CAASPP Smarter Balanced Argumentative Performance Task Writing Rubric | Grades 6-11

CAASPP Smarter Balanced Argumentative Performance Task Writing Rubric | Grades 6-11

8 min read June 24, 2023
✨ Summary: CAASPP Smarter Balanced Argumentative Performance Task Writing Rubric for Grades 6-11. Detailed scoring criteria for organization/purpose, evidence/elaboration, and conventions, crucial for students, teachers, and parents in middle and high school education.

Table of Contents đź“’

Enhance Your Argumentative Writing with CoGrader!

Use this CAASPP Smarter Balanced Argumentative Writing Rubric for Grades 6-11 in CoGrader to guide your students through practice tasks, helping them prepare for real-world assessments with instant, quality feedback.

Get Instant Feedback Using This Rubric

CAASPP Smarter Balanced Argumentative Performance Task Writing Rubric for Grades 6-11

Key Points

  • This rubric guides argumentative writing assessment for grades 6-11
  • It helps teachers evaluate students’ ability to present and support arguments effectively
  • It’s crucial for CAASPP Smarter Balanced writing task preparation
  • It aims to improve middle and high school students’ argumentative writing skills

Full Rubric

CriteriaScore 4Score 3Score 2Score 1Score 0 (NS)
Organization/PurposeThe 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.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.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.The response has little or no discernible organizational structure. The response may be related to the claim but may provide little or no focus.Insufficient (includes copied text), In a language other than English, Off-topic, Off-purpose
Evidence/ElaborationThe 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.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.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.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.Insufficient (includes copied text), In a language other than English, Off-topic, Off-purpose
ConventionsN/AN/AThe response demonstrates an adequate command of conventions: adequate use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spellingThe response demonstrates a partial command of conventions: limited use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spellingThe response demonstrates little or no command of conventions: infrequent use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling Insufficient (includes copied text), In a language other than English, Off-topic

Detailed Criteria Descriptions

Evidence/Elaboration Rubric

ScoreDescription and Evidence
4Description: 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.Evidence:• 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
3Description: 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.Evidence:• 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
2Description: 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.Evidence:• 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
1Description: 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:• 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
NS• Insufficient (includes copied text)• In a language other than English• Off-topic• Off-purpose

Organization/Purpose Rubric

ScoreDescription and Structure
4Description: 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.Structure:• 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*
3Description: 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.Structure:• 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*
2Description: 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.Structure:• 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 *
1Description: The response has little or no discernible organizational structure. The response may be related to the claim but may provide little or no focus.Structure:• 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 *
NS• Insufficient (includes copied text)• In a language other than English• Off-topic• Off-purpose

Conventions

Conventions Rubric

ScoreCriteria and Usage
2Criteria: The response demonstrates an adequate command of conventions. Usage: Adequate use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling
1Criteria: The response demonstrates a partial command of conventions. Usage: Limited use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling
0Criteria: The response demonstrates little or no command of conventions. Usage: Infrequent use of correct sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling
NSCriteria: Insufficient (includes copied text), In a language other than English, Off-topic. Usage: N/A

Holistic Scoring:

  • Variety: A range of errors includes sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling.
  • Severity: Basic errors are more heavily weighted than higher-level errors.
  • Density: The proportion of errors to the amount of writing done well. This includes the ratio of errors to the length of the piece.

How to Use This Rubric

  1. For Teachers: Use this rubric to assess your students’ argumentative writing skills. It can help you identify areas where students excel and where they need improvement. Incorporate these criteria into your writing instruction to help students develop strong argumentative writing skills.

  2. For Students: Familiarize yourself with this rubric to understand what’s expected in your argumentative writing. Use it as a checklist when revising your work to ensure you’ve covered all the important aspects of effective argumentative writing.

  3. For Parents: Review this rubric to understand how your child’s argumentative writing is evaluated. Use it as a guide to support your child’s writing development at home.

Tips for Success in CAASPP Smarter Balanced Argumentative Writing

  1. Clear Organization: Ensure your writing has a clear, well-focused organizational structure that is consistently maintained throughout the essay.

  2. Strong Claim: Introduce a clear claim and maintain focus on it throughout your writing.

  3. Effective Transitions: Use varied transitional strategies to connect ideas within and between paragraphs.

  4. Thorough Elaboration: Provide comprehensive evidence from source material, integrating it smoothly and relevantly into your argument.

  5. Proper Citations: Always cite your sources appropriately to support your argument and avoid plagiarism.

  6. Appropriate Language: Use vocabulary and style that are clearly appropriate for your audience and purpose.

  7. Convention Mastery: Demonstrate adequate command of sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, and spelling.

By focusing on these areas, students can improve their argumentative writing skills and perform better on the CAASPP Smarter Balanced Writing task. Remember, practice makes perfect! Regular writing practice using this rubric as a guide can significantly enhance your performance.

Share this post

Table of Contents đź“’

Enhance Your Argumentative Writing with CoGrader!

Use this CAASPP Smarter Balanced Argumentative Writing Rubric for Grades 6-11 in CoGrader to guide your students through practice tasks, helping them prepare for real-world assessments with instant, quality feedback.

Get Instant Feedback Using This Rubric

Related Posts

The Ultimate Guide on AI Cheating and Detection | 5 Actionable Tips + Best AI Detectors Rank

The only piece of content you need to understand how to handle AI-generated text and AI cheating in student assignments. Learn about top AI detection tools and ethical AI use in education.
Andrew Gitner
June 24, 2024

How to Grade Essays Using CoGrader's AI

Learn AI Essay Grading with CoGrader - use our AI to grade any kind of essay, using your rubric or one of the templates.
Gabriel Adamante
May 29, 2024
AI

ChatGPT for Teachers: The Ultimate Guide (+20 Free Prompts to Use in the Classroom!)

Learn how to use ChatGPT and other AI tools in the classroom and how to deal with its risks and flaws.
Gabriel Adamante
December 22, 2023