Grade 11

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

3D Printers

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There are no sentence formation errors.

There is a missing hyphen between “world” and “changing” in the second paragraph. There are unnecessary commas after “creativity” in multiple paragraphs (e.g. “given the opportunity to express their creativity, and…”).

The “D” in “3D” is a lowercase “d” throughout the entire response.

In paragraph 3, the word &#8220;where&#8221; is inaccurately used; it should be “whereby,” or the sentence could be revised (e.g., &#8220;…an agreement stating that they agree…&#8221;). There are some minor inconsistencies with verb mood (e.g., “would” is correctly used throughout except for the occasional use of “can,” which should be “could”).

Of the available resources, minimal details are used, and they are weakly integrated.

The response is too general to identify what sources are referenced, although there is information from at least two sources, which are not attributed.

Paragraph 2, the only body paragraph offering supporting reasons, adds a specific detail about the cost of 3D printers. Beyond that, there is little substance except to repeat a vague reference to “ideas” (&#8220;world-changing idea,&#8221; &#8220;express their idea,&#8221; &#8220;revolutionary idea&#8221;) with no concrete explanations, inferences, or examples offered. The only attempted elaboration is the hypothetical and general reference to a potentially lost revolutionary “idea.” Paragraph 3 summarizes information in a weak attempt to develop an address of the opposing point of view.

The language used is mostly general and repetitive (in particular, the vague word &#8220;idea&#8221; is used throughout). The occasional effective word choices (&#8220;myriad,&#8221; &#8220;revolutionary,&#8221; &#8220;world-changing&#8221;) are insufficient for a higher score in this category.

There is little evidence of any style that would strengthen the argumentative purpose.

This brief response mostly maintains focus on the somewhat general claim that a 3D printer would be beneficial for the library.

Despite some repetition, (&#8220;However&#8221;), most transitions (e.g., &#8220;As a result,&#8221; &#8220;if….then&#8230;,&#8221; &#8220;also,&#8221; &#8220;In conclusion&#8221;) connect ideas adequately.

The introduction is general and repetitive, although the claim is clear (3D printer would be beneficial for the library). The conclusion is weak, basically repeating the same information as in the introduction with the exception of a seemingly random and vague idea that &#8220;The increased traffic would also help the library.&#8221;

The progression of ideas is somewhat weak, especially given the brevity of the response. The major support for the claim is centered around the idea of creativity that could potentially provide a ground-breaking “idea.”
However, this lone reason is presented in the introduction, in paragraph 2, and again in the concluding paragraph, using the same general terms. For example, from paragraph 1: &#8220;Everyone would have access to an expensive tool for creativity, and be given the opportunity to express their ideas.&#8221; From paragraph 2: &#8220;However, if that same person did not have a 3d printer in the first place to use, then that revolutionary idea may have been lost, and society would have lost a potentially world changing idea.&#8221; From paragraph 4: &#8220;Many people would be given the opportunity to express their creativity, and create things that would benefit the world.&#8221; It would seem that these three sentences, which express the same basic idea, are interchangeable.
Paragraph 3 acknowledges a single general reason against having 3D printers (copyright problems) even though the introduction mentions that there are “very few reasons.” Overall, the response is not convincing and feels incomplete.

Paragraph 3 provides a basic summarization of source information to address the counterclaim. However, without even an explanation of what the actual copyright issue is, this address is somewhat simplistic (e.g., it’s not likely that a user agreement would “easily” solve the problem).

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: 4274

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy