Revision Workshop for Argument Essays
Mr. Delgado teaches 11th-grade English in a diverse urban high school. His 31 students include six multilingual learners and four students with IEPs for written expression. On the latest argument essay, 19 students used passive voice in more than half of their sentences, and 14 had pronoun references that were unclear to a peer reader. The district rubric awards points for precise language and sentence variety, but Mr. Delgado worries that a traditional grammar worksheet will not transfer. He has one 50-minute class before the revision workshop and wants students to revise their own drafts using mentor sentences from the anchor text. He also must document language progress for the multilingual learners' language objectives.
1. Design a 50-minute lesson that helps students revise passive voice and vague pronoun references in their own argument drafts. Explain the rationale for each major step.
Read the worked answer
Open with a 7-minute notice-and-name activity using two mentor sentences from the anchor text: one passive sentence that hides agency, one active sentence that assigns responsibility, and one sentence with a clear pronoun chain. Students discuss what changes in emphasis, not just what is 'wrong.' Next, a 10-minute mini-lesson distinguishes when passive voice is useful (unknown agent, emphasis on receiver) from when it obscures argument, and models repairing an unclear pronoun by naming the noun. Then 20 minutes of guided revision: students use a half-page checklist to find two passive constructions and two pronoun references in their own drafts, revise them, and compare with a partner. The teacher confers with multilingual learners and IEP students using sentence frames. Close with a 5-minute exit ticket: revise one sentence and explain the rhetorical effect. This sequence is better than a worksheet because the errors appeared in students' own argument writing, and transfer requires context, mentor models, and immediate revision. It also protects time for meaning-level revision rather than editing every error.
2. How should Mr. Delgado differentiate for multilingual learners and students with written-expression IEPs without lowering the argument standard?
Read the worked answer
Differentiation should change access, not the rubric. For multilingual learners, he can provide a mentor sentence bank, a two-column pronoun-reference chart, and sentence frames such as 'The evidence shows ___ because ___, not because ___.' Language objectives should name the target features, e.g., 'revise two sentences to clarify pronoun reference and explain the change.' For students with written-expression IEPs, he can chunk the checklist into two items at a time, allow speech-to-text or dictated revision, provide extended time, and reduce the revision load to two high-leverage changes rather than a full rewrite. Heterogeneous partners can read drafts aloud to surface unclear references, which supports listening and revision. The argument standard stays the same: claim, evidence, reasoning. Mr. Delgado should grade the revised paragraph on the district rubric and separately note language-growth evidence for the multilingual learners' objectives. This approach is defensible because it uses the students' own writing as the text for instruction, keeps cognitive demand high, and gives the specific supports identified in IEPs and language plans.