“As problem solvers, we have turn to new alternatives and hybrids to help save our planet and corporations.”). This is followed by a subtle but clear roadmap for the essay: “Sunflower seeds are a better alternative to use to create biofuels because of their oil rich content, theyre inexpensive to cultivate, and they work efficiently as replacements for gasoline oil.” The introduction is more effective than the conclusion, which provides unfounded inferences (“Sunflower oil is the solution to our global warming problems,”  “Sunflower seeds will help even more than the inventions of hybrid or electric cars,” and “…will never be extinct…”).

The overall progression of ideas from beginning to end is adequate although body paragraph 1 (paragraph 2) is more focused than body paragraph 2 (paragraph 3).

The essay utilizes some transitional strategies (e.g., “It is easy to see&#8230;”, “In fact&#8230;”, “Overall&#8230;”) to connect ideas.

Although there are no sentence structure errors per se, some longer sentences, especially those lacking correct punctuation, sometimes lower reading ease.

The only grammar usage errors are with frequently confused words: “affect” for effect.
&nbsp;

There are several spelling errors: “relativily” mid-essay and “overdependance” and “enviroment” in the final paragraph.

There are no errors with capital letters.

There is a conspicuous pattern of punctuation errors, particularly with commas: There are many missing commas after introductory elements (one example: “As well as saving us plenty of money having vehicles powered…”). There are also missing or incorrectly used commas with sources/quotations (e.g., “…the Sunflower Project Manager says ‘What we’ll do is…’”). Other less prevalent errors include the occasional use of a period instead of a comma or vice versa (e.g., “…for the Sun-loving Bloom.” by Rita T. dela Cruz…” and “‘&#8230;will make these seeds into biodiesel,’ Then the article continues…”). In some places, punctuation marks are incorrectly placed outside of quotation marks (e.g., “‘…they’re creating in class’.”). Although these errors are prevalent and, in some cases, distracting, they represent only one single type of error. The term “cost effective” should be hyphenated since it is being used as an adjective.

One of the strengths of this response is that rather than developing support source-by-source, the essay integrates information from all source materials thematically. For example, paragraph two integrates information from source one and three to support the benefits of using sunflowers as a fuel source for both manufacturing and for transportation. Paragraph three develops the idea that sunflower conversion is easily accomplished both as a primary goal and as a use for byproducts, synthesizing information from multiple sources to do so. Source materials are nicely cited (“In Source #3, ‘Sunflower Power…’ the author, Adam Burke, writes…”). Quotes from source materials are combined with concise source summary (see sentence two in paragraph two as an example), and then inferences are drawn. Examples of such inferences include: “One third of the electricity and all of the heat of almost every facility in America would save us an immense quantity of nonrenewable resources” (paragraph two), “If volunteers and high school students can extract biodiesel…then professionals and scientists certainly can too” (paragraph three), and “[The cleansing ability of sunflowers] could make [polluted] areas of land healthy enough that we could grow plants there again…improve our economy” (paragraph four). These inferences lend credibility to the final evaluation in the essay that sunflowers are “one of the biggest hopes…”

Language use is generally effective (“intricate,” “harness,” “vulnerable”), and the style is appropriate for the audience and explanatory purpose.

This entry-level “4” response is clearly organized and narrowly focused. Instead of attempting to cover all uses of sunflowers (including food products from sunflowers), the essay concentrates on the potential for sunflowers to help the environment. The introduction provides some brief context (“…scientists try to determine reliable sources of energy&#8230;”), then provides a controlling idea (“sunflowers are emerging…promising…provide a solution for our over dependence…”), and ends with a somewhat formulaic presentation of the supporting details to follow. The conclusion does little more than repeat the information in the introduction; it does, however, tighten the controlling idea just a bit, nudging it towards an evaluative thesis, albeit a self-evident one: “one of the biggest hopes to help solve our problem….”

Although the introduction and conclusion are not particularly effective, the progression of ideas is more characteristic of a score point 4 paper. Paragraph two is tightly focused on how sunflowers can be converted to fuel; paragraph three is tightly focused on how the energy from sunflowers is easily harvested; paragraph four focuses on the softer environmental benefits of sunflowers.

The transitions are generally effective (e.g., “If we were…,” “…can also…,” “As well as…,” etc.).

There are a couple of problematic sentences in this response. For example, the sentence “In America alone at least one household owns a vehicle of some kind, not to mention the plethora of farms and crop plantations that rely heavily on large machinery to harvest and tend to its agriculture and varying large city transportation systems and cars, with the exception of hybrid vehicles, that use hundreds of gallons of fuel a day.” is not grammatically a run-on sentence but could be more effectively constructed. Similarly, the sentence “As fast as society is moving in the twenty-first century, it is time to take the next step in protecting the environment in which all life known is sustained and creating a renewable energy source as soon as possible to relieve the dependency the human species has acquired for fuel.” is awkward and challenging to understand. There is also an occasional lack of parallelism (e.g., “Several agriculturalists are beginning to implement sunflower fields into their farms as a product of higher income and in the hopes that…”). Still other sentences, however, demonstrate skillful construction (e.g., “This is only to brush the surface of the reliance our country, our world, has placed on a resource that is not guaranteed forever”).

There is an error with a plural noun (“important discussion[s] in America”) and the incorrect use of the phrase “per say,” which should be per se.

There is a capitalization error in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

There are several errors in punctuation including missing commas (e.g., “…but it would also reap the benefits of having hundreds if not thousands of optimal job opportunities”), and there should be a hyphen in the phrase “power providing.”

In this response, multiple source details are integrated and attributed (e.g., “&#8230;the Bio-fuel Acts and Department of Agriculture have sequestered a source worthy of consideration for a bio-fuel: sunflowers (Source #1).”, “&#8230; (Source #3).”).

The essay demonstrates the effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques (e.g., rhetorical questions; logical reasoning). For example, when details are developed via source summary, they are done so concisely (e.g., “The process in which sunflowers could be used as a bio-fuel is rather simple. In short, bio-diesel plants would be built that would have the ability to harvest oil from the sunflower seeds and convert that oil into bio-diesel”) and effectively (e.g., Paragraph 2 is a fairly concise summary of the process, nicely framed with a rhetorical question as context for an uninformed reader). Some elaboration relies on prior knowledge (widespread rising unemployment rates; destruction of the “o-zone” layer), but the resulting inferences are logical.

The vocabulary is precise and effective (e.g., “sequestered,” “honing in on,” “ingredient in this renewable recipe”), and the language contributes to a style that is appropriate and highly effective for the explanatory purpose and audience.

The style is also enhanced by the effective pairings of long and short sentences (see the first three and last two sentences in paragraph two as examples).

In this essay, the introduction moves from general to specific, setting the context for the issue of fuel dependency and leading to a clear controlling idea (sunflowers as “worthy consideration”). The introduction has no clear thesis, but the culminating thought in the essay conclusion provides a clear one: “&#8230;sunflowers just may be the catalyst to do the job.”

The essay has a clear and effective organizational structure moving from paragraph one, which describes the problem, and paragraphs two and three detailing the solution. This structure is fully sustained and focused.

The essay demonstrates a consistent use of a variety of transitional strategies within and between ideas (e.g., “One of these resources&#8230;”, “Besides the fact that sunflowers would be renewable, they are in the running for the next bio-fuel for their eco-friendliness as well.”, “Not only this, but&#8230;”, “Not only would the world be gaining an efficient and affordable alternative to diesel and gas today, as well as an environmental-friendly bio-diesel, but it would also&#8230;”, “In all&#8230;”).

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 response is too brief to provide evidence that allows scoring for any of the three traits.

This response receives No Score because there is insufficient original student writing that can be scored. All of the response except for the last sentence is directly copied from the sources.

Argumentative

3D Printers

The sentence structure of this brief response is somewhat simplistic; however, with the exception of the two missing words in the first sentence (“Using 3-D printer” and “you have a chance break”), there does not appear to be any major formation issues. The awkward constructions (&#8220;It is best to not allow…to be available&#8221;) are style problems rather than conventions errors, although, given the brevity of the response, they do interfere with fluency.

There are no punctuation errors in this response.

There are no capitalization errors in this response.

There are two noted grammar usage issues in this response: the missing “to” in the first sentence after &#8220;chance&#8221; and the prepositional phrase “of accessing” in the final sentence, which should be replaced by “to access.” The use of passive voice (&#8220;can be created&#8221;) in this response causes some confusion.

This response has spelling errors (e.g., &#8220;Furnitures,&#8221; &#8220;sovouenirs,&#8221; and &#8220;Unforuntately&#8221;).

With only a single supporting idea (copyright infringement, although the examples offered—furniture and &#8220;souvenirs&#8221;—are examples of patents, not copyrights), there is no integration of information.

The response offers no citations or attributions and presumably uses information from a single source.

The lone supporting detail is developed with a brief example, &#8220;sovoenirs&#8221;  (“furniture” is an example provided in the sources and so is not original elaboration).

Vocabulary is limited, ineffective, and confusing (&#8220;I disagree with the idea of the ability of accessing a 3-D printer in public&#8221;).

The response is too brief to create any style.

The response ends with a confusing claim (&#8220;I disagree with the idea of the ability of accessing a 3-D printer in public&#8221;) and is too brief to be cohesive.

The use of a few transitional phrases (&#8220;For instance&#8230;,&#8221; &#8220;Unfortunately…&#8221;) does not necessarily promote unity. For example, it’s not clear why it would be “unfortunate” that it is illegal to use someone else’s design.

Especially for this grade level, there is no adequate introduction or conclusion. The first sentence sets up the first (and only) supporting reason (&#8220;may cause lawsuits&#8221;), and the final 2 sentences repeat a weak claim that fails to provide closure.

There is no progression of ideas as there is only a single supporting reason offered (illegal copyright will cause lawsuits) with a single example and explanation (&#8220;furniture&#8221;/&#8221;sovoenirs&#8221; and &#8220;illegal&#8221;). The final two (of 5 total) sentences merely repeat each other.

Opposing arguments are not acknowledged.

With the exception of the awkward opening sentence, the sentence structure of this brief response is adequate.

Search Annotated Student Responses

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy