Lesson 4.3 Activity: Revising Investigation Writing - Constructing an Argument

TEACHER MATERIALS
1
Purpose
In this investigation writing lesson, students circle back around to Criteria A of the BHP Writing Rubric, Constructing an Argument, to move beyond simply
identifying elements of a well-crafted argument, to analysis and writing. In this activity, each student will revise another student’s writing as a way to understand
not just what a good argument is, but how to actually generate one. This gradual release of scaffolding and additional skill building will help students steadily
improve their writing throughout the course.
Process
Let students know that in this activity, they’re going to again look at a piece of student writing and evaluate its quality. This time, they’ll return to Criteria A of the
rubric and again zero in on the major claim or thesis being presented in the essay. However, let students know that this time they aren’t getting an exemplar essay;
instead, they’re getting one that needs some improvement, and it’s going to be their job to make it better.
Hand out the Revising Investigation Writing—Constructing an Argument Worksheet. Ask students to review what makes an exceptional major claim or thesis. Make
sure to cover the following points:
1. Makes a clear, well-articulated, and compelling thesis/major claim.
2. Stakes out a position and directly addresses the essay question.
3. Introduced early in essay to structure argument.
Now, have students read the essay included with the worksheet and let them know that although this writer received high marks for Using Texts as Evidence,
Applying BHP Concepts, and Writing with Appropriate Mechanics,” the writer did not fare as well with Constructing an Argument. In particular, the major claim or
thesis is not clear in the writing.
As they read through the article, ask students to underline statements or phrases that seem like they might either be the thesis or major claim, or that might support
a major claim or thesis. Once they’ve done that, tell them that their job is to write a better thesis or major claim for that essay.
Once students have taken the time to do this, have them share their ideas with the class. Students will likely come up with a variety of different thesis statements,
just make sure to point out that the highest quality statements are those that manage to capture the main ideas being put forth in the essay.
Now that they’re done with this Investigation writing activity, it’s time for Investigation 4. Let your students know that now that they’ve practiced twice, there’s no
reason why they shouldn’t all score a grade of 5 (exceptional) for Constructing an Argument!
BIG HISTORY PROJECT / LESSON 4.3 ACTIVITY
REVISING INVESTIGATION WRITING–CONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT

TEACHER MATERIALS
2
Directions: First, read the text below, thinking about Criteria A from the BHP Writing Rubric, Constructing an Argument. After you’ve read it over, mark up the
passage as follows:
1. Underline any sentences that you think capture the main ideas being argued in the essay.
2. Write a new thesis statement for this essay, making sure it captures the main ideas.
Thesis Statement: New developments in scientific understanding over time, as part of collective learning, have made it possible for new ideas and viewpoints to
emerge.
Note: This essay was in response to the Unit 3 Investigation question, “How can looking at the same information from different perspectives pave the way for
progress?” There were seven sources included in the Investigation Library.
How can looking at the same information in different perspective pave the way for progress? In what roles do new complexities, collective learning, and outlooks
impact the world today? It all began with supernovas from celestial bodies otherwise known as “stars”.
With the correct ingredients and conditions, such as unimaginable temperatures and amount of pressure along with aging and dying stars composed of hydrogen
and helium, a new complexity was made. Supernovae from these stars created elements, all 92 having their own distinct properties. With new elements, such
as iron, magnesium, oxygen and silicon the Earth was formed. By the time homo sapiens (humans) evolved, multitudes of complexities were created, leading up
to humans being able to pass information from generation to generation. Until 384-322 BCE, Aristotle, a Greek philosopher studied the natural world and tried to
understand the world around him. Due to the historical context, there were no possible ways for Aristotle to know no more elements than the one’s he thought
were the most basic in the world. “According to Aristotle the basis of the material world was in ‘four elements’ fire, air, water and earth” (Holmyard 1957). During
this time, the Greek philosopher’s standpoint was accepted for two millennium.
Because of humans being able to collectively learn, Aristotle’s idea was challenged by a man named Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) He “made man contributions to
collective learning with experiments he conducted” (Text 02 Scerri 2006) Lavoisier broke substances down further, calling them elements, creating Chemistry. As
an example, Aristotle first deemed that water was one basic element, but Lavoisier broke it down into hydrogen and oxygen. Because Lavoisier was critical of the
Greek scheme, the definition of an element was completely altered because of a different viewpoint that allowed progression. “Though he did not invent the periodic
table, he identified 33 simple elements”( Text 03 Elements of Chemistry 1795) Lavoisier’s list of elements, though not completely used, inspired other scientists to
further change and sort the elements, showing collective learning. Until 1860, due to collective learning, humans were able to find thirty more elements. (Text 04
Timeline of Discovery of Elements) Different viewpoints were enabled at different times due to discoveries of tools that helped aid the discovery of more elements,
the tools we have today allow more complicated investigation, rather than the lack of tools needed in Aristotle’s time. Chemists discovered and organized more
elements since it was born, but element organization was always subject to change.

TEACHER MATERIALS
3
Over time, humans become more intellectual, allowing challenges to false claims and more information to back claims up to be absorbed. Since Lavoisier’s time,
view points changed dramatically, as a majority of elements were not legitimate elements, allowing progression up to an important date in the lifetime of Chemistry.
In 1871, a Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev “was the only one to leave gaps for the discovery of new elements” ( Text 05 The Periodic Table ) Mendeleev
knew elements were subject to change after a timespan, but the importance of his periodic table layout is important to Chemists after two thousand years. “He
(Mendeleev) would guess at the hypothetical element’s atomic mass, number and other properties” (Text 06 Importance of the Periodic Table). Only time allowed
his predicted elements to be discovered and deemed accurate. His notes allowed his layout to be accepted. As elements were discovered, they impacted humans
and the world around them, allowing humans to understand what other organisms in their environment including themselves were made up of.
Ever since a predominant change of standpoint from 1789, it allowed more viewpoints to be made. With the discovery of elements, humans were able to study the
composition of astronomical figures, the earth, and many more matter. The discovery of elements changed lives, positively and negatively. With humans being more
advanced than any other species due to the evolution of their brains, language and interconnection, they were able to learn about themselves and their environment
allowing collective learning over many generations. Different time periods allowed more improvement. Just by discovering Gadolinium through generations of
chemists, it allowed magnetic resonance imaging. (Kean, 2011). Since the use of gadolinium was discovered, it allowed many lives to be changed because of how
well gadolinium works for MRI’s, allowing more collective learning to be done and more change to be upheld.
Comments from BHP Score scorer: This essay received the score of 2/Developing for Criteria A: Constructing an Argument; it received a score of 3/Proficient for
Using Texts as Evidence and Applying BHP Concepts; and a 4/Skilled for Mechanics.
Hello, thanks for submitting your essay! Your thesis/claim is unclear. Make sure to answer the essay question in the context of BHP’s Unit 3 Investigation 3 question.
The paper does not refute a counterclaim to demonstrate the opposing side of the topic. Excellent integration of most/all of the BHP sources. You demonstrated
some understanding of the texts, but more analysis would have supported your claim better. While you attempted to apply collective learning as one BHP concept,
make sure to fully incorporate at least one additional BHP concept into the essay. Your tone is formal and academic— well done! Your paper is free, or nearly free,
of grammatical mistakes; keep up the good work!

1
BIG HISTORY PROJECT COMPLETE RUBRIC
WRITING RUBRIC
CriteriaA-Constructinganargument
Exceptional (5) Skilled (4) Proficient (3) Developing (2) Inadequate (1)
• Thesis/major claim: Makes
a clear, well-articulated, and
compelling thesis/major claim.
- Stakes out a position anddirectly
addresses the essay question.
- Introduced early in essayto
structure argument.
- Thesis/major claim reflects
appropriate nuance; cautious
about dualistic or binarythinking.
• Structure: Sections carefully
support the thesis/major claim
with a clear and coherent line of
reasoning to conclusion (minor
claims).
- Well-executed progression of
ideas as each paragraph and
minor claim builds upon or
extends the last.
- Logical and clear organization
with a strong beginning, middle,
and end, with a clearconclusion.
- Conclusion supports essay’s
ideas and includes statementof
significance orimplications.
- Sophisticated arrangement of
content with evident transitions,
connecting parts to construct a
coherent essay.
• Counterclaims: Fairly and
effectively recognizes and
refutes opposing claims.
• Thesis/major claim: Makes a
clear and recognizable thesis/
major claim.
- Stakes out a position relatedto
the essay question.
- Introduced early in essayto
structure argument.
- Thesis/major claim establishes
an identifiable position, though it
might reflect dualistic or binary
thinking.
• Structure: Sections support
thesis/major claim with a
coherent line of reasoning to
conclusion (minor claims).
- Logical and clear organization
with a strong beginning, middle,
and end, with a clearconclusion.
- Conclusion supports essay’s
ideas, though lacks reference
to significance orimplications of
the thesis/major claim.
- Essay uses some transitionsto
connect its parts.
• Counterclaims: Recognizes and
attempts to refute an opposing
claim.
• Thesis/major claim: Makes an
appropriate thesis/major claim.
- Stakes out a position relatedto
the essay question.
- May not be introduced until
the end of the essay, or is
broken out overtwo or more
paragraphs.
- Thesis/major claim establishes a
position, though it might reflect
dualistic or binarythinking.
• Structure: Sections are
organized but do not always
or connect to the conclusion
(minor claims).
- Has a beginning, middle,and
end, with aconclusion.
- Conclusion makes brief or
incomplete reference to the
thesis/major claim.
- Essay lacks cleartransitions.
• Counterclaims: Brief or no
mention of an opposing claim.
• Thesis/major claim: References
the topic, but makes no clear
thesis or claim.
• Structure: Attempts to organize
essay but fails to link the sections
to the thesis/major claim, each
other, or the conclusion.
- Has a weak beginning,middle,
and end.
- Essay lacks transitions.
• Counterclaims: Does not
mention an opposing claim at all.
• Thesis/major claim: Off topic.
• Structure: Very limited attempt
to organize sections of the
essay.
- Essay is brief and does not fully
address question.
mentionan opposing claim at all.

2
WRITING RUBRICCriteriaB-Usingtextsasevidence
• Source:
- Explicitly uses five or more of
the available Investigation texts
and/or BHP-related sources.
- Clearly cites sources in an
appropriate manner (for
example, by author/producer).
• Analysis: Consistently shows
analytical reading of textsby:
- Demonstrating careful
understanding of eachtext.
- Recognizing and explaining
relevant discrepancies among
sources.
- Recognizing and explaining
similarities among sources.
- Recognizing the historical
context of the documents.
- Explaining corroboration among
the texts.
• Connection to thesis/major
claim and minor claims:
- Use of documents persuasively
as evidence.
- Strong use of facts,examples,
and details to supportclaims.
- Strong use of factual
information, quotations,
analogies, illustrations, or
anecdotes to support claim.
- Clearly and fully explains the
relationship between the
claims and the support (clear
warrants).
• Accuracy: Makes no errors
of fact in relation to the
Investigation library source
material used.
• Source:
- Explicitly uses four or more of
and/or BHP-related resources.
- Cites all sources in some
manner (for example, Text #1 or
byauthor/producer).
• Analysis: Shows analytical
reading of texts by:
- Demonstrating understanding of
each text.
- Recognizing similarities among
sources.
- Occasionally recognizing the
discrepancies among sources.
- Corroborating or connectingtwo
or more of thetexts.
- Use of documents as evidence.
- Use of some facts,examples,
and details to supportclaims.
- Explains the relationship
between the claims and most
of the texts.
material used.
• Source:
- Uses some of the available
Investigation texts (three or
more).
- May not cite all of the texts in
some manner (“Text #1,” for
example), but essay is clearly
using three or more of the texts.
• Analysis: Occasionally shows
analytical reading of the texts by:
each text.
- Recognizing similarities or
discrepancies between two
sources.
- Does not use the documents as
evidence; does not use texts to
illustrate claims.
- Use of some facts, examples
and details—not texts—to
support claims.
- Mentions or hints at the
claim and the facts, but does
no attempt to explain the
relationship.
• Accuracy: Makes one or two
minor errors offact in relation
to the Investigation library
source material used.
• Source: Mentions at least
one or two of the available
Investigation texts.
• Analysis: No analysis of
sources, although there is some
understanding of the texts used.
- Does not use the texts to
support or illustrateclaims.
- Minimal use of facts, examples
or details—not texts—to support
claims.
• Accuracy: Makes many minor
errors of fact (three or more)
or a major, substantive error in
relation to the source material
used.
• Source: Makes no mentionof
Investigation texts to support or
illustrate claims.
• Analysis:
- Essay is “support-free.”
- No use of evidence, examples,
relevant details, analogies, or
illustrations.
• Accuracy: Makes major errors
of fact in relation to the source
material used.

3
WRITING RUBRICCriteriaC-ApplyingBHPconcepts
• Concepts: Effectively applies
two ormore BHP course-level
concepts and/or unit-level
concepts or ideas.
- Demonstrates an understanding
of the concepts.
- Connects the concepts tothe
argument and/or evidence.
- Avoids misconceptions of the
concepts.
• Accuracy: No errors in applying
new BHP facts or concepts
(that is, ones not found in
Investigation library) to illustrate
or support concepts and claims,
or to inform theessay.
• Concepts: Applies one BHP
course-level concept and/or
unit- level concept oridea.
- Demonstrates an understanding
of the concept.
- Connects the concept tothe
argument and/or evidence.
- Avoids misconceptions of the
concept.
• Accuracy: Avoids errors in
applying new BHP facts or
concepts (that is, ones not
found in Investigation library) to
illustrate or support concepts
and claims, or to inform the
essay.
• Concepts: Attempts to apply
one BHP course-level concept
and/or unit-level concept oridea.
- Mentions a concept
appropriately, but without fully
articulating its meaning or
connection to the argument.
- Avoids explicit misconceptions
of the concept.
• Accuracy: May make an
occasional minor error in
essay.
• Concepts: Incorrectly or
inappropriately mentions at least
and/ or unit-level concept or
idea.
- Mentions a concept.
- Includes misconceptions of the
concept.
• Accuracy: May make many
minor errors or a major error
in applying new BHP facts or
concepts (that is, ones not found
in Investigation library).
• Concepts: No mention of BHP
course-level concepts and/or
unit- level concepts orideas.

4
WRITING RUBRICCriteriaD-Writingwithappropriatemechanics
• Language: Uses a variety of
vivid, concise, and discipline-
specific words.
• Mechanics:
- Writing is free of spellingand
grammatical errors.
- Needs little or no editing.
• Tone/voice:
- Sophisticated and well-
controlled sentences; uses
variation.
- Uses consistent voice and an
objective tone appropriate for
academic writing.
- Uses style consistent with
academic writing.
• Language: Uses conciseand
discipline-specific words.
• Mechanics:
- Writing has an occasional
spelling or minorgrammatical
error.
- Needs modest editing.
• Tone/voice:
- Complete sentences withsome
variation.
- Uses objective tone appropriate
for academic writing.
• Language: Uses appropriate
and specific words, although
not necessarily reflecting the
disciplines of history or the
sciences.
• Mechanics:
- Writing has spelling,
grammatical, and punctuation
errors, but they do not impede
readability or comprehension.
- Needs editing.
• Tone/voice: Tone does not
reflect academic writing (uses
slang, for example).
• Language: Words used are
occasionally vague, redundant,
or misused.
• Mechanics:
errors that hinder readability or
comprehension.
- Frequent errors in sentence or
paragraph structure (incomplete
or run-on sentences or
paragraphs, for example).
- Needs substantive editing.
• Language: Word choice is
incorrect or distracting.
• Mechanics:
errors that impede readability or
comprehension.
- Inadequate mechanics with
consistent errors in punctuation,
capitalization, and spelling.
• Tone/voice: Tone is informal
(uses slang, for example); does
not reflect academic writing.

STUDENT MATERIALS
1
Purpose
In this Investigation writing lesson, you’re going to circle back around to Criteria A of the BHP Writing Rubric, Constructing an Argument, to move beyond simply
identifying elements of a well-crafted argument, to analysis and writing. In this activity, you’ll revise another student’s writing as a way to understand not just what
a good argument is, but how to actually generate one. You’re well on your way to becoming a great historical writer.
Process
In this activity, you’re going to again look at a piece of student writing and evaluate its quality. This time, you’ll return to Criteria A of the writing rubric and again
zero in on the major claim or thesis being presented in the article. However, it’s trickier this time—you aren’t getting a high-quality essay; instead, you’re getting one
that needs some improvement. It’s your job to make the essay better.
Look at the Revising Investigation Writing—Constructing an Argument Worksheet. Review what makes an exceptional major claim or thesis with your class. Now,
read the essay that’s included with the worksheet. The writer of that essay received high marks for Using Texts as Evidence, Applying BHP Concepts, and Writing
with Appropriate Mechanics. The writer did not fare as well with Constructing an Argument. In particular, the major claim or thesis is not clear in the writing.
As you read through the article, underline statements or phrases that seem like they might be the thesis or major claim, or that might support a thesis or major
claim. Once you’ve done that and perhaps have an idea of what the writer was trying to convey, help make that essay better by writing a new or better thesis
statement for the essay.
Once you’re done, share your revised thesis statement with the class. Your classmates will likely come up with a variety of thesis statements. Just remember that
the highest quality statements are those that manage to capture the main ideas being put forth in the essay.
Now that you’re done improving the essay, it’s time for Investigation 4. You’ve had a chance to practice twice, so there is no reason why you shouldn’t score a grade
of 5 (exceptional) for Constructing an Argument!

Name: Date:
STUDENT MATERIALS
2
Directions: First, read the text below, thinking about Criteria A from the BHP Writing Rubric, Constructing an Argument. After you’ve read it over, mark up the
passage as follows:
1. Underline any sentences that you think capture the main ideas being argued in the essay.
2. Write a new thesis statement for this essay, making sure it captures the main ideas.
Note: This essay was in response to the Unit 3 Investigation question, “How can looking at the same information from different perspectives pave the way for
progress?” There were seven sources included in the Investigation Library.
How can looking at the same information in different perspective pave the way for progress? In what roles do new complexities, collective learning, and outlooks
impact the world today? It all began with supernovas from celestial bodies otherwise known as “stars”.
With the correct ingredients and conditions, such as unimaginable temperatures and amount of pressure along with aging and dying stars composed of hydrogen
and helium, a new complexity was made. Supernovae from these stars created elements, all 92 having their own distinct properties. With new elements, such
as iron, magnesium, oxygen and silicon the Earth was formed. By the time homo sapiens (humans) evolved, multitudes of complexities were created, leading up
to humans being able to pass information from generation to generation. Until 384-322 BCE, Aristotle, a Greek philosopher studied the natural world and tried to
understand the world around him. Due to the historical context, there were no possible ways for Aristotle to know no more elements than the one’s he thought
were the most basic in the world. “According to Aristotle the basis of the material world was in ‘four elements’ fire, air, water and earth” (Holmyard 1957). During
this time, the Greek philosopher’s standpoint was accepted for two millennium.
Because of humans being able to collectively learn, Aristotle’s idea was challenged by a man named Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) He “made man contributions to
collective learning with experiments he conducted” (Text 02 Scerri 2006) Lavoisier broke substances down further, calling them elements, creating Chemistry. As
an example, Aristotle first deemed that water was one basic element, but Lavoisier broke it down into hydrogen and oxygen. Because Lavoisier was critical of the
Greek scheme, the definition of an element was completely altered because of a different viewpoint that allowed progression. “Though he did not invent the periodic
table, he identified 33 simple elements”( Text 03 Elements of Chemistry 1795) Lavoisier’s list of elements, though not completely used, inspired other scientists to
further change and sort the elements, showing collective learning. Until 1860, due to collective learning, humans were able to find thirty more elements. (Text 04
Timeline of Discovery of Elements) Different viewpoints were enabled at different times due to discoveries of tools that helped aid the discovery of more elements,
the tools we have today allow more complicated investigation, rather than the lack of tools needed in Aristotle’s time. Chemists discovered and organized more
elements since it was born, but element organization was always subject to change.
Over time, humans become more intellectual, allowing challenges to false claims and more information to back claims up to be absorbed. Since Lavoisier’s time,
view points changed dramatically, as a majority of elements were not legitimate elements, allowing progression up to an important date in the lifetime of Chemistry.

Name: Date:
STUDENT MATERIALS
3
In 1871, a Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev “was the only one to leave gaps for the discovery of new elements” ( Text 05 The Periodic Table ) Mendeleev
knew elements were subject to change after a timespan, but the importance of his periodic table layout is important to Chemists after two thousand years. “He
(Mendeleev) would guess at the hypothetical element’s atomic mass, number and other properties” (Text 06 Importance of the Periodic Table). Only time allowed
his predicted elements to be discovered and deemed accurate. His notes allowed his layout to be accepted. As elements were discovered, they impacted humans
and the world around them, allowing humans to understand what other organisms in their environment including themselves were made up of.
Ever since a predominant change of standpoint from 1789, it allowed more viewpoints to be made. With the discovery of elements, humans were able to study the
composition of astronomical figures, the earth, and many more matter. The discovery of elements changed lives, positively and negatively. With humans being more
advanced than any other species due to the evolution of their brains, language and interconnection, they were able to learn about themselves and their environment
allowing collective learning over many generations. Different time periods allowed more improvement. Just by discovering Gadolinium through generations of
chemists, it allowed magnetic resonance imaging. (Kean, 2011). Since the use of gadolinium was discovered, it allowed many lives to be changed because of how
well gadolinium works for MRI’s, allowing more collective learning to be done and more change to be upheld.

1
BIG HISTORY PROJECT
WRITING RUBRIC
CriteriaA-Constructinganargument
• Thesis/major claim: Makes
a clear, well-articulated, and
compelling thesis/major claim.
• Structure: Sections carefully
with a clear and coherent line of
reasoning to conclusion (minor
claims).
• Counterclaim: Fairly and
effectively recognizes and
refutes opposing claims.
• Thesis/major claim: Makes a
clear and recognizable thesis/
major claim.
• Structure: Sections support
thesis/major claim with a
coherent line of reasoning to
conclusion (minor claims).
• Counterclaim: Recognizes and
attempts to refute an opposing
claim.
• Thesis/major claim: Makes an
appropriate thesis/major claim.
• Structure: Sections are
organized but do not always
or connect to the conclusion
(minor claims).
• Counterclaim: Brief or no
mention of an opposing claim.
• Thesis/major claim:
References the topic, but makes
no clear thesis or claim.
• Structure: Attempts to organize
essay but fails to link the sections
to the thesis/major claim, each
other, or the conclusion.
• Thesis/major claim: Off topic.
• Structure: Absence of
structure. Very limited attempt to
organize sections of the essay.
• Counterclaim: Does not
STUDENT RUBRIC

2
BIG HISTORY PROJECT
WRITING RUBRICCriteriaB-Usingtextsasevidence
• Source:
- Explicitly uses five or more of
and/or BHP-related sources.
- Clearly cites sources in an
appropriate manner (for
example, by author/producer).
• Analysis: Consistently shows
analytical reading of texts.
im and minor claims:
- Use of documents persuasively
as evidence.
- Strong use of facts, examples,
and details to support claims.
- Strong use of factual
information, quotations,
analogies, illustrations, or
anecdotes to support claim.
- Clearly and fully explains the
claims and the support (clear
warrants).
material used.
• Source:
- Explicitly uses four or more of
and/or BHP-related resources.
- Cites all sources in some
manner (for example, Text #1 or
by author/producer).
• Analysis: Shows analytical
reading of texts by:
each text.
- Recognizing similarities among
sources.
- Occasionally recognizing the
discrepancies among sources.
- Corroborating or connecting two
or more of the texts.
- Use of documents as evidence.
- Use of some facts, examples,
and details to support claims.
- Explains the relationship
between the claims and most of
the texts.
material used.
• Source:
- Uses some of the available
Investigation texts (three or
more).
- May not cite all of the texts in
some manner (“Text #1,” for
example), but essay is clearly
using three or more of the texts.
• Analysis: Occasionally shows
analytical reading of the texts .
- Does not use the documents as
evidence; does not use texts to
illustrate claims.
- Use of some facts, examples
and details—not texts—to
support claims.
- Mentions or hints at the
claim and the facts, but does
no attempt to explain the
relationship.
• Accuracy: Makes one or two
minor errors of fact in relation to
the Investigation library source
material used.
• Source: Mentions at least
one or two of the available
Investigation texts.
• Analysis: No analysis of
sources, although there is some
understanding of the texts used.
- Does not use the texts to
support or illustrate claims.
- Minimal use of facts, examples
or details—not texts—to support
claims.
• Accuracy: Makes many minor
errors of fact (three or more)
or a major, substantive error in
relation to the source material
used.
• Source: Makes no mention of
Investigation texts to support or
illustrate claims.
• Analysis:
- Essay is “support-free.”
- No use of evidence, examples,
relevant details, analogies, or
illustrations.
• Accuracy: Makes major errors
of fact in relation to the source
material used.
STUDENT RUBRIC

3
BIG HISTORY PROJECT
WRITING RUBRICCriteriaC-ApplyingBHPconcepts
• Concepts: Effectively applies
two or more BHP course-level
concepts and/or unit-level
concepts or ideas.
• Accuracy: No errors in applying
new BHP facts or concepts
(that is, ones not found in
Investigation library) to illustrate
or support concepts and claims,
or to inform the essay.
• Concepts: Applies one BHP
course-level concept and/or
unit- level concept or idea.
• Accuracy: Avoids errors in
essay.
• Concepts: Attempts to apply
and/or unit-level concept or
idea.
• Accuracy: May make an
occasional minor error in
essay.
• Concepts: Incorrectly or
inappropriately mentions at least
and/ or unit-level concept or
idea.
• Accuracy: May make many
minor errors or a major error
in applying new BHP facts or
concepts (that is, ones not found
in Investigation library).
• Concepts: No mention of BHP
course-level concepts and/or
unit- level concepts or ideas.
STUDENT RUBRIC

4
BIG HISTORY PROJECT
WRITING RUBRICCriteriaD-Writingwithappropriatemechanics
• Language: Uses a variety of
vivid, concise, and discipline-
specific words.
• Mechanics:
- Writing is free of spelling and
grammatical errors.
- Needs little or no editing.
• Tone/voice:
- Sophisticated and well-
controlled sentences; uses
variation.
- Uses consistent voice and an
objective tone appropriate for
academic writing.
- Uses style consistent with
academic writing.
• Language: Uses concise and
discipline-specific words.
• Mechanics:
- Writing has an occasional
spelling or minor grammatical
error.
- Needs modest editing.
• Tone/voice:
- Complete sentences with some
variation.
- Uses objective tone appropriate
for academic writing.
• Language: Uses appropriate
and specific words, although
not necessarily reflecting the
disciplines of history or the
sciences.
• Mechanics:
errors, but they do not impede
readability or comprehension.
- Needs editing.
• Language: Words used are
occasionally vague, redundant,
or misused.
• Mechanics:
errors that hinder readability or
comprehension.
• Language: Word choice is
incorrect or distracting.
• Mechanics:
errors that impede readability or
comprehension.
- Inadequate mechanics with
consistent errors in punctuation,
capitalization, and spelling.
• Tone/voice: Tone is informal
(uses slang, for example); does
not reflect academic writing.
STUDENT RUBRIC

5
BIG HISTORY PROJECT
Presenter:Reviewer:
STUDENT RUBRIC
WRITING RUBRIC
Description Exceptional (5) Skilled (4) Proficient (3) Developing (2) Inadequate (1) Score
Criteria A -
Constructing
an argument
Criteria B -
Using texts as
evidence
Criteria C -
Applying BHP
concepts
Criteria D -
Writing with
appropriate
mechanics
Total Score

Lesson 4.3 Activity: Revising Investigation Writing - Constructing an Argument

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Lesson 4.3 Activity: Revising Investigation Writing - Constructing an Argument

Similar to Lesson 4.3 Activity: Revising Investigation Writing - Constructing an Argument (20)

More from Big History Project

More from Big History Project (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lesson 4.3 Activity: Revising Investigation Writing - Constructing an Argument