Grade 11

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

3D Printers

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

The first and final sentences of paragraph 2 are run-on sentences. Confusing phrases, word repetition, and missing words interfere with fluency (e.g., “Here at our library we seem to be having a little dilemma here…” and “Yeah there may be some problems…”).

There are many missing commas in this response: after &#8220;library&#8221; in the first sentence (“Here at our library we seem…”), after “Yeah” in the third sentence, and after “Also” in the last sentence.
Commas are missing in three compound sentences (“…it’s a waste of money but I really dont think…&#8221;; “…may be some problems…like it says in source #4 but it 95%&#8230;”; “…how useful that will be but it could be….”).
Additionally, there is a missing hyphen in the last sentence between the words &#8220;game&#8221; and &#8220;changer.&#8221; There are several missing apostrophes throughout the response (e.g., “dont,” “its”).

The first-person pronoun “i” is not capitalized throughout the response.

Because of the missing word “printers” after “3D” in the first sentence of the second paragraph, the verb “are” is incorrect. There is at least one error with frequently confused words (&#8220;its&#8221; instead of &#8220;it’s&#8221;; it is not clear if the correct word &#8220;whether&#8221; is used as it’s misspelled “wheather”). In the second sentence, “that” should be “who” (“&#8230;doubters that dont want&#8230;”).

This response has only one spelling error (“wheather”).

There are very few details from the available materials, and they are poorly integrated.

References to two sources are vague (especially the reference to source 4).

Some references have no explanation to explain what the details mean (&#8220;some problems with the system sometimes like it says in source #4&#8221;). Others are illogical, or at least unsupported, conclusions (&#8220;thats so not true 3D printers can have so much more content [than 2D printers] on them because they are so much bigger&#8221;) and/or contradictory statements (&#8220;how unuseful that [printing in chocolate] will be but it could be useful with someone that works with chocolate or something&#8221;), which do not function as appropriate elaboration.

The vocabulary is confusing (&#8220;all about content,&#8221; &#8220;more content&#8221;), repetitive (&#8220;so&#8221;), and/or vague &#8220;(some problems,&#8221; &#8220;some things,&#8221; &#8220;sometimes&#8221;).

There are apparent attempts to create a style (&#8220;seem to be having a little dilemma, and i think it would be a game changer&#8221;) but they are unsuccessful in enhancing the credibility of the argument. Further, some phrases (e.g., &#8220;goes off on…,&#8221; &#8220;…so not true,&#8221; and &#8220;yeah….but…&#8221;) are inappropriate for the audience and purpose.

The implied claim favoring 3D printers in libraries is minimally sustained with seemingly random information provided.

The single transition word &#8220;also,&#8221; and phrases that connect ideas (&#8220;Yeah…but&#8221;; &#8220;theres a lot…but&#8221;; &#8220;Rundle goes off…but&#8221;) are inadequate in connecting already loosely-focused ideas.

The first paragraph, arguably the introduction, provides background information about the issue, but never states a concrete claim (&#8220;I dont think it is [a waste of money]&#8221;). There is no conclusion other than a final vague opinion (&#8220;I think it would be a game changer&#8221;).

There is no discernable progression of ideas. The ideas in the first paragraph (3D printers are not a waste of money and 95% problem-free) have little connection to those in the second paragraph (3D printers are “useful” and “have content”), and any vague connection implied fails to build a credible argument.

There is a general acknowledgement of the opposing point of view throughout the first paragraph (&#8220;waste of money,&#8221; &#8220;problems with the system,&#8221; leading to a confusing conclusion that &#8220;95% of the time it will be flawless&#8221;). Paragraph 2 offers a similarly confusing address of the counterclaim (&#8220;thats so not true 3D printers can have so much more content on them because they are so much bigger&#8221;; &#8220;it could be useful with someone that works with chocolate or something&#8221;).

Content Explorer

Sample Items Website

Tools for Teachers

Smarter Reporting

Remote Teaching and Learning

More Resources for Teachers

Privacy

Diversity, Inclusion & Equity

Web Accessibility Statement

Policy

Instagram

YouTube

Pinterest

Twitter

Facebook

Connect

An annotation is the educator’s explanation of how a portion of the student’s response relates to the rubric and contributes to that trait’s score. For example, the educator might explain how the response meets the expectations of a specific score point. An annotation can also describe aspects of a student response that relate to multiple score points on the rubric to demonstrate nuance when determining a score.

Annotation

One of three traits scored for the ELA performance task full write, this trait measures a student’s ability to demonstrate command of grade-level conventions of standard English: grammar usage (including sentence formation), capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.

This trait measures students’ ability to select and integrate details that support, explain, illustrate, or develop ideas. Students should elaborate these details—that is, explain and connect them, guided by the writing purpose and audience needs.
For informative/explanatory and opinion/argumentative writing purposes, these details come from source materials.
For narrative writing, this trait is called Development/Elaboration, and students are expected to integrate and develop grade-appropriate story elements such as descriptive details and dialogue. For these tasks, events and experiences are inspired by source materials.

This trait measures students’ ability to establish and sustain a focus for the writing. This focus should be consistent with the task’s designated purpose and the intended audience. Strong introductions and conclusions (or, for narrative writing, beginnings and endings) and transitions help to create coherence.

Performance tasks measure a student’s ability to demonstrate critical-thinking and problem-solving skills by challenging students to apply their knowledge and skills to complex, real-world problems. In the performance task, students are presented with a collection of questions and activities connected to a single theme or scenario. These activities ask students to demonstrate capacities such as depth of understanding, writing and research skills, and complex analysis, which cannot be adequately assessed with traditional assessment questions. Performance tasks are taken on a computer (but are not computer adaptive) and take students one to two class periods to complete.

Performance Task

The prompt is the text provided to the student that requests their response. It includes some contextual information, but also includes a specific task that students complete in their writing response.

Prompt

For a deeper dive into the content behind this student response, navigate to the Sample Items Website to access the writing prompt or visit the Content Explorer to learn more about this content area.

Prompt & Target

“Purpose” is the context for a piece of writing, or what the writer intends to accomplish. Students write texts with the following purposes:
<ul>
<li>Narrative (grades 3–8): tell a story</li>
<li>Informational (grades 3–5): present facts or data using source material</li>
<li>Explanatory (grades 6–11): explain a topic or concept by analyzing source materials</li>
<li>Opinion (grades 3–5): present and defend a position</li>
<li>Argumentative (grades 6–11): present an argument using research to form and support claims</li>
</ul>
Purposes have subtle differences depending on grade, and each writing purpose has its own scoring rubric.

Purpose

This text was written by a student in response to a Performance Task writing prompt.

Response

A rubric is a set framework for scorers to reference when determining the quality of student writing. Each trait has its own rubric, and every point value is defined in detail with examples of what to expect from student writing at each level.

Rubric

Donec sed odio dui. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Nullam id dolor id nibh ultricies vehicula ut id elit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Sample Term One

Sample Term Two

Traits are different dimensions of a student response that educators evaluate when scoring. For example, an educator will assess grammar and spelling as part of the Conventions trait (maximum of two score points) but not take grammar or spelling into account when assessing the other traits. This approach ensures that scorers evaluate student writing from multiple angles.

Example for Grade 11: Argumentative – 3D Printers - ID: 4254

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy