📝🎯 DWSBA - Zoos

  • Due No Due Date
  • Points 24

Write an argumentative multi-paragraph essay using textual evidence to answer the following prompt: Should zoos exist in society?

Guidelines 

  • You will have 120 minutes to read, plan, and write your response. More time will be provided if you don't finish. 
  • Write a multi-paragraph essay that directly responds to the question.
  • Use evidence from the articles provided and be sure to cite its source.
  • Use scratch paper to take notes and outline your response. 

Source

Play media comment.

Download "Should We Have Zoos?" by Shayna Orens

Play media comment.

Download "Zoos: The Historical Debate" by GlobalAnimal.org

0

Rubric

6th Grade Argumentative 2018-19
6th Grade Argumentative 2018-19
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Precision of Language
W.6.1.D, W.6.4, L.6.3.B
threshold: 3.2 pts
4 pts Exceeds Expectations: The response clearly and  e􀀂ectively expresses ideas using  precise language. The use of  academic and domain-specific  vocabulary is clearly appropriate  for the audience and purpose.
3.2 pts Meets Expectations: The response adequately expresses  ideas, employing a mix of precise  with more general language. The  use of domain-specific vocabulary  is generally appropriate for the  audience and purpose.
2.8 pts Approaching Expectations: The response expresses ideas  unevenly, using simplistic language.  The use of domain-specific  vocabulary may at times be  inappropriate for the audience and  purpose.
2.4 pts Does Not Meet Expectations: The response's expression of ideas  is vague, lacks clarity, or is  confusing. There is limited use of  language or domain-specific  vocabulary, and/or there is little  sense of audience and purpose.
pts
4 pts
--
Additional Comments
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Organization
W.6.1.C, W.6.1.E, W.6.4
threshold: 3.2 pts
4 pts Exceeds Expectations: The response has a clear and  e􀀂ective organizational structure  creating unity and completeness.  Includes an e􀀂ective and  consistent use of transitional  strategies and a logical  progression of ideas throughout  the response. There are strong  connections among ideas with  some syntactic variety. The  introduction and conclusion are  e􀀂ective for audience and  purpose.
3.2 pts Meets Expectations: The response has an evident  organizational structure and a  sense of completeness, though  there may be minor flaws and some  ideas may be loosely connected.  Includes an adequate use of  transitional strategies and an  adequate progression of ideas  throughout the response. There are  adequate, if slightly inconsistent,  connection among ideas. The  introduction and conclusion are  adequate for the audience and  purpose.
2.8 pts Approaching Expectations: The response has an inconsistent  organizational structure. Evident  flaws may include: inconsistent use  and little variety of transitional  strategies; uneven progression of  ideas; there is a weak connection  among ideas; and the introduction  and conclusion are weak for the  audience and purpose.
2.4 pts Does Not Meet Expectations: The response has little or no  discernible organizational structure.  Few or no transitional strategies are  evident. Frequent extraneous ideas  may intrude.
pts
4 pts
--
Additional Comments
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Evidence
W.6.1.B, W.6.8, W.6.9
threshold: 3.2 pts
4 pts Exceeds Expectations: The response provides thorough  and convincing evidence for the  writer's claim that includes the  e􀀂ective use of sources, facts, and  details. Evidence is cited,  smoothly integrated,  comprehensive, and concrete,  utilizing required source(s).
3.2 pts Meets Expectations: The response provides adequate  evidence for the writer's claim that  includes use of sources, facts, and  details. The evidence from sources  is integrated, though citations may  be general or imprecise, utilizing  evidence from required source(s).
2.8 pts Approaching Expectations: The response provides uneven,  cursory evidence for the writer's  claim that includes partial or uneven  use of sources, facts, and details. The  evidence is weakly integrated, and  citations, if present, are uneven from  a source.
2.4 pts Does Not Meet Expectations: The response provides minimal  evidence for the writer's claim and  includes little or no use of sources,  facts, and details. The use of  evidence from sources is minimal,  absent, in error, or irrelevant.
pts
4 pts
--
Additional Comments
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Elaboration
W.6.1.B, W.6.9
threshold: 332.0 pts
4 pts Exceeds Expectations: Through the e􀀂ective use of a  variety of elaborative techniques,  the response achieves substantial  depth that is specific and relevant.  Provides necessary context and  explanation for the reader,  without drifting into  embellishment. Analyzes the  evidence to further support the  claim.
3.2 pts Meets Expectations: Through the adequate use of  elaborative techniques (possibly  relying on only one), the response  achieves clarity that is specific and  relevant. Provides some context  and explanation for the reader,  without drifting into  embellishment. Briefly analyzes the  evidence to further support the  claim.
2.8 pts Approaching Expectations: Through weak or uneven use of  elaborative techniques are weak or  uneven. The response is unclear at  times and may drift into  embellishment or over-rely on the  writer's background knowledge.  Lacks analysis of evidence, or, if  present, is o􀀂-topic or incorrect.
2.4 pts Does Not Meet Expectations: Use of elaborative techniques is  absent, in error, or irrelevant which  causes the response to be unclear.  May lack elaboration completely, or  what is present is o􀀂-topic or  incorrect. No analysis of evidence  provided.
pts
4 pts
--
Additional Comments
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Precision of Language
W.6.1.D, W.6.4, L.6.3.B
threshold: 3.2 pts
4 pts Exceeds Expectations: The response clearly and  e􀀂ectively expresses ideas using  precise language. The use of  academic and domain-specific  vocabulary is clearly appropriate  for the audience and purpose.
3.2 pts Meets Expectations: The response adequately expresses  ideas, employing a mix of precise  with more general language. The  use of domain-specific vocabulary  is generally appropriate for the  audience and purpose.
2.8 pts Approaching Expectations: The response expresses ideas  unevenly, using simplistic language.  The use of domain-specific  vocabulary may at times be  inappropriate for the audience and  purpose.
2.4 pts Does Not Meet Expectations: The response's expression of ideas  is vague, lacks clarity, or is  confusing. There is limited use of  language or domain-specific  vocabulary, and/or there is little  sense of audience and purpose.
pts
4 pts
--
Additional Comments
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Conventions & Editing
L.6.2.A, L.6.2.B, L.6.3.A, L.6.3.B
threshold: 3.2 pts
4 pts Exceeds Expectations: The response demonstrates a  proficient command of  conventions. There are few errors  in usage and sentence formation,  but no systematic pattern of  errors is displayed. The use of  punctuation, capitalization, and  spelling exceeds expectations.  (Up to 3 errors)
3.2 pts Meets Expectations: The response demonstrates an  adequate command of  conventions. There are some errors  in usage and sentence formation,  but no systematic pattern of errors  is displayed. The use of  punctuation, capitalization, and  spelling is adequate.  (4-6 errors)
2.8 pts Approaching Expectations: The response demonstrates a partial  command of conventions. Errors in  usage may obscure meaning.  Punctuation, capitalization, and  spelling are inconsistent.  (6-9 errors)
2.4 pts Does Not Meet Expectations: Response demonstrates a lack of  command of conventions. Errors in  usage obscure meaning.  Punctuation, capitalization, and  spelling are consistently in error.  (10 or more errors)
pts
4 pts
--
Additional Comments
Total Points: 24 out of 24