Prioritizing Argument Writing After a Diagnostic
Ms. Alvarez teaches three sections of tenth-grade English at a comprehensive high school. Her department requires a four-week argument-writing unit anchored by a whole-class text, and the district interim assessment is in five weeks. A diagnostic essay from her second-period class of 27 students shows that 24 students state a claim, 21 cite at least one source, but only 8 explain how evidence supports the claim; 14 repeat 'this shows that' without elaboration. Five students are English language learners who score at the expanding level on the state proficiency test, and four have IEPs requiring graphic organizers. The class meets for 50 minutes daily, and the department has allocated two computer-cart days for research. Ms. Alvarez has one planning period per day and must also prepare students for a timed on-demand essay. She is considering whether to spend the first week on conventions, on source selection, or on commentary and reasoning.
1. Given the diagnostic data and the constraints, what should Ms. Alvarez prioritize in the first week of the unit? Explain the reasoning behind your choice and identify one trade-off.
Read the worked answer
She should prioritize commentary and reasoning. The data show that claim-writing and citing evidence are relative strengths-24 of 27 state a claim and 21 cite a source-while only 8 explain how evidence supports a claim. A week on conventions or source selection would target areas where most students are already stronger, whereas commentary is the largest gap and is central to the timed essay. The trade-off is that conventions will receive less direct class time; she can address recurring errors through short revision mini-lessons and individual feedback rather than a full week. The decision also fits the constraint of limited computer access: commentary work can be done with the anchor text and student drafts, while source selection depends on the computer cart. She should frame the week around a single question-how does this evidence prove the claim?-and use mentor paragraphs and sentence frames to make the reasoning visible.
2. Describe a two-lesson sequence that addresses the priority you identified while supporting the five English language learners and four students with IEPs. Include specific instructional moves and formative checks.
Read the worked answer
Lesson 1: Students analyze a short mentor argument paragraph. The class color-codes claim, evidence, and commentary, then compares a weak 'this shows' sentence with a stronger commentary sentence that names the reasoning. English language learners receive a sentence-frame bank ('This detail matters because…', 'The author uses ___ to show ___') and a glossary of the anchor text's key terms. Students with IEPs receive a graphic organizer with three columns: evidence, what it shows, why it matters. The formative check is a two-sentence exit ticket in which each student writes commentary for a provided piece of evidence. Lesson 2: Students revise one body paragraph from their diagnostic essay. They use a checklist focused only on commentary, pair-share with a partner, and conference briefly with Ms. Alvarez if their exit ticket showed confusion. The formative check is the revised paragraph scored against a two-point commentary rubric. This sequence keeps the cognitive demand on reasoning while providing language and organizational scaffolds rather than simplifying the task.
3. How should Ms. Alvarez assess whether the priority instruction worked before the interim assessment? Provide a brief plan with evidence sources and decision rules.
Read the worked answer
She should use a short on-demand paragraph rather than another full essay, because it isolates commentary and fits the time before the interim. Students read a brief passage and respond to one prompt, incorporating two pieces of evidence. She scores only claim, evidence, and commentary on a 0–2 scale per trait, with commentary defined as explaining how the evidence supports the claim. She should also sample three revised diagnostic paragraphs to check transfer from the lesson sequence. Decision rule: if fewer than 70 percent of students score 2 on commentary, she reteaches with additional mentor-text comparison and small-group revision; if 70 percent or more score 2, she moves to timed practice and addresses conventions through targeted feedback. She should compare the on-demand results with the original diagnostic to see whether the gap narrowed, not just whether scores rose.