Grade 7

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Second Language Learning

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

There are sentence formation errors. Paragraph 2 has a run-on sentence (“&#8230;they become part of the culture&#8221;; &#8220;they start to”), and paragraph 4 has a fragment (“For instance, if you take two students both very bright hwoever [sic] one is bilingual, and the other one isn’t”).

There are numerous punctuation errors with commas including missing commas with introductory elements (e.g., paragraph 3: “&#8230;if the student is not bilingual and does nto [sic] understand the patient there is one [1] no connection&#8230;”; paragraph 4: “when you are older it will benefit you”). There are also many examples of unnecessary commas (paragraph 1: “&#8230;learning a new language gives a student that advantage in the long run, when it comes&#8230;”; paragraphs 2, 3, and 4: “the ____ reason, why I&#8230;”; paragraph 3: “This is another reason, why &#8230;”; paragraph 4: “Many adults, wish they were&#8230;”).

There are no errors with capital letters.

There are numerous grammar usage errors with agreement: There are errors with subject-verb agreement in paragraphs 4 and 5 (“&#8230;he/she are able&#8230;”; and “&#8230;three reasons&#8230;is&#8230;”). There are problems with shifting voice in paragraph 3 (“&#8230;student&#8230;you&#8230;”). The verb mood (conditional) is not consistently maintained in the second sentence of paragraph 3 (“&#8230;if a student is looking to go into the medical field, the patients come from many different&#8230;you want to connect&#8230;”). The errors in this category are numerous; however, the sentence patterns are relatively complex, so they are not judged as severely as they would be in a more simplistic response. In addition, note that the incidences of inconsistent agreement between pronoun and antecedents cannot be judged as errors as there is no clear gender identification (sometimes the writer uses “student…their” in paragraph 2 and 3, but in paragraph 4, the writer uses “student…he/she”).

There are several spelling errors repeated throughout (“shoud,&#8221; &#8220;learniing,&#8221; &#8220;lamguage,&#8221; &#8220;langage,&#8221; &#8220;hwoever,&#8221; &#8220;recieve,&#8221; &#8220;stduent&#8217;s,&#8221; &#8220;longrun”). The word “resemme” is arguably not a 7th grade spelling word, although it is spelled correctly in the sources. There are also some typos, which still count as errors (“nto, go” instead of “give”).

Integration of evidence is adequate. Although some of the evidence is largely summarized/repeated (e.g., in paragraph 2: “expands their mind&#8230;opens their mind up to a whole other world&#8230;opens up another door&#8230;”), in other places, details are elaborated by establishing a source-based cause/effect that is at least 7th grade-logical (e.g., in paragraph 3: being unable to speak to a patient in his/her language could result in there being no connection and ultimately “most likely leads to you losing a patient”). Details used in this response are source-based and come from at least two sources, but the writer has failed to cite those references.

The vocabulary is somewhat uneven: there is repetition of the opening of each paragraph (“the first reason&#8221;; &#8220;why I believe&#8221;; the second reason&#8221;; &#8220;why I believe”) and at the end of each paragraph (“this is why I believe”). Yet there is other more effective language use observed throughout (e.g., “embraces&#8221;; &#8220;establish that bond&#8221;; &#8220;implementation of”).

Although the formulaic language can be distracting, the style is overall appropriate. For example, the rhetorical question that opens the response (“Can you imagine the world without a foreign language?”) demonstrates awareness of the audience and the argumentative purpose and sets the tone for the response.

The introduction begins with a rhetorical question that works well to set the context for the argument. The rest of the introduction provides a perfunctory “roadmap” for the letter and ends with an ineffective statement (“Here are just a few reasons why I believe.”). Except for the final sentence (a somewhat general call to action: “I ask that you fully consider”), the final paragraph mostly echoes what has already been said, repeating rather than concluding the argument (the final three sentences of paragraph 4 might have been a better conclusion). There is a slight loss of focus in paragraph 4 (“Overall, learning a new language is one of the best things you could do at a young age because when you are older it will benefit you”), although arguably this section is supposed to segue into the conclusion.

A clear and strong claim is evident (“I strongly believe that a student should be provided with the opportunity to learn a foreign language”).

Transitions are uneven: transitions between the body paragraphs (“The first reason, why I believe students should”) are obvious to the point of being disruptive; however, internal transitions are subtler and they are generally effective (see, as examples, paragraph 2: “For instance&#8221;; &#8220;I mean&#8221;; &#8220;In many ways&#8221;; &#8220;For this reason”).

The progression of ideas is overall adequate. The third and fourth body paragraphs offer “reasons” that are not particularly different (knowing a foreign language provides wider career option[s] in the future, and knowing a foreign language builds a stronger resume). This does not necessarily represent a loss of focus (arguably, one deals with succeeding in a job and the other with getting the job), but the argument would have been advanced more effectively had there been an address of the opposing point of view/argument. While acknowledging the counterclaim is a requirement at grade 7, it is just one point on the scoring rubric and in and of itself does not keep the response from earning a score point 3. It would, however, have been an effective tool in advancing the argument for this response.

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 7: Argumentative – Second Language Learning - ID: 981

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy