Steve Grain

TE 804
Student Assessment Analysis
I: The Prompt
This essay was assigned within the context of our discussion of the early republic
under the Constitution and Hamilton and Jeffersons stance on interpreting the
Constitution. We had also discussed the issue through current events, specifically
regarding gun laws.
The prompt provided to students:
Persuasive Essay: Strict vs. Loose interpretation
Your task is to create a persuasive essay based around the idea of
interpreting the Constitution. You are to choose which form of interpretation
is better for the United States under the Constitution: LOOSE or STRICT. In
your essay, you need to include a thesis statement that states your position.
This thesis, along with a counterclaim that acknowledges what an opponent
might say, should be included in the opening paragraph. Next, you are to
provide THREE OR MORE pieces of evidence (facts, statistics, examples, real
life experiences) that support your position. Each of these arguments must
be written as a paragraph (for a total of three). Lastly, you need to write a
strong closing paragraph that wraps up your argument, restates your thesis,
and leaves the reader understanding your position.
Your essay should be 5 paragraphs consisting of 3-5 sentences each.
One way to set it up might be like this:
Paragraph 1: Opening (includes thesis that introduces us to your
argument and acknowledges what an opponent might say)
Paragraphs 2-4: Three main points of evidence (from history OR
present day) that argue your position.
Paragraph 5: Closing (restates thesis and enforces argument)
Resources to use:
Composition book pages: 29, 51-54
Strict Construction versus Loose Construction reading packet
handout
Textbook pages: 194 (elastic clause), 238-242
Along with the given structure, students were also provided with a short example of
an essay argument, which was labeled and annotated to demonstrate the structure
even further. Its important to note that this structure was only highly suggested
and that if students felt strong in their writing abilities to go ahead and structure in
a manner that catered to their own intuition.

By providing a high amount of structure through which students were to make their
arguments, it was my intention that they would be free place more emphasis on
content of the essay.

II: What I Looked for in a Response

What I was looking for within the essay was a clear and concise argument,
supported by evidencewhich I described as facts, statistics, examples, and reallife experiences in the rubricthat demonstrated their knowledge and skills of the
material through several factors of student understanding:
1) Students are able understand the difference between a loose and strict
interpretation of the Constitution.
2) Students are able to utilize their pool of resources to obtain evidence for their
essay (research).
3) Students are able to present said evidence in a manner that strengthens their
stance through a well-thought out and persuasive argument, utilizing the
essay structure with which Ive presented them to do so.
Students also received a rubric whose categories focused on both the structure of
the essay and the support provided for the position. Structure and presentation of
the information was very important for this assignment, as students were required
to show they could craft a piece of persuasive writing. A lack of structure would
have ultimately impaired their argument.
I was also looking for students to provide their own insight through the evidence
they provided. I wanted students to show they had a stake in the argument and to
express their own beliefs. Mind you, as long as they covered the proper criteria,
however, they werent marked down for an absence of apparent passion.
III: Student Response
Kaylas Essay:
The Constitution should have a loose interpretation. Some may say
that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly because that is whats
written and we should follow it. I believe that they are wrong. The freedom
of speech, gun rights, and the economic goals Hamilton had are all prime
reasons the Constitution should be interpreted loosely.
In the First Amendment, where it mentions that the people have the
freedom of speech, it should not be taken literally (strictly). This part of the
Constitution should be interpreted loosely because people should not be
allowed to say whatever they want. If someone says something extremely
rude or offensive to the public, they should be reprimanded. For examples,
death and bomb threats are illegal which means this part of the Constitution
is already interpreted loosely in some ways, as it should be.

The Second Amendment is also a great example of why the

Constitution should be interpreted loosely. In the Second Amendment where
it states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed should not be strictly interpreted. Based on all of the recent
shooting and attacks, I believe the U.S. needs to take caution and better our
gun safety. But, the Constitution states that it is the right of the people to
own a gun. If the Constitution is interpreted strictly, gun safety may never get
better and there may continue to be events such as Sandy Hook, or the
Colorado movie massacre. The Constitution needs to be interpreted loosely
so there can be background checks and other measure of safety taken before
a citizen can purchase a gun. This will result in a safer environment for
everyone.
If we look at the Constitution historically, Hamilton believed in a loose
interpretation and Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation. Hamilton also
aimed for a business economy while Jefferson wanted the agrarian dream. I
believe this connection shows that with a loose interpretation of the
Constitution, it allowed our country to be as successful and innovative as we
are. A loose interpretation lets the government be creative and allows room
for new ideas. A strict interpretation provides less tolerance.
The United States can benefit from many things a loose interpretation
of the Constitution will provide. Between constant violence and unnecessary,
offensive things being said, the Constitution should not be taken strictly. The
government needs new ways and ideas to keep us growing, and the new
material we need is not going to be found word for word in the Constitution.
The Constitution should be interpreted loosely.
Kayla provided a wonderful essay that fully met the expectation of the assignment
and demonstrated a solid understanding of the content and structure one needs to
make a compelling argument. The structure of her essay meets the guidelines
provided in the prompt and in the first paragraph she hits on all the key points.
Before providing her evidence, she acknowledges the opposition one might have for
her argument, stating, Some may say that the Constitution should be interpreted
strictly because that is whats written and we should follow it. I believe that they
are wrong. This gives her the perfect platform from which to share why they are
wrong, introducing the evidence with which shell be making her argument,
something many students failed to do:
The freedom of speech, gun rights, and the economic goals Hamilton had are
all prime reasons the Constitution should be interpreted loosely.
Her opening is very straight forward and very effective. And, as we shall see, the
evidence shes decided to use works in her favor.
The second, third and fourth paragraphs respectively begin with: The First
Amendment, The Second Amendment, and If we look at the Constitution
historically Here, Kayla explicitly demonstrates that her arguments are coming
straight from an analysis of the Constitution. Too often did students digress from the

main point of the assignment and get lost in detail and information unnecessary to
make their argument toward loose or strict construction of the Constitution. Kayla
makes no such mistake. Moving on, in the first body paragraph, Kayla argues that
we shouldnt interpret the freedom of speech clause in the Constitution strictly,
because some things, like death threats, shouldnt be said for the sake of the safety
and civility of society:
For examples, death and bomb threats are illegal which means this part of
the Constitution is already interpreted loosely in some ways, as it should be.
This was a common argument many others made, as well, but whats really
impressive in Kaylas example is that she distinguishes between how we should
interpret the Constitution and how we are interpreting it. This sort of nuanced
thinking demonstrates a wealth of understanding on Kaylas part for the assignment
at hand. Kayla further demonstrates her understanding in the second body
paragraph, where she argues for a loose interpretation of the second amendment,
citing, events such as Sandy Hook, or the Colorado movie massacre as evidence
in defense of it.
If one could make an argument for a weak point in Kaylas essay let be in her third
and final piece of evidence, where she argues from a historical perspective. After
describing differences between Hamilton and Jefferson and how they viewed the
future of America, she states, A loose interpretation lets the government be
creative and allows room for new ideas. I think she makes a great point with this
quote, but unfortunately doesnt provide the proper evidence to back up such a
statement. I believe it was her intention that her words about Jefferson and
Hamilton would provide that backing, but I found them far too vague. It may not be
a failing on her part more so than on the way in which I taught the content. More on
that later.
Kaylas conclusion, much like her opening, is a succinct recap of everything shes
written. In it, she restates her thesis and her position. In her final words she states:
The government needs new ways and ideas to keep us growing, and the new
material we need is not going to be found word for word in the Constitution.
The Constitution should be interpreted loosely.
A quote like this reinforces that Kayla not only understand the benefits for a loose
construction but also the ramifications held by strict one. A word for word
approach, shes argued masterfully, is detrimental to the U.S.
Kayla received 32 out of 32 possible points.

Brians Essay:
The Constitution is an American document that needs to be loosely
interpreted because of three reasons. The interpretation and people have
changed since 1790, when it was made. The creators (The Founding Fathers)

also had different interpretations of the Constitution. I will explain these

three reasons below.
Times have changed. Interpretations of the Constitution have also
changed. The 2nd Amendment states that we have the right to bear arms.
Arms back in 1790 meant muskets, which is a gun that can definitely kill a
man, just isnt as destructive as our modern-day weaponry. RPGs and
explosives are considered arms today. People shouldnt have the right to
have an RPG in their home. The only reason they would have an RPG is
because they intend to kill someone or a group of people.
The people of the United States have also changed. The people have
evolved into different people than back in 1790. I dont think that the
Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment to cause such catastrophic
behaviors; I think they did it so the people of our country could be protected.
If the FF knew that our people would use these Amendments to kill people
and get whatever they want, I think they would have created these
Amendments differently. Now that these people have changed into
psychopaths, a loose interpretation is needed.
The Founding Fathers had different interpretations of the Constitution
than we do now. If politicians had to create another Constitution today, it
probably would have been created much more different. I think that this new
Constitution would be much stricter regarding the rights of todays people.
This is why many people want to manipulate the Constitution so we can take
away some rights of the people to keep our country safer.
A counter claim for this paper might be that people want a strict
interpretation of the Constitution because they dont want to adjust the
beautiful government that shaped our country today. Our country is the best
country in the world and this is the government that helped shape the
greatest country on the face of the earth.
The reason that the Constitution should be loosely interpreted because
times have changed, the people have changed, and the Founding Fathers
had different interpretations of the Constitution. The Constitution is a very
important that shaped our country (sic). A loose interpretation would help our
country because everything has changed and we need to adapt to these
changes of the people and interpretations.
*Full Disclosure: Brian rewrote his essay after his first essay received a poor grade.
What you are reading is the rewrite*
As Ive mentioned, the structure of these essays is important; a well-crafted essay
facilitates a strong argument. Although I have some concerns with the structure of
Brians essay, I think its the shallow content of the essay, along with some very
puzzling omissions, that contribute to its shortcomings. Therefore, my focus this
time around will be less so on structure.
One glaring omission is in the opening paragraph:

The Constitution is an American document that needs to be loosely

interpreted because of three reasons. The interpretation and people have
changed since 1790, when it was made. The creators (The Founding Fathers)
also had different interpretations of the Constitution.
Here, Brian states that there are three reasons the Constitution should be
interpreted loosely. However, I only count two. Furthermore, the reasons he provides
are vague. As we shall see, Brians main argument stems from the Second
Amendment, but I see no trace or mention of it here in his thesis. The
interpretation and people have changed since 1790, when it was made may be
from where his Second Amendment argument is permeating. If that were the case,
however, it should be more explicitly stated.
Moving forward, Brian spends the first two of his three body paragraphs making an
argument from his own interpretation of the Second, which he believes allows all
people to own guns. Using the same piece of evidencein this case, the Secondto
argue two different points was fine by me, as long as they were two separate
arguments. His first argument continues from there:
Arms back in 1790 meant muskets, which is a gun that can definitely kill a
man, just isnt as destructive as our modern-day weaponry. RPGs and
explosives are considered arms today. People shouldnt have the right to
have an RPG in their home.
I think this is a good argument; it demonstrates Brian understands how a loose
interpretation allows flexibility in a changing world. But I would have liked to see
him push the point further and make that more apparent to the reader. Instead, he
follows up with a questionable statement: The only reason they would have an RPG
is because they intend to kill someone or a group of people. Although crudely put,
there may be some substance to his point. However, Brian again falls short of
delivering a more nuanced interpretation by contributing evidence and instead lets
the comment stand without any support. There are just too many counter-examples
an opponent to his argument could make to dismiss the comment.
In his second body paragraph, Brian alludes again to the evolution of society and
how the Founding Fathers were unable to predict the changes that would take place:
If the FF knew that our people would use these Amendments to kill people
and get whatever they want, I think they would have created these
Amendments differently. Now that these people have changed into
psychopaths, a loose interpretation is needed.
Brian provides no substance as to what constitutes a psychopath. It would have
been to his great benefit to provide some real-life examples, much like Kayla did.
But his point, although not at all supported, is still there. As weve seen, Brian
makes points but doesnt provide the necessary evidence or examples to defend
them. There is a line of logic to most of what hes saying but unfortunately hes not
able to back it up. Take one more example:

If politicians had to create another Constitution today, it probably would have

been created much more different. I think that this new Constitution would
be much stricter regarding the rights of todays people.
For the reader, its a task to derive meaning out of a passage like this, because
theres no meat to Brians argument.
In the next paragraph, Brian states a counter-claim one might make against his
argument. Again, structure and the point in the essay in which hes decided to place
it is questionable, but Ill dwell on the content of the counterclaim. He states that
strict supporters dont want to change the beautiful government we have today:
Our country is the best country in the world and this is the government that helped
shape the greatest country on the face of the earth. Although its a nice sentiment,
it does no good to acknowledge the opposition like this when Brians arguments
arent equipped to dismantle the statement. In effect, he provides an argument
against himself, unable to shoot it down with the points hes made throughoutthe
objective of providing a counterclaim in the first place.
Brian received 24 out of 32 possible points.

Zanes Essay:
The United States constitution should be interpreted very strictly. This
is the document that has kept us going and alive for over 200 years. In
todays world it is not being interpreted right and has our government
questioning our amendments and wanting to take all of our guns whether
they are legal or not. Also, looking back on the past when the constitution
was first written and mostly followed and not just some pieces of paper life
wasnt so bad. Although some may argue that a loose interpretation of the
constitution isnt bad they are clearly wrong un-American liberals.
In todays world our government has decided to follow the constitution
loosely and do whatever they feel pleases them whether it is making
unwritten amendments or just flat out shutting down. President Obama has
decided because of all the killings in the world taking guns away and adding
many more restrictions will stop violence, but what he doesnt realize is that
he is basically saying that the second amendment doesnt matter, who knows
what other amendments this could happen to. Also, by adding more
restrictions to guns will mean less people can get/own guns which essentially
is an American right to freedom, so by doing this not only on amendment is
violated but two are violated. The government also has made it clear that if
they dont want to do anything one day they can all just shutdown but still
get paid. This is wrong because we need our government to function,
because without government we are leaving our back door wide open to a
terrorist attack on America. This is a few great reasons we need a strict
constitution in the government so they cant just do what they want.

Using the constitution in the past was actually a really good way of
keeping everyone in check and had really strong government system. When
the constitution was first written almost everyone was for it and followed it.
One major standout was Alexander Hamilton, he wanted to make and open a
national bank which was not stated in the constitution but many were against
his idea feeling that he was breaking the rules. We also never had a problem
with foreign affairs because we had everything under control. Some major
problems in the past such as the Civil War and the Cuban Missile Crises all
were a part of poor constitutional interpreting. In the Civil War the South was
having their rights revoked and had to follow the rules of the North and could
not do anything about it. So they demanded their rights and did not receive
them so they seceded from the union and that was what started the war. The
Cuban Missile Crisis during the Cold War escalated because the government
became focused on getting a new president from the two parties when the
focus shouldve been the war. They easily couldve avoided this by just
keeping the president in office or just having a quick election. Our
government used to be strong one of the strongest and we never had very
many problems until recently when we started to not use the constitution.
We used to make jokes of other countries and now we are probably one of
the biggest. We need a government like in the past so a president doesnt
get too much power and the government will be strong once again.
While some may argue that a loose interpretation of the constitution is
better they are completely wrong. By siding for a loose interpretation you are
basically saying the rules dont matter the constitution can go burn its self
and all laws dont matter. Our constitution is our law book for government
which honestly is complete trash right now and could use a little guidance.
By having a strict constitution you have rules set and wont get broke.
Personally I believe anyone who breaks the constitutional rules should be
kicked out of American because they feel they are too good for the rules that
have kept this country sane. Another reason that strict is better is because
you cant get a single power of government too powerful and becoming a
dictatorship. For example if our next president becomes too powerful he can
declare himself a dictator and we would all have to follow his ideas and
opinions whether we like it or not and our country could fall apart just look at
the middle east, a main portion has been turned into a war zone from civil
wars because of dictating. In other words we need this set of rules to keep us
from becoming worse than we already are.
In conclusion the United States Constitution needs to be interpreted
strictly for plenty of reasons. Whether it be that it has kept us running for
over 200 years solid or that it can screw us all because we dont follow it. The
constitution also has the power to keep this beautiful country from getting
way off the deep end. If we continue to follow the constitution loosely our
world will be ended as we know it from us falling apart leading to the falling
apart of other countries that rely on us than it will cause a domino effect.
(sic, a million times, sic)

Zanes essay is extremely problematic for obvious reasons. Im going to attempt to

pursue my analysis of his essay without dwelling so much on its obvious
shortcomings. What Im looking for in Zanes essaywhat I looked for in Kaylas and
Briansis a line of logic the readermeis able to follow, and whether or not that
logic is backed up with relevant support. Relevant support, in this context, should
ground itself in the Constitution and work from there. Unlike in Kaylas and Brians
essays, where I started from the beginning and worked my way through till the end,
Ill be jumping around throughout Zanes essay.
Zane has obvious political opinions that manifest themselves all throughout this
essay. This can be a good thing, lending itself to a larger understandings of real life
examples from which to pull. But, as is too often the case in Zanes writing, this can
also lead to tangents that are no longer relevant to the topic of the essay. Take
these few examples:
a) Although some may argue that a loose interpretation of the constitution
isnt bad they are clearly wrong un-American liberals.
b) The government also has made it clear that if they dont want to do
anything one day they can all just shutdown but still get paid. This is
wrong because we need our government to function, because without
government we are leaving our back door wide open to a terrorist attack
on America.
c) The Cuban Missile Crisis during the Cold War escalated because the
government became focused on getting a new president from the two
parties when the focus shouldve been the war. They easily couldve
avoided this by just keeping the president in office or just having a quick
election.
Im not sure what Zanes points were with these quotes. The first one seems to be
an off-handed insult towards liberal Americans. He seems to be correlating a loose
interpretation of the Constitution with liberal beliefs. Its not that an argument cant
be made in this regard while still being in line with the goal of the essay, but Zane
seems to have no desire to make that argument. The latter two passages seem to
be more substantive, like they could be a bit more relevant to his argument for
strict interpretation and not just an insult, however they still fall short of delivering
logical support to the point Zane is trying to make for strict interpretation. Rather,
they come off as political opinions, grounded in nothing more than a desire to be
expressed, indifferent as to whether or not theyre relevant to the assignment.
Zane does this incessantly throughout his essay.
But this rapid fire of political passion does find its potential every so often:
President Obama has decided because of all the killings in the world taking
guns away and adding many more restrictions will stop violence, but what he
doesnt realize is that he is basically saying that the second amendment
doesnt matter.

Here, Zane provides the beginnings of what could potentially be a strong argument
for strict interpretation. Unfortunately, instead of citing examples as to how more
guns could lead to more thorough protection, his argument falters: Also, by adding
more restrictions to guns will mean less people can get/own guns which essentially
is an American right to freedom A quote like this doesnt push his argument
forward. Rather than explaining why owning guns is a right to freedom, which could
potentially strengthen his claim for strict interpretation, he only claims that it is a
right to freedom, leaving him at a stand-still. There is again very little in terms of an
argument being made.
Further on, Zane takes a historical perspective, stating, Some major problems in
the past such as the Civil War and the Cuban Missile Crises all were a part of poor
constitutional interpreting. Regarding the Civil War, he has this to say:
In the Civil War the South was having their rights revoked and had to follow
the rules of the North and could not do anything about it. So they demanded
their rights and did not receive them so they seceded from the union and
that was what started the war.
I assume the rights to which he refers as being revoked are of the Constitutional
variety. If not, then his argument is irrelevant to the assignment. Assuming they are,
however, he would have needed to be more clear, substantiating his claim through
more detail and evidence. Unfortunately, his argument goes unsupported.
Lastly, there are moments in his essay when Zane contradicts himself. In his
counterclaim, he states:
By siding for a loose interpretation you are basically saying the rules dont
matter the constitution can go burn its self and all laws dont matter.
The sentiment is fairly obvious in this quote. But in the very next sentence he says:
Our constitution is our law book for government which honestly is complete
trash right now and could use a little guidance.
He fails to make clear why the government is complete trash and consequently
comes dangerously close to implying that its because of the Constitution. That
those are his own beliefs Im sure isnt true, but to the reader he risks making it
sound like that.
He commits a similar mistake in his conclusion, stating that strict interpretation has
kept us running for 200 years solid, but contradicting himself two sentences later:
If we continue to follow the constitution loosely our world will be ended as we know
it Have we been following the Constitution strictly or loosely? At this point in his
essay, Zane seems to have lost sight of the points he is trying to make.
Theres are plenty more examples that could be cited and examined in Zanes
assignment but they all seem to succumb to the same fate: an argument crafted
from a place of passion rather than reason.
Zane received 28 out of 32 possible points. (A misguided scoring on my part)

IV: Reflecting on my Teaching

Were I to teach this lesson in the future, there would be a stronger emphasis on
crafting a persuasive essay. That isnt to say there was none; although this is first
persuasive essay theyve had write for my class, its most certainly not the first
piece of persuasive writing theyve produced. Of the resources listed in their
prompt, there are pages in their notebook depicting the main ideas a piece of
persuasive writing should possess. However, it would be beneficial to slow down the
presentation of this assignment. That is, had I demonstrated the structure more
thoroughly and stressed how to craft a logical argument, one thats grounded in
facts and informed opinions, students I believe would have taken to the assignment
more thoroughly. Instead, I had many students turn in different variations of the
essay Brian turned in. One that makes logical points, but doesnt back them up with
detail. Perhaps showing students how to argue with evidenceand providing them
with a larger pool of sources from which they can drawwould yield better results.
Mind you, there were more essays like Kaylas as well. But students who turned in
the quality of work reflected in Kaylas writing seemed to be the same students who
knew what questions to ask and how to ask them. In the future, when delivering this
assignment, Id like to address the answers to those questions up front rather than
wait for them to be asked by the students who know to ask them. Knowing what
questions to ask provided a distinct advantage to these students.
Theres also the quality at which I delivered the content. For the students who did
choose to draw from history, specifically Hamiltonians and Jeffersoniansthe
arguments between whom this assignment derived fromdid so in a manner that
wasnt as thorough as Id have liked. Although their writing reflects they know the
difference between strict and loose, I dont think students understood as well as
they could have the implications these beliefs could and did have on American
society throughout history. Instead, many studentsKayla for exampleseemed to
cite the historical dispute vaguely before moving on. Im certain this is a reflection
of my own teaching of the material.
Lastly, students like Zane, although fewer in number than those like Kayla and
Brian, produced the most challenging kind of work. The real issue with submissions
such as these is that students who have the urge to put their opinions into practice
seem to lose sight of the task of the assignment, which is to create an argument
grounded in logic. Perhaps theyre convinced that the logic is inherent in their
opinions. It is not. We saw examples of this in Zanes writing. In such cases its
important to remind students that although speaking from such a place is okay, it is
important to not lose sight of the goal of the assignment. I could facilitate this sort
of understanding by again emphasizing structure, which many of these variety of
papers seemed to rid themselves of, and logical, fact-based writing. This could
decrease the frequency with which tangents and digressions occur in the writing.
More structure might allow for more focus. Then (hopefully) the logic will follow.