Page
WR-Assignment 3-Tutorial and Example
WR-Assignment 3
Analyze Speakers’ Perspectives/Defend Your Position
In this assignment you will:
- Explore and analyze an issue and the various viewpoints on this issue
- Explain your position, and support using the viewpoints and examples from Social Studies content
- Communicate effectively in a well-organized written response
Courtesy of flickr/Julian Bleecker
Click on each of the following tabs to view your tasks.
Review the issue.
A question starting with “Should…” will be asked.
- Do you agree with the issue? Disagree? Partially agree? Why?
Review the 3 speakers’ perspectives/views.
- Review their responses carefully; what is each opinion on the issue?
- Do you agree or disagree with each view? Why/for what reasons?
Write your response:
In your response you must:
- Explain what the issue is about, and WHY is the issue important?
- Explain EACH SPEAKER’S VIEW on the issue-what reasons does each speaker have to support their view?
- Explain why there are different viewpoints on the issue
- In ONE paragraph, explain your position on the issue: include
- One statement of your position on the issue. “I believe that…”
- Explain your position, and provide examples from Social Studies and the speakers’ viewpoints to support your position
- End your paragraph with a concluding sentence recapping your position
WR-Assignment 3: Marking Rubric
Scoring Categories and Scoring Criteria for Assignment III
| Focus | Exploration and Analysis (8 marks) | Defence of Position (8 marks) | Communication (4 marks) |
When marking Exploration and Analysis, the marker will consider the:
|
When marking Defence of Position, the marker will consider the:
|
When marking Communication, the marker will consider the:
Proportion of error to the length and complexity of the response must be applied when awarding a mark for Communication. |
|
Excellent
E |
Exploration of the issue(s) is insightful and comprehensive. Analysis is thoughtful and thorough and misconceptions, if present, do not detract from the response. The student demonstrates a confident and perceptive understanding of various points of view
on the issue(s) and the assigned task.
8
|
The defence of position is based on one or more convincing, logical arguments. Evidence is specific and accurate and errors, if present, do not detract from the response. The student demonstrates a thorough and perceptive understanding of applicable social
studies knowledge and the assigned task.
8
|
The writing is fluent and purposefully organized. Effective stylistic choices may contribute to the creation of an engaging voice. Vocabulary is precise.The writing demonstrates confident control of sentence construction, grammar, and mechanics. Errors,
if present, are inconsequential.
4
|
Proficient
Pf |
Exploration of the issue(s) is specific and accurate. Analysis is appropriate and purposeful but may contain minor misconceptions. The student demonstrates a clear understanding of various points of view on the issue(s) and the assigned task.
6.4
|
The defence of position is based on one or more sound arguments. Evidence is appropriate, but may contain some minor factual errors. The student demonstrates a clear understanding of applicable social studies knowledge and the assigned task.
6.4
|
The writing is logical and clearly organized. Appropriate stylistic choices may contribute to the creation of a distinct voice. Vocabulary is specific. The writing frequently demonstrates effective control of sentence construction, grammar, and mechanics.
Errors do not detract from communication.
3.2
|
Satisfactory
S |
Exploration of the issue(s) is valid but general and may contain misconceptions. Analysis is general and straightforward. The student demonstrates an acceptable understanding of various points of view on the issue(s) and the assigned task.
4.8
|
The defence of position is based on one or more adequate arguments. Evidence is relevant, but general and/or incompletely developed. The evidence may contain errors. The student demonstrates an acceptable understanding of applicable social studies knowledge
and the assigned task.
4.8
|
The writing is generally clear and functionally organized. Basic stylistic choices may contribute to the creation of a voice that is adequate. Vocabulary is adequate. The writing demonstrates basic control of sentence construction, grammar, and mechanics.
Errors do not seriously interfere with communication.
2.4
|
Limited
L |
Exploration of the issue(s) is superficial and may contain substantial misconceptions. Analysis is limited and overgeneralized or redundant, but discernible. The student demonstrates a confused, yet discernible understanding of various points of view
on the issue(s) and the assigned task.
3.2
|
The defence of position is based on oversimplified assertions and/or questionable logic. Evidence is superficial and may not always be relevant. The evidence may contain significant errors. The student demonstrates a confused, yet discernible, understanding
of applicable social studies knowledge and the assigned task.
3.2
|
The writing is uneven and incomplete but is discernibly organized. Awkward stylistic choices may contribute to the creation of an unconvincing and/or inappropriate voice. Vocabulary is imprecise and/or inappropriate. The writing demonstrates faltering
control of sentence construction, grammar, and mechanics. Errors hinder communication.
1.6
|
Poor
P |
Exploration of the issue(s) is mistaken or irrelevant. Analysis is minimal and/or tangential. The student demonstrates a minimal understanding of various points of view on the issue(s) and the assigned task.
1.6
|
The defence of position taken is difficult to determine and/or little or no attempt is made to defend it. Evidence, if present, is incomplete and/or marginally relevant. Significant errors in content are frequent. The student demonstrates a minimal understanding
of applicable social studies knowledge and the assigned task.
1.6
|
The writing is unclear and disorganized. Ineffective and/or inappropriate stylistic choices may contribute to the creation of an ineffective and/or unsuitable voice. Vocabulary is ineffective and frequently incorrect. A lack of control of sentence construction,
grammar, and mechanics is demonstrated. Errors impede communication.
0.8
|
Insufficient
INS |
Insufficient is a special category. It is not an indicator of quality. It is assigned to responses that are off topic, do not contain a discernible attempt to address the task, or that are too brief to assess in any scoring category. |
Example WR-Assignment 3
Social Studies 20-2
Written Response Assignment 3
ASSIGNMENT 3
Value: 20%
Suggested Time: 40 to 45 minutes
Suggested Time: 40 to 45 minutes
Your local newspaper asked three citizens selected at random to respond to the following question:
Should Canada withdraw its troops from Afghanistan?Click each row below to view each citizen's response: 
Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan because we never should have sent them there in the first place. Canada’s involvement was a bad idea for several reasons. First, it has led to tragic consequences for Canadian
military personnel. Second, it cost us valuable resources that could have been better used elsewhere. Third, it was an inacceptable interference in the internal affairs of another country. Fourth (and finally), it damaged
our reputation as a country that promotes peace. Bring the troops home!
The idea of withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan is cowardly and utterly unacceptable! Brave men and women have given their lives, and our country has invested billions in the effort so far. Along with our allies, we have
accomplished a great deal. We have destroyed a safe haven for terrorist training and replaced the brutal, undemocratic Taliban-led government with a democracy. Afghanistan’s new democratic government is not yet strong enough
to resist the savage attacks by Taliban insurgents without our help. To leave now would undo all we have accomplished so far.
Canada has done its share of combat in Afghanistan, but we still must play a role in Afghanistan. Our NATO allies, and the Afghan government, are pleading with us to continue to play a role and our reputation as a helpful,
caring ally would be at risk if we withdraw now. Canada’s troops should stay in Afghanistan and focus on breaking the cycle of poverty and modernizing the country. Over the last ten years in Afghanistan, Canada has developed
infrastructure such as schools, roads, and dams. We have also trained Afghanistan’s police and reformed its judicial system. We should continue to make these valuable non-combatant contributions.
Should Canada withdraw its troops from Afghanistan? 
Write a response where you must
Reminders for Writing
|
In my opinion I can see valid arguments with all the citizens, but I only agree with certain points. I think Canada should keep its troops in Afghanistan in order to provide stability and help the country rebuild.
I agree with Citizen#3 with her reasoning that we still must support the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan; we can’t just leave a post-war country to rebuild on its own, especially since we have a responsibility to set the country on a path that will help them stabilize and progress. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an organization that promotes mutual defence and security. As such, our involvement alongside other NATO countries to help rebuild war-torn Afghanistan shows that we continue to have strong and reliable relationships with other participating countries in NATO, as well as uphold our membership in this organization.
Citizen #1’s stance that we should never have been involved in Afghanistan is a bit narrow-minded. When there are citizens in another country being torn apart by war and conflict, it is the international community’s responsible to step in and become involved. Although she says that our involvement in Afghanistan impacted our reputation as peacekeepers, I think that when nations sit back and allow a country to be ripped apart (whether by war, natural disasters, or attacks from other nations) this also creates a negative reputation as a country who will not get involved in global conflicts. In addition, by playing a contributing role through our involvement with NATO, we are gaining the trust of other nations and also fostering good will and support for the day we may need other nations’ involvement if we ever encounter conflict.
While Citizen #2 advocates for our troops to stay in Afghanistan, it seems more based in the potential for further conflict with terrorists or “insurgents.” I don’t disagree with Citizen #2 in that the Afghanistan government may be too weak or new to reject new attacks; however, I think the perspective of moving past these conflicts to help Afghan citizens regain a sense of stability and normal living is more important at this time. By remaining in a country mainly to prevent further conflict is a bit short-sighted, and our involvement should include collaborating with the new Afghan government to find realistic, sustainable solutions and structures to help their society rebuild.
Overall, I believe that Canada should keep its troops in Afghanistan, but perhaps not as large of a contingent as when the conflict was happening. In this case, Canada is a peace-making nation, but could shift to a peacekeeping nation to maintain peace and stability in a country previously torn by conflict.
Social 20-2 Outcomes
I agree with Citizen#3 with her reasoning that we still must support the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan; we can’t just leave a post-war country to rebuild on its own, especially since we have a responsibility to set the country on a path that will help them stabilize and progress. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an organization that promotes mutual defence and security. As such, our involvement alongside other NATO countries to help rebuild war-torn Afghanistan shows that we continue to have strong and reliable relationships with other participating countries in NATO, as well as uphold our membership in this organization.
Citizen #1’s stance that we should never have been involved in Afghanistan is a bit narrow-minded. When there are citizens in another country being torn apart by war and conflict, it is the international community’s responsible to step in and become involved. Although she says that our involvement in Afghanistan impacted our reputation as peacekeepers, I think that when nations sit back and allow a country to be ripped apart (whether by war, natural disasters, or attacks from other nations) this also creates a negative reputation as a country who will not get involved in global conflicts. In addition, by playing a contributing role through our involvement with NATO, we are gaining the trust of other nations and also fostering good will and support for the day we may need other nations’ involvement if we ever encounter conflict.
While Citizen #2 advocates for our troops to stay in Afghanistan, it seems more based in the potential for further conflict with terrorists or “insurgents.” I don’t disagree with Citizen #2 in that the Afghanistan government may be too weak or new to reject new attacks; however, I think the perspective of moving past these conflicts to help Afghan citizens regain a sense of stability and normal living is more important at this time. By remaining in a country mainly to prevent further conflict is a bit short-sighted, and our involvement should include collaborating with the new Afghan government to find realistic, sustainable solutions and structures to help their society rebuild.
Overall, I believe that Canada should keep its troops in Afghanistan, but perhaps not as large of a contingent as when the conflict was happening. In this case, Canada is a peace-making nation, but could shift to a peacekeeping nation to maintain peace and stability in a country previously torn by conflict.
Social 20-2 Outcomes
- Consider the points of view and perspectives of others
- Evaluate personal assumptions and opinions
- Identify main ideas underlying a position or issue
- Communicate effectively