# data[].attributes.body
Overall grade: 3
Focus and organization : 3 because the connection between the character’s personal changes and realizations could flow together better.
Development: 4, I feel that the writer did a good job of showing how the character developed into who they wanted to become based on their life circumstances and past.
Language: 3, they could have been more descriptive about the character and used more figurative language to make it more interesting/ relatable .
Conventions: 3, some grammatical errors but they didn’t have a large impact on the understanding of the narrative. - Brooke McFarlin

# data[].attributes.body
I think this paper is a 3 all around its very organized and has great words, but it has no dialogue in it- RA

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the paper is a 3 in both focus and development and organization. I think conventions and language is 4-Julian Ivey

# data[].attributes.body
I'm giving the paper a 3 as there are a few minor errors howerver it is well rounded overall.-Alex Campbell

# data[].attributes.body
I think the paper is a 3 because it stayed on topic and used pretty good word choices. MP

# data[].attributes.headline
i think this paper is a 3  just because it doesn't have dialogue, but is organized in events.

# data[].attributes.subject
i think this paper is a 3  just because it doesn't have dialogue, but is organized in events.

# data[].attributes.body
genesis hartman

# data[].attributes.body
I give this paper a 3 overall. It successfully uses information from both passages to create this narrative. The writing is very similar to the passages. But there is no dialogue at all. Marcus Johnson

# data[].attributes.body
I would give paper 1 a 3 because the paper is well developed and does a good job of describing everything that’s going on. jeremy johnson

# data[].attributes.body
I think the paper is a 3 in Focus and Organization and Development. In Language and Conventions I think it is a 4. John Perez

# data[].attributes.headline
I think this paper is a 3 in development and 4 in everything else. Conner Collins

# data[].attributes.subject
I think this paper is a 3 in development and 4 in everything else. Conner Collins

# data[].attributes.body
In development I think it is a 3. -pakrrr mount

# data[].attributes.body
Overall:3
Focus and Organization:4, good POV, good at adding characters, effective conclusion, and effectively organized events.
Development:2, no dialogue, not enough description, relevant, and developed experiences.
Language:4, matching vocabulary with the setting, sensory language.
Conventions:4,minor errors.

# data[].attributes.headline
F+O- 3- adequate organizational strategies 

# data[].attributes.subject
F+O- 3- adequate organizational strategies 

# data[].attributes.body
D- 2.5- adequately uses narrative techniques
L-2- illustrates in consistent sensory language
C-3- minor errors and good for grade level
Sarah Uhls

# data[].attributes.body
I think overall this one was a 3, because it was pretty good and used a lot of information from the prompt.

focus & organization 3: it was hard to follow and the conclusion was not that different from the original conclusion.

development 3: because it had relevant details

language 3: it illustrates consistent command of precise language, including sensory language.

conventions: 3: has a consistant command of grade level conventions of standard written english , and contained a few minor errors that didn’t interfere with the meaning

# data[].attributes.body
focus and organization: 3 because paragraphs are not indented and says too much of the first passage, but good narrative.
Development: 3 because well written, but does not talk much about Paris.
Language: 3 because it does not use senses as well as good transition words, but speech to follow the texts were great.
Conventions: 4 few minor errors
Austin Sytsma

# data[].attributes.body
Overall: 3 or 4
F&O: 3 because the organization could have been a little better but I think this paper is a good and the strategies are adequate.
Development: 4 or 3.5 because the writer used lots of techniques like dialogue, description, pacing, etc. I think the writer effectively uses these strategies to follow the stimulus and provide the details; however, they had weak transition words or none at all.
Language: 3 or 4. I think the writer did a really good job on following the previous author's tone and style of words; however, I noticed a lot of repetition with words. Other than that, the paper was pretty good.
Convention: 4 because the writer uses a variety of good words that do not interfere with the meaning.
Justin Collins

# data[].attributes.headline
f and o 3 because he kept everything pretty organized and had good conclusion

# data[].attributes.subject
f and o 3 because he kept everything pretty organized and had good conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
D 3 because it was in a good order and had good details from the passages
L 3 it had good language and good and had a good style and tone
c 3 because it has some minor errors
overall 3
Mason Sells

# data[].attributes.body
Natalie O’Donnell
F & O- good organization and good conclusion 3
D- descriptive but vocab could be better 3
L- tone stays throughout 3
C- up to grade level but capitalization and errors throughout 3

# data[].attributes.body
F+O- 1- Not in first person and contains irrelevant conclusion
D- 1- contains no relevant narrative techniques
L-2- has some understanding details
C- 1-Contains numerous errors and is not grade level
Sarah Uhls

# data[].attributes.body
focus and organization 1.5: Not a narrative just summarization and weak conclusion.
Development 1: no narrative
Language 1: wordings are not strong and no senses nor transitions.
Conventions 2: many bad spelling errors, but are readable.
Austin Sytsma

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-3  uses adequate organization
Development- 3 incorporates relevant details, goes off topic sometimes.
Language 3- consistent command of precise language, appropriate transition words
Conventions 3- occasional minor errors, grade level conventions of standard.

Nicole Sadler

# data[].attributes.body
F&O - 3 it adequately keeps the reader engaged.

D - 3 it incorporates relevant details from the prompt.

L - 3 illustrates command of syntactic variety for meaning and reader.

C - 3 Has some minor errors but show constant commands.
Overall grade is a 3.
Lauren Smith

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-1- it was all over the place,in complete sentences
D-2 they understand what to do slightly but it’s not put together very well
L-1-just basic words used
C-1- it was very below grade level and sentences just
weren’t put together
Genesis Hartman

# data[].attributes.headline
f and o 4 because this is really organized and has a great conclusion 

# data[].attributes.subject
f and o 4 because this is really organized and has a great conclusion 

# data[].attributes.body
D 4 the details from the passege are good and in order and the story has a good pace
L 4 had good word choice and had a good style and tone
C 4 didnt really have ant errors
overall 4
Mason Sells

# data[].attributes.body
3 Overall
3.5 for focus and organization it has a good conclusion but its orginized strangly
Development 3 their is no tranistion words at all.
Language 4 It had some good word choice.
Conventions 4 The story made sense
Julian Ivey

# data[].attributes.body
F&O I give it a 2 or maybe a 3 if I am in a good mood. The writing is very bland as well as organization. They still wrote it in the 1st person as a narrative so that's nice. Weak conclusion
Development: Eh, 2 because they didn't really use the techniques well and they used really bland details. I feel like the paper was written in a rush and they left out a lot of good details.
Language 3 or 2.5. They actually used some pretty good words at times; however, I do not thing they kept up with the author's tone and style of words.
Convention: 3. They could have used better vocabulary but they did not have many bad errors to ruin the meaning.
Justin Collins

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and Organization 1: Not a narrative and weak conclusion.
Development 1: details on the text are weak
Language 1: No sensory wording, no style and almost word for word from text.
Conventions 2-2.5: errors in capitalization, but readable.
Austin Sytsma

# data[].attributes.body
F+O-1- not a narrative and contains no conclusions
D-2- relevant understanding
L-1- has no transitional words and no sensory language
C-2- contains frequent errors and is inconsistent command of grade level
Sarah Uhls

# data[].attributes.body
Natalie O’Donnell
F&O- The focus is all over the place and not organized. 1
D- The development is not relevant and did not follow the prompt but it did include a lot about Alexander Calder and his life. 2
L- The student did not stay in first person pov. 1
C- The writing is not up to grade level.  1

# data[].attributes.body
F&O: 1. You know, I actually don't like giving people the lowest score, but after reading this, I will gladly do it. This is not even a narrative or in the first person. There are numerous irrelevant details especially in the conclusion. The organization is very confusing sometimes. I am not even going to mention the conclusion.. I think he fell asleep and forgot to finish it.
Development: 1.5. The development is not even relevant. They use no techniques or relevant details most of the time. They managed to give a lot of facts about the artist though.
Language: 1 I will make this part short and sweet. Bad words, does not maintain the style of words from the author, not even first person.
Convention: 1, the words are not up to grade level and are inconsistent
Justin Collins

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-1some of the same information was repeated a lot
D-2- some relevant details, can still tell what trying to be said
L-1- not in first person
C-1- misspelled words
Genesis Hartman

# data[].attributes.headline
f and o I would give it a 1 because its not in first person and no conclusion 

# data[].attributes.subject
f and o I would give it a 1 because its not in first person and no conclusion 

# data[].attributes.body
D 2 its pace is all over the place but it has relevant details from the passage
L 1 because there are no transition words and does not have a good tone or style
C 2 because i can still read it clearly but has  few mistakes
overall 2
Mason Sells

# data[].attributes.body
f+o 2: it was hard to follow and the conclusion was like the first text
d 3: it did have relevant details
l 3: the language sort of matched the language in the other two writings and it was not too repetative
c 4: the grade level seemed to be one of a sophomores

# data[].attributes.body
F&O- 1: Not in 1st person pov, ineffective sequence of events, confusing.
Development: 2 demonstrates some understanding of the prompt, some relevant details.
Language- 1 no use of precise language , or transitional words.
Conventions: 2- inconsistent command of grade level English making the whole thing confusing.

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and Organization 3: uses a well written narrative, but uses the first sentence addressing people instead of using it for a dialogue.
Development 2.5: uses “I” mostly in the beginning of most sentences but overall follows the story.
Language 3: uses sensory language and strong adjectives, but also uses weak transitions words.
Conventions 4: has little to non errors.
Austin Sytsma

# data[].attributes.body
F&Q 2 it was very difficult to follow and it seemed like they were just adding random details as they went on
Development 2.5 They did have transion words and stuff but they didnt indent the paraghraphs
Language 3 their is some solid word choice used
Conventions 3 it is difficult to read but I understand the story
Julian Ivey

# data[].attributes.body
It's not in first person point of view and the essay was informative not a narrative. There were run on sentences and it was out of order. Incorrect capitalization and punctuation. Also it never mentioned the engineering part of his life which was an influence in his decisions.
kamryn shupp

# data[].attributes.body
Overall grade: 2.5, it didn’t really follow details from the prompt and had lots of overlooked errors, and doesn’t mention major things that happened in the original article.

D: 2, doesn’t mention how he was an engineer which is a big part of the article, and it also used a different point of view. also has a limited sequence of events

F&O: 2.5, limited sequence of events, but used  details from article

L: 2, used repetitive/ basic transitional words

C: frequent errors that interfere with meaning

# data[].attributes.body
F&O - 1 it contains stories that are not irrelevant.
D - 1it shows little to understanding of the task.
L - 2 uses basic or repetitive transitional word.
C - demonstrates limited command to grade level.
Lauren Smith

# data[].attributes.body
Overall:2.5
Focus and Organization:2.5, missed events, bad sequence of events organization.
Development:2, not 1st POV and missed important events.
Language:2, used many "and", doesn't capitalize or punctuate.
Convention:2.5, has major errors that effect the story

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-3-contains the right point of view and has an adequate conclusion
D-4- demonstrates a clear understanding
L-4- consistent sensory and uses appropriate transitional words
C-4- contains few errors and demonstrates grade level
Sarah Uhls

# data[].attributes.headline
f and o i would give it a 4 because it has a set point of view and has an effective conclusion 

# data[].attributes.subject
f and o i would give it a 4 because it has a set point of view and has an effective conclusion 

# data[].attributes.body
D 4 it has good details from the passage and has clear understanding of the task
L 4has good style and tone has really good everything else
C4 because i can understand it really well
over all 4
Mason Sells

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and Organization 4: very well made, has a lot of good narrative with a well made conclusion.
Development 3.5: very good, but uses i awfully too much.
Language 3: has well transitional words with an appropriate tone.
Conventions 4: little to no errors
Austin Sytsma

# data[].attributes.body
F&O- does not effectively engage the reader. Not a narrative and the ending is terrible. 1
D- No dialogue and barely any description. Some relevant details but not many 1
L- Not in first person. 1
C- Up to grade level 2

# data[].attributes.body
F&Q 3 Its made pretty clearly
Devolopment 3 few tranistion words but fine all around
Language is 2 it reapeats words a lot.
Conventions 4 Little errors
Julian Ivey

# data[].attributes.body
I wanna go with an overall score of 1. Reading this essay was like reading a book from when i was in kindergarten. The sentences are really short and lack diversity. The story being told was also not in first person point of view and missed out a lot of details that are needed in order to understand Calders decisions.
kamry shupp

# data[].attributes.body
F&O: 3, Effectively sets a relevant situation, organized, on topic, and has a strong conclusion. Although, it includes some irrelevant details.
D: 3, uses relevant details from the text, but seems to make some details up themself.
L: 3, effectively uses language, keeps the readers interest, and uses transitional words, but feels very rushed,
C: 4, Grade level language & only minor mistakes.
-haily southerland

# data[].attributes.body
F&O - 1 contains unclear observation or point of view.
D - 2demonstrats some understanding of the task.
L - 1 it shows little to no use of precise language.
C - 1 contains numerous and repeated errors.
Lauren Smith

# data[].attributes.body
F&O: 2-  limited and confusing situation, not in 1st person, gaps that interfere with with progression of events.
Development 1- few narrative techniques, some irrelevant details, little understanding of the task.
Language 1- little use of precise language, no transition words, no appropriate style.
Conventions 1- Numerous errors, confusing meaning of prompt

Nicole Sadler

# data[].attributes.headline
f and o is a 2 because they have has some sequence of events but it still struggles 

# data[].attributes.subject
f and o is a 2 because they have has some sequence of events but it still struggles 

# data[].attributes.body
D is a 2 because it has some irrelevant details from the text
L 2 because it has some basic trastion words and has some style and tone
C 3 because it has some minor eorrs but overall readable
overall 2
Mason Sells

# data[].attributes.body
F&O: 1, no conclusion, ineffective sequence of events

D: 1, no narrative, or techniques to develop experience events, setting and/or characters

L: doesnt establish or maintain an appropriate style or tone.

C: 1.5, frequent errors, inconsistent command

# data[].attributes.headline
I give this a 3 overall because it has many details from the original text, It doesnt have many transition words, but it is still very easy to read and understand. has a strong conclusion and is overall a strong narrative. - Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.subject
I give this a 3 overall because it has many details from the original text, It doesnt have many transition words, but it is still very easy to read and understand. has a strong conclusion and is overall a strong narrative. - Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.body
F&O - 3 adequately engages the reader.
D -  3 shows that they understand the prompt.
L - 3 uses transitional words.
C -  3 demonstrates consistent command.
Lauren Smith

# data[].attributes.headline
I give this text a 2.5 overall because they are repetitive in the narrative and the story feels like they ran out of time when writing it. there are very few transition words, but they do use some good sensory details and it is organized pretty good.- Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.subject
I give this text a 2.5 overall because they are repetitive in the narrative and the story feels like they ran out of time when writing it. there are very few transition words, but they do use some good sensory details and it is organized pretty good.- Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.body
F&O: 1. I am a loss of words. Have you ever been reading something in your head where you think a child wrote it or would say it? That is this paper. The sequence of events is not even correct, it is not even a narrative, and there are so many irrelevant details. There is literally a one sentence conclusion that doesn't even summarize the story.
Development: 1. Irrelevant details, no techniques. At least he wrote about the artist.
Language: 1 The writer did not follow the author's style of words, uses little to no us of precise language or sensory things. No variety.
Convention: 1 Lots and lots and lots of errors, If I were to read this paper without knowing who Calder was, I would be confused.
Justin Collins

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-4- very clear and organized on the events can tell what trying to be said
D-4- has understanding of what to do
L-3- keeps style and tone, has transitional words
C-3- has some minor spelling errors
Genesis Hartman

# data[].attributes.body
F&Q 1 Not in first person and is like an informative essay on the passages.
Devlopment 2 No transition words and no detainls
Language 2.5 No strong use of words and some paragraphs are not indented
Conventions 2 has major errors and runoff sentences that mess with the meaning of the story.
Julian Ivey

# data[].attributes.headline
I give this a 1 because it isn't in first person its more like a informative essay. they missed several important events and put them in bad order. They had many grammar errors and all around just wasn't a cohesive essay.- Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.subject
I give this a 1 because it isn't in first person its more like a informative essay. they missed several important events and put them in bad order. They had many grammar errors and all around just wasn't a cohesive essay.- Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.headline
f and o i would put a 2 because it has the wrong point of view 

# data[].attributes.subject
f and o i would put a 2 because it has the wrong point of view 

# data[].attributes.body
D 2 because misses some details in the story
L 2 used some details from the passage but not  all
C 3 i can still read it good but its not perfect
overall 2
Mason Sells

# data[].attributes.body
F&Q 1 Not a first person narritive and has a very weak conclution.
Devlopment 2 no transtions and no details at all
Language 2 No uncommon words used at all.
Conventions 2 Not everything is covered and the sentences have no details or evidence
Julian Ivey

# data[].attributes.headline
I give this a 1 overall because it is not in first person, it doesn't catch my attention and it honestly doesn't seem up to grade level. has a super weak conclusion and also doesn't include any sensory details or dialouge in it.- Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.subject
I give this a 1 overall because it is not in first person, it doesn't catch my attention and it honestly doesn't seem up to grade level. has a super weak conclusion and also doesn't include any sensory details or dialouge in it.- Rease Allen

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and Organization 3.5: no paragraph indents make it hard to understand, but well written.
Development 4: great, well written story, vivid and sensory.
Language 3: transitional phrases were good not great, well description.
Convention 4: little to non errors

# data[].attributes.body
F&O: 4- good sequence of events building to make a coherent whole, relevant situation and in 1st person, effective conclusion.
Development 3- adequately uses relevant details from prompts, relevant narrative techniques, adequate understanding of task.
Language 4- precise language, varied transition words, appropriate style and tone.
Conventions 4- consistent grade level appropriate standard English, words flow with the meaning of the prompt.

Nicole Sadler

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-4- contains an effective conclusion and is in narrative point of view
D-4- effectively demonstrates clear understanding and narrative techniques
L-4- effectively maintains appropriate style and tone
C-4- few minor errors and demonstrates grade level
*I thought this was very good!!
Sarah Uhls

# data[].attributes.body
F&O - 3 uses organization strategies.
D - 3  shows that they understand the task.
L - 4 has consistent command of precise language
C - 4 may contain a few errors
Lauren Smith

# data[].attributes.body
F&O 3 I think it adequately provides a relevant situation, I had no problems keeping up with the writer
Dev: 3 They could have used more techniques and details, but the writer adequately follows the stimulus and details.
Language: 3 They use pretty good language and adequately keeps up with the authors style of words
Convention: 3, They use pretty good words and don't have many errors that interfere with the meaning.
Justin Collins

# data[].attributes.body
F&O -  3 contains an adequate conclusion.
D - 4 well chosen details from the the prompt.
L - 3 Consistent of precise language.
C - 4 Has little to no Error.
Lauren Smith

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-4- order of events are in order and make sense.
D-4- has reflection, well chosen details , is on point of being clear and understanding what to do.
L-4- style and tone are good with sophisticated words and has variety, precise and has sensory
C-4-  on grade level with very few minor errors
Genesis Hartman

# data[].attributes.body
F&O 3.5- effectively orients the setting and situation, sequence of events build but a little confusing, effective conclusion and in 1st person.
Development 4- Relevant narrative techniques, great descriptions and clear understanding of the task. Use of dialogue
Language 4- sophisticated precise language, uses transition words, and appropriate style.
Conventions 4- grade level English, goes well with the understanding of the prompt.

Nicole Sadler

# data[].attributes.body
F&O 3, they have a pretty well written paper, adequate details and relevant topics and sequence of events.
Dev: They showed clear understanding of the prompt and good details and techniques.
Language: They maintain the author's style of words and use good words.
Conv: 4, they have little errors to interfere with the meaning, they also have grade level vocabulary
Justin Collins

# data[].attributes.body
Overall: 3
Great conclusion, well written, could be better on the organization due to lack of paragraph indentions, also lack of dialogue.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall

# data[].attributes.headline
F&O-4- stays on topic and keeps events in order

# data[].attributes.subject
F&O-4- stays on topic and keeps events in order

# data[].attributes.body
D-4- has well chosen details, has a clear understanding
L-4- has sensory words ,style and tone  precise syntactic variety
C -4- on grade level
Genesis Hartman

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and Development 3: This person wrote this in Calders point of view using I. He or she used different key points and different pieces from the 2 articles. He or she also followed the writing prompt and the was focused.

Development 3 he or she described what all was going on and he explained how he got to art and the stages he took.

Language 3: he or she  was very descriptive so I was engaged. They used English and had all the correct punctuations. Conventions 4 they used grade level standard written English.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-4: It engages and orients the reader. Great organization that establishes a sequence of events.
D-3: Has relevant details but could use more dialogue.
L-4: Illustrates consistent and sophisticated command of language.
C-4: Grade-level conventions of standard written English.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-4: Engages the reader and uses effective organization strategies.
D-3: Nice development but no dialogue.
L-3: The style and tone was similar to the originals.
C-3: Occasional minor errors

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-2: Their conclusion wasn't the strongest.
D-2: It conveyed a limited picture of the experiences, events, etc.
L-1: Can be repetitive.
C-2: Frequent errors that may interfere with meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
F%O-1: It's not a narrative.
D-1: Contains few or no relevant narrative techniques.
L-1: Utilizes few or no transitional words and phrases.
C-1: Contains numerous and repeated errors that seriously impede meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O-1: Doesn't answer the prompt and poor organization.
D-1: Contains few or no relevant narrative techniques.
L-1: Utilizes few or no transitional words and phrases.
C-1: Numerous errors that seriously impede meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
I would give this paper a 3 overall because it was developed well and the story made sense throughout. The writers word choice and details were very strong. I think they could have added more dialogue however. jeremy johnson

# data[].attributes.body
I think this paper is a 3 overall because it was very consistent and had just a few minor errors. The highlights of this paper to me were the organization of the writing and word choice. jeremy johnson

# data[].attributes.body
I would give this paper a 2 overall because there was noticeable repetition in the writing and the writer left out details that interfered with the text. I think the writer did a good job however of meeting requirements of standard written English. jeremy johnson

# data[].attributes.body
I would give this paper a 1 overall because the POV is not in first person which heavily impacts the text. The organization of the paper is hard to understand and follow when reading. The writer also made numerous mistakes in capitalization and punctuation. jeremy johnson

# data[].attributes.body
I would give this paper a 1 because it is not in the 1st person POV which makes it hard to understand a narrative. There is also many details that are left out and some that aren’t relevant to the text. The organization is not portrayed well. There are countless errors in the writing too. jeremy johnson

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and organization- I give it a 3 since it flowed well, however it could have been ordered differently to give a better understanding of the changes the character went through to the reader.
Development-I give it a 2.  It could have been developed better by putting the order of success and back story and swaping that to an explanation of how they got to their success more in depth.
Language-  I give it a 3 for language. I believe the writer could have used better language that would've left a greater impact on the events.
Conventions- I give it a 3, there were some errors but they didn't impact the overall understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and organization- 4. The paper was focused well on the subject and did a good job of staying on track.
Development- I give it a 3 for development, it could have gone together a little smoother but was still well written.
Language- 4. They used great language that made it enjoyable to read and kept it interesting, having a lasting good affect.
Conventions- 3, there were some errors but that is expected with a rough draft.
Brooke Mcfarlin 1st period

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and organization- 2, was repetitive and didn't stay on topic well.
Development- 2.There didn't seem to be much time put into the development and it showed.
Language- 3. Contains a fair amount of errors that could have been prevented with more time into the paper.
Conventions- 3. On grade level approximately but might be a bit below.
Brooke Mcfarlin

# data[].attributes.body
Focus and organization - 1 , didn't work together and build up or progress through the story. felt like it was going in circles.
Development- 1, poorly developed with little thought put into making ideas connect well.
Lang- Poor language used, 1,  made the narritve difficult to comprehend .
Conventions- 1, below grade level for sure and had a large impact on the understanding of the text.
Brooke Mcfarlin

# data[].attributes.body
Overall:1
Focus and Organization:1, missing many important events.
Development:1, less description, not 1st POV, no improvement/ development.
Language:2, sensory language, formal but short sentences.
Convention.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall:4
Focus and Organization:4, first POV, includes all important details and a clear setting.
Development:4, good paragraph organization, pacing and description.
Language:4, formal, appropriate style and tone
Conventions:4, meets standard English writing with minor errors.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O- 3 because it establishes a good POV, but could be organized a little bit better.
D- 3.5: Lots of good details and a good reflection. Only thing from this not being a 4 is not enough dialogue.
L- 4: Good choice of words and has sophisticated language.
C- 4: Grade level writing.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O- 2: The details weren't that great and I saw a lot of lower cased I's. I also saw some punctuation errors.
D- 2.5: Has a good reflection, but the description isn't that great and there is no dialogue.
L -3: Good use of transition words as well as good vocabulary.
C -3: I wouldn't consider it grade level, but I could understand the story.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O -2: Some of it was confusing to read and it was not well organized at all.
D -1: Not much dialogue, reflection was weak and repetitive, and the description was not good.
L -2: Lots of words were repeated and there was not many transitional words or phrases.
C -2: Not grade level English. Some writing errors.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O -1: Sequence of events is not very good, details are kind of just thrown everywhere. Also, it's not a narrative, defeating the whole purpose of the essay.
D -1: There was no narrative techniques because it wasn't a narrative. No dialogue and reflection was poorly described.
L -1: No transition words and very poor use of vocabulary.
C -1: Nowhere near grade level English, which made it difficult to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
F&O -Not organized at all,  no POV, and very confusing to read.
D -1: No narrative techniques, it was poorly described and the reflection was weak.
L -1: Lots of misspelled words, very poor choice of words, and no transition words at all.
C -1: Below grade level English, very repetitive, and very confusing to read.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall:3.5
Focus and Organization:3, adequately introduces the reader to setting, 1st POV.
Development:3, great description but not good pacing and paragraph sequence, does a good job at developing characters.
Language:4, provides transitions, formal and matches with the narrators setting.
Conventions:4, meets most of the standards with minor errors.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall:2
Focus and Organization:2, 1st POV, good character intro but poor setting intro and irrelevant problem.
Development:1, poor pacing, no description and no experience development.
Language:1, repetitive, informal and no sensory.
Conventions:2, frequent errors that effects the story and low grade level.