Grade 11

Explanatory

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Sunflower

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

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;”).

Grade 6

World's Fair

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

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

There are no grammar usage errors.

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

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

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

Grade 8

Memory Training

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Grade 7

Invasive Species

There are no errors with sentence formation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no evidence of an appropriate style.

There is no clear focus and no unity.

There are no appropriate transitions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many run-on sentences (e.g., the final sentence of the response). Some of the sentence formation errors are the result of misguided attempts to include quoted material (e.g., “Also invasive plants can succeed in their environment because they are planted in a correct environment where they will not over dominate other species of native plants as in Source #1: ‘Are All Non-Native Plants Problematic?’ it said, ‘Many people in North America plant English ivy as a ground-covering plant’”).

There are repeated comma errors, including commas missing after introductory elements and commas missing to separate compound independent clauses (e.g., “The kudzu…would begin to regrow but if the goats still kept at it they would be able to permanently rid the whole Highland Mill complex…”). There is also a comma missing for a nonrestrictive element (“So with these invasive plants that are able to grow in different areas of the world this adds more diversity which will help the Earth&#8217;s ecosystem greatly”). Despite the frequency of comma errors, this is just one type of punctuation, and given the length and complexity of the response, these errors do not demonstrate a severe pattern of errors for the overall category.

There are some errors with frequently confused words (effected/affected; of/off) and some problems with parallel structure. Given the length and complexity of the writing, however, these do not demonstrate any pattern of errors in this category.

The response uses some specific information from more than one source, but rather than integrate evidence from the sources, the response loosely summarizes information from two sources. For example, very specific information about the goats eating kudzu is never integrated well enough to draw a generalized conclusion about the significance/relevance of goats and kudzu.

There are attempts to attribute information from two of the sources; however, the citations specifically refer only to direct quotes rather than the general body of ideas used.

There are minimal attempts to elaborate details. Modest attempts to go beyond summary include personal opinion (“I believe though that this process would help even more from all the poisonous pesticides that people use”). Overall, however, the response is a general and sometimes imprecise summary that is more confusing than helpful in understanding, usually because the details are awkwardly summarized and presented.

There are some effective individual word/phrase choices (“kudzu that has terrorized the farm”; “domino affect”; “primary consumers”; “entire food web is devastated”). It is not the word choices themselves but the overall use of language (sentence structure in particular) that causes reader confusion (“I believe though that this process would help even more from all the poisonous pesticides that people use along with the machines to get rid of these invasive plants, but the goats eating the kudzu would help the environment with a more natural and efficient way”).

There is little evidence of an effective explanatory style. Sentences such as “People can think what they want, but some invasive species can succeed in the environment because they have predators that keep them in check and don&#8217;t allow them to overgrow in the environment and also these invasive plant species are planted in the right area and don&#8217;t kill out other plant species by taking up too much water and sunlight” are long and do more to confuse than to engage the reader.

The response attempts to summarize the positives (“a pleasure”) and negatives (“a pain”) of invasive species, with no clear thesis or controlling idea. In fact, paragraph 2 focuses on the need for natural (or in the case of kudzu, “rented”) predators to control invasive species (a summary of the information in Source #3). Paragraph 3 has a mixed focus, initially summarizing part of Source #1 about problems with invasive species. That paragraph, however, then shifts to a weak explanation about how some non-native plants can be controlled, which does not support the topic sentence in that paragraph. There are other minor drifts as well (the information about people originally thinking kudzu would help erosion is, as presented, extraneous to the purpose of that paragraph; likewise, at the end of paragraph 3, the information about ivy presents the exception to invasive species crowding out native species).

Too many transitions are awkward. For example, in paragraph 2, the negative effects of invasive species connect to the possible positive outcomes with the word “Also,” which fails to describe what should be the “on the other hand” or “conversely” relationship of those two opposing ideas (“…the secondary consumers die off, and so on until the entire food web is devastated from that one invasive species that killed off that one plant or animal. Also invasive plants can succeed in their environment because they are planted in a correct environment where they will not over dominate…”). The dominant transition word “also” is similarly problematic throughout (as another example: “If those primary consumers die off then the secondary consumers die off, and so on until the entire food web is devastated from that one invasive species that killed off that one plant or animal. Also invasive plants can succeed in their environment because they are planted in a correct environment”). These kinds of vague or even faulty connections cause confusion.

The introduction summarizes information that invasive species can be both successful and “a nuisance” depending on whether or not they have natural predators and/or are planted in the “right” or “wrong” area. The introduction is, however, long and convoluted. The conclusion is stronger, making the case that studying invasive species “in the long run” offers knowledge and can add diversity to the environment. These are worthwhile conclusions, although the body of information in the response was too broad and vague to effectively support these conclusions.

The ideas are ordered as a summary of Source #3 and Source #1, with no apparent reason for the order. Even within paragraphs 2 and 3, connections are awkward (“the entire food web is devastated from that one invasive species that killed off that one plant or animal. Also invasive plants can succeed in their environment because they are planted in a correct environment”). Paragraph 2 primarily (but not exclusively) deals with “predators” to control invasive species, and paragraph three argues (but not exclusively) that the invasive species itself becomes the predator by crowding out native plants. But given that these two paragraphs just summarize two different sources, the reader has to work too hard to make the connections.

There are a few run-on sentences. Some run-ons are caused by a comma instead of a semicolon in sentences using “however,” and while the semi-colon is not a grade 7 convention, these problem sentences are still errors (“Some non-native plants succeed in their new environments, however, some non-native plants end up becoming well-known nuisances”). The string of run-ons in the introduction can be considered rhetorical rather than errors.

There are a few missing commas after introductory elements (e.g., “If the non-native plant thrives and eliminates other organisms it is classified…” and “more specifically it was…”) and some unnecessary commas (“some non-native plants end up becoming well-known nuisances, or even dangerous things…” and “The popularity kept increasing, and eventually became…”). There is also a missing apostrophe for a possessive (“worlds favorite dishes”).

There are no errors in grammar usage.

There are no errors with spelling.

The evidence used is somewhat uneven. The response uses very specific information about the tomato, to the exclusion of other potentially more relevant or important information. For example, the conclusion that the tomato was used “incorrectly” overgeneralizes a minor detail. Other details are more repeated than integrated.

Although there are citations for directly quoted material, the writer fails to use quotation marks for the copied details and fails to attribute more general references.

Several details are copied directly from the source materials, followed by summaries of the information couched with statements such as “This shows how” or “This is an example” Overall, the elaboration is too weak and repetitive for a higher score.

The vocabulary is adequate overall (e.g., “hazardous”).

The focus on two very specific details (tomatoes and honeysuckle) is maintained but is too narrow for the explanatory purpose.

Overall transitions are effective, with some variety of transitional phrases to connect paragraphs (e.g., “For starters,” “In contrast,” and “That being said,”) and equally varied transitions showing valid relationships within paragraphs (e.g., “Unsurprisingly,&#8221; “First,” “This shows,” “Even more so,” and “however”). Often, the effective transitions are the only thing that provides unity for the response.

A strong introduction engages the reader and sets up the information to come with definitions. There is no evident thesis, but the concluding paragraphs (in actuality, the final two paragraphs function as a summary of the information presented) do lead to a general controlling idea (“non-native or native, each plant is important to our ecosystem in one way or another”).

The progression of ideas is somewhat weak. The response initially describes how a non-native species, in this case the tomato, can show both the negative and positive aspects of non-native species. It then moves to a description of a non-native “nuisance” (honeysuckle). These specific examples are embedded within some repetitive and generalized information, which do not necessarily capture unified paragraphs. Overall, these weaknesses interfere with cohesion.

There are many errors, with sentence structure including run-ons (e.g., “like if they liked something they would bring it an plant it even animals some time the animals will get tansoposted” and “they would make thir oun family in that place have thir babys an such as plants ppl will bring them an plant them”).

There are many comma errors, including commas missing after introductory elements (e.g., “as you can see non-native…” and “if they liked something they would bring…”) and commas missing in a list (with spelling corrected: “…they would make their own family in that place have their babies and such as plants…”). There are missing apostrophes for contractions (“thats”).

There are no capital letters to begin sentences.

There are errors with the frequently confused words &#8220;to&#8221; and &#8220;too&#8221;, an incorrect article (“an plant”), and several confusing pronoun references (e.g., “have thir babys an such as plants”).

There are too many misspelled words to list.

Any possible references to sources are vague and unattributed.

Information about babies and transported animals is irrelevant as presented and fails to develop appropriate information for the task.

The language is confusing and vague (e.g., “diffrent places,” and “they will sometime live or not really”).

The focus is too vague and confusing to provide any unity.

There are some transition words (e.g., “well” and “but”), but none of them provide appropriate connections. Many random details are strung together with “an.”

The statement “well as you can see non-native thir was alot of ppl” is too confusing to introduce the topic, and the final line of the response (“thats how many things started too become non-native”) is not appropriate for the task.

The details are random and demonstrate no logical or purposeful progression.

There are no sentence formation errors.

There are errors with commas, including unnecessary commas (e.g., “I will tell you about the invaders, and the good new-comers” and “…the animals or insects could die, or have to move to a new home”). Failing to use quotation marks for copied/quoted text is a serious error.

There are no errors with grammar usage.

There is some evidence from two sources. The information in paragraph two is paraphrased from Source #1; the information in paragraph three is also paraphrased but comes from Sources #1 and #4. Given the amount of available information, the details selected are limited.

There are citations for information that are directly copied (and missing quotation marks), but there are no further references for general information.

The response is comprised mostly of source details that are paraphrased but minimally developed. For example, the statement “This can affect the entire food web in that area” needs an example to be effective. There are other weaknesses with elaboration as well. The conclusion in paragraph 3 (“not all non-native plants are invasive&#8221;) is true but not valid. An accurate conclusion is that not all non-native species are destructive.

There are some concrete and effective words/phrases (e.g., “invader,” “suffer,” “kept in check,”and “new-comers”) that somewhat compensate for other repetitive, ineffective, and stilted language (e.g., “In this essay I will tell you,” and “In this essay I have taught you”).

The style is uneven, with many effective elements. For example, the writer engages the audience at the start (&#8220;Look into your backyard&#8221;; &#8220;Did you know&#8230;?&#8221;; &#8220;It&#8217;s true!&#8221;) and then re-engages them at the end (&#8220;Next time you&#8230;&#8221;). However, formulaic and repetitive phrases such as “In this essay I will tell you” and “In this essay I have taught you” weaken the style. But despite the distracting artificial statements, overall, the response is adequate for the task.

This concise response presents a self-evident main idea (“Not all non-native species are bad, though. Some are good and useful”), and the details, which summarize some information in two sources, sustain that focus.

Most transitions are logical but formulaic (e.g., paragraph 2 connects ideas with “For one,” “Secondly,” and “Thirdly”; ending with “Now you can see…”).

The introduction has an effective beginning in that it engages the reader and provides background information about the issue. The segue into the body of the essay, however, is somewhat distracting. The conclusion also begins with a distracting and obvious statement (“In this essay I have taught you…”) but ends effectively by coming full circle back to the reader.

Search Annotated Student Responses

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy