Grade 7

Argumentative

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Second Language Learning

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

Sentence structures are generally correct, but there are a few that are slightly awkward (e.g., “The kids are more open and curious to the language compared to other listed ages.” and “We don’t need any more pressure than what handed to us with the responsibilities.”). There is one fragment, but it is used for effect (“None whatsoever.”).

In the first paragraph, there is an error with capitalizing the pronoun “I”; in the second paragraph there is an unnecessary capitalization of the word “They.”

There should be a comma after the transition word “Also” in paragraph 2, as well as within the phrase “…the older we get[,] the more responsibilities we get.”

At the end of paragraph 1, a singular verb should be used to agree with the noun “reasoning”: “Here [is] some of my reasoning behind it.” There is a second subject/verb agreement issue in paragraph 4: “With bad grades comes upset parents….” In paragraph 2, there is a grammatical error in the phrase “If the correct accent doesn’t come out good.…” There are two instances of vague, ambiguous pronouns, one in paragraph 2 (“Also as they get older, They pick up more responsibilities…”), and another in paragraph 3 (“Going by those standards, it’d probably be best if they offer a language or two throughout school.”). In the final sentence of paragraph 4, the word “reasons” should be used in place of the word “reasoning.” Finally, there is a shift from third person to first person in paragraph 4: “…the older we get the more responsibilities we get.” As a whole, the letter shifts from third, to second, to first person pronouns, which is both confusing and distracting.

Support for this qualified claim (“foreign language should be a class that’s offered, not required”) is unevenly developed. The use of source-based evidence is not consistently or adequately integrated or sufficiently elaborated for the argument. For example, in paragraph 2, the idea that “They pick up more responsibilities through home, school, and jobs” is not developed sufficiently to support the idea that younger is better for learning a foreign language. Likewise, in paragraph 3, using a rhetorical question (“What good is it going to do if you can’t communicate? None whatsoever”) to develop the idea about global jobs does not adequately support that reason. Paragraph 4, on the other hand, is adequately developed with cause/effect (forcing foreign language instruction will lead to bad grades, which leads to upset parents and stress); however, the speculations are not grounded in sources. Although there are implied references to sources, there are no explicit attributions.

The vocabulary used is general and somewhat repetitive (“as I mentioned, responsibilities, reasoning, force/forced”), and at times, the vocabulary is ineffective (“That points me to my next destination; There’s my first idea about it”).

There is evidence of style, which is sometimes effective (“Note that I said ‘offer’ not ‘force’”) but at other times arguably inappropriate for the task (“What good is it going to do if you can’t communicate? None whatsoever”).

The response has a clear qualified claim about teaching a second language (should be offered, not required).

In addition to the claim, the introduction provides some context (&#8220;discussion recently taking place about…&#8221;) for the issue, but the conclusion &#8220;is weak (I hope my little letter here.&#8221;).

The focus on offering but not requiring a second language is somewhat maintained. For example, paragraph 2 supports teaching a second languages at a lower age. Paragraph 3, supports a position that “it’s probably best if they offer a language or two.” Paragraph 4 focuses on the dangers of “forcing” already-over-burdened students. However, information in paragraphs 2 and 4 is essentially repeated (&#8220;as they get older they pick up more responsibilities&#8221; and &#8220;the older we get the more responsibilities we get&#8221;) and neither of these ideas really supports claims about teaching a second language in elementary school. The support for the claim is ordered by source: paragraph 2 summarizes Source #1; paragraph 3 summarizes some information from Source #2; paragraph 4 reflects some information from one of the letters from Source #3.

Transitions (&#8220;First off,&#8221; &#8220;There’s my first idea about it,&#8221; &#8220;My second is that,&#8221; &#8220;That points me to my next destination,&#8221; and &#8220;And that’s one of my reasons&#8221;) are not effective, but they do signal a progression of events.

The use of a qualified claim (offer but do not require) implies some acknowledgment of the opposing point of view.

Sentence formation errors include a run-on (&#8220;Going on vacation is much easier when you know the native language to that country. take it from a letter sent to Gazette.&#8221;)

There is a grammar usage error with an unclear pronoun reference in the first sentence of the second paragraph ([let’s] “talk about their childhood”). Other grammar usage errors include an error with frequently confused words (multiple instances of “have” instead of “half”).

There are errors with below grade level use of capital letters including the failure to capitalize the personal pronoun “I,” a missing capital at the beginning of a sentence (“today they have…”), and an unnecessary capital (“Language”).

Punctuation errors include multiple instances of a missing apostrophe (“lets&#8221; instead of &#8220;let’s”). There are also multiple examples of needless commas (e.g., “…kids who are bilingual are getting the same education, and sometimes even better…”;“They retain the information… just as well as the other non-bilingual kids, and are often able…&#8221;; &#8220;I&#8217;m holding my argument firm, and will keep…”). In addition, source titles should be in quotation marks.

There are no evident problems with spelling (“ad” for “had” counts as a spelling error even though it is likely a typo).

The response uses a variety of source materials; these source materials are attributed, although the source number for the Lopez letter is missing. The integration and elaboration of the source material is mixed. For example, paragraph 2 is fairly basic, summarizing the information from Source #1 with little elaboration. Paragraph 3 narrowly focuses on a small part of Source #3 and doesn’t fully develop the information. For example, the implied connection between vacationing and having “a real reason to learn” would be stronger with more explanation. Paragraph 4 shows a more comprehensive use of source material. Although it’s impossible to draw a meaningful comparison between “200 million” in China with 18% of  US children, the writer then “guesses” that &#8220;…only about have of those [US] kids will retain the second language and be able to speak it.&#8221; This inference seems [grade 7] logical despite not being explicitly supported by the source materials.  Vocabulary use is overall adequate and occasionally effective (e.g., &#8220;retain,&#8221; &#8220;holding firm,&#8221; &#8220;pressing for&#8221;). There is a strong evidence of an emerging style (e.g., short sentence for emphasis: &#8220;China get this&#8221;; and an effective rhetorical question: &#8220;How are we supposed to work out of the U.S. if we can&#8217;t even speak a native Language?&#8221;). The repeated use of the word “today” in paragraph 4 may have been unintentional, but it is also rhetorically effective.

The response presents a claim (&#8220;should get a secondary language class&#8221;) that is somewhat confusing, depending on the meaning of the word “secondary” (arguably, secondary could refer to high school). In addition to the claim, the introduction provides some limited general context (&#8220;I have read and watched arguments about…strong feelings toward…&#8221;). The conclusion is adequate, beginning with some repetition (&#8220;…where I stand,&#8221; &#8220;…holding firm, will keep pressing&#8221;) but ending with a strong statement (&#8220;We need our kids of the 21st Century to be bilingual&#8221;).  The letter is organized by simple source summary (Source #1, #3, #2), but the focus on the claim is maintained throughout. &#8220;First off,&#8221; &#8220;Next on the agenda,&#8221; and &#8220;Finally&#8221; are not effective transitions, but they do signal a progression of ideas. There are some nice internal transitions that signal subtle relationships, especially in paragraph 4 (&#8220;Today,…&#8221;; &#8220;Of that number…&#8221;). There is, however, no acknowledgment of the opposing point of view.

Sentence structure: Both paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 have multiple issues with sentence construction. Paragraph 2 consists of two fragments. The second sentence of paragraph 3 is a run-on (“That way when the person who knows multiple languages,and when they start going to school they would know more languages then their friends and they can be smater too.”), and the final sentence is awkwardly constructed (“I hope these paragraphs will make you The School Bored Members will allow the kids to learn multiple languages in High School.”).

The response is missing a capital on the pronoun “i” in paragraph 2 and incorrectly uses capital letters in the final sentence (“The School Board Members” and “High School”).
&nbsp;

This response has an instance of an unnecessary comma (paragraph 1: “My thought about second language learning, is that I think&#8230;”) as well as missing commas (paragraph 2, sentence 2). There is a missing apostrophe to indicate a contraction in the first sentence of paragraph 2 (“Another reason why i think its okay to learn a second language…”).
&nbsp;

There are several instances of using the incorrect form for words that are frequently confused (“your” instead of “you’re,” “that” instead of “than,” and “then” instead of “than”). There is a pronoun/antecedent issue in the second sentence of paragraph 2 (person/they).
&nbsp;

There are several misspellings of grade-level words: “diffirent,” “languge,” “smater,” and “Bored.”

The minimal evidence from the source material is vague (&#8220;you will start learning more languages than other kids&#8221;; &#8220;if you have a friend&#8230;you can be talking to him&#8221;), and the evidence provided seems to be limited to Source #1 only.

Use of elaborative techniques is minimal: a single reason is presented with one statement of causal elaboration (&#8220;Because when or if you have a friend&#8230;.you can be talking to him&#8221;).

There is a single attribution to source material (&#8220;I would have to agree with the author E.B. Perkins&#8221;).

Vocabulary is limited and ineffective (&#8220;I think it,&#8221; &#8220;I would have,&#8221; &#8220;I hope&#8221;) for audience and purpose. Vague language (e.g., &#8220;okay to learn&#8221;) is used repetitively.

The first sentence introduces a weak claim (&#8220;I think it is okay to&#8230;&#8221;). The “first reason” (e.g. &#8220;One reason&#8230;&#8221;) is also awkwardly incorporated into the introduction. The conclusion is off task (&#8220;allow the kids to learn multiple languages in high school&#8221;), or at least it does not follow from the rest of the letter, which minimally lobbies for teaching foreign languages at a young age, not high school.

Other than mechanical phrases (&#8220;One reason,&#8221; &#8220;Another reason,&#8221; &#8220;I hope these paragraphs will…&#8221;) there are few transitions.

Perhaps because the claim is weak, the progression of ideas is weak, failing to advance an argument. For example, the 3rd paragraph mostly repeats the second sentence (&#8220;want kids to be bilingual and know more languages when they grow up&#8221; = &#8220;when you start growing up you will start learning more languages than other kids&#8221;) rather than developing support. The letter makes no reference to the opposing point of view (a new-to-grade CCSS requirement).

The errors with sentence structure are prolific and distracting: see, as examples, sentences 2 and 3 in paragraph 1, the final sentence in paragraph 2, and the sentence 3 in paragraph 5. In these cases, the writer creates sentence fragments with stand-alone dependent clauses (“And how&#8221;; &#8220;Because&#8221;). There are other incomplete sentences (see the last sentence in paragraph 3). Also apparent are many run-on sentences such as the first sentence of the letter and the first sentences of paragraphs 2 – 5. Although many other sentences are not grammatically incorrect, the numerous sentences that begin with conjunctions (“And” and “But”) interfere with fluency.

Many of the sentence structure errors could be corrected with punctuation, and there are errors with the comma in the salutation (“Dear, Pinesville” instead of “Dear Pinesville,”). There is also a punctuation error with a missing apostrophe (“that’s”).

There are errors with below-grade level capitalization rules (“americans&#8221;; &#8220;chinese&#8221;; &#8220;sincerely”).

There are grammar usage errors with frequently confused words (“your” instead of “you’re”; “there” instead of “they’re”). There are two unclear or misleading pronoun references (“In China they estimated&#8230;”; “Most schools spend our budget money&#8230;”).

There are a few misspellings (“payed&#8221;; &#8220;alot&#8221;; &#8220;sincerely”).

This response provides some general supporting evidence for the argumentative claim, warranting a score in the lower 2 category. There are attempts to use evidence from source materials, but the evidence selected is not accurately paraphrased or interpreted (e.g., the writer states, “In China they estimated that 2 million students study English.&#8221; But the source actually notes that “It is estimated that 200 million school-aged students in China study English”).

Use of elaborative techniques is minimal, as development is primarily a vague—and, again, sometimes misinterpreted—source summary.

Vocabulary is repetitive and vague (“And a child&#8221;; &#8220;And he thinks&#8221;; &#8220;Because most kids”).

Although more than one source is referenced, the use of citations is general (source #1, source #2).

There is a weak attempt to create a style, which is somewhat inappropriate for the audience (e.g., “to confront you”).

This response does provide a claim but essentially summarizes the sources to support that claim without connecting ideas in order to build an argument.

The introduction alludes to a claim about foreign language (“most of the time needed&#8221; along with an opinion &#8220;students would like to know different languages”). However, the conclusion does state the claim more explicitly (“schools should have a foreign language class”) and is followed by some generalities about the benefits (&#8220;what they need to know&#8221;; &#8220;it can help them with a lot more”).

The transitions are very weak, relying on stock phrases (“the first source”) and the words &#8220;and,&#8221; &#8220;but,&#8221; and &#8220;because,&#8221; all failing to clarify relationships or make connections meaningfully.

The progression of ideas is by default; that is, there is a brief summary of each source. Therefore, there is no real “building” of an argument. For example, the counter claim (“foreign language classes cost too much money”) is summarized but not addressed or connected to the stated position; therefore, calling attention to the unaddressed opposing point of view does not serve to advance the argument.

The response has generally correct sentence construction with the exception of one awkward construction at the end of the final sentence of paragraph 1 (&#8220;then there is a way to them to do all the work needed.”).
&nbsp;

There are no errors in capitalization.
There are no spelling errors in this response.

There are two instances of errors in end punctuation within quoted excerpts from the source material. In paragraph 2, the ending period needs to occur within the quotation marks (&#8220;research suggests that monolingual and bilingual children meet major developmental milestones at similar times”). In paragraph 3, there should be a period at the end of the quotation.

There is a possible pronoun/antecedent issue in paragraph 2 (“When someone learns a new language, they can learn other things more easily.”).

This stronger score point 2 response incorporates some evidence from more than one source, and there is some attribution of source materials. However, the use of text details, and—in particular—attempts to elaborate on these details is uneven.  Paragraph 2 does an adequate job of summarizing information from Source #1 (advantages of second language learning and research supporting that). There is little elaboration, but the details are nicely integrated and the conclusion (“So essentially”) reiterates the conclusions in that source. However, paragraph 3 provides only a general and unelaborated detail from Source #2. Paragraph 4 provides vague and unattributed (“can participate with”) information, concluding with an unexplained (and, therefore, irrelevant) detail about non-native speakers getting homework in a different language.

The language use is general (“things”) and somewhat repetitive given the length of the response (“learning”; “learn”).

With the exception of the first exclamatory sentence, which attempts to draw the reader in, there is little evidence of style.

The introduction is effective, beginning with a strong call to action and an equally strong claim (“We need to make a change! Schools should teach a second language”). The rest of the introduction provides an outline of sorts for the details to come. This “outline” is a bit protracted in spots (“Secondly, it would help people talk to other people from around the world. It can be limiting to go to a place and not know how to speak the language there”) and confusing in others (“if someone comes to a school and does not speak English, but the school teaches a language that that person does speak, then there is a way to them to do all the work needed”). The conclusion is ineffective (“These three reasons are why you people&#8230;”) and detracts from the argumentative purpose.

The transitions are uneven: the mechanical transitions that introduce reasons/paragraphs (&#8220;First&#8221;; &#8220;Secondly&#8221;; &#8220;Also&#8221;; &#8220;First&#8221;; &#8220;Next&#8221;; &#8220;Finally&#8221;) do little to advance the argument. Internal transitions in nicely clarify relationships in paragraph 2(e.g., “The question is&#8221;; &#8220;So”), but internal transitions in paragraph 4 fail to make connections logical (“In addition”).

The progression of ideas begins strong but fades, diminishing the effectiveness of the argument. Specifically, paragraph 2 progresses logically, moving from an understanding that speaking more than one language is a benefit, to addressing the issue of ideal timing, and the conclusion that younger is better. Paragraph 3 ends with a generalized interpretation (“doubles the chances”) that is somewhat self-evident. Then, paragraph 4 falters. The focus of the paragraph is general (“if there is a second language spoken, people will be able to understand one another”) and, as presented, the example at the end of the paragraph seems to drift from that focus (“people who do not speak English can get their homework in a different language, which will help them get better grades”). The response fails to acknowledge or address the opposing point of view.

There are no errors with sentence structure, punctuation, or capitalization.

There are several errors in grammar usage including a relatively minor error with “easier” instead of more easily (“they would find jobs easier”).  In addition, there are errors with inconsistent verb tense/mood (e.g., “… If they begin learning now, they will develop and learn the language without an accent. This is helpful because the students would sound more like a native speaker. In the end, sounding like a native speaker will allow…”). There are other verb problems such as “only 18% of Americans currently report to speaking another language other than English…” but these are not errors per se.  There is an unclear modifier: “…educating the students of Pineville and the rest of the U.S. in a second language will help our country catch up to the rest of the world in this area” (as positioned, “area” modifies “world” rather than the area of learning a second language).

There is a single spelling error (“receive”).

This response develops adequate supporting evidence for the argument. Sufficient evidence from the source material is integrated. The elaboration of these text details, however, is just adequate. For example, paragraphs 2-4 are largely elaborated by source summary, often with very close paraphrasing (e.g., “pales in comparison” vs. “far short of” in the source materials) followed by a somewhat self-evident statement of consequence (paragraph 2: “&#8230;sounding like a native speaker will allow the students to communicate to more people in better ways than those who only speak one”; paragraph 4: “If our students know another language, they would find jobs easier”). However, in paragraph 5, source information is nicely synthesized (“there are not enough teachers for all schools,” Source 2) and used to present a logical rebuttal of the counterclaim (“I believe teaching foreign languages at our elementary schools would raise awareness&#8230;would give some students the ambition to pursue a career in the foreign language teaching”). The response fails to include specific references to source materials. However, this lapse alone would not prevent the response from earning a score point 3.

The vocabulary is generally appropriate for the audience and purpose (&#8220;prime age&#8221;; &#8220;pales in comparison&#8221;; &#8220;accomplish&#8221;; &#8220;ambition&#8221;).

The style is appropriate for the task. (“That result pales in comparison; I believe that teaching foreign languages at our elementary schools would raise awareness and interest in the topic. This would give some students the ambition to pursue a career in the foreign language teaching industry, thus creating more people to fill the role as teachers”).

The introduction is adequate. The statement of claim is clear enough (“when deciding what programs to have in elementary school, you should really consider foreign language studies”). The rest of the introduction, however, is mildly confusing: “many benefits” is clear if general; however, the final sentence (“Also, it would help Pinesville become better educated”) seems to be an afterthought, leaving the reader to wonder why “being better educated” wouldn’t be one of the “many benefits.” The conclusion is weak.

The transitions are mixed. The words &#8220;First,&#8221; &#8220;Second,&#8221; and &#8220;Lastly,&#8221; are distractingly formulaic and do little to advance the argument. However, there are a few transitions within paragraphs that are more effective in showing relationships (“In the end”; “For example”).

Each body paragraph maintains its focus, which is fairly easy to do given that the progression of ideas is a simple summary of the source materials as they were presented in the task (see paragraphs 2–4).

The fifth paragraph, again via source summary, does adequately address an opposing argument.

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.

There are several sentences where awkward constructions are evident. The final sentence of paragraph 1 (“In schools, it should be mandatory for people to learn a second language.”) would read more fluently and the meaning would be clearer with the prepositional phrase at the end rather than the beginning. In paragraph 2, the first sentence would benefit from the removal of an extra prepositional phrase (“Some parents worry [for their children] about the mental effects learning a second language can have on his or her child.”). There is a comma splice in paragraph 4 (“It is not just me either, a lot of people agree, according to the person who said this…”).

In paragraph 1, the word “English” should be capitalized. In paragraph 4, the word “according” should not be capitalized.
&nbsp;

Generally speaking, the response shows an inconsistent grasp of where commas need to be present. For example, the first sentence of the letter is a compound sentence, so it should contain a comma (“…the world is at our fingertips[,] and we need more than 18% of Americans…”). In paragraph 2, there is an unnecessary comma (“…what parent would not worry and want the best for their kids future[,] and want it to be easy and successful.”), as well as lacking an apostrophe to indicate possession. The use of parentheses in paragraph 6 around “as a nation” and “economically” is not appropriate since the meaning of the sentence is dependent on the inclusion of those words.
&nbsp;

There is a pronoun/antecedent agreement error in the first sentence of paragraph two (“Some parents worry for their children about the mental effects learning a second language can have on his or her child.”). There is an instance where the article “a” is used instead of “an” (paragraph 5).
&nbsp;

In paragraph 4, “everyday” should be spelled as two separate words.

This response integrates thoughtfully selected evidence from a variety of sources, all of which are attributed. Even in the introduction, text details are nicely used to strengthen the argument (e.g., using a specific statistic—“18% of Americans”—to set up the claim) and to connect to the audience (the Starbucks reference).

Throughout the body of the argument, text details are also well elaborated overall. For example, paragraph 2 summarizes the primary argument from Source #1. What sets the elaboration apart, however, is taking a text detail (&#8220;Many parents worry&#8221;) and layering it with ethos, appealing to shared experience (&#8220;What parent would not worry and want the best&#8221;). In paragraph 3, the text details are elaborated with a personal connection (&#8220;I remember when I was in third grade&#8221;). Paragraph 4 is adequately, if not effectively, elaborated (e.g., the idea of a fundraiser or a bake sale being sufficient to support a second-language program is naïve, even for a 7th grade student). Paragraph 5 synthesizes information from two sources to support a claim about the benefits of second language learning, although the information is mostly summarized rather than elaborated.

Language supports the argumentative purpose (e.g., &#8220;harsh but true reality&#8221;; &#8220;major leg up competing&#8221;).

The style is distinctive, including  effective rhetorical questions (&#8220;what parent would not worry and want the best&#8221;) and figurative language (e.g., &#8220;the world is at our fingertips&#8221;; &#8220;cherry on top of the American dream cake&#8221;) that enhance the argumentative purpose.

The response has a clear claim (“In schools it should be mandatory for people to learn a second language”).

The response has an effective introduction, nicely using a relevant fact to contextualize the argument. The conclusion is 7th grade-effective, relying on figurative language (“cherry on top of the American dream cake”) and generalities (“our grandchildren and so on”).

Most of the transitions effectively clarify relationships (e.g., in paragraph 2: “of course,” “However”; in paragraph 3: “Thus, It is not just me either”; paragraph 4: “It is not just higher scores. It is also the fact that&#8221;). However, in some places, transitions to adequately connect ideas are missing. For example, paragraph 4 begins with the statement “Speaking of children’s well-being,” which does not follow from the previous paragraph. Such lapses cause minor confusion.

There are also minor flaws in the logical progression of ideas, with some lapses in organization. For example, the first body paragraph nicely acknowledges and addresses the opposing point of view/argument. However, there are some inconsistencies appearing in paragraph 3. That paragraph begins with the benefits of starting language instruction early, and then progresses from a specific example (“when I was in third grade”) to the source-based generalization (“Children learn better through games and activities”). However, the rest of that paragraph lacks cohesion: “Not having a real reason to&#8230;.” drifts from the focus of that paragraph, subsequently straying even further away with “&#8230;schools are underfunded.”

While this may be an attempt to acknowledge the opposing point of view, the simplistic “Fortunately, it is easy to start a fundraiser&#8230;” does not address the counterclaim well enough to advance the primary argument. Hence, the details at the end of the paragraph seem randomly incorporated, and the paragraph lacks the cohesion necessary for a higher score.

Most sentences in this response are constructed accurately, with just a few exceptions (e.g., paragraph 3: “…learning a new language could be the key to the children of our community’s success”; paragraph 4: “Finally, I think that the Pinesville Elementary School should offer foreign language as a subject is because of communication.”). There is one fragment (“Language.” in paragraph 3), but it is obviously included for effect.

Capitalization is generally correct (“internet” is now commonly accepted as lowercase).

Punctuation is generally correct, although there are a few instances of unnecessary commas (e.g., paragraph 1, sentence 1: “I have heard that at your upcoming meeting[,] you are planning to discuss…”; paragraph 4: “One day[,] I was texting her…”). An apostrophe is placed incorrectly in the final sentence (“childrens’” should be “children’s”).

There is a typo where “an” is used in place of “and” in paragraph 2.

Spelling is generally correct throughout. “World wide” should be spelled as a single word in paragraph 3 since it is used as an adjective to describe social networks.

There is some attribution of sources, but those sources are not always accurately attributed (e.g., the expert quoted in paragraph 4 is correctly identified, but there is no attribution to the task source).

The elaboration primarily relies on summarization of mixed effectiveness. For example, paragraph 2 integrates a direct quote, but the subsequent “interpretation” is more of a re-statement (&#8220;kids will get in the habit of noticing grammar structures&#8221;) and low-level inference (&#8220;a head start&#8221;) than true analysis. However, there is some effective elaboration as well. For example, paragraph 3 mostly summarizes some information from Source #2, but then there is a nice conclusion that shows some synthesis, reflecting information from Sources #3 and #4 on the cost of language instruction, which is applied to information from Source #2 on the need for knowledge of a second language. Likewise,  paragraph 4  develops support for the claim with anecdotal information, which seems peripherally related to text information about the world seeming “a lot smaller.” That information is then used to segue to a final address of the OPOV (&#8220;some say that,&#8221; &#8220;but in today’s society&#8221;). Another positive elaboration technique is the use of text-based details in each body paragraph to frame evidence that counters the opposing point of view (&#8220;Adding another class takes up valuable time…but…&#8221;; &#8220;So learning another language can hel kids get a head start on good grades, even if…&#8221;; &#8220;Foreign language teachers may be expensive, but….&#8221;; &#8220;Some say that…., but…&#8221;).

The language is sometimes general (e.g., phrases such as &#8220;Another reason why I believe that…is because of the future&#8221;; &#8220;These are the reasons that…&#8221;), but there are also some phrases that enhance the argumentative purpose &#8220;(could be the key,&#8221; &#8220;down in the dumps,&#8221; &#8220;people…scrambling for jobs&#8221;).

Likewise, the style is not overall distinctive. The formulaic approach imposes stylistic limitations, although there are some more effective sentences that enhance the purpose (e.g.,  &#8220;How I wished I had that foreign language class!&#8221;).

The introduction presents a clear claim (“include this course at the elementary school, because the benefits outweigh any negatives”) and a clear if predictable “roadmap” for the forthcoming essay. The writer also provides context for the argument (upcoming discussion). Although the conclusion relies on summary, this relative weakness does not keep it from earning score point 4 in part due to the strength of the final call to action (“&#8230;take that hour a day to help improve these childrens&#8217; lives”).

The transitions between body paragraphs are mixed: Paragraph 2 is nicely introduced with an acknowledgment of the opposing argument, but paragraphs 3 and 4 rely on formulaic phrases that are mildly distracting, although they do not interfere with continuity (“Another reason why I believe” and “Finally I think”). Internal transitions are generally effective (with the exception of an over-reliance on the word “But”) and contribute to overall cohesion (e.g., “For example&#8221;; &#8220;So with&#8221;; &#8220;Even if&#8221;; &#8220;If&#8230;then&#8221;; &#8220;But&#8221;; &#8220;So&#8221;; &#8220;Some say&#8230;but”).

The progression of ideas (by source) is predictable but solid, with opposing arguments (no time in the school day for an extra class; too much money) skillfully addressed within each of the body paragraphs. The focus is tightly maintained with very minor exceptions (for example, the last sentence in paragraph 2 is somewhat repetitive).

Overall, this response shows strong control of sentence constructions. However, words are missing in the first sentence of paragraph 2 (“…there is a diminishing return for shrinking school budgets, when [there are] other competing needs…”). The wording used to introduce the quotation in paragraph 3 results in a fragment (“From ‘The Best Time to learn a Language” by E.B. Perkins…”). At the end of that paragraph, the sentence would read more smoothly without two instances of the use of the article “the” (“With [the] prior knowledge of [the] English grammar, accent, and letters…”).

&#8220;School Board&#8221; should be capitalized in the salutation of the letter.

There are several places where commas are missing, either to separate compound sentences (e.g., “These programs are very expensive to maintain[,] and there is little evidence of the overall benefit.”) or after an introductory element (“With the prior knowledge of the English grammar, accent, and letters[,] it is much easier to adapt to similar language aspects.”). In the final paragraph, there is an unnecessary comma in the initial sentence (“In summary, for a well-funded school[,] with a plethora of local, well-qualified language teachers…”).

There are no grade-level errors in grammar usage.

Other than a typo in the quoted sentence (“period” instead of “periods”), the spelling is correct in this response.

This response integrates some details from two of the sources, and they are attributed.

However, there is a lack of effective and/or accurate elaboration throughout. For example, in paragraph 2, statements such as &#8220;and there is little evidence of the overall benefit&#8221; should be supported with both evidence and elaboration.  The subsequent attempt to support the conclusion that these programs are too expensive uses information from Source #3 (the opinion of one letter-writer).  The accurate summary about teacher salary ($60,000) is compared with the inaccurately summarized information about annual school budgets: $300,000 over-budgeted does not mean that’s the overall annual budget. This fallacy renders the conclusion faulty.

Although vocabulary choices are particularly effective (e.g., &#8220;prohibitive,&#8221; &#8220;diminishing returns,&#8221; &#8220;adapt&#8221;) and the style enhances the argumentative purpose, the use of language does not overcome weaknesses with the interpretation and use of evidence, keeping this response at the score point 2 level.

The introduction immediately acknowledges the counterclaim and then counters with the claim that the financial costs and struggles for young students negate the benefits. The conclusion is structurally similar to the introduction, acknowledging the opposing point of view but diminishing its merit by again concluding that the financial stresses outweigh any benefit. The conclusion does not reference the advantages of delaying second language instruction, but this omission does not keep the response from earning a score point 4. The body paragraphs stay tightly focused on the two arguments: financial difficulties and benefits of saving foreign language instruction for older students.

Transitions are overall adequate, ranging from the somewhat perfunctory “additionally” and “In summary” to the more subtle transition via causality (“For annual school budgets that are in the few hundreds of thousands of dollars, this can be a significant expense” and “With the prior knowledge of the English grammar, accent, and letters it is much easier to&#8230;”).

The progression of ideas is overall effective. Paragraph 2 nicely progresses from once again acknowledging “the rare well-funded school” to a general statement about competing needs and lack of evidence for benefits. The paragraph ends with specific information. This general to specific progression is effective for this argument. Paragraph 3 moves from information about the greater potential of older learners to a specific personal example, also demonstrating an effective progression of ideas. [Note: Although the writer takes some liberties in interpreting the quote about accents, this use of evidence would affect the score for evidence and elaboration, not for organization.]

There are no sentence formation errors. There are no spelling errors.

There are errors with punctuation. Numerous problems with commas represent a pattern of errors including both unnecessary and missing commas. For example, there is an unnecessary comma and a comma missing before a restrictive clause, a grade 6 skill (“The ability for people to communicate with each other, allows them to share thoughts, opinions, and ideas with people from around the world which is very influential”). There are also missing commas after introductory clauses (“For example, if someone goes on a trip to a different country and knows the native language of that place they will get more out of the visit&#8230;” and “Whether someone takes French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese or any other language they&#8230;”). There are missing commas in two compound sentences (“People think being bilingual could be confusing but there is research&#8230;” and “I wish I had an opportunity to take a language class earlier because I take French and it is challenging&#8230;”). There are also errors with apostrophes for possession, which is a grade 3 error (“&#8230;students complete education&#8230;” and “&#8230;students grammar skills&#8230;”).

There is a single grammar usage error with agreement (“The inclusion of second language classes in elementary schools are an&#8230;”).

There are missing capital letters on “French” and “Spanish” in the final paragraph.

The response develops ideas, integrating a comprehensive range of evidence from the source materials and effectively elaborating on the source information. The selection of evidence to support the claim is appropriate and sufficiently varied (specifically drawn from sources 1, 3, and 4, although the source 2 information is embedded; for example, the call to action in the conclusion is a form of “embracing the challenge” encouraged in source 2).

Much of the quite thorough elaboration is through interpretation, but the writer avoids simplistic repetition. The elaboration in paragraph 4 is well done: a supporting reason/sub-claim about the benefits of being bilingual (“Being bilingual gives people advantages in certain situations”), a quote from source 1 to support that reason (According to Source 1, “people who speak two languages&#8230;”), followed by a hypothetical example (For example, “if someone goes on a trip to a different country&#8230;”). Paragraph 5, which acknowledges and addresses the opposing point of view, integrates information about two concerns (potential confusion and school time/budget constraints) and challenges concerns with source-based information to address the concerns (“&#8230;but there is research that shows&#8230;”). Additionally, the writer then nicely offers a “solution” to counter the opposing point of view (“A solution to the length of hours in the school day is&#8230;”).

Citations of source material are made, although rather generally (e.g., “Source 1 states&#8230;”; (Source 4), etc.).

The language/vocabulary, while not exceptional, is certainly competent (“People can help by talking to elected officials or their school district about the importance of second language classes” and “&#8230;they will get more out of the visit by being able to communicate and interact with the local people&#8230;”). These examples also demonstrate an awareness of appropriate style for the audience and task.

The introduction is adequate. The quote selected to begin the letter (“path to a future job”) is a bit too narrow to provide an effective introduction, and the two sentences following the quote are repetitive. The paragraph ends, however, with a strong and clear claim. The rest of the letter is well-focused and overcomes any relative weakness in the introduction. The conclusion is stronger than the intro: the writer brings the issue to a personal level (wishing (s)he could have had language in the elementary level), summarizing without repeating the benefits and presenting a clear and effective call to action.

Transitions between paragraphs are effective (the final sentence in each body paragraph previews the next paragraph, but the transitional strategy is subtle enough to avoid sounding mechanical). Internal transitions show clear relationships (“also,&#8221; &#8220;in addition,&#8221; &#8220;for example,&#8221; &#8220;an additional”).

The progression of ideas helps to build logical support for the claim and argument (developmental advantages, benefits of second language) and then addresses the opposing argument (paragraph 5), a new-to-grade 7 requirement.

There are several awkward structures in this brief response. At times, it is due to using the incorrect word (e.g., “That is the best time because they know different sounds and reading skills with help them learn.”). Other times, it is because words are missing (e.g., “It may be hard to teach a kid a second language [while he or she is] learning how to read.”; “Middle school [students] might want to learn…”; “Kids shouldn’t be forced [to take a foreign language class] because they might not like that class or do [not] want to learn that language.”). There is also a run-on near the end of the letter (“Learning a new language wont be cheap they require salaries and benefits…”).
&nbsp;

There are no errors in capitalization or spelling.

There should be a comma before the coordinating conjunction in the sentence “Middle school might want to learn[,] but it shouldn’t be required…,” and there is an unnecessary comma later in the letter (“…they require salaries and benefits, that can end up costing the school a lot of money lost.”). There is a missing apostrophe to indicate a contraction (“Learning a new language wont be cheap…”).

There are two instances of ambiguous pronoun references (“Middle school might want to learn but it shouldn’t be required…” and “Learning a new language wont be cheap they require salaries and benefits…”). There is a verb tense issue in the last sentence (“Learning a second language shouldn’t be require[d]…”), and the word “chose” should be “choice.”

The response provides minimal and vague supporting details with nearly no elaboration for the argument, validating a score of 1. Concrete evidence is minimal, with details very generally summarized from the source materials (“Kids shouldn&#8217;t be forced because they might not like that class or do want to learn that language” and “Some people will need to learn a different language for work”); these details are not integrated in any meaningful way. There are no specific references or attributions to source materials.

There is almost no elaboration, although there are some added details that could have been considered elaboration were they more clearly tied to relevant text details (“Some kids need to learn a second language if they move out of their state”).

The language/vocabulary is general and repetitive (“The best age to learn a new language is when they already know how to read. That is the best time because they know different sounds and reading skills with help them learn. It may be hard to teach a kid a second language and learning how to read”).

Except for the rhetorical question (“Would school days have to be longer to fit the language class in there or are they going to replace it with a different class?”), the style is generally ineffective to convince the audience (“It may be hard to teach a kid a second language and learning to read”).

There is a clear claim that frames this brief response (&#8220;They can choose…a second language&#8221;; &#8220;Learning a second language shouldn’t be require, it should be a chose&#8221;), and the response maintains the focus on that claim.

While the first two sentences and the final sentence serve as an introduction and a conclusion, they are repetitive and lack any context.

There is no evident progression of ideas, with the supporting details being randomly presented, often interrupted with extraneous details (e.g., the information about middle school sports; needing a different language for work).

There is no acknowledgment of the opposing point of view.

There are virtually no transitions used.

Although there are several awkward sentences (e.g., the first and last sentences of the letter), arguably the only sentence formation error per se comes in the second paragraph, which is one long, run-on sentence (despite the random period between “kid” and “because”).

There are many punctuation errors with commas including unnecessary commas (“&#8230;language learning, is that&#8230;&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;person who knows multiple languages, and when they start&#8230;”), missing commas after introductory elements (“&#8230;when you start growing up you will start&#8230;.&#8221;; &#8220;if you know that language you can be talking&#8230;.&#8221;; &#8220;&#8230;when they start going to school they would know&#8230;”); and a missing comma between compound clauses (“&#8230;they would know more languages then [sic] their friends and they can be&#8230;”).

There are several grammar usage errors including with frequently confused words (&#8220;your&#8221; instead of &#8220;you’re&#8221;; &#8220;its&#8221; instead of &#8220;it’s&#8221;; &#8220;then&#8221; instead of &#8220;than&#8221;; &#8220;Bored&#8221; instead of &#8220;Board&#8221;).
Note regarding pronoun/antecedent agreement: The use of &#8220;they&#8221; and &#8220;their&#8221; to refer to &#8220;person&#8221; is not an error as there is no clear gender identification and the use of the plural pronoun is consistent.

There are spelling errors including &#8220;diffirent,&#8221; &#8220;languge,&#8221; and &#8220;smater.&#8221;

There are below-grade level errors with capital letters (“i” and “H” and “S” in “High School”).

The response provides minimal evidence from the source material that is vague (“you will start learning more languages than other kids, if you have a friend&#8230;you can be talking to him, Source 1&#8243;).

Use of elaborative techniques is minimal: a single reason is presented with one statement of causal elaboration (“when or if you have a friend&#8230;you can be talking to him”).

There is some attribution to source material (“I would have to agree with the author E.B. Perkins”).

Vocabulary is limited (“I think it, I would have, I hope”) for audience and purpose. Vague language (e.g., “okay to learn”) is used repetitively. There is little evidence of appropriate style.

The first sentence introduces a weak claim (&#8220;I think it is okay to&#8230;&#8221;). The “first reason” (e.g., &#8220;One reason&#8230;&#8221;) is also awkwardly incorporated into the introduction.  The conclusion is off task (&#8220;allow kids to learn multiple languages in high school&#8221;), or at least it does not follow from the rest of the letter, which minimally lobbies for teaching foreign languages at a young age, not high school.

Perhaps because the claim is weak, the progression of ideas is weak, failing to advance an argument. For example, the 3rd paragraph mostly repeats the second sentence (&#8220;want kids to know more language when they grow up&#8221; = &#8220;when you start growing you will learn more languages than other kids&#8221;) rather than developing support. The letter makes no reference to the opposing point of view (a new-to-grade CCSS requirement).

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.

Examples

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy