Grade 7

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Second Language Learning

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade 8

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;).

Varied sentence structures contribute to a style that enhances the argumentative purpose (e.g., &#8220;Should we consider abolishing the penny?&#8221;; &#8220;Without pennies, people would be forced to round everything up to the nearest nickel&#8221;; &#8220;From saving money in the Treasury, to dropping prices for the consumer, the elimination of the penny will help the economy greatly&#8221;).

The claim itself (&#8220;the penny is more of a nuisance than an item of transaction&#8221;) is copied from source #1, but it is nicely set up with a reference to the opposing point of view, and the focus is effectively maintained throughout the response.

A variety of transitions within paragraphs clarify relationships (e.g., &#8220;However&#8221;; &#8220;For example&#8221;; &#8220;Additionally&#8221;; &#8220;Ultimately&#8221;).

The response has a solid introduction and conclusion. The introduction begins with a rhetorical question followed by a statement setting the context for the argument. The concluding paragraph logically concludes the argument, once again acknowledging sentimental value while reasserting that the arguments for banning the penny are stronger than the arguments for keeping them.

The argument progresses logically as the response builds on the different fiscal arguments for abolishing the penny (e.g., &#8220;&#8230;costs more to produce&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;Pennies are costing each of [us] nearly $50 a year&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;rounded prices should not cost more&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;buying power lowered&#8230;due to inflation&#8221;).

The response progresses to an acknowledgement of the opposing argument and then a rebuttal of that argument.

There is a single sentence structure error, a run-on sentence in paragraph 3 (&#8220;the penny has sentimental value, it was the first coin created by the U.S. State Mint&#8221;).

There are punctuation errors, in particular a pattern of errors with unnecessary commas (&#8220;Many people think and feel that the penny is worthless, and a waste of&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;the prices of everything might be rounded up, and be more costly to the consumers&#8221;; &#8220;This will affect all consumers, and be uncomfortable&#8221;).

There are several grammar usage errors (e.g., &#8220;would of&#8221; should be &#8220;would&#8221; in the fifth paragraph). There is an error with the frequently confused word then instead of than (&#8220;it does take more money to make then it is worth&#8221;) and two errors with subject/verb agreement (&#8220;it cost&#8221;; &#8220;The pictures on the pennies also represent and celebrates certain events&#8221;). Arguably, there are places where the verb mood should be conditional (&#8220;charities will thrive even more because most people do not care to keep pennies, so they will donate their pennies&#8221;). Again, given the complexity and length of the response, the response still demonstrates adequate control of grammar usage.

This response shows effective paraphrasing of information and the integration of details from across the available source materials.

More than one source is used, the sources are attributed, and the citations are clear.

Although most of the elaboration is via summary, there is an adequate amount of explanation/extension of ideas (&#8220;If we round everything up to the nearest nickel, it would be a huge loss to those who bought the goods&#8221;) and appropriate commentary (&#8220;look how much a middle school made in one week!&#8221;).

Despite some occasional lapses (e.g., repetition: that is inaccurate and not true), overall the effective use of precise language/vocabulary enhances the argument. Some strong word choices appeal to the audience without resorting to pathos (e.g., &#8220;help to charities who desperately need money to support needy people&#8221;).

There is evidence of a style that enhances the argumentative purpose. For example, the response demonstrates clever pairing of concepts that engage the reader (&#8220;Though you might not be able to do anything with one penny, you might be able to do something with a few or many pennies&#8221;).

Although the claim is not overtly stated until the end of the response, the issue is clearly introduced, and the focus on that issue is consistently maintained throughout the response.

Purposeful transitions work to clarify connections (e.g., &#8220;You can argue&#8230;, but look how&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;though people may&#8230;, in reality&#8230;&#8221;).

The introduction to this response catches the reader’s attention with a rhetorical question and then alludes to the opposing point of view, which is followed by a generalization that subtly suggests what the writer’s claim will be (&#8220;Though you might not be able to do anything with one penny, you might be able to do something with a few or many pennies&#8221;). The introduction ends with a list of the upcoming support that is somewhat awkward (and unnecessary), but it doesn’t substantively diminish the overall effectiveness of the introduction. The conclusion states the claim (&#8220;the penny benefits us&#8221;); provides a statement, albeit a general one, about the consequence of abolishing the penny (&#8220;it will make a big difference in America&#8221;); and summarizes the support (helps money system; sentimental value; charity). As with the introduction, the listing of the supports is unnecessary but doesn’t offset the overall strengths of the conclusion.

The inductive reasoning (saving the actual claim until the final paragraph) works because the response logically progresses by addressing the opposing argument/point of view (&#8220;many people think and feel the penny is worthless&#8221;; &#8220;you can argue that collecting pennies won’t make much of a difference&#8221;) and then crafting the argument with evidence for the claim (&#8220;but look at how much a middle school made in one week!&#8221;).

The opposing point of view is subtly acknowledged and addressed throughout.

Paragraph 3 contains a very long incomplete sentence: &#8220;This being the time it takes someone to whup out thirty pennies instead of six nickels, this could cost people time away from their jobs.&#8221;

There are several punctuation errors (e.g., the missing period at the end of paragraph 3). There are missing commas between compound independent clauses in paragraph 4 (&#8220;One major issue…is that it causes prices to be rounded up and then costumers will have to pay more&#8221;) and paragraph 5 ( &#8220;…the currency in this country are very iconic peices of history and to retire the penny would be sad&#8221;). There is an unnecessary comma in the final sentence (“so” is used to introduce a dependent clause [“so that…”] rather than a coordinating conjunction). There should be a comma, rather than a semi-colon, before “which” in paragraph 3. However, note that semi-colons in general are not grade 8 errors, so the incorrectly used semi-colon in paragraph 4 does not “count” as an error. There are several missing apostrophes to form contractions (e.g., &#8220;dont&#8221;), and countries wealth (paragraph 6) should be possessive: &#8220;country’s wealth.&#8221;

There are several grammar usage errors (e.g., &#8220;Which may not sound like much, but it can add up when you think about it&#8221; should be &#8220;This may not sound like much&#8230;&#8221;). There are subject/verb agreement errors in paragraphs 4 and 5 (&#8220;…it cause…&#8221;; &#8220;the currency in this country are…&#8221;), and the use of the plural noun wages in paragraph 3 is incorrect (either &#8220;average wages amounts&#8221; should be singular or &#8220;wages&#8221; should be the possessive &#8220;wage’s&#8221;). Although there are some minor shifts in verb tense (e.g., paragraph 5: &#8220;…end of something that has been&#8221; followed by &#8220;the penny had more uses&#8221;) they do not cause significant confusion. In addition, there is occasional confusion with unclear references (e.g., &#8220;Cost of the metals used in making pennies being worth more than the penny itself.&#8221; “The cost of metals” doesn’t make sense with “being worth more,” which is the grammatical referent).

This response has a few spelling errors [“dont,” “costumers,” “peices,” “havn’t,” and “a” should be “at” (third sentence second paragraph)].

The response includes specific details, nicely paraphrasing and integrating information from a variety of the source materials. As one example, in paragraph 2, the writer states: &#8220;It is not only the cost of the metals in pennies that costs our country, but the fact that nobody actually uses pennies much in their everyday life. All the pennies people get in their transactions a[t] stores just end up at the bottom of their couch.&#8221; This integration of [pilot] material from source #2 (cost of metal) and source #1 (pennies are discarded/forgotten) is effective.

Although multiple sources are used, the use of source material is unattributed.

The previous example (&#8220;It is not only…but…nobody actually uses pennies…&#8221;) is extended with a conclusion about the economic consequences that goes beyond the obvious: &#8220;This does not help the overall finances of this country.&#8221; There is also some elaboration via inference and speculation (e.g., &#8220;this could mean&#8221;; &#8220;Maybe they haven’t thought….[this] could save many people money&#8221;). The response then develops an effective address of the opposing point of view by considering possible, if simplistic, solutions (e.g., &#8220;figure out a way to reimburse people who still own pennies after they were abolished&#8221;). Overall, the integration and subsequent development of source materials reflect the kind of development that is typical of the score point 4 category.

The language/vocabulary is generally precise (e.g., &#8220;iconic,&#8221; &#8220;fiddling with pennies at store counters&#8221;).

The response evidences some effective style including parallelism (e.g., &#8220;the country would save hundreds of millions of dollars,&#8221; and &#8220;save the general public tens of dollars…&#8221;) and effective use of cause/effect (e.g., &#8220;It is not only….but…&#8221;; &#8220;…don’t only affect…but…&#8221;).

The claim is stated up front (&#8220;the penny should be abolished due to the hassles involved in using it&#8221;), and the response stays focused on explaining the “hassles.”

The transitions are varied throughout, ranging from simple words (e.g., &#8220;Well,&#8221; &#8220;Also,&#8221; &#8220;but&#8221;) to subtle phrases that establish clear relationships (e.g., &#8220;It is not only….but…&#8221;; &#8220;…don’t only affect…but…&#8221;).

The introduction is adequate, providing a clear claim, followed by a roadmap that provides forthcoming supporting reasons. That roadmap begins with the formulaic phrase &#8220;I have three reasons as to why….&#8221; The conclusion is stronger than the introduction. The perfunctory return to restating &#8220;the reasons I have for wanting the penny gone&#8221; is less distracting, in part because it is couched as part of a general call to action (&#8220;[so] we can get something done about this issue&#8221;).

The response progresses logically, building the argument by explaining each of the “hassles” to support the claim that the penny should be abolished (&#8220;costs more to make than it is worth&#8221;; &#8220;takes up a lot of people’s time&#8221;; &#8220;abolishing the penny could actually save people money&#8221;). The body of the response leads to an acknowledgement of the opposing point of view before concluding the argument.

The fourth body paragraph (paragraph 5) acknowledges the opposing point of view and then presents a possible address of that concern (&#8220;…maybe we could figure out a way to reimburse people…&#8221;).

Grade 11

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.

There is a missing comma after introductory elements in the third sentence (“In source #2 of the article on 3-D printers it…”), a missing serial comma (“such as rubber, plastic and other useful…”), and a missing comma in a compound sentence (&#8220;high speed so it will help&#8221;). Given the brevity of the response, these comma errors indicate a lack of command, but the comma is only one example of punctuation, allowing for a score of 1 in the category.

The most obvious grammar usage error is in the awkward first sentence (“I have been brought to the attention of 3-D printers…”), which should be “it has been brought.” Although the response should have been in the subjunctive mood (&#8220;would&#8221; instead of &#8220;will&#8221;), the mood is consistent throughout and therefore not an egregious error.

This response has two spelling errors: “effitently” and “librairies.”

There are nearly no accurate details, and the brevity of the response precludes any true integration.

There is a single vague and inaccurate reference to source #2.

The reasons offered are either inaccurate (&#8220;3-D printers can replace other items such as rubber, plastic&#8221;) or are vague to the point of being meaningless (&#8220;used greatly,&#8221; &#8220;very helpful,&#8221; &#8220;will print things quickly and effitently&#8221;).

The language use is weak. Words such as &#8220;things,&#8221; &#8220;objects,&#8221; and &#8220;items&#8221; are too vague to support the argument.

The style is overall weak. For example, relative to the extreme brevity of the response, phrases such as &#8220;I believe,&#8221; &#8220;I have been,&#8221; and &#8220;I think&#8221; diminish the overall credibility of the response.

The implied claim is that the writer is in favor of putting 3D printers in public libraries, and the few vague details offered are in line with that claim. However, the response is too brief to provide a cohesive argument.

The words &#8220;And&#8221; and &#8220;also&#8221; and the phrase &#8220;This is why…,&#8221; are transitions, but the ideas are randomly presented with no clear relationship among the few ideas listed.

The vague implied claim (&#8220;it will be used greatly and will be helpful&#8221;) is set up by the first sentence. The final line summarizes the apparent opinion: &#8220;3-D printers will be a tremendous attribute.&#8221; However, there is no adequate introduction or conclusion per se.

The progression of the single paragraph is a general list that fails to advance an argument. The apparent supporting information details the function of the 3D printer: its ability to replace objects and to work at very high speed, and though these details are not irrelevant, they provide only minimal support for the assumed claim.

There is no acknowledgement of the opposing point of view.

The first and final sentences of paragraph 2 are run-on sentences. Confusing phrases, word repetition, and missing words interfere with fluency (e.g., “Here at our library we seem to be having a little dilemma here…” and “Yeah there may be some problems…”).

There are many missing commas in this response: after &#8220;library&#8221; in the first sentence (“Here at our library we seem…”), after “Yeah” in the third sentence, and after “Also” in the last sentence.
Commas are missing in three compound sentences (“…it’s a waste of money but I really dont think…&#8221;; “…may be some problems…like it says in source #4 but it 95%&#8230;”; “…how useful that will be but it could be….”).
Additionally, there is a missing hyphen in the last sentence between the words &#8220;game&#8221; and &#8220;changer.&#8221; There are several missing apostrophes throughout the response (e.g., “dont,” “its”).

The first-person pronoun “i” is not capitalized throughout the response.

Because of the missing word “printers” after “3D” in the first sentence of the second paragraph, the verb “are” is incorrect. There is at least one error with frequently confused words (&#8220;its&#8221; instead of &#8220;it’s&#8221;; it is not clear if the correct word &#8220;whether&#8221; is used as it’s misspelled “wheather”). In the second sentence, “that” should be “who” (“&#8230;doubters that dont want&#8230;”).

This response has only one spelling error (“wheather”).

There are very few details from the available materials, and they are poorly integrated.

References to two sources are vague (especially the reference to source 4).

Some references have no explanation to explain what the details mean (&#8220;some problems with the system sometimes like it says in source #4&#8221;). Others are illogical, or at least unsupported, conclusions (&#8220;thats so not true 3D printers can have so much more content [than 2D printers] on them because they are so much bigger&#8221;) and/or contradictory statements (&#8220;how unuseful that [printing in chocolate] will be but it could be useful with someone that works with chocolate or something&#8221;), which do not function as appropriate elaboration.

The vocabulary is confusing (&#8220;all about content,&#8221; &#8220;more content&#8221;), repetitive (&#8220;so&#8221;), and/or vague &#8220;(some problems,&#8221; &#8220;some things,&#8221; &#8220;sometimes&#8221;).

There are apparent attempts to create a style (&#8220;seem to be having a little dilemma, and i think it would be a game changer&#8221;) but they are unsuccessful in enhancing the credibility of the argument. Further, some phrases (e.g., &#8220;goes off on…,&#8221; &#8220;…so not true,&#8221; and &#8220;yeah….but…&#8221;) are inappropriate for the audience and purpose.

The implied claim favoring 3D printers in libraries is minimally sustained with seemingly random information provided.

Search Annotated Student Responses

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy

Examples

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy