Smarter Balanced Argumentative Performance Task Writing Rubric (Grades 6-11)

4 points

The response has a clear and effective organizational structure, creating a sense of unity and completeness. The organization is fully sustained between and within paragraphs. The response is consistently and purposefully focused: claim is introduced, clearly communicated, and the focus is strongly maintained for the purpose and audience; consistent use of a variety of transitional strategies to clarify the relationships between and among ideas; effective introduction and conclusion; logical progression of ideas from beginning to end; strong connections between and among ideas with some syntactic variety; alternate and opposing argument(s) are clearly acknowledged or addressed*.

3 points

The response has an evident organizational structure and a sense of completeness. Though there may be minor flaws, they do not interfere with the overall coherence. The organization is adequately sustained between and within paragraphs. The response is generally focused: claim is clear, and the focus is mostly maintained for the purpose and audience; adequate use of transitional strategies with some variety to clarify relationships between and among ideas; adequate introduction and conclusion; adequate progression of ideas from beginning to end; adequate connections between and among ideas; alternate and opposing argument(s) are adequately acknowledged or addressed*.

2 points

The response has an inconsistent organizational structure. Some flaws are evident, and some ideas may be loosely connected. The organization is somewhat sustained between and within paragraphs. The response may have a minor drift in focus: claim may be somewhat unclear, or the focus may be insufficiently sustained for the purpose and/or audience; inconsistent use of transitional strategies and/or little variety; introduction or conclusion, if present, may be weak; uneven progression of ideas from beginning to end; and/or formulaic; inconsistent or unclear connections among ideas; alternate and opposing argument(s) may be confusing or not acknowledged*.

1 point

The response has little or no discernible organizational structure. The response may be related to the claim but may provide little or no focus: claim may be confusing or ambiguous; response may be too brief or the focus may drift from the purpose and/or audience; few or no transitional strategies are evident; introduction and/or conclusion may be missing; frequent extraneous ideas may be evident; ideas may be randomly ordered or have unclear progression; alternate and opposing argument(s) may not be acknowledged*.

4 points

The response provides thorough and convincing elaboration of the support/evidence for the claim and argument(s) including reasoned, in-depth analysis and the effective use of source material. The response clearly and effectively develops ideas, using precise language: comprehensive evidence (facts and details) from the source material is integrated, relevant, and specific; clear citations or attribution to source material; effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques*; vocabulary is clearly appropriate for the audience and purpose; effective, appropriate style enhances content.

3 points

The response provides adequate elaboration of the support/evidence for the claim and argument(s) that includes reasoned analysis and the use of source material. The response adequately develops ideas, employing a mix of precise with more general language: adequate evidence (facts and details) from the source material is integrated and relevant, yet may be general; adequate use of citations or attribution to source material; adequate use of some elaborative techniques*; vocabulary is generally appropriate for the audience and purpose; generally appropriate style is evident.

2 points

The response provides uneven, cursory elaboration of the support/evidence for the claim and argument(s) that includes some reasoned analysis and partial or uneven use of source material. The response develops ideas unevenly, using simplistic language: some evidence (facts and details) from the source material may be weakly integrated, imprecise, repetitive, vague, and/or copied; weak use of citations or attribution to source material; weak or uneven use of elaborative techniques*; development may consist primarily of source summary or may rely on emotional appeal; vocabulary use is uneven or somewhat ineffective for the audience and purpose; inconsistent or weak attempt to create appropriate style.

1 point

The response provides minimal elaboration of the support/evidence for the claim and argument(s) that includes little or no use of source material. The response is vague, lacks clarity, or is confusing: evidence (facts and details) from the source material is minimal, irrelevant, absent, incorrectly used, or predominantly copied; insufficient use of citations or attribution to source material; minimal, if any, use of elaborative techniques*; emotional appeal may dominate; vocabulary is limited or ineffective for the audience and purpose.

2 points

The response demonstrates an adequate command of conventions: adequate use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling.

1 point

The response demonstrates a partial command of conventions: limited use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling.

0 points

The response demonstrates little or no command of conventions: infrequent use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling.