Humanities Argumentation Rubric (ELA & SS)

Criteria Advanced (4)- Proficient (3)- Developing (2)- Basic (1)-

Responses at this Responses at this Responses at this Responses at this
level: level: level: level:
Clarity of Claim States a precise and States a clear and States a central claim that The central claim (thesis)
knowledgeable central reasonable central claim may not be reasonable is confused or not clearly
claim (thesis) that (thesis) that adequately and/or answers only part of stated
convincingly answers answers the prompt the prompt
the prompt
Content and Analysis

Relevance of Claim Links the central claim to Links the central claim to Partially links the central Does not link the central
a clearly identified a clearly identified claim to a context, and claim to a context, and
context showing the context (issue, topic, attempts to establish its does not establish its
complexity of the issue; problem) that adequately relevance relevance
convincingly establishes its relevance
establishes the relevance
Perspectives An alternate perspective An alternate perspective An alternate perspective or An alternate perspective
(Refutation of or counterclaim is or counterclaim is clearly counter claim is included, or counterclaim is not
Counterclaim) thoroughly developed, distinguished from the but not clearly challenged included.
refuted or used to central claim and or integrated into the
sharpen the argument developed with some argument
evidence or reasons.
Identification of central Thoroughly and Clearly identifies central Partially identifies central Does not accurately
claims/issues insightfully identify claims/issues from claims/issues from identify central
central claims/issues examination of sources examination of sources; claims/issues from
from examination of may misrepresent examination of sources
sources claims/issues in sources
Substantial historical Substantial historical Accurate and relevant Demonstrates significant
knowledge of concepts knowledge of concepts historical information is confusion about or
Historical Information logically informs and logically informs and included with only minor disregard of relevant
and Concepts supports the argument supports the argument errors. historical information or
and is used to with only minor errors. concepts.
challenge sources or
relevant arguments.
 Using and Introducing All documents are used Most documents are used Some documents are Documents are not
Documents and introduced by and introduced by referenced and introduced referenced &/or there are
referring to their origins referring to their origins by referring to their origins significant errors in
Conformity to Sources

(e.g., author/date/genre) (e.g., author/date/genre) (e.g., author/date/genre) referencing documents

Sourcing The dates and origins of The dates and origins of The date and origins of Date and origins of
documents are used documents are used documents are used documents are not
appropriately to identify appropriately to identify appropriately to identify the considered.
the authors perspectives the authors perspective authors perspective and
and purposes, and and purposes and to purpose. Comments on
discuss the limitations evaluate the reliability reliability of sources are
of the sources. of their contents. not fully explained.
Comparing Documents Significant and Connections between Connections are made Documents are not
nuanced (beyond the documents are made by between the documents compared or one
obvious) connections grouping similar with some errors of document dominates the
between documents are positions or identifying identifying positions. entire argument.
made and those deepen differences between
or extend the documents.
argument.
Support for claims Central claim and each Central claim and each Central claim is supported No claim is stated or
(Evidence) supporting claim are supporting claim are by evidence, though claim is not supported
thoroughly and supported by strong evidence selection may be with evidence.
Command of Evidence and

convincingly developed evidence. weak.

using the strongest
evidence.
Valid Reasoning Consistently and Consistently connects Inconsistently connects Does not connect
convincingly connects
Reasoning

explaining why the evidence and claims evidence and claims evidence and claims
evidence leads to the evidence and claims together logically in ways together; connections may together in a logical and
claim together, showing that lead to the not be logical and coherent. coherent way.
insightful reasoning. conclusions expressed in
the central claim.
 Organization of Adopts an organizational Adopts an organizational Attempts an organizational Lack of organization
components (claim, strategy that strategy that clearly strategy that results in a interferes with
evidence, reasoning, compellingly communicates the partially coherent communication of
counterclaim and communicates the argument. argument. The connection argument.
Coherence and Organization

response) argument between central claim and

supporting claims is
unclear.
Transitions Uses consistent and Uses transition words and Attempts to use or Does not use transition
well- chosen transition phrases to clarify the inconsistently uses words or phrases,
words and phrases to relationship between transition words and resulting in reader
clarify the relationship claims, evidence, and phrases to advance the confusion.
between claims, reasons, and the argument; this results in
evidence, and reasons, relationship of sources to some reader confusion.
and the relationship of each other, in order to
sources to each other. help the reader follow the
Use of transitions helps argument.
advance the argument.
Conclusion Provides a concluding Provides a concluding Provides a concluding Does not provide a
statement or section that statement or section that statement that concluding statement or
supports the argument supports the argument inadequately supports the provides one that is
presented and offers a presented but does not argument presented or unrelated to the central
new way of thinking offer a new way of repeats claim(s) and claim.
about the issue. thinking about the issue. evidence verbatim or
without significant
variation.
 Style: Formal tone and Maintains a formal tone Maintains a formal tone Does not maintain a formal Does not establish and
voice and style in a manner appropriate to the tone appropriate to maintain a formal style
that anticipates audience. Uses Academic audience. Uses basic and voice. Uses language
audiences knowledge English (words, phrases, language; the use of that is inappropriate or
level, concerns, values and varied syntax) Academic English is imprecise.
and possible biases. consistently and partially developed.
Control of Language and Conventions

Uses Academic English appropriately.

(words, phrases, and
varied syntax) with
sophistication and
precision.

Word Choice Uses topic-specific Uses topic-specific Uses appropriate topic Does not attempt to use
terminology in a way terminology consistently specific terminology topic-specific terminology
that demonstrates and appropriately. inconsistently. appropriately.
thorough
understanding of the
topic.
Control of conventions Demonstrates a Demonstrates consistent Demonstrates a command Does not consistently
command of grade- level command of grade-level- of grade- level-appropriate demonstrate a command
appropriate writing appropriate writing writing conventions with of grade-level-appropriate
conventions with few conventions with few some errors that may at writing conventions.
errors occurring only errors that do not times hinder
in the use of hinder comprehension. comprehension.
sophisticated language.
Citation Cites evidence in a Cites evidence in a Cites evidence in a Does not cite specific
thorough manner, responsible manner, generally responsible evidence from available
referencing precisely referencing precisely manner; citation of quotes sources, or does so very
where the evidence can where the evidence (most and paraphrases is sporadically.
be found (all quotes and quotes and paraphrases) inconsistent and
paraphrases), to avoid can be found, to avoid sometimes lacking in
plagiarism. plagiarism. precision.

Created by Patricia Walsh and Kathryn Bailey (2016)
Compilation from multiple rubrics, including:
NYS ELA CC 6 Point Argumentation Rubric (p. 12)
NYC Department of Education Argumentative Writing Rubric V. 3
NYS CC ELA Module 10.3.3 Rubric Draft (p. 448)
Reading, Thinking, and Writing about History: Teaching Argument
Writing to Diverse Learners in the Common Core Classroom Grades 6-12
by Chauncey Monte-Sano, Susan De La Paz, Mark Felton
Writing Pathways by Lucy Calkins

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC BY-NC-SA