DEFINITION OF NARRATIVE WRITING NARRATIVE WRITING relates a clear sequence of events that occurs over time. Both what happens and the order in which the events occur are communicated to the reader. Effective narration requires a writer to give a clear sequence of events (fictional or non-fictional) and to provide elaboration.
NARRATIVE PROMPT You and your friend are exploring a dark cave in the woods. All of a sudden you hear a strange sound. Write a story about what happens next.
LEVEL I - Does not meet standard
1. Paper #7924907 Although this extremely brief Level I response attempts a narrative sequence (heard a weird sound…so we went…so we shot it), there is very little development. Because of this brevity, there is no evidence of an organizational plan. Therefore, the response shows little understanding of the narrative writing task. 2. Paper #7935509 Obvious errors in mechanics, grammar, usage, and sentence formation halt the flow of communication in this Level I response. Although the author attempts to address the prompt (me and my friend and a cave), these mistakes make it difficult to understand topic development and almost impossible to discern an organizational plan. This response indicates little understanding of the narrative writing task. 3. Paper #7906867 Using a purely hypothetical approach (if me and friends were in a cave), this response presents a very unclear sequence of events. Only slightly related details are haphazardly thrown into this mix (me and my friends just act goofy at times; other animals might be in a zoo), resulting in a disorganized narrative attempt. Obvious language errors also interrupt the flow of communication. Despite its lengthiness, the confusion in this response leads to limited relevant development, with little understanding of the writing task displayed.
LEVEL II – Partially meets standard
1. Paper #7919867 This Level II response displays some evidence of an organizational strategy, using some simple transitions (all of a sudden, so) that result in a vague sequence of events. The response moves quickly through time, providing only minimal development with an overuse of basic-functional vocabulary (can’t find our way out of the woods; we played with the dogs a few minutes). There is more author involvement than author control or sense of purpose. Overall, the response indicates only some understanding of the narrative writing task. 2. Paper #7918089 This minimally developed Level II response achieves some semblance of organization by following a rough chronological format. However, gaps in the narrative sequence, coupled with a lack of effective transitions between some story segments, contribute to a less than fluent response. Although fairly clear, the writing employs mostly simple sentences and basic-functional vocabulary (we ran for a long time; the noise got louder). This results in a rather generic story only loosely anchored to any particular time or place, which indicates only some understanding of the narrative task. 3. Paper #7913876 This Level II response uses some rudimentary transitions (first, second, third, last) to show some organization. Its sequencing of events appears abrupt, however, and moves too quickly through time to achieve sufficient development. Rather than use dialogue or imagery to show what is happening, the audience is informed in a more summary fashion (we ran back home and told my mom everything that happened; after 5 minutes into the conversation). This tendency establishes only a vaguely defined time frame. In addition, some errors in sentence formation, grammar, usage, and mechanics detract from the flow of communication. 4. Paper #7921015 This Level II response begins to use word choice and dialogue characteristic of a higher score (“Ouch,” I yelled. “Something scratched me!” My leg dripping down with blood), but fails to sustain this specificity. As the narrative races through a series of events, it maintains a logical order, showing some sense of organization. However, this plan seems almost accidental and demonstrates more author involvement than author control. In balance, these elements indicate only some understanding of the writing task.
LEVEL III - Meets standard
1. Paper #7922193 This sufficiently developed Level III response effectively uses dialogue to advance the narrative (“Why did we have to come in this cave; it’s so hot,” _____ complained). The writer follows a good organizational strategy that presents a clear sequence of events. An opening question that is answered in the conclusion (have you ever … explored a dangerous place? I learned…to never again go somewhere uncharted) provides further evidence of this plan and gives a sense of author control. The consistent use of meaningful, precise word choice enhances development (an ear splitting roar that answered his question; we were running, jumping and panting). Overall, the response displays a good understanding of the narrative writing task. 2. Paper #7920783 This Level III response utilizes meaningful, precise word choice to provide sufficient development within a clear and specific sequence of events. Effective transitions create a fluent and logical progression of ideas (then…we hear a terrifying, ear-busting screech that has us covering our ears; after it stopped we uncover our ears and follow the low scraping sound), indicating good organizational skills. Audience awareness also adds to the sense of author control (so remember, if you hear a high pitch sound never follow it). All of these elements show a good understanding of the narrative writing task. 3. Paper #7903277 Although this Level III response is somewhat uneven, overall it provides sufficient development within a clear and reasonable time frame. Showing some purpose and control, the author skillfully creates a feeling of panic (there was nothing but darkness everywhere; by then I was so scared I did not know what to do; it was like walking with a blind fold), but is less adept at explaining the prank played by the narrator’s friend. Appropriate transitional phrases (while we were walking, after we heard) help establish a chronology of events, which provides a good organizational structure. 4. Paper #7903249 This response about two friends in a cave shows a good understanding of the narrative task. Although word choice is sometimes heavy handed (screamed with anger; explained with rage), it is generally meaningful and precise, contributing to sufficient development and a chronological ordering of events. Transitions and dialogue help the narrative progress through time in a fairly fluent manner, showing some author control. The explanation about the real purpose of the journey (not going to a party/actually going to ____’s house) weakens the storyline at the end, but overall the response provides enough author control and involvement to reach Level III.
LEVEL IV – Exceeds standard
1. Paper #7952237 This creative Level IV response begins with a lengthy but highly effective set-up, providing background information on the relationship between two very different main characters (if it was up to me, our weekends would be spent at libraries … just my luck that this crazy girl’s mother is an attorney and the argumentative genes run in the family). Vivid and purposeful word choice enhances this convincing characterization and enriches the explicit sequence of events that follows. The skillfully executed plan, which leaves its audience ready for a new adventure, shows strong author control. In addition, the response is fluent and fully developed, clearly demonstrating a thorough understanding of the narrative writing task. 2. Paper #7940906 This successful and imaginative Level IV response uses vivid and precise word choice to lead the reader through a specific and detailed series of events. Beginning with a relevant summary of the characters’ situation up to the point of their cave entry, the author thoroughly develops the narrative sequence, leaving few unanswered questions. Although the strong and focused plan sets up almost unrealistic expectations (little did we know that sound would be the beginning of the adventure of a lifetime), author control is consistent throughout the story. Despite the fanciful topic (the discovery and classification of a chubacapbra), the vocabulary is so rich and descriptive that the reader is easily able to visualize events as they unfold.
3. Paper #7902503 This highly focused Level IV response begins right at the point of the prompt’s departure (a single circle of light bounces from rock to rock as I swivel the flashlight), a valid approach that immediately engages the reader. The narrative sequence is explicit and sustained, fluently moving from one action to the next. Strong author control includes the effective foreshadowing embedded in an essential piece of characterization (____ refused to change his several-sizes-too-large boots). The reappearance of these boots at the end of a suspenseful and thoroughly developed encounter with a rattlesnake gives a satisfactory conclusion to the adventure (no blood stained the large boot: only two fang holes where there weren’t any toes). The writer’s use of vivid, precise vocabulary and syntactical complexity demonstrates an exceptionally thorough understanding of narrative writing.
4. Paper #7911301 Despite a hurried wrap up (____ and I were safely taken out of the cave by our new friends, the Denali Coven of vegetarian vampires), this ambitious Level IV response maintains a strong and focused plan. Not only does the vivid and precise vocabulary contribute to the thorough development of a sustained narrative, it also enhances the tone of the story as well. Characters and dialogue evolve quite naturally, which shows strong author control. The writing is consistently polished and fluent, resulting in a successful demonstration of the narrative writing task.