Smarter Balanced Argumentative Writing Rubric: Grades 6–11

A clear, effective structure that feels unified and complete, with a consistent, purposeful focus on the claim.

• The organization holds up between and within paragraphs.
• The claim is introduced and clearly stated, and the focus stays strong for the purpose and audience.
• A variety of transitions is used consistently to show how ideas relate to each other.
• The introduction and conclusion are effective.
• Ideas move logically from beginning to end, with strong links between them and some variety in sentence structure.
• Alternate or opposing arguments are clearly acknowledged or addressed (expected from grade 7; see the note).

An evident structure and a sense of completeness; any flaws are minor and do not hurt overall coherence, and the response is generally focused.

• The organization is adequately sustained between and within paragraphs.
• The claim is clear, and the focus is mostly held for the purpose and audience.
• Transitions are adequate and show some variety.
• The introduction and conclusion are adequate.
• Ideas progress adequately, with adequate links between them.
• Alternate or opposing arguments are adequately acknowledged or addressed (expected from grade 7; see the note).

An inconsistent structure with some evident flaws; some ideas are loosely connected and the focus may drift a little.

• The organization is only somewhat sustained between and within paragraphs.
• The claim may be somewhat unclear, or the focus is not held well enough for the purpose and audience.
• Transitions are used inconsistently or with little variety.
• The introduction or conclusion, if there is one, may be weak.
• Ideas progress unevenly or follow a formula, and the links between them may be inconsistent or unclear.
• Alternate or opposing arguments may be confusing or missing (expected from grade 7; see the note).

Little or no discernible structure; the response may relate to the claim but has little or no focus.

• The claim may be confusing or ambiguous, the response may be too brief, or the focus may shift away from the purpose or audience.
• There are few or no transitions.
• The introduction and/or conclusion may be missing.
• Unrelated ideas show up often, and ideas may be in random order or hard to follow.
• Alternate or opposing arguments may not be acknowledged (expected from grade 7; see the note).

Thorough, convincing elaboration of the evidence for the claim, with reasoned, in-depth analysis, effective use of the sources and precise language.

• Evidence (facts and details) from the sources is comprehensive, relevant and specific, and it is worked into the argument.
• Citations or attributions to the sources are clear.
• A variety of elaboration techniques is used effectively.
• Vocabulary clearly fits the audience and purpose.
• An effective, appropriate style strengthens the content.

Adequate elaboration of the evidence for the claim, with reasoned analysis, use of the sources, and a mix of precise and more general language.

• Evidence from the sources is relevant and integrated, but it may be general.
• Citations or attributions to the sources are adequate.
• Some elaboration techniques are used adequately.
• Vocabulary is generally appropriate for the audience and purpose.
• The style is generally appropriate.

Uneven, cursory elaboration with some reasoned analysis, partial or uneven use of the sources, and simple language.

• Some evidence from the sources is weakly integrated, imprecise, repetitive, vague or copied.
• Citations or attributions to the sources are weak.
• Elaboration techniques are weak or uneven; the development may lean mostly on summarizing the sources or on emotional appeal.
• Vocabulary is uneven or somewhat ineffective for the audience and purpose.
• The attempt at an appropriate style is inconsistent or weak.

Minimal elaboration with little or no use of the sources; the response is vague, unclear or confusing.

• Evidence from the sources is minimal, irrelevant, missing, used incorrectly or mostly copied.
• Citations or attributions to the sources are insufficient.
• Elaboration techniques are minimal, if present, and the response may rely mainly on emotional appeal.
• Vocabulary is limited or ineffective for the audience and purpose.
• There is little or no sign of an appropriate style.

Adequate command of conventions.

• Sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage and spelling are adequately correct for the length of the response.

Partial command of conventions.

• Correct use of sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage and spelling is limited.

Little or no command of conventions.

• Correct use of sentence formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage and spelling is infrequent.