Grade 11

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

3D Printers

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

While there are no sentence formation errors, there are some mostly minor problems with sentence structure. For example, the final sentence of the response lacks parallel structure (&#8220;…reasons include possible law violation, unnecessary spending, and that it serves no educational purpose…&#8221;).

There are a couple of unnecessary commas (e.g., “only get themselves into trouble, but also get…”and “warning for the 3D Printer, or a caveat”).

There are no capitalization errors.

The third sentence in paragraph 5 begins with an unclear pronoun reference (&#8220;It even states…&#8221;). The final sentence in paragraph 4 also begins with the unclear referent &#8220;It,&#8221; which is then paired with &#8220;promotes them,&#8221; causing confusion because a printer cannot “promote.”
Paragraph 4 also lacks agreement between pronoun and antecedent (&#8220;…the public needs to educate themselves…&#8221;). There are some shifts in verb mood: for example, paragraph 3 jumps between the subjunctive &#8220;could&#8221; and indicative &#8220;can&#8221; several times.

There are a couple of spelling errors (e.g., “unneccessary” is misspelled twice, and “provlems”). Also, “book shelves” should be one word.

The supporting details are mostly adequately integrated and developed except for the somewhat general address of the opposing point of view.

The details come from a variety of sources with some, but inconsistent, attribution.

The development of ideas is overall adequate despite some inconsistency. For example, paragraph 2 integrates relevant source information about the high cost of 3D printers and then explains potential negative effects: &#8220;This money could be spent on more book shelves, tables, desks, lighting, water, and more.&#8221; Paragraph 3 mostly summarizes the information from sources #2 and #3, but then logically concludes: &#8220;The library can avoid unneccessary lawsuits by not providing a 3D Printer to a community that may or may not know the law or when copyright does or does not protect an object.&#8221; Paragraph 4 effectively summarizes information from source #5, but there is no elaboration beyond the paraphrased source details. Paragraph 5, however, lacks explanations that would clarify the general evidence used (&#8220;Although there is a warning for the 3D Printer, or a caveat emptor…&#8221;; &#8220;…people can work out their problems if there are any…&#8221;).

There are some vague statements (&#8220;…people can work out their problems if there are any…&#8221;) and other phrases such as “may or may not” that fail to clarify or strengthen the argument. However, there are also some strong word choices (&#8220;imperative,&#8221; &#8220;focus,&#8221; &#8220;at risk&#8221;) that contribute to an overall adequate use of language to support the argumentative purpose.

The style is not distinctive, but it is appropriate and consistent.

The claim is clear (&#8220;the library is not an appropriate place for hosting the 3D Printer&#8221;), and the response mostly maintains that focus throughout.

Overall, the transitions are adequate to provide coherence in the response despite some weaknesses. For example, some transition phrases are repetitive (&#8220;Another reason why the library should not have 3D Printers is because&#8221;; &#8220;the most significant reason why the library should not provide 3D Printers is because&#8221;). Some other supporting paragraphs are choppy and could benefit from clearer connections (e.g., paragraphs 3 and 4). On the other hand, paragraph 5 has some more subtle transition devices embedded (e.g., &#8220;Even though&#8230;it is…&#8221;; &#8220;Despite Source 3’s statements…the government can still…&#8221;), and some other transition words (&#8220;However,&#8221; &#8220;Ultimately&#8221;) contribute to adequate overall cohesion.

The introduction initially attracts the audience with a generalized statement about the “greatness” of 3D printers and then nicely explains what 3D printers are. The strong claim is clear to readers. The introduction ends with a list of reasons that will be developed to support the claim. The conclusion begins with a strong reiteration of the claim and an impact statement about potential “risk,” but that statement is then followed by a list of the reasons mostly repeated from the introduction. Nonetheless, the introduction and conclusion are overall adequate.

Although the argument progresses adequately overall (adhering to the roadmap presented in the introduction), there are some minor weaknesses. For example, paragraph 5 is intended to address the opposing point of view, but it would be more clearly relevant if paragraph 3, which also focuses on the legal problems, and paragraph 5 were combined or adjacent. Paragraph 5 does, however, segue well into the concluding paragraph’s mention of “risks.”

Paragraph 5 is focused on acknowledging the opposing point of view (&#8220;Even though…it is better&#8221;; &#8220;Despite…the government can still…&#8221;), addressing the single issue of copyright infringement.

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: 4279

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy