Grade 11

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

3D Printers

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There is a run-on sentence in the third paragraph (“The library can state on the rules that any copyrighted or illegal use of the printer, the library is not help reliable and the object being printed will not be able to be printed”). Although many of the sentences are a bit awkward, there are no sentence formation errors.

There are two missing commas with compound independent clauses (“…the library is…and the object being printed will not be able to be printed” and “…the library will stay out of it and only the people doing the printing will be…”) and two missing commas after introductory elements (“If the library ever needed an object, tool, or anything else that can be printed by the 3-D printer then….” and “To conclude the library…”). Although these comma errors are well below grade level, they are just one kind of punctuation error.

There are no capitalization errors.

There are errors with pronoun/antecedent agreement with &#8220;community&#8221;/&#8221;they&#8221; occurring in both the second and third paragraph. There is an error with frequently confused words &#8220;then&#8221; and &#8220;than&#8221; (“The parts could be cheaper to print out then go to…” and “…but if the library takes many precautions than the library will stay out of it…”). Shifts in verb mood are distracting and cause confusion throughout (as one example: “…the library should buy a 3-D printer is because the library will not be held…”).

There are a few spelling errors (e.g., “alot,” “buisness,” and “libray”).

The details provided are general, weakly integrated, and repetitive.

There are some references to source materials, with vague attribution to sources 1 and 2.

There is minimal effective elaboration of details. For example, paragraph 3 supposedly presents reasons why 3D printers would be useful to patrons. The attempted elaboration via hypothetical example (&#8220;The printer could be used to make auto parts….cheaper [than] an auto part dealer&#8221;) seems somewhat unlikely or unconnected to source materials. And then, paragraph 5 basically repeats the same reason as did paragraph 3: the 3D printer would be useful to librarians who may need &#8220;objects, tools, or anything else,&#8221; with no elaboration. The information in paragraph 4 attempts to summarize information from source 1, with no extension.

Inaccurate word choices cause some confusion (e.g., &#8220;the library will not be held reliable&#8221; should be “the library would not be held liable”). Other word choices are vague, repetitive, and sometimes confusing (e.g., objects, tools, or anything else).

There is little evidence of any style to enhance the argumentative purpose.

While the position is evident, it is lumped in with the roadmap for the response (&#8220;Our local library should buy a 3-D printer because…&#8221;). Although the response stays focused on that claim, the support is often too general and/or repetitive to achieve unity.

Repetitive and formulaic transitions are so distracting they interfere with the very cohesion they are intended to create (e.g., &#8220;To start off with, the library should buy a 3-D printer because…&#8221;; &#8220;Another reason the library should buy a 3-D printer is because…&#8221;; and &#8220;Lastly, the library should buy a 3-D printer because…&#8221;). There are also problems with weak internal transitions (e.g., Paragraph 4 is choppy, with repetitive clauses having no clear connections: &#8220;The library can state…&#8221;; &#8220;the library is not…&#8221;; &#8220;The library can make…&#8221;). In other places, the lack of transitions causes reader confusion. For example, without the word “however” (or similar), there is no clear relationship between sentences two/three and four/five of the second paragraph: &#8220;3-D printers cost 1,299 plus shipping. (source 2) That is alot to pay if all you need to do is print out a small object on a tool that is no longer in buisness and so doesnt have extra parts to replace it with. The printer could be used to make auto parts. The parts could be cheaper to print out then go to an auto part dealer.&#8221; Weaknesses in this category significantly diminish the overall unity.

The introduction is mechanical. It provides a general statement to set context (All around the world libraries are buying 3-D printers), a clear claim (&#8220;Our local library should buy a 3-D printer…&#8221;) lumped in with a formulaic preview of the upcoming reasons (&#8220;…because the printer will help our community make objects or parts they might need, the library will not be held reliable for copyright laws, and the library could produce whatever it needs&#8221;). After adding a new address of possible objections, the conclusion mostly repeats (in a different order) the information provided in the introduction except for the confusing statement &#8220;The library doesn&#8217;t need a 3-D printer right now.&#8221; Overall, the introduction and conclusion have too many shortcomings to earn a higher score.

The progression of ideas initially appears obvious. However, upon closer analysis, the missing, unclear, and/or inconsistent connections cause enough confusion to impact the progression of ideas. For example, the final line of the letter introduces confusing “new” information about the library not needing the 3D printer “now.” Furthermore, the focus of paragraphs 3 and 5 are not substantively different (3D printer would allow &#8220;the community&#8221; to print parts it might need; the 3D printer would allow the library to produce “whatever” it might need). It is also not clear if the first sentence of the final paragraph is intended to be part of the conclusion.

Address of the opposing point of view is minimal. Paragraph 3 briefly mentions cost (&#8220;That is alot to pay&#8221;). And, arguably, the second “reason” about copyright laws is provided in response to criticism about the legal risk of providing access to a 3D printer, but as a letter, the reader wouldn’t know that. The legal issues are briefly addressed again in the final paragraph (&#8220;A lot of people will say that the library will be caught up in law, but if…&#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: 4289

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy