Grade 11

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

3D Printers

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There are no sentence formation errors.

There are several errors with punctuation, including a missing comma in compound construction (&#8220;…they would solely be using the 3D printer for educational and knowledge-based purposes…and this is what a library should…&#8221;).

There is one capitalization error (e.g., “just” at the beginning of the third sentence in the second paragraph).

There are a few grammar usage errors. An incorrect pronoun is used in paragraph 4, “it” should be “them,” and the phrase “put the library in blame” uses an incorrect preposition: “in” should be “to.”

The response attempts to integrate some information from several sources, but that attempt is generally inadequate. For example, in paragraph 3, the attempt to integrate information from source 1 and source 5 results in some confusion (e.g., the information about H. Rundle is over-simplified). As another example, in paragraph 2, the issues of piracy, copyright, and patents are confounded.

Multiple sources are used and attributed.

The lack of elaboration contributes to some confusion. For example, paragraph 3 calls for utilizing strict rules to control the use of 3D printers. But the central argument lacks an explanation that might clarify the unclear connection between two ideas (&#8220;This [signing a strict policy] secures the library from being blamed for such piracy and makes the users be more responsible while using the 3D printer; they would solely be using the 3D printer for educational and knowledge-based purposes without the issue of patents and this is what a library should promote&#8221;). Similarly, paragraph 2 acknowledges the difficulty in controlling 3D printing but then jumps to the conclusion that therefore virtually everyone would be acting illegally. This lack of explanation interferes with the development of a logical argument.

Overall the vocabulary use is uneven. Some stronger vocabulary (e.g., &#8220;essentially,&#8221; &#8220;virtually,&#8221; &#8220;contrary&#8221;) offsets some general and repetitive language (people) and words that are used imprecisely (&#8220;This secures the library…&#8221;; &#8220;If the library chooses to implement a 3D printer&#8221;; &#8220;…put the library in blame&#8221;). However, given the brevity of this somewhat repetitive response, the language use is too inconsistent for a higher score.

The few attempts at establishing an argumentative style (&#8220;Having a 3D printer means the library IS promoting learning…&#8221;; &#8220;I strongly urge…&#8221;) are insufficient to bolster the credibility of this uneven argument.

There is a clear claim in the introduction (&#8220;I oppose the use of [3D printers in libraries]&#8221;), but the conclusion states a qualified claim (&#8220;only if they have very strict rules&#8221;). This mixed focus is weakly sustained.

Although there are some transitions words (&#8220;therefore&#8221;) and phrases (&#8220;Just as people…people will also…&#8221;; &#8220;All in all&#8221;), the connections are sometimes weak or even faulty. For example, just because manufactures wouldn’t have the power to prevent “the proliferation of 3D printing, ” it does not necessarily follow that &#8220;Therefore, virtually everyone who uses a 3D printer….would technically be involved in crime….&#8221;

The introduction sets the context for the issue and offers background information as well as an evident claim (&#8220;I oppose the usage of these machines&#8221;), which is then lumped in with the forecasted supporting reasons. The conclusion is brief but adequate (it includes a modified/qualified claim and ends with a perfunctory but adequate call to action).

The progression of ideas is uneven. The claim states the writer’s opposition to 3D printers in libraries, and paragraph 2 supports that position. But paragraph 3 provides caveats—conditions under which 3D printers might be used in libraries. Presumably the argument progresses from acknowledging that the problems with piracy cannot be controlled, and therefore restrictions are necessary to avoid legal problems. But the reader has to do too much of the interpreting about the argumentative logic here.
Further, there is no clear causal relationship between needing to have strict rules in place (&#8220;…This [signing a strict policy] secures the library from being blamed for such piracy and makes the users be more responsible while using the 3D printer…&#8221;) and the subsequent statement declaring that anti-piracy rules would mean the library was being true to its educational mission (&#8220;…they would solely be using the 3D printer for educational and knowledge-based purposes…&#8221;).
Then, this argument leads to a similarly flawed conclusion: &#8220;Having a 3D printer means the library IS promoting learning…, contrary to the beliefs of H Rundle…&#8221;).

The address of the opposing point of view is confusing. Because the ultimate claim is modified from that stated at the beginning, the opposing point of view becomes part of the support. But paragraph 3 has a very loose focus, attempting to argue for limiting liability but then shifting focus to a misleading summary of details in Source 5 (&#8220;contrary to the beliefs of H. Rundle&#8221;), and failing to deal with that author’s primary distinction between tangible and intangible outcomes.

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: 4271

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy