Open Prompt 2004:
Essay N: Overall, this was a pretty good essay (it received
an 8 from the AP graders), but I didn’t think that it started off very well. I
didn’t like how the thesis was incorporated into the introductory paragraph: it
was broken up into three sentences, one of which was a question from the
character, not actually a question from the writer. The student also didn’t
give a road map of the essay to outline the literary devices used in the work
being discussed. I guess this is because the student didn’t actually divide the
paragraphs by DIDLS or anything of that sort, but instead divided them by ideas
about the book, such as the character’s journey of answering the question of
“why would God create a world that is not the best possible?” Dividing the
paragraphs like this worked for this essay because the student still managed to
stay on task and write about the theme through each paragraph. The only other
flaw to the essay is its lack of complex vocab. The essay is developed, but not
in its vocab.
Essay J: This essay starts off with an ok thesis: it isn’t
the worst, but could definitely be much more developed. What makes the thesis a
lot weaker is that the word “explore” is repeated within the same sentence. I
also didn’t like the organization of the
essay; there is way too much summary. The essay is about Huckleberry Finn and the first paragraph is about how Huck and Jim
are free; the second is about how they “explore” their limited freedoms; the
third is about how they are both freed from their “masters.” Only the second
body paragraph has more analysis than plot summary, but even that is not very
well developed. I think this student has all the building blocks to create a
good essay, but this simply lacks depth. The AP graders gave it a 6, but I
would probably give it a 5 or maybe even a 4.
Essay UU: This essay has some major issues. First, the student doesn’t always use proper agreement between nouns and adjectives or nouns and verbs. Also, the writer does not demonstrate a very strong vocabulary and, when he/she does try to throw in a bigger word, it’s incorrect (they write “apprehendable” rather than “apprehensible”). On top of this, there are quite a few sentence fragments. One example is in the opening paragraph, then student writes, “Especially through the main character Okonkwo.” Aside from mechanics, the essay does not have a very clear structure at all. The thesis statement is a question and most of the assertions in the essay are pretty vague (the student writes, “the author…introduces a society of traditional and contemporary beliefs that reflect their culture”). I think this student has some ideas demonstrated in the intro paragraph, but he/she fails to ever expand on them with any analysis in the rest of the essay.
Essay UU: This essay has some major issues. First, the student doesn’t always use proper agreement between nouns and adjectives or nouns and verbs. Also, the writer does not demonstrate a very strong vocabulary and, when he/she does try to throw in a bigger word, it’s incorrect (they write “apprehendable” rather than “apprehensible”). On top of this, there are quite a few sentence fragments. One example is in the opening paragraph, then student writes, “Especially through the main character Okonkwo.” Aside from mechanics, the essay does not have a very clear structure at all. The thesis statement is a question and most of the assertions in the essay are pretty vague (the student writes, “the author…introduces a society of traditional and contemporary beliefs that reflect their culture”). I think this student has some ideas demonstrated in the intro paragraph, but he/she fails to ever expand on them with any analysis in the rest of the essay.
Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI like your idea regarding the first student’s essay that they focus on a question central to the main character and not necessarily the question that the novel as a whole is trying to ask. Anyways the essay was pretty decent, and I have noticed that the majority of these essays don’t bother to mention DIDLS, but maybe that accounts for part of the reason that we keep giving these students lower scores. Also, when you say the essay’s vocabulary isn’t very complex, do you mean there is a lack of literary terms? If so, then you may want to change that. Aside from the “perhaps” that pops up more than it should, I don’t think the vocabulary was too basic.
For the second essay, your comments are valid and good, but I wish you would go a little more in depth. Some of your own analysis sounds like a summary of the essay which is kind of hypocritical. Ha-ha, it’s okay, though you may want to add more bulk to it. Your third analysis is solid, and I really have nothing that I think you could add to it. Nice job there.
Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the analysis of the first essay. I think it could definitely use some pointers on how to be improved but it's not a bad essay overall. I also agree with Blake that a lot of the students don't mention many of the DIDLS. Hopefully that will give our essays a leg up because I don't even know how to write an essay without DIDLS or what you would say, which I'm sure is a good habit to keep.
For your second and third essays I like what you said about them for the most part. I do think you could have gone in depth a little bit more for example why the organization didn't work for the essay and how it could be improved. But other than that I think you did a really good job. I like how you used textual evidence too, I always think that it makes your critics much more clear.
Welp, I have to say what I like about this post is that I can tell more about you through your criticisms. You seem like your very organized, which I saw from the structure of your close reading #4 and now from your reflection on the sample essays. I cannot tell you how good it is to read posts written from someone with this skill because it just makes it so much easier to read, and perhaps more importantly, to understand (trust me, this is a hypocrite who knows because unfortunately I have quite the abstract mind).
ReplyDeleteFor each sample you just guide the peer reviewer step by step on what there is to be pointed out. I think that's because DIDLS is your go to reading and writing motto. The only issue I have with this post is the part where you say that the "vocabulary isn't very complex" too. I did know what you meant, but sadly there are literature pratts to be considered here too. But in conclusion, JOB WELL DONE:)