Use this rubric when students are writing an argument supported by reasons and evidence. It is designed for assignments where students need to make a clear claim, organize their thinking, use evidence, explain how the evidence supports the claim, respond to another view when appropriate, and write for a specific audience and purpose.
This page offers an example rubric for Grades 6-8 source-based argumentative writing. It focuses on common features teachers often look for in this kind of writing: claim, organization, evidence, reasoning, response to another view when appropriate, style, conclusion, and language control. You can use it as a starting point, adapt it to your curriculum, or use it as a model when building your own rubric.
TA39 drafts from the rubric you choose; you review, adapt, and decide what fits your assignment.
At a Glance
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Level | Grades 6-8 / Years 7-9 equivalent, depending on system |
| Subject Area | English / Language Arts, or equivalent |
| Writing Type | Argumentative Writing |
| Task Type | Complete argument essay / source-based argument |
| Useful For | argument essays, source-based claims, debate-style written responses |
| Reference Example | Smarter Balanced Argumentative Performance Task Writing Rubric |
| Optional Reference Codes | US Common Core / California Common Core codes are included below as one example of how this writing task can be mapped to standards |
| Scoring Scale | 4-level analytic rubric, 32 points total |
What This Rubric Covers
This rubric focuses on the writing moves students need for complete argument essay / source-based argument:
- Making a clear claim or position
- Organizing reasons and evidence
- Using relevant evidence from sources
- Explaining how evidence supports the claim
- Responding to another view when the assignment calls for it
- Using tone and vocabulary that fit the task
- Writing a conclusion that follows from the argument
- Using accurate grammar, punctuation, spelling, and sentence structure
Download
For easier reuse, the rubric grid and performance conversion are packaged as a separate Markdown file inside this zip:
Rubric
Score: ___ / 32
| Criteria | 4 - Exceeds Expectations | 3 - Meets Expectations | 2 - Approaching Expectations | 1 - Not Yet Meeting Expectations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Claim / Position (Optional US refs: W.6.1, W.7.1, W.8.1) | Makes a clear, focused claim that fits the task, purpose, and audience. | Makes a clear claim that mostly fits the task and audience. | Attempts a claim, but it may be broad, unclear, or only partly connected to the task. | Claim is missing, unclear, or unrelated to the task. |
Organization and Transitions (Optional US refs: W.6.1, W.7.1, W.8.1, W.6.4, W.7.4, W.8.4) | Organizes reasons and evidence in a logical order. Transitions help the reader follow the argument. | Organizes ideas clearly. Transitions generally connect claims, reasons, and evidence. | Organization is uneven. Transitions may be limited, repetitive, or unclear. | Organization is difficult to follow. Few or no transitions are used. |
Evidence From Sources (Optional US refs: W.6.8, W.7.8, W.8.8, W.6.9, W.7.9, W.8.9) | Uses relevant, specific evidence from sources to support the claim. Source material is quoted, paraphrased, or attributed accurately. | Uses relevant evidence from sources to support the claim. Source use is mostly accurate. | Uses limited or uneven evidence. Some evidence may be weakly connected, unclear, or inaccurately used. | Uses little or no relevant evidence from sources. |
Reasoning / Explanation (Optional US refs: W.6.1, W.7.1, W.8.1, W.6.9, W.7.9, W.8.9) | Clearly explains how the evidence supports the claim and shows a logical line of reasoning. | Explains evidence and generally connects it to the claim. | Explanation is brief, repetitive, or only partly connected to the evidence. | Provides little or no explanation of how evidence supports the claim. |
Response to Another View (Optional US refs: W.7.1, W.8.1) | Responds to another view in a way that strengthens the argument, when the assignment calls for it. | Acknowledges another view and keeps the argument clear, when the assignment calls for it. | Mentions another view, but the connection to the argument may be unclear or underdeveloped. | Does not address another view when the assignment asks for one. |
Style, Tone, and Vocabulary (Optional US refs: W.6.1, W.7.1, W.8.1, W.6.4, W.7.4, W.8.4) | Uses precise language and a tone that fit the audience, purpose, and argument. | Uses generally appropriate language and tone. | Language or tone is uneven, general, or sometimes ineffective. | Language or tone makes the argument harder to understand. |
Conclusion (Optional US refs: W.6.1, W.7.1, W.8.1) | Provides a conclusion that follows from the argument and reinforces the claim. | Provides a conclusion that follows from the argument. | Attempts a conclusion, but it may be repetitive, weak, or loosely connected. | Conclusion is missing or unrelated. |
Language Accuracy (Optional US refs: L.6.1, L.7.1, L.8.1, L.6.2, L.7.2, L.8.2) | Demonstrates strong control of grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure. Errors are rare and do not interfere with meaning. | Demonstrates adequate control of language accuracy. Errors do not interfere with meaning. | Demonstrates partial control of language accuracy. Errors sometimes interfere with meaning. | Frequent errors interfere with understanding. |
Performance Conversion
| Raw Score | Performance Level |
|---|---|
| 29-32 | 4 - Exceeds Expectations |
| 22-28 | 3 - Meets Expectations |
| 14-21 | 2 - Approaching Expectations |
| 13 or below | 1 - Not Yet Meeting Expectations |
Teacher Adaptation Notes
Before using this rubric with students, review it against your assignment, curriculum, and marking expectations.
- If the task does not require source evidence, adjust the evidence row.
- If students are not expected to respond to another view, remove or reduce that row.
- If your curriculum uses a specific argument structure, name that structure in the organization row.
- If citation or referencing is required, add the format students should use.
- If language accuracy should be weighted separately, score it as its own category.
Standards and Reference Examples
The rubric above can be adapted for many curricula. The standards listed here are US-specific reference examples, not requirements for using the rubric. They are included for teachers who want to see how this kind of writing task is described in one widely used US framework.
If you work in another curriculum, you can map the same criteria to your own outcomes, such as GCSE, IGCSE, IB MYP, CBSE, Australian Curriculum, Singapore English, UAE standards, or your school-based writing framework.
You can review the US reference standards here:
- California Content Standards: English Language Arts
- Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
| Standard | What It Means for This Rubric |
|---|---|
W.6.1, W.7.1, W.8.1 | Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence. |
W.6.4, W.7.4, W.8.4 | Produce clear writing appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. |
W.6.8, W.7.8, W.8.8 | Gather relevant information from sources and avoid plagiarism. |
W.6.9, W.7.9, W.8.9 | Draw evidence from texts to support analysis, reflection, and research. |
L.6.1, L.7.1, L.8.1 | Demonstrate command of grade-level grammar and usage. |
L.6.2, L.7.2, L.8.2 | Demonstrate command of capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. |
Source and Attribution
This example is based on publicly available standards and assessment-reference materials. These links are provided for attribution, teacher context, and further reading:
- Smarter Balanced Argumentative Performance Task Writing Rubric
- Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts
- California Content Standards: English Language Arts
This example uses Smarter Balanced argumentative writing expectations as a reference.
Smarter Balanced is cited as an external reference source for assessment target information and related writing expectations. This example is not an official Smarter Balanced rubric and does not imply endorsement by Smarter Balanced, the Regents of the University of California, the California Department of Education, NGA Center, or CCSSO.
The US standards links are included as one example of standards alignment. Teachers using other frameworks can treat these links as optional background and focus on the rubric criteria themselves.
Want to Build a Different Rubric?
You can also use the Smarter Content Explorer to explore a different grade, claim, target, or writing purpose. This can be helpful if you want to see how a large assessment system describes writing expectations.
If you download reference materials from an external site, review that site's terms and copyright notices before reusing or redistributing the content. TA39 can help turn a rubric or reference document into a format you can review and adapt. You still review the criteria, adjust the wording, and decide whether it fits your assignment.