Target- I thought Noah F hit target but had some mastery qualities to his essay. I thought he did a good job presenting an argument but could have done a better job of adding in some more evidence to confirm his argument. Again I thought he did a good job with his evidence but could have added some more important details to it that would have clarified things he stated. I thought his conclusion was mastery. I really liked how he connected everything he said in the essay to fit and flow real nice. I thought his thinking was mastery also. I really liked reading his essay because it made me think and wasn’t just facts. I thought his grammar and flow was target. There were a few sentences that I would have taken out but overall a good paper.
Needs Development- I thought Malia needs to develop her essay a little more. When I see the argument I didn’t think it was that thought out. It seemed more like she summed up what happened in both books. The evidence didn’t support or disprove anything and that’s what the basis of your essay was suppose to do. I think your evidence needs to improve. I saw evidence but it didn’t link to what you were trying to say but more just what the two books had in common. I also thought you could have improved on conclusion. It was really short and seemed rushed. Your conclusion should be to tie everything together and leave a lasting impression which I didn’t see. I think you could add more detail to it. Your paper didn’t really make me think like I thought it could have. It was hard because it was just facts that I already knew from reading the books which made me not think but just read. I would try to make more arguments. Lastly your flow could have been better. There were sentences that could have been one but you made them two separate sentences. Also there were a lot of punctuation errors such as starting your sentences off with capitalization.
Mastery- I thought Nikki hit mastery. I think she had a really good argument. I liked that you kept coming back to it throughout your essay and it tied everything really nicely together. Everything she wrote was there for her argument and wasn’t just there to fill space. I thought you had really great evidence. I liked how she connected certain things and made things fit and not just random thoughts on paper. I really liked how she connected real life to book and back and forth. It intrigued me more than other essays I read. Your conclusion was mastery in that you tied it all up and made everything click. I liked how your conclusion was there to end it with nice lasting impression. It wasn’t just there to end the essay but seemed like you took time to make it feel good. I thought your thinking was mastery. I really seemed like I learned more from reading her essay because it made me question things that I had never thought of. Lastly I thought her grammar was superb and she used words I didn’t even know existed.
Needs Development- I thought Malia needs to develop her essay a little more. When I see the argument I didn’t think it was that thought out. It seemed more like she summed up what happened in both books. The evidence didn’t support or disprove anything and that’s what the basis of your essay was suppose to do. I think your evidence needs to improve. I saw evidence but it didn’t link to what you were trying to say but more just what the two books had in common. I also thought you could have improved on conclusion. It was really short and seemed rushed. Your conclusion should be to tie everything together and leave a lasting impression which I didn’t see. I think you could add more detail to it. Your paper didn’t really make me think like I thought it could have. It was hard because it was just facts that I already knew from reading the books which made me not think but just read. I would try to make more arguments. Lastly your flow could have been better. There were sentences that could have been one but you made them two separate sentences. Also there were a lot of punctuation errors such as starting your sentences off with capitalization.
Mastery- I thought Nikki hit mastery. I think she had a really good argument. I liked that you kept coming back to it throughout your essay and it tied everything really nicely together. Everything she wrote was there for her argument and wasn’t just there to fill space. I thought you had really great evidence. I liked how she connected certain things and made things fit and not just random thoughts on paper. I really liked how she connected real life to book and back and forth. It intrigued me more than other essays I read. Your conclusion was mastery in that you tied it all up and made everything click. I liked how your conclusion was there to end it with nice lasting impression. It wasn’t just there to end the essay but seemed like you took time to make it feel good. I thought your thinking was mastery. I really seemed like I learned more from reading her essay because it made me question things that I had never thought of. Lastly I thought her grammar was superb and she used words I didn’t even know existed.
Mastery
I think Austin met the mastery level of writing. In his first paragraph he presented a argument of the paper and gives evidence to back up his argument throughout the paper. In his conclusion his he wraps up everything he talked about in his paper and analyzes it down to a conclusion. Austin also shows a high level of thinking throughout the paper. For example he talks about document B, a poster of Lenin and how it seems to look like or be meaning. After reading the entire essay I could not find one mistake on grammar in the paper. What makes me put austin the mastery level is that he meets target for everything in the rubric but goes way beyond the target for each box.
Target
Emma’s essay reached target in her writing. In her first few sentences she provides an argument to lead her paper. She also uses evidence very well, for example she talks about totalitarian societies brain washing their citizens then continues on to tell about how Nazi Germany did the same. In her conclusion she wraps everything up from what she said as her evidence and makes into a good short conclusion. She shows high level of thinking explaining her evidence and giving examples and lastly she uses good grammar, there were no mistakes I found while reading through it. I put her in target because she met every goal to target but did not reach mastery.
Needs Development
Aly’s essay was really good but I think it needs some tweaking and that is why I put it in the needs development section. The first thing that could be worked on is a argument. In the paper she does not really build up an argument for the paper. She presented evidence in the paper but didn’t explain much about it and that is something that could be worked on. She didn’t exactly have a conclusion but she did talk about how bad it would be to live in a totalitarian society. She has a lot of evidence to show high level of thinking by explaining or comparing but I feel like she just piled a bunch of evidence. While reading through the essay I only found one grammar mistake which was in the 5th line of the last paragraph and it was just two words that were not spaced between. Over all this essay needs just a little work and it would reach target and thats why I put this essay in needs development.
I think Austin met the mastery level of writing. In his first paragraph he presented a argument of the paper and gives evidence to back up his argument throughout the paper. In his conclusion his he wraps up everything he talked about in his paper and analyzes it down to a conclusion. Austin also shows a high level of thinking throughout the paper. For example he talks about document B, a poster of Lenin and how it seems to look like or be meaning. After reading the entire essay I could not find one mistake on grammar in the paper. What makes me put austin the mastery level is that he meets target for everything in the rubric but goes way beyond the target for each box.
Target
Emma’s essay reached target in her writing. In her first few sentences she provides an argument to lead her paper. She also uses evidence very well, for example she talks about totalitarian societies brain washing their citizens then continues on to tell about how Nazi Germany did the same. In her conclusion she wraps everything up from what she said as her evidence and makes into a good short conclusion. She shows high level of thinking explaining her evidence and giving examples and lastly she uses good grammar, there were no mistakes I found while reading through it. I put her in target because she met every goal to target but did not reach mastery.
Needs Development
Aly’s essay was really good but I think it needs some tweaking and that is why I put it in the needs development section. The first thing that could be worked on is a argument. In the paper she does not really build up an argument for the paper. She presented evidence in the paper but didn’t explain much about it and that is something that could be worked on. She didn’t exactly have a conclusion but she did talk about how bad it would be to live in a totalitarian society. She has a lot of evidence to show high level of thinking by explaining or comparing but I feel like she just piled a bunch of evidence. While reading through the essay I only found one grammar mistake which was in the 5th line of the last paragraph and it was just two words that were not spaced between. Over all this essay needs just a little work and it would reach target and thats why I put this essay in needs development.
I think that Kai’s essay is mastery. His thesis is strong and gives a direct answer to his question about Hannah Arendts theory and comparison to Hitler and Stalin. He explains in his intro paragraph his reasoning that leads up to his thesis. His argument is strong and is explained well throughout his essay. He uses a lot of evidence from both Hitlers side and Stalin’s side to come to a conclusion. Almost every paragraph has evidence and examples from both sides Hitler and Stalin. He also relates it back to the theory and question. Kai’s conclusion is well written because he analyzes and brings in his final opinions. I like how he also added 1984 to finish of his explanation. He matches his thesis well. He did a good job with the flow of the information. He did not just list the information, he made it connect and compared and contrasted. Kai had a good choice of vocabulary and had little to no grammar mistakes.
I think Marshall’s essay would be a target essay. It is not perfect but it is good. His thesis is a good thesis that is explained and backed up well with information. He did a good job with giving examples in the intro to explain his thesis better. He uses many examples from all 4 totalitarian regimes. I like how he would give some facts and then often explain more about them after. His examples that were used helps him draw to a conclusion. His conclusion analyzes the data with his final answer. He repeats his thesis to relate everything to his thesis. He uses a good amount of cause and effect saying this happened because…For example he didn’t just list facts,” Because they are constantly under control, it can affect how they interact with other people. The people mainly just care for themselves” His grammar was okay and didn’t seem to have very many mistakes.
I think that Blaine’s essay could use some development. I think that his thesis could be worded a little better instead of “A totalarlism government is not a good government for the people under the government.” I understand what he is saying but maybe he could use the word government less. He explains a little after his thesis but his intro seems a bit short. He uses many examples but could possibly analyze his evidence a bit more. His evidence is related to his thesis and does support it. In his conclusion, he seems to list his final thoughts. I think that he could explain his thoughts more. He could have used more compare and contrast also. Maybe using bigger vocabulary would also help. There were also some spelling errors in his essay.
I think Marshall’s essay would be a target essay. It is not perfect but it is good. His thesis is a good thesis that is explained and backed up well with information. He did a good job with giving examples in the intro to explain his thesis better. He uses many examples from all 4 totalitarian regimes. I like how he would give some facts and then often explain more about them after. His examples that were used helps him draw to a conclusion. His conclusion analyzes the data with his final answer. He repeats his thesis to relate everything to his thesis. He uses a good amount of cause and effect saying this happened because…For example he didn’t just list facts,” Because they are constantly under control, it can affect how they interact with other people. The people mainly just care for themselves” His grammar was okay and didn’t seem to have very many mistakes.
I think that Blaine’s essay could use some development. I think that his thesis could be worded a little better instead of “A totalarlism government is not a good government for the people under the government.” I understand what he is saying but maybe he could use the word government less. He explains a little after his thesis but his intro seems a bit short. He uses many examples but could possibly analyze his evidence a bit more. His evidence is related to his thesis and does support it. In his conclusion, he seems to list his final thoughts. I think that he could explain his thoughts more. He could have used more compare and contrast also. Maybe using bigger vocabulary would also help. There were also some spelling errors in his essay.