FORMATIVE WRITING

ASSESSMENT

Department of Literacy

Instruction & Interventions

Office of Academics

Grade 9

Text-Based Writing Prompts:

Administration and Scoring Guidelines

Teacher Directions:

Students will read a stimulus about a single topic. A stimulus consists of several texts written on a single topic. The stimulus may include informational or literary fiction or nonfiction texts and can cover a wide array of topics. After reading the stimulus, the students will respond to a writing prompt in which they will provide information on a topic, develop a narrative, or take a stance to support an opinion or argument. Students will be required to synthesize information from the text sets and must cite specific evidence from the   texts   to   support   their   ideas.   Students’   informative/explanatory responses should demonstrate a developed and supported controlling idea. Students’   opinion/argumentative responses should support an opinion/argument using ideas presented in the stimulus. Students will have 90 minutes to read the passages, and plan, write, revise and edit their essay. Students should read the prompt first. They should be encouraged to highlight, underline, and take notes to support the planning process.

Scoring:

The attached text-based rubric should be used to score student responses. While the total possible points on the rubric is ten, it is recommended that three individual scores be given—one score for each of the three domains on the rubric. This will allow the teacher to determine specific areas of need within individual student responses, thus allowing for differentiation in the writing instruction that follows these formative writing tasks. The three domains are: Purpose, Focus, Organization (PFO), Evidence and Elaboration (EE), and Conventions of Standard English (CSE). Teachers should score holistically within each domain—PFO (4-points), EE (4-points), and CSE (2-points).

Each level of scoring within a domain is based on the overarching statement for the score found in the rubric. For example, on the grades 6-11 rubric for argumentation, the overarching statement for a score of 4 in the Purpose,   Focus,   Organization   domain   is,   “The   response   is   fully   sustained   and   consistently  focused within the purpose, audience, and task; and it has a clear and effective organizational structure creating  coherence  and  completeness.”    The  bulleted  points  that follow the statement must be considered as factors in the scoring, but should not be utilized as a checklist. Most, but not all, of the bulleted points will be evident in the student writing for a score at a specific level.

Teachers should keep in mind that a score of 3 on the rubric for a domain signals student proficiency in the addressed writing standard with a score of 4 representing mastery. In the CSE domain, a score of two represents student proficiency in the standard.

Ninth Grade: Argumentative Prompt #1

Write an argumentative essay explaining why you agree or disagree with the idea that you can make real friends on the Internet. Support your claim with details from what you have read.

Manage your time carefully so that you can:

Read the passages Plan your essay Write your essay Revise and edit your essay

Be sure to:

Include a claim Address counterclaims Use evidence from multiple sources Avoid overly relying on one source

Your written response should be in the form of a multi-paragraph essay. Remember to spend time reading, planning, writing, revising, and editing.

Analyze the data presented in the articles. Look for evidence that supports your position that you can make real friends online, or inspires you to change your position.

© H

ough

ton

Miff

lin H

arco

urt P

ublis

hing

Com

pany

• Im

age

Cred

its: ©

Com

stoc

k/Co

mst

ock

Imag

es/G

etty

Imag

es

It’s the kind of news you can use next time concerned parents bring up the idea that the internet is making people more withdrawn and closed off from the rest of humanity: A new study from the Pew Research Center has found that online social networks actually seem to make people more social.

Pew polled 2,255 Americans during October and November last year, and of the 1,787 internet users in that group, 47% used social networking sites. Facebook was used by 92% of the 975 people that used social networks, with MySpace in second place, with 29%. Linkedin and Twitter trailed behind, with 18% and 13% respectively.

That’s almost twice as many as in 2008, when the survey was last held. But more interestingly, there’s also been a rise in the number of close friendships people are reporting when compared with 2008—2.16 close friends on average, compared with 2008’s 1.93—with that increase being lead by those online, who reported an average of 2.26 close friends to the offline respondents’ 1.75. It gets even better when you look at those using social networks, who reported 2.45 close friends on average.

Part 1: Read Sources

Study: The Internet Helps You Make More Friends, Be More Social

© H

ough

ton

Miff

lin H

arco

urt P

ublis

hing

Com

pany

The study even looked into the number of social ties internet users and non-internet users have, and found that online Americans tend to have 664 ties on average, compared with an offline average of around 506. That number goes crazy when you start to plug in different social networks, however: Facebook users average 648 social ties, but Twitter users have an average of 838.

So, the next time someone says that they think the internet is bad for society, the answer is clear: Sign them up for Twitter, and see how they feel a couple of weeks later.

…online Americans tend to have 664 [social] ties on average, compared with

an o!ine average of around 506.

Note all the issues that having many online friends can create. Is your opinion altered by this information?

© H

ough

ton

Miff

lin H

arco

urt P

ublis

hing

Com

pany

• Im

age

Cred

its: ©

Hayw

ireM

edia

/Fot

olia

It’s not an illusion. We really are doing more with each 24 hours, as technology enables (or forces) us to interact and intersect and do

and consume with unprecedented volume and vigor. We live our lives at breakneck speed because we can, because we feel we have to keep up, and because every macro and micro breeze blows in that direction.

I remember the days before social media when I would get 20 phone calls per day and 50 or 60 emails, and felt exhausted by the pace of communication. Now we’ve traded the telephone for other connection points (I only get 2-3 calls per day), but the overall number of people ringing our doorbell through some mechanism has ballooned like Charles Barkley.

The number of “inboxes” we possess is staggering: Email (3 accounts for me), public Twitter, Twitter DM, public Facebook, Facebook messages, Facebook chat, Linkedin messages, public Google +, Google + messages, blog comments, Skype, text messages, Instagram, phone, voice mail, and several topically or geographically specific forums, groups and social networks. That’s a lot of relationship bait in the water.

Social Media, Pretend Friends, and the Lie of False Intimacy

© H

ough

ton

Miff

lin H

arco

urt P

ublis

hing

Com

pany

The Lie of OpportunityHow do we justify this? How do we convince ourselves that

slicing our attention so thin the turkey becomes translucent is a good idea?

We do it because we believe that more relationships provides more opportunity.

“It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”“Social media makes a big world smaller.”“Linkedin is for people you know, Facebook is for people you usedto know, Twitter is for people you want to know.”All of these chestnuts are passed around like a flu strain

because they make intuitive sense. But common among them is the underlying premise that interacting with more people is inherently better than interacting with fewer people. I have always believed this to be true, and in fact have delivered the lines above in presentations and on this blog. But today, I’m no longer convinced.

Instead I wonder, what if we have it ALL wrong?I recognize this is not purely an either/or scenario, and

relationships that began with a Twitter exchange or series of blog comments can flourish into treasured real-world ties.

But those situations where we “meet” someone through social media, have the opportunity to interact in real life, and then develop a relationship that creates true friendship are few and far between. And as social media gets bigger and more pervasive, this chasm becomes even more difficult to cross. As my own networks in social media have gotten larger, I’ve ended up talking about my personal life less, because a large percentage of that group don’t know me, or my wife, or my kids, or my town, or my interests. I don’t want to bore people with the inanities of the everyday. (Facebook is the one exception, as I’ve always kept my personal account relatively small).

To some degree, I think this explains the popularity of Google + among people with very large followings on Twitter and/or Facebook. Google + provides a chance for a do-over, to create a new group of connections that are more carefully cultivated.

© H

ough

ton

Miff

lin H

arco

urt P

ublis

hing

Com

pany

But that’s just medicating the symptoms, not curing the disease. Fundamentally, technology and our use of it isn’t—as we’ve all hoped—bringing us closer together. In fact, it may be driving us farther apart, as we know more and more people, but know less and less about each of them.

Making Friends Out of ConnectionsMaybe we should be focused less on making a lot of

connections, and focused more on making a few real friends? I’m going to try to work on this, to identify people with whom I want to develop real friendships, and make a concerted effort to do so, even if it means answering fewer tweets and blog comments from a much larger group of casual connections.

We have to take at least some of these social media spawned relationships to the next level, otherwise what’s the point beyond generating clicks and newsletter subscribers?

You think you know someone, but you don’t. And that’s social media’s fault. But more so, our own.

© H

ough

ton

Miff

lin H

arco

urt P

ublis

hing

Com

pany

• Im

age

Cred

its: ©

Digi

tal V

isio

n/Ge

tty Im

ages

Meeting friends on the Internet can have its advantages and disadvantages. There are a number of factors to consider.

Meeting friends online can happen more quickly than it might happen offline. You can even become friends with someone who lives in a different part of the world.

You can remain anonymous on the Internet. You do not have to share information about where you live, how old you are, or any personal details about your life. Online, you can be whoever you want to be, or just be yourself. This allows people to practice their social skills in an anonymous setting.

One major disadvantage of making friends online is that you do not always know if people are who they say they are. Just as it can be a good thing to be anonymous to protect your safety and personal information, anonymity can be dangerous, too. If you are dealing with someone who is not forthcoming about their identity, you don’t know his or her motive for doing so.

Making friends online also may prevent people from socializing outside of the Internet. While having friends online is a good way to find people with similar interests, friends who exist only on a computer screen do not provide the companionship necessary to sustain friendships. If having Internet friends comes at the cost of neglecting friends offline, the Internet becomes a disadvantage.

While there are advantages and disadvantages to meeting friends online, it is up to every individual to use discretion and be safe.

Making Friends Through The Internet

DRAFT ELA Text-based Writing Rubrics, Grades 6–11: Argum

entation Florida Standards Assessm

ents 1

July 31, 2014

G

rades 6–11 Argum

entation Text-based Writing Rubric

(Score points within each dom

ain include most of the characteristics below

.) Score

Purpose, Focus, and Organization

(4-point Rubric) Evidence and Elaboration

(4-point Rubric) Conventions of Standard English (2-point Rubric begins at score

point 2) 4

The response is fully sustained and consistently focused within the

purpose, audience, and task; and it has a clear and effective organizational structure creating coherence and com

pleteness. The response includes m

ost of the following:

Clearly stated and strongly m

aintained claim w

ith little or no loosely related m

aterial

Clearly addressed alternate or opposing claims*

Skillful use of a variety of transitional strategies to clarify the relationships betw

een and among ideas

Logical progression of ideas from

beginning to end with a

satisfying introduction and conclusion

Established and maintained appropriate style and objective

tone

The response provides thorough, convincing, and credible  support/evidence  for  the  w

riter’s  claim  that  

includes the effective use of sources, facts, and details. The response includes m

ost of the following:

Sm

oothly integrated, thorough, and relevant evidence, including precise references to sources

Effective use of a variety of elaborative techniques to support the claim

, demonstrating

an understanding of the topic and text

Clear and effective expression of ideas, using precise language

Academ

ic and domain-specific vocabulary clearly

appropriate for the audience and purpose

Various sentence structures creating language facility

3 The response is adequately sustained and generally focused w

ithin the purpose, audience, and task; and it has evident organizational structure w

ith a sense of completeness. The response includes m

ost of the follow

ing:

Clear and maintained claim

, though some loosely related

material m

ay be present

Alternate or opposing claims included but m

ay not be com

pletely addressed*

Adequate use of transitional strategies with som

e variety to clarify the relationships betw

een and among ideas

Adequate progression of ideas from

beginning to end with a

sufficient introduction and conclusion

Appropriate style and objective tone established

The response provides adequate support/evidence for the  w

riter’s  claim  that  includes  the  use  of  sources,  

facts, and details. The response includes most of the

following:

Generally integrated and relevant evidence from

sources, though references m

ay be general or im

precise

Adequate use of some elaborative techniques

Adequate expression of ideas, em

ploying a mix of

precise and general language

Domain-specific vocabulary generally appropriate

for the audience and purpose

Some variation in sentence structure

C

on

tinu

ed o

n th

e follo

win

g p

ag

e

DRAFT ELA Text-based Writing Rubrics, Grades 6–11: Argum

entation Florida Standards Assessm

ents 2

July 31, 2014

Score Purpose, Focus, and O

rganization (4-point Rubric)

Evidence and Elaboration (4-point Rubric)

Conventions of Standard English (2-point Rubric)

2

The response is somew

hat sustained within the purpose, audience,

and task but may include loosely related or extraneous m

aterial; and it m

ay have an inconsistent organizational structure. The response m

ay include the following:

Focused on a claim

but insufficiently sustained or unclear

May not sufficiently address alternate or opposing claim

s*

Inconsistent use of transitional strategies with little variety

U

neven progression of ideas from beginning to end w

ith an inadequate introduction or conclusion

The response provides uneven, cursory support/evidence  for  the  w

riter’s  claim  that  includes  

partial use of sources, facts, and details. The response m

ay include the following:

W

eakly integrated evidence from sources and

erratic or irrelevant references

Repetitive or ineffective use of elaborative techniques

Im

precise or simplistic expression of ideas

Som

e use of inappropriate domain-specific

vocabulary

Most sentences lim

ited to simple constructions

The response demonstrates an

adequate comm

and of basic conventions. The response m

ay include the follow

ing:

Some m

inor errors in usage but no patterns of errors

Adequate use of punctuation, capitalization, sentence form

ation, and spelling

1 The response is related to the topic but m

ay demonstrate little or

no awareness of the purpose, audience, and task; and it m

ay have little or no discernible organizational structure. The response m

ay include the follow

ing:

Absent, confusing, or ambiguous claim

Missing alternate or opposing claim

s*

Few or no transitional strategies

Frequent extraneous ideas im

peding understanding

Too brief to demonstrate know

ledge of focus or organization

The response provides minim

al support/evidence for the  w

riter’s  claim, including little if any use of sources,

facts, and details. The response may include the

following:

M

inimal, absent, erroneous, or irrelevant

evidence from the source m

aterial

Expression of ideas that is vague, unclear, or confusing

Lim

ited and often inappropriate language or dom

ain-specific vocabulary

Sentences limited to sim

ple constructions

The response demonstrates a partial

comm

and of basic conventions. The response m

ay include the following:

Various errors in usage

Inconsistent use of correct punctuation, capitalization, sentence form

ation, and spelling

0

The response dem

onstrates a lack of com

mand of conventions, w

ith frequent and severe errors often obscuring m

eaning.

*Not applicable at grade 6