Grade 5

Informational

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Ready for a Nap

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

This response receives No Score because it is off-purpose. The assigned task is to “develop a main idea about hibernation” and write an informational article that is several paragraphs long. This response clearly is intended to tell a fictional story about some black bears. There are no elements present that attempt to inform the reader.

This response receives a No Score because it is insufficient. The response is primarily copied directly from the source material, with only occasional minor changes to wording, with “opening to her tunnel” revised to read “entrance of the den” being the most significant change. The amount of original writing is not sufficient to demonstrate the ability to construct a full essay.

Grade 4

Animal Habitats

The third of the four sentences in this response is not a correctly formed sentence.

There are no grade 4 errors with punctuation (the unnecessary apostrophes in &#8220;place’s,&#8221; &#8220;tool’s,&#8221; and &#8220;Animal’s&#8221; are noted under grammar usage).

There are multiple places in the brief response where the student unnecessarily capitalizes the first letter of words (“Desert’s,” “Animal’s,” and “Plant’s”).

There are repeated errors using possessives for what should be plural nouns (e.g., “place’s,” “tool’s,” “Plant’s,” etc.).

There are a couple of spelling errors – “ho” should be “hot” and “the have” should be “they have” in the third sentence.

The response includes minimal details from the available information, and those that are included just restate or copy information from the sources (e.g., &#8220;bottom of the sea…is as dark as night&#8221;; &#8220;Desert’s air is dry&#8221;; &#8220;…people can live in dry place’s because the have tool’s&#8221;).

Source details, which are unattributed, come only from source #1.

There is no attempt to elaborate or develop the evidence used.

The vocabulary is repetitive and vague (e.g., &#8220;people,&#8221; &#8220;place&#8217;s&#8221;).

Although the response reflects the topic, there is little purpose-specific focus and no information about how animals survive in difficult environments.

Connections between ideas are unclear (e.g., as presented, there is no clear relationship between having tools and &#8220;dry place&#8217;s&#8221;).

There is no identifiable introduction or conclusion.

There is little or no discernible organizational structure.

There are no sentence structure errors.

A comma to separate independent clauses (after the word &#8220;warm&#8221;) is missing from the second [compound] sentence of the response. There is also a missing apostrophe to form the contracted “there is” – &#8220;theres.&#8221; Note: the incorrectly used colon is not an error at this grade level.

There are no errors in capitalization.

“Theres” should be “There are,” but agreement between subject and verb is a progressive language skill (implemented by grade level in progressive levels of difficulty), and grade 4 students may not recognize agreement with inverted structures (verb/subject).

“Saugaro” is misspelled twice.

The evidence groups animals into their habitats, providing evidence about how Arctic and desert animals survive, but the evidence is minimal and sometimes copied (&#8220;…huddle [cuddle] up to get warm and…share body heat&#8221;).

Source details are unattributed and only one source (#1) is used.

There is some attempt to elaborate or develop the evidence used. For example, &#8220;The elf owl lives in the Saugaro cactus…so it keeps the elf owl nice and cool,&#8221; infers that the rain water also keeps the owl cool – a logical inference. However, some elaboration attempts may be inaccurate. For example, the source materials do not mention polar bears, which the writer infers can be lumped in with penguins: &#8220;Some animals like the polar bear and penguin have to huddle up…&#8221;; &#8220;polar bears share body heat&#8221;).

Vocabulary is limited and, at times, repetitive (&#8220;cool&#8221;).

The few transitional strategies (&#8220;But,&#8221; &#8220;But then,&#8221; &#8220;so&#8221;) are simplistic and repetitive.

The response lacks an introduction as well as a conclusion.

Although the animals are grouped into habitats and survival tactics are mentioned, the list-like progression of ideas is weak.

Missing and/or incorrect words in the first sentence cause confusion and make it difficult to assess the sentence formation. In addition, “Like how squirrels nest in trunks” is a sentence fragment.

The missing comma separating independent clauses (“…they fall to the ground and all the animals stuff…”) is the only grade-relevant punctuation error.

Only two sentences in the entire response begin with a capital letter.

There are several grammar usage errors including the incorrect reflexive pronoun “their self” instead of “themselves.” In addition, there is an error with the frequently confused word “your” instead of “you’re.”

There are many spelling errors (e.g., “puttle,” “me” (instead of “be”), “an” (instead of “and”), “squirrles,” and “where ever.” Note that “predators” is not a grade 4 word, although it is in the source materials.

Beyond the somewhat vague definition and example of an ecosystem (&#8220;where ever plant an animals live together&#8221; and &#8220;puddle&#8221;), the supporting information is limited to references to hawks, squirrels, and coral reefs. Some of the details are close copies of the original (e.g., &#8220;hawks swoop down looking for a mouse to eat&#8221;).

The text references are unattributed but do draw from more than one source.

Most of the details show limited attempts to elaborate or develop ideas beyond simple restatement of the information in the sources. However, there is a limited attempt to develop source information with commentary or obvious inference (e.g., &#8220;you may not know this but…&#8221;; &#8220;the animals stuff their self for winter&#8221;).

Vocabulary use is uneven. For example, the word “predator” is used in the source materials to describe beaver shelters, but the writer applies it here to describe fish in coral reefs. Other vocabulary, however, is very general (e.g., &#8220;…an ecosystem can be big or small even hot or cold&#8221;).

There is some attempted style (e.g., &#8220;you may not know this but…&#8221;; &#8220;the animals stuff their self for winter&#8221;).

The response has a narrow and obvious main idea (&#8220;plant [and] animals live is in the ecosystem&#8221;] and focuses on what an ecosystem is and how it helps animals survive.

There are some transitions (&#8220;when your walking…&#8221;; &#8220;like how…&#8221;; &#8220;every once in awhile&#8221;; &#8220;also&#8221;).

The introduction is weak and there is no conclusion.

Although the ideas seem somewhat randomly added, there is enough of a progression of task-appropriate ideas to move this response into the 2 scoring category.

There are some run on sentence errors (e.g., “Most penguins live in the cold, it can get minus 128 degrees….Antarctica is colder than ice” and “Penguins aren’t the only ones who have blubber polar bears have blubber….”). In addition, missing and/or incorrect words in the several sentences cause confusion, making it difficult to assess the sentence formation label (e.g., “One word blubber, blubber is a kind of fat…” and “The only way plants grow is water, sun not always dirt”).

There are missing commas to separate independent clauses (e.g., &#8220;they live in cold weathers too and they stay…” and “…they soak up all the water that falls on them and that keeps them alive…”). In addition, a comma is used instead of a period to finish several sentences (“Penguins have…..to hot, Most penguins live…” and “Another animal is the whale, Whales need blubber…”). There is also a missing apostrophe to form the contracted form of what is (“whats” instead of “what’s”).

The student capitalized the first letter of words following commas a couple of times.

There are repeated errors with the frequently confused words “to/too/two” (&#8220;to hot,&#8221; &#8220;to cold,&#8221; &#8220;to much&#8221;), and “any where” should be “anywhere.” There is also an error distinguishing between singular and plural nouns (“cold weathers” instead of &#8220;cold weather&#8221;).

There are many spelling errors (e.g., “habbitats,” “diffrent,” “frezzes,” “catus”). Note: “drought” is not a grade 4 word.

The response provides adequate support for the main idea by integrating paraphrased information. For example, the response nicely combines specific data from paragraph 2 with examples from paragraph 4 of Source #1. Misinformation (e.g., minus 128 degrees Fahreneit) does not substantively detract from the support.

Although the references to source materials are unattributed, details from more than one source are used.

The response includes some adequate development of ideas demonstrated through the use of, for example, appropriate extensions (&#8220;Most plant die if…&#8221;).

Much of the language is appropriate if somewhat general (e.g., &#8220;very different&#8221;; &#8220;really different&#8221;).

There is evidence of an emerging sense of style (&#8220;Do you wonder…&#8221;; &#8220;One word&#8211;blubber&#8221;).

The main idea is evident (&#8220;Animal habbitats and plant habbitats are very different from each other…&#8221;) if somewhat confusing (&#8220;…but whats really diffrent is that most animals have the ability to live any where they want as long as it is safe&#8221;). The focus on animal habitats and survival is mostly sustained.

Some transitions are effective (&#8220;Penguins aren’t the only ones who have blubber…&#8221;; &#8220;The reason why is…&#8221;), while others do not adequately clarify connections between ideas (whales to plants; cactus to desert animals).

There is no conclusion and a weak opening.

The progression of ideas from beginning to end is somewhat confusing (animals, plants, animals).

Near the end of the response, there is a run-on (comma-splice) sentence (“That is just the desert, there are a lot of others”) followed immediately by a sentence fragment (“Like the ocean and the Artie.”)

There are two errors with commas: unnecessary commas around “or” in the fourth sentence and after “spikey plant,” in sentence 8.

There are no capitalization errors.

There are no grammar usage errors.

There are many spelling errors (e.g., “diffrent,” “habitatats,” “Artie”); however, despite many being included in the source materials, some may not be grade 4 words (e.g., “condioners” and “cacttusts”).

The response provides mostly limited use of concrete facts and details from the available source materials.

The source details are unattributed and rely almost exclusively on one source (source #1).

There is an uneven use of elaborative techniques: For example, the use of rhetorical question and the combining of ideas (e.g., &#8220;They don’t need to use air condioners in the desert,&#8221; or &#8220;thermal blankets in the Artie&#8221;) is somewhat effective. However, many details need further explanation (e.g., &#8220;there are a lot of others&#8221; is not adequately explained).

The vocabulary is uneven and simplistic at times (&#8220;animals live on nature and themselves&#8221;).

There is an attempt to engage the reader, and while that attempt is not always consistently effective, it does show awareness of style. For example, &#8220;They don’t need to use air conditioners in the desert or, thermal blankets in the Artic,&#8221; followed by the rhetorical question &#8220;How do they?&#8221; is nice; however, the last few sentences are not effective (&#8220;Well it’s time to leave….So now you know …Bye!&#8221;).

The response has an evident main idea (&#8220;Animals can survive in diffrent and difficult habitatats&#8221;) and maintains that focus throughout.

Varied transitional strategies adequately clarify relationships (&#8220;How do they?&#8221;; &#8220;Other animals&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;Both of those plans work&#8230;&#8221;).

There is an adequate introduction that establishes an awareness of audience, and although the conclusion is weak, it is present.

There is an evident organizational structure: the response moves from generalizations about the topic, followed by specific examples, reflecting an adequate progression of ideas and contributing to a sense of completeness.

The response fails to begin with a sentence. Because the line makes little sense as written, it is difficult to assess if it’s a run-on, an attempted title, or fragment fused with a sentence, or something else.

There are a few punctuation errors, mostly commas missing to separate compound independent clauses (e.g., “…animals escape the heat…and they come out at night;” and “Well the cati has long roots&#8230;and they suck up water&#8230;”). There is also a missing apostrophe (“ill”) for the contraction &#8220;I’ll.&#8221;

There are some capitalization errors (e.g., “of cake. let me tell you” and “in the world? well in my apinion”).

There are errors with frequently confused words: &#8220;There&#8221; should be &#8220;their&#8221; in several places throughout the response, and “its” should be “it’s” in the final sentence.

There are many spelling errors (e.g., “acutluly,” “peie,” and “catis”).

The response integrates a limited number of specific details from the available source materials.

Source details are unattributed and come from only one source (source #1).

Attempts at developing details are minimal and unexplained, contributing more to confusion than to development (e.g., &#8220;Earth must is actluly like peie of cake&#8221;). Other attempts at developing details are limited to conversational phrases such as &#8220;You ask how water gets into the cacti?&#8221; While these may be stylistically effective, as presented here they do not function well as elaboration.

With few exceptions (e.g., &#8220;suck up&#8221; and &#8220;rich sweet cool water&#8221;), much of the vocabulary is general and repetitive (e.g., &#8220;let me tell you&#8221;; &#8220;Now ill tell you&#8221;).

The response shows an awareness of a conversational style that attempts to engage the reader, in this case with rhetorical questions (&#8220;You ask how…?&#8221; and &#8220;So what do you think…?&#8221;).

This response focuses on the relationship between animals and how they deal with temperature extremes (&#8220;in harsh and difficult areas&#8221;), and that controlling idea is sustained throughout.

Most transitions (&#8220;Let me tell you about…&#8221;; &#8220;But…&#8221;; &#8220;How you ask?&#8221;) adequately connect ideas.

The introduction and conclusion are apparent and do function to introduce and conclude the information: the use of commentary (&#8220;peie of cake&#8221;; &#8220;well in my apinion its pretty cool&#8221;) would be considered ineffective at a higher level but are 4th grade-appropriate.

The progression of ideas is generally clear (hot desert climate followed by cold ocean climate). The sentence &#8220;Now Ill tell you about the ocean…&#8221; is somewhat confusing because the subject of the ocean has already been introduced; this minor lapse, however, does not interfere enough to lower the overall score.

There are too many run-on fused sentences to list them all (e.g., &#8220;They also have a little trick they cuddle….&#8221; and &#8220;But they also do something…they dig large dense…&#8221; and &#8220;Some of these same animals are nocturnal they sleep…&#8221;).
The awkwardly worded sentences are style problems, and not sentence formation errors.

Although there are many missing commas, usually after the transitions or transitional phrases in the response, there are no grade 4 punctuation errors.

&#8220;Fish&#8221; should not be capitalized in &#8220;ocean. An Fish have a special….&#8221;

There are many repeated errors with frequently confused words (“there” instead of their, “your” instead of you’re, “its” instead of it’s, and “are” instead of our).

There are many spelling errors of a variety of types: errors likely due to typos (“diffferent,” “eachother”), errors adding suffixes (“bodys” instead of bodies, “icie” instead of icy), and general misspellings (“wammer,” “promblem,” “extremly”).

The response provides adequate support for the main idea by integrating effectively paraphrased information from source #1, but those details are limited when compared to the available information in the source materials.

The details, which come from a single source, are unattributed.

Other than adding some explanations to connect details (e.g., &#8220;add a little trick,&#8221; &#8220;do something special,&#8221; &#8220;always a soulution to a promblem&#8221;), the primary elaboration is via source summary.

Overall, the vocabulary is adequate. While words such as &#8220;biome,&#8221; &#8220;natrual air- conditioning,&#8221; and &#8220;gusers&#8221; come from the original source materials, they are well-integrated.

One of the strengths of this response is its emerging sense of style (e.g., some of the explanations: &#8220;complete oppisist places&#8221;; &#8220;do something special&#8221;).

The main idea is evident (&#8220;…have diffrent life styles…[but] all live in the same places&#8221;). Since people do not live in the ocean, this statement could be mildly confusing (four sentences later when the response describes the dark and deep ocean) but not enough so to detract from the score, as the focus is otherwise sustained.

Consistent use of a variety of transitional strategies provides connections between and among ideas (&#8220;…for instance…&#8221;; &#8220;not all animals…&#8221;), and the syntactical variety within repeated transition words enhances the flow of the response (&#8220;There are also….&#8221;; &#8220;These magnificent creatures also…&#8221;; &#8220;But they also…&#8221;).

The introduction describes the environments common to living things, and the conclusion does somewhat more than just summarize by adding commentary (&#8220;… Its amazing that we all live today. Whether its in the Artic, The desert, or the ocean we all have are ways&#8221;).

The progression of ideas is clear, moving between species/ecosystems and adaptations. (The shift from cold to warm and then back to cold ecosystems follows the organization of source #1 and does not substantively interfere with the flow of ideas.)

The response has too many run–on sentences – all comma splices – to list (e.g., “You don’t have to worry about that, you might have a well”; “First let’s talk about the desert,….it is hard to survive”).

There are some errors with missing commas (e.g. between &#8220;water&#8221; and &#8220;shelter&#8221; and between &#8220;tecnique&#8221; and &#8220;it&#8221;). There are several places throughout the response where the punctuation at the end of sentences is missing.

There are no grade 4 grammar usage errors.

There are a few spelling errors (“temparature”), although most are not grade 4-appropriate.

The use of source materials—given the amount of available information—is adequate.

Source details are unattributed and come from a single source (source #1).

The development of source materials is mostly effective, with some generally summarized information (e.g., &#8220;…let’s talk about the desert, with the hot sun raining down and little water&#8221;), some cleverly summarized information (e.g., &#8220;The polar bears have it figured out too&#8221;), and some elaboration via commentary (&#8220;Lucky for bears, they hibernate and don’t have to even worry about anything&#8221;).

Vocabulary use (e.g., &#8220;figured out&#8221;; &#8220;not so fortunate&#8221;; &#8220;pleasurable&#8221;; and &#8220;preserving technique&#8221;) is generally effective for the purpose and audience.

The overall combination of long and short sentences (&#8220;The cold keeps the water from boiling, but when they erupt it is warm and cozy for those crabs. The sea isn’t all tropical!&#8221;) and effective commentary combine to create an engaging style

The response has a clear and effective organizational structure creating a sense of unity and completeness (desert to Arctic to ocean). The focus on comparing animals to humans is consistently maintained.

Comments on how lucky humans are serve to transition between supporting ideas, although other less effective transitions (e.g., &#8220;First let’s talk about…&#8221;; &#8220;Next I would like to tell you…&#8221;) are also evident.

The introduction and conclusion are both effective: the first three sentences serve to introduce the topic with a rhetorical question and commentary that segue nicely into the body of the response (&#8220;Do you know how lucky you are? You have air conditioners, telivision, computers, food, water shelter, you are lucky. There are a lot of animals outside with none of those&#8221;). Likewise, the final four sentences effectively conclude the response, adding appropriate commentary (&#8220;It makes you appreciate the things you have&#8221;) to the summary (&#8220;Like the saguaro cactus, penguins, polar b ears and crabs, we all seem to survive&#8221;).

The cohesive response has an evident and logical progression of ideas, moving from hot to cold ecosystems, framed by comparisons to humans.

There are no sentence formation errors.

The only punctuation error is a missing comma to separate independent clauses in the final sentence (“…the elf owl lives INSIDE a cactus and not many animals live inside a cactus”).

The response has a few agreement errors (e.g., “Some hawks live on people&#8217;s roof…” instead of “people’s roofs,” and “Some mice live in people&#8217;s house” instead of “people’s houses”). Additionally, there is an imprecise preposition used in the latter example (“Some mice live in people&#8217;s house in a little tiny hole on their wall”).

The student misspells only one word (“wich”); however, the word is misspelled four times.

The response includes a few details from the available information, but those details are often restated or copied from the sources (e.g., &#8220;because the cactus is full of water the elf owl has a nice cool home&#8221;) or they reflect minimal understanding (e.g., &#8220;mice live in a little tiny hole&#8221;; &#8220;hawks live on people’s roof&#8221;).

Source details, which are unattributed, do come from more than one source.

There may be some attempts to elaborate on animals that are mentioned in the source materials through dubious prior knowledge (e.g., mice living in &#8220;…a tiny hole in their wall&#8221; and frogs or “tadpoles” live &#8220;in the cold&#8221;). Further, attempted development through commentary (e.g., &#8220;…wich is different&#8221;; &#8220;…not many animals live inside a cactus&#8221;) is minimally effective.

The vocabulary is either a restatement of the original or general and repetitive (e.g., &#8220;live in/on…&#8221;; &#8220;wich is…&#8221;).

There is minimal evidence of style.

Although the response broadly focuses on the topic (animal habitats), there is no discernible main idea.

There are few, if any, transitions to connect the details provided.

A few animals and their habitats are listed with no clear progression other than hot/cold and outside/inside.

The third sentence of the response is a fragment.

There are many missing commas to separate independent clauses, too many to list (e.g., “The enviorment would be under the sea and its’ ecosystem would be in enenamy.“ and “…your enviorment is on Earth and your Ecosystem is most likely in a house…” and several others). There is also an unnecessary apostrophe to show possession with an already possessive form: “its’ ecosystem.”

There are a couple of unnecessary (and inconsistent) uses of capital letters (&#8220;Enviorment,&#8221; &#8220;Ecosystem&#8221;); however, there are no grade level capitalization errors.

There is a missing article in the first sentence before “ecosystem.” There is also an error with the frequently confused words there and their (“there tree” instead of their tree).

There are many spelling errors “enviorment,” “tempatcher,” “enenamy,” “squarles,” “collectig,” “te,” “bild,” “tyey,” “some thing” (instead of something), etc.

The response supports a limited main idea with an overall limited use of available information from the sources.

Source details are unattributed, but they do come from more than one source.

Some evidence from the sources is weakly integrated with the writer’s own examples and explanations (clown fish, birds fly south), and there is some attempted elaboration (e.g., comparing the environment/ecosystem of a clown fish to that of a human).

The [laudable] attempt to paraphrase source materials results in some simplistic language (&#8220;Another animal is a bird. They live with squiarls in trees…&#8221;) and possible misinterpretation (&#8220;…and its’ ecosystem would be in enenamy&#8221;).

There is also a budding sense of style (&#8220;Ecosystem is basicly where you live…&#8221;; &#8220;For you, your environment is on Earth…and maybe in your own bedroom&#8221;).

There is an evident if simplistic main idea (definitions for &#8220;ecosystem&#8221; &amp; &#8220;environment&#8221;), with the details focusing on examples of animals and their survival. The attempt to differentiate between an ecosystem and an environment, however, reflects some confusion: &#8220;For you, your enviorment is on Earth and your Ecosystem is most likely in a house and maybe in your own bed room.&#8221;

Some transitions attempt to provide connections (&#8220;For example&#8221;; &#8220;Another…&#8221;; &#8220;…so&#8221;; &#8220;…and this is…&#8221;).

The first two sentences provide an introduction that attempts to give definitions, but the conclusion is weak (&#8220;I hope you learned something new&#8221;).

The response attempts to provide examples of the interaction between environment, ecosystem, and survival, but the overall progression is weakened by the confusing definitions of these.

There are many run-on sentences (“But animals aren’t, they are outside…”; “I know what you’re thinking ‘How do ice fish stay alive.’”; “Most of the desert animals hunt at night…, that means they are nactural.”).

There are a couple of errors with punctuation: a missing comma (e.g. &#8220;Well its&#8230;&#8221;) and a missing question mark at the end of the quotation “How do ice fish stay alive.”

There are errors forming plurals that result in agreement problems or confusion (“Thing” instead of &#8220;Things&#8221; in the first and third sentences, and toward the end of the response, “animal” should be &#8220;animals&#8221;). There are also errors with frequently confused words: “Its” instead of it’s (multiple times) and “pore” instead of poor. In addition, “though” is used instead of through and “cause” instead of because.

There are many spelling errors (e.g. “thier,” “poeple,” “destroring,” “opist”). Note that “nactural” (nocturnal) is not a grade 4 word.

The response provides some facts and details (e.g., temperatures of cold weather habitats; examples of hot weather animals) to support a main idea but those details are limited to a single source.

Source details, which are unattributed, come from only one source.

There is some variety of elaborative techniques (rhetorical question, commentary reflecting the writer’s voice, definition). Some of the elaboration may draw inferences that are related to, but not necessarily supported by, the text (&#8220;..where poeple can shoot them and thing are destroring thier homes&#8221;).

The response develops the ideas with a mix of precise (&#8220;nocturnal&#8221;) and more general language (&#8220;The opisit of cold is hot, so that leads us to the desert.&#8221;).

There is an emerging sense of style (&#8220;I know what you’re thinking &#8216;How do ice fish stay alive.'&#8221;).

The main idea–that animals live in a cruel environment—is not initially clear, but once established, the focus is maintained throughout.

Transitions are varied, ranging from formulaic (&#8220;I&#8217;m going to tell you…&#8221;) to using commentary to connect ideas (&#8220;I know what you’re thinking…&#8221;; &#8220;Here we go!&#8221;). Overall, the connections are adequate.

The introduction is somewhat unclear unless the reader assumes the first phrase is a title and the first complete sentence is intended as a hook with the main idea being that animals aren’t protected and live in a cruel world. The conclusion is adequate for a news report, which isn’t quite the same as an informational article but is acceptable for the purpose.

The progression of ideas follows that of source #1, smoothly moving from cold weather animal survival to hot desert animal survival.

There is one minor error with sentence formation: The sentence “The pressure of the deep sea making your eardrums pop like a ballon” is technically a fragment, although changing “making” to &#8220;makes&#8221; would make this a complete sentence.

There is a comma missing to separate independent clauses (Little elf owls make homes….and it is a nice home…”).

There is one capitalization error at the beginning of the sentence that begins with “they.&#8221;

There are two errors with subject/verb agreement: “And the cold wintery artic make you freeze to death” and “There’s…vents.” However, agreement between subject and verb is a progressive language skill (implemented by grade level in progressive levels of difficulty), and grade 4 students may not recognize agreement with inverted structures (verb/subject) such as the lack of agreement with “There’s…vents.”

There are some spelling errors (e.g. “ballon”, “tempture”).

The response includes adequate details to support the main idea, attempting to integrate information from a single source using the writer’s own words (&#8220;blubbery animals&#8221;).

The details all come from source #1 and are unattributed.

The information is adequately developed. For example, the response predicts how humans would survive in conditions that challenge animals (&#8220;if you went to the desert you would toast like a pizza…&#8221;; &#8220;making your eardrums pop like a balloon&#8221;). While the development of ideas causes occasional confusion (&#8220;when there’s water there is heat&#8221;), overall the response does extend text details.

The vocabulary is overall effective (&#8220;vast,&#8221; &#8220;furry,&#8221; and &#8220;blubbery&#8221;) despite occasional awkward use (&#8220;breaking your eyesight&#8221;).

The attempts to create an engaging style are evident: appealing to the reader (&#8220;You might be wondering…&#8221;; &#8220;Paint a picture in your mind&#8221;).

There is a clearly stated main idea (how plants and animals survive in the wild) that is sustained throughout.

There are some transitions (&#8220;and&#8221;; &#8220;…but&#8221;), although they are not consistently used. For example, there are no transitions between referencing human survival skills (&#8220;…you would toast like a pizza&#8221;) and the shift to animals and plants, and there is no transition between the desert and the shift to the ocean.

The first third of the response provides general introductory information explaining how humans would fare in the extreme environments (&#8220;You might be wondering….&#8221;; &#8220;This is the Cruel World!&#8221;; &#8220;The temperature is so hot it would kill you…&#8221;). However, the response lacks any conclusion at all.

Although the response clearly moves from cold to hot and back to cold environments, it merely mimics the order of source #1, listing the animals that live there. The progression of ideas is also somewhat weakened by the longer introduction and abrupt ending.

Although this response shows some complexity, the attempts to create mature sentences result in some errors that demonstrate an overall uneven control of conventions, for example a sentence fragment (“Such as, Polar Bears, Ice Fish, Penguins, and Whales.”) and a run-on sentence (“Polar Bears [are] a different story though, they dig up the best den they can”).

There are a few unnecessary commas (e.g., “Such as, Polar Bears, Ice Fish…” and “For penguins, a big group hug with a few other penguin buddys, is all they need…”). However, the unnecessary commas are really the result of attempted complexity and reflect above grade level “rules.” There is also a missing apostrophe (“dont”) in the contraction don’t.

There are some unnecessary (and inconsistently used) capital letters for common nouns (e.g., “Whales,” “Penguins,” “Polar Bears).

There are some errors with subject/verb agreement: “layers…that keeps them…” and “There&#8217;s also all kinds of fish too,” However, one agreement error is clearly above grade level. There are also some errors with articles (e.g., “in the a cold…” ), and an error with the frequently confused words its/it’s in the final sentence.

There are several spelling errors including errors forming plurals (“buddys”) along with other grade 4-appropriate words (“different, “wether,” “enviorment”). Note: “multpule” and “schorching” are not grade 4.

Comprehensive information from Source #1 is well-integrated and effectively paraphrased (e.g., &#8220;if it’s dark, then it is going to be cold&#8221;). More information from the other available sources would be needed for a higher score.

Details from the source material are synthesized and developed with some variety of elaboration strategies, including logical, if obvious, conclusions (&#8220;It would be almost impossible [for humans to survive] without tools&#8221;; &#8220;the ocean is the exact opposite of the desert&#8221;).

Precise language (&#8220;flee,&#8221; &#8220;scorching&#8221;) enhances the response.

One of the strong points of this response is its effective style (&#8220;They still have more tricks up their blubber and fat&#8221;; &#8220;For penguins, a big group hug..is all they need…&#8221;; &#8220;But Whales dont stick around…&#8221;), confirming the score of 4.

The main idea is clear and appropriate for the task: &#8220;all [animals] need is a little help from nature, and then they can survive.&#8221; That focus is maintained throughout the response.

Transitions are overall adequate. Although some transitions are repetitive (&#8220;But…&#8221;; &#8220;Now…&#8221;), there are other transition devices that move from introduction to the body (&#8220;If you want to know how, keep reading&#8221;) and between habitats (&#8220;Deserts are a diffrent story though&#8221;).

The introduction is overall effective, beginning with a generality (&#8220;very special creatures&#8221;) followed by a comparison between humans and animals, then leading up to the main idea (&#8220;all [animals] need is a little help from nature, and then they can survive&#8221;). The conclusion is effective (&#8220;Wether its the schorching hot desert, the cold ocean, or the freezing artic, they can always find a way to survive&#8221;).

The progression of ideas is clear: The original source used progresses from animal to animal, which means moving from cold weather animals to hot weather animals and then returning to cold ocean ice fish. Instead, this response groups the cold weather animal habitats and warm weather habitats, providing a clear progression.

Many common words are misspelled, including “kils” (kills), “anemals” (animals), “faines” (finds), “roten” (rotten), “olso” (also), and “sllep” (sleep).
&nbsp;

No capital letters are used, even for the beginnings of sentences.

End punctuation is sometimes used, but no other efforts to punctuate are evident with the exception of the ellipses in paragraph 1, which have no real purpose.

The first paragraph consists of two run-on sentences.

Incorrect word choices result in multiple grammatical flaws.

The writer includes snippets of evidence from the sources, but no attributions are made.

There is little to no evidence of attempts at elaboration in this essay; it is a collection of random, isolated details from the source material. As a result, there is no evidence of an appropriate style.

This response lacks a controlling idea to provide the essay some focus.

There is no real introduction present, although there is an attempt at a conclusion (“and thas how they get hibetrnation.”).

There is one attempt at a transition, although it is a weak one (“and more they olso…”).

The ideas are randomly ordered, with no connections between them.

Words are spelled correctly with the exception of typos in the words “sometimews” and “the” instead of “they” in sentence 1.
&nbsp;

At times, hibernation is capitalized when it does not begin a sentence.
&nbsp;

There is a missing apostrophe in sentence 1 (“so when its fall…”) and several instances where commas are needed to separate an introductory element (e.g., “When the hibernation is over[,] the cubs will be big…”). Commas are also missing in compound sentences (e.g., “the cubs will be big[,] and they will not need there mother…”).
&nbsp;

Most sentences contain structural flaws, resulting in run-on sentences (e.g., sentence 1) and awkward constructions (“But when they Hibernate the animals take food where they will stay during there Hibernation so they will sometimews wake up have a little snack and times they go to go flush it out the go back to sleep.”).
&nbsp;

Search Annotated Student Responses

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy

Examples

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy