Grade 6

Narrative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Robots

Conventions

Development/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There is a single run-on sentence (a comma splice in paragraph 4: &#8220;He was too fast, I couldn’t catch him&#8221;).

There are numerous punctuation errors, primarily with commas. There are many unnecessary commas including after “talk” in sentence 5 of the first paragraph and two unnecessary commas in paragraph 4: after &#8220;mom&#8221; and &#8220;intently&#8221;.  There are missing commas with introductory elements (&#8220;So after dad got home we ate…&#8221; and &#8220;…just as I said it he was out my door&#8221;) and/or compound constructions (&#8220;I rolled over and to my great surprise there was a robot…&#8221;). There are errors with punctuation marks placed outside quotation marks (&#8220;Hello&#8221;, instead of &#8220;Hello,&#8221;) and an error with an unnecessary period after a quote (&#8220;…him?&#8221;.&#8221;) Additionally, &#8220;nights&#8221; in the last sentence of the third paragraph should be &#8220;night’s&#8221; to show possession, but &#8220;cheerio’s&#8221; should not have an apostrophe.

There is a capitalization error (“cheerio’s”) in the second paragraph.

There are some errors with verbs including problems with verb tense shifts (and/or missing verbs) such as &#8220;I woke up. I look at the clock. It 7:00 a.m.&#8221; There is also a grammar usage error (“had went” should be “had gone”) in the fourth paragraph.

This response has a spelling error (“dissapointed”) in the third paragraph.

Overall, the events, characters, and setting are well-developed and effectively show the events and experience.

There are few, if any, references to information in the source materials: wanting a “real robot who does real robot things” and having the robot talk, dance, sing, and play games are extremely general references.

Narrative techniques effectively elaborate the story details. Characters are revealed through dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;Happy Birthday honey!&#8217; said mom. &#8216;Happy Birthday squirt.&#8217; said dad. And baby Jane tried to muster out a &#8216;Haffy Birfday!'&#8221;), and descriptions of the narrator’s thoughts show his personality as well (&#8220;It had a picture of a robot on it. That made me even more sad, knowing my robot would never be real. But it was my birthday! I had to be happy with the other things I got&#8221;).

Concrete words/phrases (&#8220;muster,&#8221; &#8220;listened intently&#8221;) enhance the narrative. There is some general sensory language (&#8220;woke up groggy and tired&#8221;; &#8220;very needed socks&#8221;) but little, if any, actual figurative language (&#8220;I am your birthday wish come true!&#8221;). Overall, the language is effective enough to support a score of 4 for this category.

The style is lively and promotes the mysterious tone of the narrative (&#8220;Somewhere very special, Henry. Somewhere very, very special&#8221;).

The plot is cohesive: there is an evident conflict (the narrator wants a robot and is always disappointed when he doesn’t get one) and resolution. Although the reader never learns how Risto-Bot got there, this uncertainty doesn’t diminish the overall sense of unity, creating instead a sense of mystery.

The narrator’s personality is well-established through his thoughts (&#8220;That day at school everyone wished me happy birthday! I couldn&#8217;t wait to get home and open my presents! Maybe this year I would get a real robot!&#8221;), and the family is revealed through their dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;Happy Birthday honey!&#8217; said mom. &#8216;Happy Birthday squirt.&#8217; said dad. And baby Jane tried to muster out a &#8216;Haffy Birfday!'&#8221;). The setting is similarly well-established (&#8220;My mom is making me breakfast of eggs and toast, and my dad is reading the paper. My baby sister is eating her cheerio&#8217;s&#8221;).

There is an over-reliance on the simplistic transition “then” in paragraph 2, and there is some abruptness, although that could be an attempt to establish a quick pace (&#8220;I woke up. I look at the clock. It 7:00 a.m. and it&#8217;s my birthday! I jump out of bed and run downstairs&#8221;). But overall, the transitions are adequate (&#8220;When I was finished…&#8221;; &#8220;So after dad got home…&#8221;).

The chronological sequence is appropriate for the events, which take place over two days, and the events are logically connected, leaving the reader with few questions. There are minor gaps (e.g., if the robot was “poking” the narrator, how did it suddenly appear in the middle of the room drawing with markers?), but they don’t interfere with the overall strong sense of unity.

The beginning paragraph nicely sets up the narrator’s excitement, with the final line of the first paragraph (&#8220;&#8230;that all changed on one special morning&#8221;) successfully hooking the reader. The second paragraph nicely sets up the setting. The ending is [6th grade] effective, again playing up the mystery of the inexplicable.

There are some errors with sentence structure. There are run-on sentences in paragraph 1 (&#8220;Mrs.Janice was about to assign the class’s science assisgnment everyone stood waiting wondering&#8221;), paragraph 2 (&#8220;When she got home she was still alone knowing this she tried to remember why&#8221;) and paragraph 5 (&#8220;Then she heard her teacher talking she was about to announce who was presenting first&#8221;). There are sentence fragments in paragraph 2 (&#8220;Threw a dash of glitter, smeared a little paint and pasted pictures&#8221;) and in paragraph 5 (&#8220;First Carl&#8217;s, then Bob&#8217;s, third Sally&#8217;s and so on&#8221;). Arguably, both fragments could be purposeful, intended for style.

The student struggles with comma usage throughout the response, and the errors are too numerous to list. Paragraph 1 contains a representative sample of each type of comma use error, including missing commas with compound clauses/sentences and missing commas when introducing direct quotes. For example, &#8220;Amy… raised [her] hand and Mrs.Janice asked what Amy needed and Amy said &#8216;What kind of robot? And….&#8217; Mrs.Janice ignored her for a second and then replied &#8216;Well, you buy the parts and design your own.'&#8221;
Again, using paragraph 1 as an example, commas are missing after introductory elements: &#8220;After everyone finish reading the paper the bell rang and the students went home.&#8221;

There is a missing capital letter to begin a sentence (paragraph 3: it instead of It).

There are a few grammar usage errors. The student struggles with using the correct form of “to, too” (e.g. “And Mrs.Janice loved them all to.” And “‘That sounds to difficult!’”). Additionally, there are errors with verb tense (e.g., paragraph 1: &#8220;After everyone finish reading the paper the bell rang and the students went home,&#8221; and in paragraph 4: &#8220;Her robot step into school&#8221;). Note that the mildly confusing use of will instead of “would” is not a grade 6-appropriate error.

This response has a few spelling errors (“assisgnment”, “awhile”, and “To day”).

The experience, including the problems with creating the robot, are clearly developed.

Several details about the robot and its creation reflect information presented in the source materials. However, having the fictional teacher assign an authentic article to the fictional class is particularly effective.

The description is precise (e.g., &#8220;…she put the cute little puppy stickers inside of each colorful little polka-dot&#8221;) with some dialogue (&#8220;&#8230;The presenter will be&#8230; Amy!&#8221; and &#8220;Wow, give Amy a round of applause!&#8221;). Overall, the experience is thoroughly developed.

The use of sensory details and figurative language (e.g., &#8220;…as a cool breeze blew through her hair&#8221;; &#8220;…she felt a knot in her throat&#8221;; &#8220;students rushed inside like a stampede&#8221;) and the use of concrete language (&#8220;Amy felt clueless&#8221;; &#8220;She got dressed in her spotted polka-dot dress with her hot pink flats&#8221;) enhance the narrative.

The style is appropriate and consistent.

The narrative establishes and maintains a clear plot. Although there is no dramatic conflict, several problems are introduced, including building the robot, controlling the robot, and finally, insulating/ waterproofing the robot. Each problem has a clear solution (including appropriating parts from dad’s new computer!), and the story ending brings the experience full circle (Amy showcases her robot for the suitably impressed classmates).

There is a clear context for the story (a class assignment), and readers are introduced to the main character, Amy, whose character is consistently described throughout (&#8220;She realized it would be easier if she didn’t complain&#8221;; &#8220;She was a loner anyway and did not like help&#8221;; &#8220;Amy felt clueless&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;She blushed at the thought of everyone liking her robot&#8221;).

The story events transition evenly from one to another, moving from the initial assignment to the construction and refinement of the robot to the day of the presentation and subsequent excitement over the presentations. Simplistic transitions (&#8220;First,&#8221; &#8220;next,&#8221; &#8220;so&#8221;) are combined with more subtle ones (&#8220;Eventually,&#8221; &#8220;After a while&#8221;).

The sequence of events (chronological) is easy to follow: Mrs. Janice assigns the project; Amy makes the poster board and robot; Amy test drives the robot; Amy waterproofs and insulates her robot. Finally, the day of the presentation arrives, Amy rides her robot to school, and the response concludes with the successful presentation. Occasional verb tense/mood shifts cause very minor confusion (&#8220;Her robot step into school&#8221;; &#8220;She walked outside wondering what the presentation will be like&#8221;). Note: There are very minor lapses with point-of-view (e.g., &#8220;Mrs. Janice started to wonder what was so hard about it&#8221;), but point-of-view is not a grade 6 scoring criterion.

The beginning nicely sets up the context for the story (a class assignment). The response closes effectively: Amy presents her impressive robot successfully, ending with reflection (&#8220;she really didn’t have a favorite because she loved them all. And Mrs. Janice loved them all too&#8221;) that provides effective closure.

There are no sentence formation errors.

There are a few punctuation errors (missing commas before dialog, missing apostrophes in contractions, etc), but not enough to impede comprehension. And it must be noted that although students are not assessed on typing skills, it is evident that some errors may be due to the student&#8217;s lack of proficient typing skills.

There are a few capitalization errors with proper nouns and in the dialog.

There are no grammar usage errors.

This response has some spelling errors.

The experience is unevenly developed. The narrator’s character is adequately developed, as is the setting and the context for the robot project. However, unexplained key details (e.g., why the robot didn’t work or how it got fixed) keep the overall experience from being adequately developed.

Other than a vague reference to the robot talking and having an on/off switch, there are no connections to information from source materials.

Narrative techniques are used unevenly. There is some dialogue (e.g., &#8220;Is there anything in particular we have to do? &#8220;Yes actually you have to use your imagination!&#8221;).
The use of dialogue is somewhat effective in developing the relationship between Danny and Flynn, but there is no real reason for Danny to be in the story other than to compare his mediocre science “trick” with Flynn’s robot.
The use of description is also uneven. For example, there are details to describe the Chinese restaurant (its name, the wishing well, the fortune cookies), but there is little use of descriptive details to illustrate more important details/events/experiences, leaving the reader with questions about exactly what the robot was like, why it didn’t work, how it got fixed, etc.

Although there is little sensory or figurative language, overall the language is adequate (&#8220;Answes popped up everywhere but Flynn only stuck with one&#8221;), except at the end when it gets very general (&#8220;everybody loved it and asked him to make him talk and ms Flowers gave him and A and he went off happy…&#8221;).

There is an occasional sense of style especially with the dialogue (“Yes actually you have to use your imagination”; “Wow how are you going to pull that off”).

The response unevenly attempts to establish a plot. The initial events (the planning for the product, followed by the building of the robot) are adequate. However, the parts of the story that deal with the actual conflict (the robot doesn’t work) are weak. In addition, some details (Danny’s project) resurface throughout the response, but serve no real purpose.

Characters, including the narrator, are adequately established, although some of the characters serve no vital role in the events (e.g., Danny). There is, however, adequate information about the setting and context (school assignment, Chinese restaurant).

The use of transitions is uneven. There are some nice transitional words and phrases that work well to show the sequence of events (e.g., &#8220;Suddenly…&#8221;; &#8220;A while later…&#8221;; &#8220;With that&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;Once he got the materials…&#8221;). However, the transition word &#8220;when&#8221; is repeated so frequently in the second half of the narrative that it becomes distracting, reinforcing the feeling that the ending is rushed.

The sequence of events is uneven. The planning and building stages are logically presented, but there is some irrelevant (as presented) information (e.g., &#8220;Danny&#8217;s idea for his science project is putting a needle through the a balloon without it popping&#8221;). There is also a significant narrative gap: readers never know what the “problem” with the robot was, only that the narrator tossed a coin in the wishing well, wishing that the robot “would work,” and the “fix” was then mysteriously predicted by the fortune cookie. From there, the events quickly lead to a general ending (&#8220;…he showed everyone his robot. Everyone loved it….&#8221;).

The beginning is adequate, using dialogue to establish the narrative elements. The ending is rushed and somewhat general (&#8220;[Flynn] showed everyone his robot. They loved it….Mrs. Flowers gave him an A and he went off happy with his robot forever&#8221;).

There are many run-on sentences throughout the response. As representative examples just from paragraph 1, the second sentence of the response is a comma splice (&#8220;Joe Huckleberry, the dad of 1 child, he is a scientist, he likes to do wacky inventions and likes to watch the show, Berrybusters&#8221;) as is the final sentence of that paragraph (&#8220;As they start to get distracted, Billy starts heading down the flights of stairs to the Basement, luckily, he knows the combination to go downstairs, as he opens the door to the basement&#8221;). Also from paragraph 1, there is a sentence fragment (&#8220;And the last of the Huckleberrys&#8217;, Billy&#8221;).

This response has many punctuation errors that are too numerous to list, although most of these are with commas. There are commas missing to introduce quotes (as just one example from paragraph 3: &#8220;…he heard a voice saying &#8216;Hello there, Freda!'&#8221;).
Conversely, there are many errors with unnecessary commas. Just from the first paragraph, such errors include the first sentence of the response: &#8220;The Huckleberry Family is a special family, because they have…&#8221; and sentence 3 in paragraph 1: &#8220;…she is the freak of the family, and does not like germs in the house.&#8221;
Missing apostrophes contribute to many of the spelling errors (&#8220;Whats&#8221; and &#8220;doesnt&#8221;). In addition, the response either fails to punctuate the title of TV programs or inaccurately uses quotes; technically, the title of TV programs should be in italics or underlined.

There are missing capitals in the first words of sentences (e.g., as one example from paragraph 1: &#8220;not long before Billy’s bedtime&#8221;) and &#8220;Basement&#8221; should not be capitalized. There are missing capitals at the beginning of dialogue in paragraph 3 (“how could this happen?”) and missing capitals for &#8220;billy&#8221; and &#8220;dad&#8221; in that same paragraph. The personal pronoun &#8220;I&#8221; lacks a capital letter throughout.

There is an error with pronoun and antecedent agreement in paragraph 1: &#8220;Billy is playing outside and ding-dong ditching their neighbors&#8221; (note that since Billy is otherwise identified as “he,” this constitutes an agreement error). There is a minor problem with verb tenses: the response begins in present tense but then shifts between past and tense (e.g., paragraph 2: &#8220;…closes…turns…found…looks…found…takes…saw…&#8221;).

This response has many spelling errors (“up stairs,” “assortions,” “eariler,” “broom stick,” and “incedent”).

Characters and events are adequately developed. There are a few inconsistent details (e.g., why was Billy “shocked” when his dad told him the robot had come to life?) or marginally relevant details (e.g., “playing ding dong ditching their neighbors”), but overall the development is adequate.

Connections to the source materials are vague (conceivably, the robot performing kitchen tasks is an extension based on source materials).

Narrative elements develop the experience and events adequately. The dialogue is mostly effective (&#8220;&#8216;Where is Billy?&#8217; The robot replied &#8216;Behind the large crate, sir!'&#8221;), and some details effectively describe events (&#8220;He found vast assortions of machines, to Ray-Guns, to even the rare Automatic- Snowmaker-9000&#8221;).
There are some inconsistencies, however. For example, some details are developed more than they need to be (&#8220;[Billy] starts watching the TV show, &#8216;Berrybusters&#8217;. Billy goes up stairs, brushes his teeth, and heads up into his room&#8221;), while other more important details lack specificity and leave questions (&#8220;Billy discovers that his dad is making a robot. Billy watches and asks questions to dad all day long&#8221;).

The language use is somewhat uneven. There is some nice sensory/ figurative language (&#8220;hopped in bed like lightning&#8221;; &#8220;whacking her broomstick&#8221;) and some concrete precise language (&#8220;ruckus&#8221;; &#8220;beckoned&#8221;; &#8220;disessembled&#8221;). On the other hand, there are also some awkward constructions that cause occasional confusion (&#8220;One sunny, shiny day to come outside&#8221;; &#8220;it turned came to life&#8221;). Overall, however, the language adequately illustrates the experience.

The narrative style is somewhat effective with some lively descriptions of the characters’ interactions nicely illustrating the experience. As one example, the story establishes the narrator’s mother’s character early in the story: &#8220;Freda Huckleberry, the wife of Joe, and the mother of Billy, [who is] the freak of the family, and [who] does not like germs in the house.&#8221; This illustration is followed later with Freda &#8220;holding a broom stick head-up as she started yelling and screaming as she is whacking her broom stick at the robot.&#8221;

Plot elements are adequately established, although some of the information is only loosely related to the central conflict (e.g., &#8220;[dad] likes to watch the show, Berrybusters&#8221;).

Characters and the setting are adequately and consistently established (e.g., the mother, in particular, is well-presented: she is described in the beginning as &#8220;the freak of the family [who] does not like germs in the house,&#8221; which explains why she later enters a scene &#8220;holding a broom stick head-up&#8221;). Most of the setting is also adequately established (e.g., dad’s basement).

Overall, transitions are adequate (&#8220;This time…&#8221;; &#8220;As they start to get distracted…&#8221;; &#8220;The next day…&#8221;) despite occasional awkward connections (&#8220;Billy is playing outside and ding-dong ditching their neighbors. He always has lots of fun. This time, Billy always visits dad in the basement&#8221;).

While the chronological order is sustained, there are some gaps in the narrative sequence. For example, after Billy snuck up to bed, what happened between Freda, Joe, and the robot? Furthermore, inconsistencies with verb tenses contribute to occasional confusion about the sequence of events (e.g., the switch from present to past, which occurs throughout the narrative).

The beginning is effective in setting up the narrative. The ending, however, is abrupt and is less than satisfying (&#8220;Billy had many questions that evening, but he had solved them himself…and he loved Hubert&#8221;).

There are some run-on sentences, mostly comma splices. Examples include in paragraph 4 (&#8220;It was coming right towards him, it seemed like it was going to hit him&#8221;), and in the final paragraph (&#8220;…even just the way he walked, he flowed better&#8221;). There are also several run-ons in dialogue; however, these may be purposeful and more a matter of an attempt to sound like authentic dialogue than a lack of control of sentence conventions (e.g., paragraph 4 &#8220;It can&#8217;t hit him, he will always catch it, he&#8217;s a robot.&#8221; And then in the final paragraph &#8220;Wow, well that&#8217;s it, Marvin is a human now.&#8221;)

There are numerous punctuation errors with dialogue including incorrect punctuation before, after, or within the dialogue. As examples, there is a period instead of a comma after dialogue in paragraph 2: &#8220;&#8216;Good throw master.&#8217; said Marvin.&#8221;
In the final paragraph, there is a missing comma to introduce dialogue (&#8220;It got me thinking &#8220;I wonder if this could happen to anybodies robot.&#8221;&#8221;) and another missing comma later in that paragraph (&#8220;&#8216;…may be surprising,&#8217; it read &#8216;but this is not…'&#8221;).
There are missing commas in compound sentences at the end of paragraph 4 (&#8220;He fell to the floor and he started twitching&#8221;); another in paragraph 5 (&#8220;I wanted to do all that i could to help him so I went…&#8221;); and another at the end of the response (&#8220;It took me a couple days to get used to the idea of Marvin being human but that&#8217;s when I realized….&#8221;).
There is an error with apostrophes (&#8220;Anybodies robot&#8221; should be a possessive: &#8220;anybody’s&#8221;).
Note that the semi-colon is used both correctly and incorrectly in several places; however, the semi-colon is not a grade 6 skill, so the incorrect uses are not noted.

The student fails to capitalize “i” multiple times throughout the response.

In “That&#8217;s why he started to act different,” “different” should be “differently.”
Additionally, there is a missing preposition in “It took me a couple days to get used…” after the word “couple.”
There is also a subject-verb agreement error in “My plans for the day was just to play with Marvin…”: “was” should be “were.”

This response has no spelling errors.

The response develops the setting and a sense for what is to come (&#8220;they would be coming home to something far different&#8221;) while also establishing the narrator’s character (&#8220;I guess that’s where it all went wrong; my bad throw&#8221;).

The use of source materials is appropriate and subtle (Marvin “senses” the exterior situation in a similar way to the Google car, and the robot plays games and initially serves as a butler).

The response effectively combines explanation with dialogue. For example, the “exchange” between Marvin and the narrator (“Good throw Master”…“Thank you, and same”) moves into interior reflection (&#8220;&#8230;sometimes my throws were pretty bad. I guess that&#8217;s where it all went wrong; my bad throw. I thought it would just be another bad throw, but it wasn&#8217;t; it changed everything&#8221;). This type of development is used throughout and effectively advances the story. The response also develops the setting while foreshadowing what is to come (&#8220;they would be coming home to something far different&#8221;; &#8220;I guess that’s where it all went wrong&#8221;; &#8220;my bad throw&#8221;).

The only relative weakness in this response is with the use of general rather than precise language (e.g., &#8220;My throws were pretty bad&#8221;; &#8220;I rapidly clicked on the first thing that popped up&#8221;; &#8220;I attached the light blue instead of the dark blue. That&#8217;s why he started to act different. He started being funny and not acting so serious&#8221;). The lack of exceptional language does not interfere with the overall narration of the experience and is adequate.

The style is particularly effective. It shows the events (&#8220;&#8216;It&#8217;s OK sir, I hav-&#8216; That&#8217;s when it hit Marvin&#8221;), establishes pacing (&#8220;- It was coming right towards him, it seemed like it was going to hit him…. Everything was happening so slowly but yet so suddenly&#8221;), and overall crafts a sense of mystery.

Narrative elements are effectively integrated into a unified and sustained plot with an effectively crafted and resolved conflict: Marvin is damaged (the climax), but, after being repaired (the turning point), he comes to life.

The character of the narrator, as well as the character of both Marvin-the-robot (&#8220;&#8216;Good throw master.&#8217; said Marvin&#8221;) and Marvin-the-human (&#8220;He acted&#8230;smoother you could say&#8221;; &#8220;even just the way he walked, he flowed better&#8221;) are well-established. The setting is adequate. Of note is the effective point-of-view (a grade 7 skill): The use of inner and outer dialogue, in particular, helps show readers the narrator’s perspective (&#8220;It can&#8217;t hit him, he will always catch it, he&#8217;s a robot.&#8221; my brain told me).

Transitions are effective at showing connections (&#8220;It all started when we were playing baseball&#8221;; &#8220;That’s when it hit…&#8221;; &#8220;That&#8217;s where i made my mistake&#8221;; &#8220;There it goes&#8221;; &#8220;That’s when I realized…&#8221;).

The chronological order is logical, and effective pacing (an above-grade level skill) is maintained throughout. For example, sometimes the short sentences help establish the heightened moments (e.g., &#8220;It was coming right towards him, it seemed like it was going to hit him. &#8216;It can&#8217;t hit him, he will always catch it, he&#8217;s a robot.&#8217; my brain told me. &#8216;Watch out Marvin!&#8217; I told him&#8230;. Everything was happening so slowly but yet so suddenly&#8221;). There are no significant gaps in the narrative sequence.

The opening is very effective at establishing a sense of mystery (&#8220;it started out as a normal day…little did they know that they would be coming home to something far different than a normal robot&#8221;). The ending is somewhat simplistic, with the reader wanting to read more about what will happen next (&#8220;It took me a couple days to get used to the idea of Marvin being human but that&#8217;s when I realized; I will love Marvin no matter what happens or what he is&#8221;). But the narrator’s attachment to Marvin as a human is a [6th grade] logical extension based on the events and does provide closure.

In paragraph 4, there is a comma splice in the first clause of the writer’s list of wishes (&#8220;I wish my fear of the dark would go away, I&#8217;m 13 for goodness sake, I wish my mom…&#8221;). In paragraph 7, the internal dialogue (which is not punctuated as dialogue) strings thoughts together as with stream of consciousness writing rather than as grammatical run-ons (&#8220;This is your one chance to see what your mom has been working on, you&#8217;re such a bad daughter Grace, go on Grace, it will be fun!&#8221;).

The only serious grade-relevant errors come in the punctuation category, including missing commas with conjunctions in compound constructions. Paragraph 5 provides a good example of these errors: &#8220;Rain begins to pour outside and my heart races faster. It&#8217;s now 1:18 in the morning and still I haven&#8217;t been able to get to sleep&#8230; I run over to my door and I open it as well as turning on the lights….&#8221; However these repeated errors reflect only a single type of comma use error. Given the competence with other types of punctuation (colon, ellipsis), the response still demonstrates adequate use of punctuation overall.

There are no errors with capital letters, although the use of capitals for emphasis (&#8220;GO GRACE&#8221; and &#8220;A ROBOT&#8221;) is unnecessary.

There is a grammar usage subject/verb agreement error (&#8220;A lot of words was on the page…&#8221;). There are two minor uses of adjectives that should be comparative adverbs instead (&#8220;I’ll breathe easier&#8221; instead of &#8220;more easily,&#8221; and &#8220;I sighed, agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221; instead of “how slowly…is going”). There are minor issues with inconsistent verb tenses (as one example, from paragraph 7: &#8220;I walk over to a wooden work table in the middle of the lab. A metal body was lying there. The yellow eyes were dim and dead. I look over to the shelves…&#8221;).

There are numerous misspellings (e.g., secong, suddent, don’t’t, wether, panrty, and agrivated, which would not be a grade 6 word) and some inappropriate words used (&#8220;mad&#8221; instead of &#8220;made,&#8221; &#8220;clippers&#8221; instead of &#8220;slippers,&#8221; &#8220;encaves&#8221; instead of &#8220;encases&#8221; or something similar, etc.).

Vivid descriptive details effectively show the setting (descriptions of the pervasive darkness) and develop the narrator’s character (repeated references to her inhaler showing her anxiety; the inner conflict between “good Grace” and “bad Grace”).

There are connections to the source material including robots that “talk” and the fictional Asimov story in which the robot is a babysitter, who unlike the parents, “always has time to play.”

The response demonstrates effective use of narrative techniques to illustrate the experience. The response begins and ends with dialogue between the mother and daughter, with the intervening story being narrated via internal dialogue. For example, inner dialogue shows Grace’s conflict (&#8220;GO GRACE! This is your one chance to see what your mom has been working on, you&#8217;re such a bad daughter Grace, go on Grace, it will be fun!&#8221;). The narrative also uses description to illustrate Grace’s anxiety (&#8220;My worries and fears of darkness begin to bubble up in my throat. I start breathing hard again feeling my asthma attack near. I grab my inhaler from my nightstand and suck in the medicine&#8221;) as well as the mother’s laboratory (&#8220;I walk over to the wooden work table in the middle of the lab. A metal body was lying there. The yellow eyes were dim and dead….[then] a bright yellow light shudders on from the middle of the room. The light flickers on and off for a secong before it gets stable and strong and bright&#8221;). The details about the robot (Grace 500) play a small role, but its “coming to life” successfully creates the climax of the story, effectively revealing the mother’s good intentions.

The language is effective with figurative and sensory language enhancing the response (&#8220;…fears of darkness begin to bubble up in my throat&#8221;; &#8220;Black darkness sweeps around my bed swallowing me whole&#8221;; &#8220;I sigh agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221;).

The style enhances the narrative. Short, choppy sentences highlight the narrator’s anxiety (&#8220;I start breathing hard again feeling my asthma attack near. I grab my inhaler from my nightstand and suck in the medicine. I calm myself down and snuggle into bed. I close my eyes and whisper&#8221;) and may also emphasize the slow passing of time (&#8220;I turn on all the lights… I walk into the panrty&#8230; I slide into the chair… I glance at the clock. I sigh agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221;). Punctuation choices, especially with the ellipsis and also the colon,  show an awareness of style.

The plot is effectively unified. From the beginning, with the statement &#8220;And I’m left in utter darkness,&#8221; the writer is able to create tension; establish and maintain the problem (&#8220;Rain begins to pour outside and my heart races faster&#8221;); advance the plot line with the narrator exploring her mother’s lab (after struggling internally with the decision to do so); and, culminating with her discovery, bring resolution to her initial problem (&#8220;It jumps down from the table and crawls toward me. &#8220;I am yo-ur pro-tect-or in the ni-ight,” Grace 500 says slowly&#8221;).

The response effectively establishes the narrator and her point of view (a grade 7 skill). For example, the audience clearly understands Grace’s anxiety (&#8220;I feel sweat trickling down my neck… I bite my nails nervously&#8221;), as well as what she is thinking (&#8220;I had many wishes really: I wish mom wouldn’t have the Scientist’s Lab’s nightshifts, I wish I would quit dreaming that same stupid dream of mom leaving me forever in the dark of night&#8221;). The setting is also effectively established and carried throughout the response (&#8220;Black darkness sweeps around my bed swallowing me whole&#8221;; &#8220;I climb out of bed and shiver as my feet touch the cold floor of my bedroom&#8221;; &#8220;a bright yellow light shudders on from the middle of the room. The light flickers on and off for a secong before it gets stable and strong and bright&#8221;).

Transitions are adequate (&#8220;Then…&#8221;; &#8220;And I’m left…&#8221;; &#8220;Rain begins to pour&#8221;; &#8220;It&#8217;s now 1:18&#8221;; &#8220;All this time&#8221;; &#8220;As I turn of the lights&#8221;). Although the repeated use of “I” at the beginning of sentences is noticeable, it seems to be more of an attempt to focus on Grace’s inner struggle and anxiety rather than being a problem with transitions.

The sequence is chronological: the events progress from Grace’s mother leaving for work, to Grace’s failed attempts to sleep (revealing her anxiety to the audience), to Grace’s midnight snack where she contemplates investigating her mother’s lab, to Grace discovering the robot, to Grace understanding the purpose of the robot, and finally to the return of mother. This sequence is crafted throughout via several devices. For example, the slow passing of time is emphasized by repeated references to the clock (12:31…; 1:18…; 1:34…). Arguably, the short sentences that all begin with I further reinforce the slow pace of the seemingly endless night (&#8220;I turn on all the lights…&#8221;; &#8220;I walk into the panrty&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;I slide into the chair…&#8221;; &#8220;I glance at the clock. I sigh agrivated at how slow Father Time is going&#8221;).

The beginning is compelling, effectively establishing the narrator and her mood. The response immediately establishes Grace’s anxiety by describing her physical response (&#8220;I feel sweat trickling down my neck… I bite my nails nervously&#8221;) and her emotions (&#8220;I had many wishes really: I wish mom wouldn’t have the Scientist’s Lab’s nightshifts, I wish I would quit dreaming that same stupid dream of mom leaving me forever in the dark of night&#8221;). The ending provides closure, moving from resolution (&#8220;Tears well up in my eyes as I realize my mom&#8217;s intentions&#8221;) to Grace’s lessened anxiety (&#8220;I lay gently back on the table&#8221;) to her mother’s return, bringing the narrative full circle.

Grade 8

Geocaching

There are no errors with sentence formation. Note that technical run-ons such as “&#8217;Tasha, I’m going geocaching on Saturday care to join?&#8217;” are probably purposeful to simulate authentic dialogue.

There are comma errors, including missing commas after some intro elements (e.g., “&#8217;Yes girl&#8217;” and &#8220;Although she has several pencils she finds this pencil unique&#8221;) and a missing comma to separate compound independent clauses (“Now they are 15 and they both live…”). Although there are not a lot of punctuation errors, given the brevity of the response, this represents only partial control of the convention.

There are no errors with capital letters.

There are errors with subject/verb agreement (e.g., “Olivia ask” and “Olivia and Tasha has been friends”), and &#8220;a numerous amount of&#8221; should be &#8220;a number of&#8221; (or just &#8220;numerous&#8221;).

There are no errors with spelling.

The development of narrative elements is uneven. Details about Olivia and Tasha are nicely developed (e.g., “Olivia and Tasha has been friends since they were in first grade. Now they are 15 and they both live in New York”). The details (those that are not copied) about Olivia’s earlier geocaching experiences are also developed (e.g., information about her pencil from China), but they are marginally relevant to a story about finding something unusual on a geocaching experience.

Background information about geocaching is appropriate to the story, but much of the information is copied rather than used to inform the story.

The dialogue is effective, but the response is too brief to show adequate use of narrative techniques.

Although word choices such as “obsessed” are effective, there are more general and ineffective word choices (e.g., “fun and exciting”). Some phrasing is confusing (“she finds this pencil unique and keeps it up”). These seem like relatively minor weaknesses, but given the brevity of the response, they demonstrate an uneven use of language.

There is one brief attempt at style to engage the reader (“&#8217;Yes girl I would love to go geocaching!&#8217;”), but the second half of the response is more appropriate for an informational piece than a narrative.

There is minimal evidence of a plot. Rather than a “story,” the response is mostly a setup for a possible experience, followed by background information about geocaching. The second half of the response contains copied text and then information that is more like an interview than a story.

There is some information about the characters (Olivia and Tasha) and a vague reference to New York. What follows, however, is a shift in point of view from a narrated story about a character to reporter-like observations about the character. Overall, given the brevity of the response, the narrative elements are too uneven to receive a higher score.

Words such as “Recently” and “Now” advance the brief narrative part of the response; however, the second part of the story is more loosely connected.

The sequence of events is somewhat confusing. The response starts with background information, followed by a brief exchange between Olivia and Tasha. What follows, however, is not a story about finding something unusual on a geocaching adventure, but is instead background (largely copied) information about Olivia’s previous experiences with geocaching.

The opening and closing are unevenly established. The first sentence introduces the narrator and provides appropriate background information. The final sentence, however, sounds more like the conclusion to an interview than a closing to a story. Overall, the strength of the beginning compensates for the weak ending.

There are some run-on sentences (e.g., “…they probably would not be sitting on a bench, instead they would be walking about like me…”). Some fragments such as “Not as in dead” and “Unliving tree. Unliving tree” are presumably purposeful. Overall, relative to the length and complexity of the response, the few errors do not demonstrate any pattern of errors with this convention.

There are errors with commas, including unnecessary commas (e.g., “they&#8217;re not after the cache because, if they were” and “other feature that once stood with it, but had been reduced”), a missing comma for nonrestrictive information (e.g., &#8220;a statue holding a slab of concrete which was where you were to place something”), and errors with misplaced punctuation (e.g., “the &#8216;ghosts&#8217; house’.”).

There are few errors with grammar usage.

There are a few misspelled words [“skyed, ” “hte,&#8221; “fromt,” and “top soil” (topsoil)].

The narrator is especially well-developed (“While I had come for the enjoyment of the scenery, I knew fromt the start that I would be unable to peaceably enjoy it until I&#8217;d found the ‘treasure’&#8221;), as are the settings and the events (e.g., “At the first sign of a drooping, lifeless tree, I ran over and looked for a mark similar to the one I&#8217;d kept a photo of in my mind. There was nothing, so I chose to search outside the garden, as they obviously meant unliving, as in it was never alive. Not as in dead”).

A wide variety of source materials help to enhance the narrative, increasing the narrator’s credibility as an experienced geocacher (e.g., “muggles,” “GPS,” the wording of the clues, such as “&#8217;Match the top mark with the roots of an unliving tree,'&#8221; the logbook and photo).

A variety of narrative techniques are effectively used. For example, details such as “ghosts’ house” effectively set the mood. Internal dialogue and observations (e.g., “So, feeling awkward and guilty for messing with what wasn&#8217;t my own, I lifted hte fake tree”) help reveal the narrator’s personality. Overall, the story is “shown” rather than “told.”

Strong sensory words (e.g., “squint,” “snatched,” and “shrine”) along with descriptive phrases (e.g., “through the leafy trees” and “cavern of remnants”) more than compensate for the occasional unclear wording (e.g., “equally miniature clearing”).

Stylistic strategies such as the rhetorical question embedded in the internal dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;Ghosts&#8217; house?&#8221;), commentary (e.g., “Sure enough”), and varied sentence structure (e.g., the two-word sentence “I sigh”) all help to set the tone and create the desired mood. The use of parallel structure (i.e., the first sentence in the response) further demonstrates the use of style to engage the reader.

A geocaching experience provides the topic for the narrative, with the conflict (the narrator versus the hidden treasure) effectively described along with numerous obstacles that need to be overcome by solving clues.

A variety of narrative elements are used effectively, including dialogue (inner and outer) to reveal the character’s personality/motivation, a consistent first-person point of view, and description that sets the mood and tone for the story.

The response employs a wide variety of effective strategies to connect events and advance the narrative. These strategies include, but are not limited to, using phrases such as “Unliving tree. Unliving tree” to show the narrator thinking/problem-solving. Other phrases confirm the narrator’s location (e.g., “That&#8217;s when I see it” and “At the first sign”).

The narrative moves from clue to clue, showing the narrator analyzing the information as they make progress toward finding the cache.

The opening effectively drops the reader directly into the geocache quest. The opening also manages to subtly embed necessary background information as the narrator sets out on the hunt. The ending is somewhat abrupt, with no reflection; it provides only adequate closure.

There are some problems with sentence structure. For example, although some run-ons within dialogue may be purposeful (&#8220;&#8216;My feet hurt, how much longer do we have to walk for?&#8217;”), other run-ons are not for rhetorical effect (“My dad handed me the box, it was heavy”). Some fragments may also be purposeful (&#8220;The thrill of getting close to the cache site; the adventure trying to get around obstacles on my way, and the unforgettable prize at the end”), but other incomplete sentences, or parts of sentences, cause mild confusion (“I put a toy G. I. Joe action figure” and “Overall, geocaching is the best time I&#8217;ve ever had, so I think my friends in adventure club will too”).

There are errors with punctuating dialogue, including misplaced/incorrect punctuation after dialogue (e.g., “’We&#8217;re almost there.’ My dad said”). Other errors include an unnecessary comma (“I started geocaching when I was 5, and have gone once or twice a month since”) and an incorrect use of the semicolon (“The thrill of getting close to the cache site; the adventure trying to get around obstacles on my way, and the unforgettable prize at the end”).

There are a few errors with words, including an &#8220;an&#8221; that should be an &#8220;and&#8221; and frequently confused words (“to/too” and “threw/through”).

There are no errors with spelling (note that “wanna” is presumably purposeful).

Description of the actual destination (e.g., the “15 meter radius” somewhere in the “suburbs” of Chicago) is only generally developed, as are other details, including the actual location of the prize (e.g., “He had found the cache”). Overall, while development isn’t strong, it is adequate.

References to the source materials are clearly implied in some of the details (references to GPS; “the adventure trying to get around obstacles on my way, and the unforgettable prize at the end,” and the reference to leaving the G.I. Joe action figure). These details contribute to the realism of the response.

Dialogue reveals the narrator’s personality (eagerness: &#8220;&#8216;Hurry up, hurry up'&#8221;; and impatience: &#8220;&#8216;how much longer do we have to walk for?'&#8221;); the parents’ dialogue is more functional. Other descriptive details are somewhat general but adequate (e.g., “I looked everywhere. I overturned every stone I saw. I looked in tree stumps and threw leaves”). The use of backflash, however, is effective.

The language is often general (e.g., “This was amazing,” “I looked everywhere,” and “[I] worked my hardest”) but does not weaken the narrative.

The style is consistent and appropriate for a narrative.

There is an evident plot structure, with the narrator recalling a first experience geocaching. The conflict is inherent to geocaching (searching for treasure), there are various obstacles described (e.g., the length of the trip; the frustration of being unable to locate the treasure), and the setting is adequate to develop the plot.

There are various narrative elements used, including a well-established narrator who also describes themself as a child. The point of view is well-established (the story is told in hindsight). The mood is established (the child’s eagerness and frustration are both clearly shown).

Connections are uneven. The narrative shift from present to past to present is adequately connected (e.g., “I bring my first prize with me every time I geocache to remember how much fun it really is”). Some events, however, are choppy (e.g., “I wondered what the prize was. My dad handed me the box, it was heavy. I opened it up and saw my prize. It was beautiful. It was a 1969 Ford Mustang Boss matchbox car. This was amazing”).

The story adequately moves from the present, to the past, and back to the present. Minor lapses such as the details about stopping for pizza, which are not as critical to the narrative as other events, do not interfere with the overall unity of the narrative.

The narrative begins with the seemingly ordinary observation “My first experience geocaching is one I’ll never forget,” but this is followed by an explanation that sets up the action to come: “The thrill of getting close to the cache site; the adventure trying to get around obstacles on my way, and the unforgettable prize at the end.” The ending brings closure by bringing the purpose of the narrative full circle (to promote the adventure club), although it is somewhat repetitive.

Most of the sentences in the response are run-on sentences (e.g., two of the four sentences in paragraph 1 are both run-ons).

There are many errors with a variety of punctuation skills, most notably with commas. There are missing commas following introductory clauses (e.g., “as we got in the classroom Ms.Daisy was taking roll&#8221;); missing commas separating compound independent clauses (e.g., “I looked on my paper for the list of word and one that started wit G caught my eye”); missing commas to set off/clarify ideas (“interesting very interesting”); and missing commas in a list (“take whats out of it put something in it and reburrie it”). There are repeated errors with quotation marks for dialogue (as just one of many examples, “come on Kelly run i said”). Apostrophes are missing (or misplaced) for contractions (e.g., “whats”; “didnt”; “Iv’e”) and for possession (“new yorks finest” and “Douglass house”).

The response lacks capital letters to begin sentences, for the proper noun “new york,” and for the personal pronoun &#8220;I&#8221;.

There is an error with subject case pronouns (“me and my sister”) and an incorrect use of plural/singular nouns (“list of word”). There is a pattern of errors with frequently confused words (&#8220;where/were,&#8221; &#8220;are/our,&#8221; &#8220;your/you’re,&#8221; &#8220;their/they’re/there,&#8221; &#8220;off/of,&#8221; and &#8220;new/knew&#8221;).

“wit” (with); “coffoe”; “reburrie”; “what ever” (whatever); “gyour”; “reaserch”; “sertant”; “megapgone”

The development of story details is mixed. For example, the well-developed details about the Douglases are not relevant to the plot but are critical because they set the mood. There is almost too much elaboration about Ryan trying to sneak computer access because the “sneaking” part isn’t critical to the plot. Yet details about the actual searches are minimal.

Some information about geocaching is subtly embedded within the story (e.g., definition of &#8220;geocache&#8221;; free “sign up”; and GPS references). Other details add some logical and original extensions of source information (e.g., &#8220;bring a rain coat&#8221; as code).

The response embeds dialogue that reveals character traits and relationships (e.g., between the mom and Ryan) and helps develop conflicts (e.g., Ryan is grounded for talking back to his mom). Some descriptive details help the reader visualize the experiences.

Language use is somewhat mixed. There are some strong words and phrases (e.g., “sprinted,” “hustled,” and “caught my eye”), some confusing word choices (“cadres“), and some general and repetitive words (e.g., “interesting”). There are few concrete or sensory details. Overall, the language is too inconsistent for a higher score.

The style is lively and overall consistent with the narrative.

There is a complete and original plot. The rising action (e.g., introduction to the neighbors: “I’ve always wondered about that man…and his wife…always doing there own thing”) and the conflict between Ryan and his mother engage the audience. There are, however, some flaws in the plot: the Douglases’ creepy behavior doesn’t ever meaningfully affect the plot; Ryan doesn’t really have to search for the first geocache (it’s just there); the “tournament” is presented as more of a foot race treasure hunt event than an actual geocaching search; and there was a $4000 prize, which does not match (although it doesn’t contradict) information in the sources. Other complications (Ryan needing to sneak to the computer in the middle of the night) are more for dramatic effect than relevant to the actual geocaching event. Overall, however, the plot is adequate.

There are some inconsistencies with the use of narrative elements. Dialogue effectively “shows” the narrator’s personality, and other details help set up the mysterious mood. The narrator’s point of view reveals his/her personality and is consistently maintained. However, more information about the setting and the geocache clues would help readers understand the actual geocache searches.

Although some transitions are repetitive (“as”), there are also some effective transitions (e.g., “as the bell rang,” “as we got in the classroom,” and “As the night rolled around it”).

The sequence of events is clear, although some events are minimally related to the central event.

The opening adequately introduces the narrator and encourages the reader to wonder what’s in the hole. The idea behind the closing (creating a school geocache tournament) provides adequate closure, but additional information about “new yorks finest” is confusing.

There are more run-ons than correct sentences (e.g., “I walked behind it and fond a defenate enterance to the hut the inside was amazing!”).

There are many errors with commas: missing commas in a list (“there was a bench a fireplace and just open space”), missing commas after introductory clauses (e.g., “When I first started I had to get a GPS app…”), and missing commas to separate compound independent clauses (e.g., “…I had to get a GPS app on my phone and all I now needed was the coordinates&#8230;”). There are missing apostrophes for contractions (“couldnt”). Relative to the brevity of the response, these errors demonstrate inconsistent control of punctuation.

There are missing capital letters for the state of California, GPS, the personal pronoun I, and at the beginning of some sentences. There is an unnecessary capital for the common noun cache.

There are errors with frequently confused words (e.g., &#8220;it’s/its&#8221;).

There are too many misspelled words to list.

The development is mixed. The actual hut is adequately described, but more consistent information about the clue that sent the narrator to the bench in the beach hut and more information about the actual treasure would have justified a higher score.

There are some vague references to information from the sources, such as the “GPS app,” the online source for finding a cache, and a treasure at the end of the search.

The experience is more “told” than “shown,” with no dialogue, no evidence of pacing, and little effort to establish mood other than the brief and vague comment “was amazing.”

There is some repetition (e.g., “Geocaching is a modern day way to go outside and do a treasure hunt with your whole family just outside!”), and most of the vocabulary is general (“amazing”), with no sensory or figurative language to illustrate the experience.

The hurried listing of events (“i rode….I walked….I saw….I walked….I walked….i dug&#8230;&#8221;) does little to engage readers in the experience.

The limited plot is straightforward and cursory, with no intriguing complications to engage the reader (even the GPS showed a “straight line”).

The narrator is the only character in the story who uses the first-person point of view to tell about a past event. The setting is somewhat established.

There are few transitions, with the events more listed than connected.

The story tells about a previous event (the narrator discovering their first cache), but the chronological events are strung together (“i rode….I walked….I saw….I walked….I walked….i dug&#8230;&#8221;), and although there are no irrelevant events, the story is only weakly unified.

The beginning and the end are adequate. The beginning defines geocaching and provides sufficient background information. The ending is somewhat brief but provides closure, with a brief reflection on the accomplishment and a relevant call for others to try geocaching.

There are run-on sentences (“It wasn&#8217;t just any Pokemon card either, it was the first card ever made in the factory” and “Thomas didn&#8217;t care, he was done”). There are also some grammatically incomplete sentences, but most of these fragments seem purposeful, crafted to emphasize details and/or quicken the narrative pace (“Looked like it was real gold”; “Opened it up and found the sacred logbook. Put my name as #1…” ; “The limited edition EX level Pikachu”).

There are numerous examples of misplaced punctuation following dialogue (e.g., “’Don’t give up’, I said”). This is just one type of comma error, although other comma and punctuation conventions are controlled. Note that correct hyphen usage is not a grade-8 skill.

The abbreviation “gps” should be capitalized.

There are errors with the frequently confused words &#8220;to&#8221; and &#8220;too.&#8221; There are several errors with verb tense inconsistencies (e.g., “Our backs and face were sweating so much that we thought it was raining. We haven&#8217;t got this much exercise…” and “there was a clearing in the sky, allowing us to get more clues on where this cache is”), and an error with an incorrect article (“a interesting”).

Details such as “Our backs and face were sweating so much that we thought it was raining” show effective development of the ten-mile hike. However, there are also details that are minimally developed. For example, the inference that “the gps became useless” when the narrator located the cache (presumably the tracker stopped moving) is a bit confusing. Likewise, information about the search at the bottom of the mountain could use more details beyond “I dug and dug and dug,” as that seems like a large area to be searching.

The response integrates a full range of information from the sources (e.g., geocaching Internet sites, GPS coordinates, trinkets and treasures for prizes, and clues that present puzzles to be solved).

Inner dialogue (e.g., &#8220;&#8216;Weak, Weak, Weak'&#8221;, I mumbled. &#8220;&#8216;What does that mean?&#8217;”) shows the narrator’s thoughts as well as their perseverance (e.g., “&#8217;I started this and I&#8217;m going to finish it'&#8221;). Detailed descriptions further illustrate the experience (e.g., “Our backs and face were sweating so much that we thought it was raining”). The short sentences and fragments add excitement by quickening the pace of the narrative and showing the narrator’s growing excitement.

Overall, the language is adequate. There is some general wording (“&#8217;Bottom of the mountain&#8217;” and &#8220;stuff”) but also some word choices that are vivid and precise (“on the fritz”) and sensory details and figurative language that are effective (“Just when almost all hope was drained, every bone in our body about to break, there was a clearing in the sky”).

There are clear attempts to create a lively narrative style, including quick-paced fragments and short sentences that highlight moments (“Thomas didn&#8217;t care, he was done. He left. I was all alone”). The single-sentence paragraph also emphasizes a detail (&#8220;But that wasn&#8217;t the only prize”).

The tightly woven plot adds interest, with twists and complications (the never-before-found geocache and Google Earth on the fritz) to the quest.

Effective dialogue, sustained first-person point of view, and effective details describing the situation and setting all contribute to an overall engaging if concise story.

Connections between events are subtly and effectively shown (“On my way home,” “Since,” “Just when,” “My first sign,” and “This just shows”).

The sequence of events is chronological and straightforward, with some generally effective references to prior events (e.g., “haven&#8217;t got this much exercise since elementary school”; “shiniest gold box that I’ve ever seen”; and “&#8230;like all other geocaches”). The narrative moves quickly through the experience but never loses momentum.

The beginning engages the reader, and the ending reflects on the experience and provides a theme.

There are several run-on sentences (e.g., “We arrived at are destination after a short train ride it was a park surrounded by trees with a small pond in the corner”) and a sentence fragment (“Scanning the area for statues or memorial benches”).

There are errors with a variety of punctuation conventions: a missing colon before a list (“I checked again to make sure we had everything GPS, check, map, check, water bottles,…”), lack of punctuation at the end of sentences in dialogue (e.g., “&#8217;Okay we gotta go towards the pond'&#8221;) and within dialogue (e.g., “’Yeah it&#8217;ll be fun’ they smiled”), and missing commas after introductory elements (e.g., “Finding none I hand the GPS to them”).

The word “yep” should be capitalized, as should the personal pronoun &#8220;I,&#8221; “Awesome” should not.

There are errors with the frequently confused words &#8220;are/our&#8221; and an error with pronoun case (“me and Ash go geocaching”). There is also an unclear pronoun reference (“I&#8217;ll never forget how that increased my passion for geocaching”). Note that the writer consistently (and therefore correctly) uses the pronoun “they” to refer to the friend, expressing a gender-reference preference.

Some events are confusing because they lack explanation. For example, there are no references to actual clues for locating a cache. And it’s never clear where the cache is: In the pond? The story only references the GPS as a guide to locating the treasure, so references to “statues or memorial benches” are confusing. In addition, some details (e.g., information about the metro cards and the Metro Station) are not relevant to the plot.

There are general references to the use of GPS, and there is an implied treasure of sorts (“the amber glow”).

Narrative techniques are limited. There is dialogue that is effective in providing a personality for the characters. But the setting (&#8220;a small pond&#8221;) is too general to enhance the narrative, and there is little use of figurative/sensory language.

Overall, the language used to tell this brief story is adequate. There is some variety used to describe the same feeling or event (e.g., “&#8217;excited,&#8217;” “nervously,” and “anxious”) and some sensory language (“The sun was setting just enough to hit the pond and reflect the amber glow”).

Some dialogue (&#8220;&#8216;yep&#8217; replying with an equally loud voice&#8221; and &#8220;&#8216;Woahh&#8217; gasped Ash&#8221;) shows an awareness of the need to “show” (rather than “tell about”) characters and actions, but overall, the response is too brief to show more than basic elements of style.

The plot is not adequately developed for the assigned writing task. The major conflict (searching for a treasure cache) is not clarified until midway through the response; in fact, for the first half of the story, it would seem the metro train ride is the focus. Furthermore, at the end of the narrative, it isn’t clear what the “cache” is.

Dialogue is used between characters, and the point of view is consistently first person. Descriptive details of the events and the setting are limited; the response includes some irrelevant details and only vague relevant details, ultimately providing a limited response to the writing task itself.

There are some subtle transitions to advance the brief story (the checklist launches the events; the “Scanning the area” and “Finding none,” “hand[ing] the GPS to them&#8221;, heading “towards the pond,” and finally “Reaching the edge”). The details that are included are well-connected, but more details would contribute to a more unified story.

The narrative begins with a verbal list (“GPS, check, map, check, water bottles, check and lastly our metro-cards”) in response to the question “&#8217;Do we have everything?&#8217;” which helps launch the events. From there, the journey to the train station and then to the park is chronological if only sketchily presented.

The narrative opens as the characters are about to embark on an adventure, effectively engaging the audience with dialogue. However, the beginning doesn’t make it clear that this is a geocaching adventure. The narrative closes somewhat abruptly (“‘That’s Awesome&#8230;.’ Now me and Ash go geocaching about three-four times a month”) and ends with the somewhat bland “I’ll never forget how that increased my passion…”. Overall, however, the opening and closing are adequate.

Search Annotated Student Responses

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy