Open Response 2004 Student Response

2004 Student Sample Response: Student #1 –Score:8

            The reading selections these students had to read seem very similar and required solid analytical skills to find their differences. However, Student 1 seemed to have no problem cracking the code. Not only does this student notice that “these two poems by Dickinson and Frost share the element of dark or night,” she recognizes that “the poets speak from different perspectives.” The student notes that Dickinson’s “darkness” is more applicable to “change to depression to a creative block, a lack of inspiration.” In Frost’s poem, he speaks of darkness in a more “desolate” and pessimistic tone. According to this student, darkness, in Dickinson’s poem is “merely the absence of a guiding light.”To further explain how Dickinson’s poem is more optimistic, she elaborates on the end of the poem that “Though one may “sometimes hit a Tree,” he learns from his mistakes. There is hope for a normal life.” Student one contrasts that the negative tone of Frost’s poem by discussing the author’s use of “Dreary images of “[sad] city [lanes]” and an “interrupted cry” create a sense of loneliness. The commentator is absolutely correct when they says “this essay is a candidate in control of both language and argument.” Student one does not leave any claim undefended or lacking in evidence.

Student #2-Score: 6

            Right away, this student recognizes how Dickinson’s poem “finds…acceptance of the darkness,” and Frost’s “places a negative connotation on night.” In the first body paragraph, the student supports their statement by pointing out how in Dickinson’s poem, she mentions “how one “grow(s) accustomed” to the Dark” and “conditions himself” to the Dark. Here, the student is making it clear, that through diction, Dickinson is saying that “we” adapt to darkness. However, the student argues that Dickinson is doing this through imagery.  Perhaps this is what the commentator meant by “the writer never plumbs the full implications of the poetic devices detailed so well.” In the third body paragraph, the student’s topic sentence is “The structure of Dickinson’s poem also allows a beginning of hope.” However, what the student really discusses throughout this paragraph is how the tone is hopeful, not the structure. Another issue with this paragraph, the writer ends it discussing the negative tone of Frost’s poem and how it contrasts with Dickinson’s. It would have been better if the student had mentioned in their topic sentence how Dickinson’s “hopeful” tone contrasted with Frost’s “negative” tone. The writer does an excellent job recognizing how Frost’s poem gets progressively darker with each stanza and supplied adequate evidence, which is probably why they received a six.

Student #3-Score: 3

            In the last open prompt and this one, I’ve noticed that the student with the best handwriting receives the worst score. Has anyone else noticed that? Anyway, this student seemed to have a difficult time understanding either of the poems and decided just to write down as many literary terms and quotations they could in the allotted time. The student knows there literary terms, but incorrectly interprets their purpose. For example, this student argues that the use caesura is to “tells us that the visual imagery is vague, constantly retracing her thoughts.” Not only is the phrasing confusing, but the evidence is not substantial. The writer makes a claim in the second body paragraph that “Frost is “acquainted” to the night, where in Dickinson’s poem…” Stop. Right there, you think they are on to something about how Dickinson’s poem is different because she says how “we” are more “accustomed” to the night. However, the student continues on with “…darkness appears with the night.” I had similar moments like this where I felt the student was about to say something great, but they never gave in-depth reasoning to their claims. Had the student is lacking the deep analysis in their essay compared to the other two students. The commentator describes the writer’s language as “convoluted” and says the essay’s “brevity does not allow for full discussion of either poem…”I agree with the commentator that this essay is deserving of a three.