Grade 6

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Clean Communities

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There is a run-on sentence: “When they are crushed and put into landfills the lead and mercury seap into the groundwater and rivers, when this happens, it contaminates….”

There are several errors with commas: missing or misplaced commas between compound independent clauses (e.g., “many people in the community have electronics that are broken or they simply do not have a use for them anymore” and “it contaminates not only our water supply but, it also contaminates…”), and a missing comma after an introductory element (“When they are crushed and put into landfills the lead and mercury seap…”). Given the length and complexity of the writing, however, the errors with just one type of punctuation—the comma—do not demonstrate significant problems with punctuation in general.

The word “tv” is usually capitalized, but there are no other errors with capital letters.

There are a few errors with grammar usage including with frequently confused words (there/their; led/lead) and with subject/verb agreement (“hundreds of millions of pounds of electronics is disposed of…”).

There are some spelling errors (e.g., “damge,” &#8220;electronics,” “seap,” “enviornment,” &#8220;conatian,” and “amd”), and although some of these may be typos, they are errors nonetheless.

The integration of text details is strong. For example, in paragraph 4, the synthesis of details from Source #1 and Sources #3 and #4 generates a strong conclusion about recycling electronics being more impactful than collecting litter.

Although the response uses at least three of the four source materials, there is no attempt made to attribute the sources.

The response connects and develops the argument mainly through inferences (e.g., “the human race is not going to be able to scoop it all up” and “we will not be able to solve the problem of 660 million pound of electronics being wasted, we will be able to at least reduce that number”). The elaboration based on inference is particularly strong in paragraph 4, in which the writer makes the evaluation that a discarded TV would damage the environment more than a piece of typical trash. This is the kind of elaboration that is characteristic of a strong and mature argument.

There is some minor repetition (e.g., “I personally think…I think,” “We should,&#8221; &#8220;people should”) and some vague language (e.g., “lots,” &#8220;way easier,” and “way more worth it”), but there are also some strong, precise word choices (e.g., “proceed,” “impact,” “scoop it all up,” “beneficial”). Overall, the vocabulary is adequate.

The style supports the argumentative purpose. For example, the consistent use of the pronouns “we” and “us” helps the reader feel personally involved with the problem. Further, the response consistently emphasizes destruction caused by techno-trash (“terrible hazard”; “large and negative impact”; “more damage”), which further enhances the argument by establishing urgency.

The focus on the claim/choice to recycle electronics is strongly maintained. This response actually “builds” an argument rather than providing a list of reasons.

Transitions between paragraphs are weak (e.g., “First off”,” “Secondly,” and“Lastly”); but transitions within paragraphs are strong and help build an argument (e.g., “If,&#8221; &#8220;So,” “Though,” and “Thus”). Overall, the transitions are adequate.

The introduction is perfunctory but adequate (it sets up context, provides a clear claim, and then presents the three reasons to be used). The conclusion is weak: the disclaimer (“both trash amd electronic waste”) does not lead to the conclusion “so we should host an event to recycle electronics.”

The progression of ideas is strong: paragraph 2 examines the problem; paragraph 3 explains the danger; paragraph 4 addresses the counterclaim, building toward a strong rationale for choosing tech-recycling over collecting litter.

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 6: Argumentative – Clean Communities - ID: 5177

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy