W.11-12.6: Updating Published Writing in Response to Ongoing Feedback
In plain English: W.11-12.6 is the Common Core ELA standard that asks students to use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish and update writing, alone or with others, in response to ongoing feedback. Updates take in new arguments or information, so a published piece keeps changing after readers respond. It applies to writing in grades 11 and 12.
Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information.
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy · Domain: Writing Standards · Cluster: Production and Distribution of Writing · Official standard
Students follow one published argument through the feedback that comes after publication. Two invented seniors publish an argument in their school's online newspaper that a city library branch should open on Sundays. Within four days, readers post a correction to a statistic, a counterargument, a cost figure the writers did not have and firsthand evidence about Sunday buses. The co-writers plan the update in their shared document and publish Version 2, which labels the correction, answers the counterargument in the article itself and changes the claim to a 12-week trial because the new cost figure calls for it. After a council vote, more information arrives and the piece needs another update.
The grade 11-12 emphasis is judgment about feedback that keeps arriving: telling a correction from new information and from a new argument, deciding which ones change the piece and which change the claim itself, and marking each update so returning readers can trust it. Students sort feedback, run timed update rounds on a shared piece, keep an argument of their own updated online for a week and, for homework, update an individual blog post.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Tell apart three kinds of ongoing feedback on a published piece: corrections, new information and new arguments
Update a published argument to take in new information, including changing the claim when the evidence calls for it
Answer a new argument raised by readers within the piece itself, fairly and with evidence
Mark updates for returning readers with dated update notes, labeled corrections and a named version history
Produce and publish a shared or individual piece online, dividing and cross-checking the work
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Using technology to produce, publish and update writing, with links and flexible displays W.9-10.6
Writing arguments that develop claims and counterclaims fairly W.9-10.1
Revising for what matters most to a specific purpose and audience W.9-10.5
"You posted something online, and a day later someone points out a mistake, or a fact you did not know, or an argument you had not thought of. Do you delete the post, change it quietly, reply in the comments, or change it and say so? Does your answer depend on which of the three it was?"
Take a few answers and keep the three kinds of feedback on the board: a mistake, a new fact, a new argument. W.11-12.6 asks students to use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish and update writing "in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information." The lesson follows one argument through that process.
Nadia Okafor and Ben Albright, two seniors, co-wrote an argument for the online edition of their school newspaper, the Linwood Ledger: the city's Linwood Branch Library should open on Sundays. Read Text 1, the version they published on October 2. The writers, their adviser, the commenters, the school, the newspaper, the library and the city council are all invented for this lesson. Students note one claim in Version 1 that a reader could challenge.
1[Headline] The Linwood Branch Should Open on Sundays
2[Byline] By Nadia Okafor and Ben Albright. Published October 2 in the online Linwood Ledger.
3Every Sunday afternoon, students who need a quiet place to study run into the same locked door. The Linwood Branch Library is open Monday through Saturday, but it closes all day Sunday, the one day many of us have time for long assignments and the day before many of our tests.
4The need is real. In a survey the Ledger ran in September, 212 of the 340 students who answered said they had wanted to study at the branch on a Sunday and could not. That is 72 percent. Many said their homes are too crowded or too loud to concentrate, and some have no reliable Internet connection at home.
5The branch is the only place in our neighborhood with free Wi-Fi, printers and study tables, and on weekdays its tables fill up by 4:00 p.m. A Sunday opening would give students the same space at the time they need it most.
6Opening on Sundays would cost the city something, but a library that is closed when students need it most is not serving them. We urge the city council to open the branch every Sunday from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. [link: Contact your city council member]
SVHS lesson authors (the writers, the school, the newspaper and the library are invented), Text 1: The argument as first published, Version 1 (October 2). Original passage written for this page.
Direct Instruction20 minutes
Use Diagram 1 to explain what the grade 11-12 standard adds. Like W.9-10.6, it asks writers to produce, publish and update, alone or with others. The new focus is ongoing feedback: once a piece is online, readers keep responding, and the writer updates the published piece, not a private draft, when that feedback brings a correction, new information or a new argument. The update is part of the argument: readers who come back need to see what changed and why.
Read Text 2, the first four days of comments. Then read Text 3, the thread in which the co-writers and their adviser plan the update in their shared document, and Text 4, the version they published on October 7. Diagram 2 maps each paragraph of Version 1 to Version 2. Work through the examples.
1Comment, Marcus Bell (parent), October 3: The main library downtown is open on Sundays from noon to 5:00. Why should the city pay for a second Sunday library? Students can go downtown.
2Reply, Ben Albright, October 3: Fair question. We'll look into how students would get there.
3Comment, Rosa Delgado (Linwood Branch staff), October 4: A small correction: 212 out of 340 is about 62 percent, not 72. Also, the city's budget office priced Sunday hours at last spring's budget hearing: about $520 for each Sunday, for four staff members working five hours each, including setup and closing.
4Comment, Jordan Wu (senior), October 5: The Number 9 bus from Linwood to downtown runs once an hour on Sundays, and the ride takes about 40 minutes. I tried it last Sunday. With the walks and the wait, the round trip took me close to two hours before I opened a book.
5Comment, Ms. Adeyemi (Ledger adviser), October 6: The city council has put library hours on the agenda for its October 20 meeting. If you update the piece, say so at the top, and remember our rule: corrections are labeled, not silently fixed.
SVHS lesson authors (all commenters are invented), Text 2: Reader comments under Version 1, October 3-6. Original passage written for this page.
1Nadia: The 72 percent is our mistake. We fix it today and add a correction at the end that says what was wrong. We don't just change the number and hope nobody noticed.
2Ben: Agreed. Mr. Bell's comment is different. It isn't a mistake, it's an argument we never answered. If we only reply in the comments, people who read the article and skip the comments will never see our answer, so it belongs in the article.
3Nadia: Jordan's comment answers him better than we could. If we use it, we have to say where it comes from: one senior's trip, plus the city's Sunday timetable, which shows one bus an hour. We can link the timetable so readers can check it.
4Ben: The cost is new information too. $520 a Sunday sounds like a lot. Should we just leave the cost out? It hurts our case.
5Nadia: No. Leaving out a number we know about would be worse, and someone would post it in the comments anyway. What if we change what we ask for? Instead of every Sunday from now on, a 12-week trial with the branch counting visitors, so the council can decide with real numbers.
6Ben: That changes our claim. Then the headline has to change too, or it promises something the article no longer argues.
7Nadia: Right. New headline, and a dated note at the top with the council meeting date. Version 1 stays in the version history, so anyone can see exactly what we changed. I'll draft the note and the correction. You take the downtown paragraph and the cost paragraph, and we each read the other's part before we publish.
8Ms. Adeyemi: Good. One more thing: the note should tell readers what is new, not only that something changed. "Updated October 7" by itself does nothing for someone who read Version 1.
SVHS lesson authors, Text 3: The co-writers' comment thread in their shared document, October 6-7. Original passage written for this page.
1[Headline] The Linwood Branch Should Try Sunday Hours
2[Byline] By Nadia Okafor and Ben Albright. Published October 2 and updated October 7 in the online Linwood Ledger.
3[Update note] Updated October 7: This version answers readers' comments about the downtown library and the cost of Sunday hours, and it changes our proposal to a 12-week trial. The city council will discuss library hours at its October 20 meeting. A correction appears at the end.
4Every Sunday afternoon, students who need a quiet place to study run into the same locked door. The Linwood Branch Library is open Monday through Saturday, but it closes all day Sunday, the one day many of us have time for long assignments and the day before many of our tests.
5The need is real. In a survey the Ledger ran in September, 212 of the 340 students who answered said they had wanted to study at the branch on a Sunday and could not. That is 62 percent. Many said their homes are too crowded or too loud to concentrate, and some have no reliable Internet connection at home.
6The branch is the only place in our neighborhood with free Wi-Fi, printers and study tables, and on weekdays its tables fill up by 4:00 p.m. A Sunday opening would give students the same space at the time they need it most.
7Some readers have asked why students cannot use the main library downtown, which is open on Sundays from noon to 5:00 p.m. For Linwood students, the problem is getting there. The Number 9 bus runs once an hour on Sundays [link: City bus Sunday timetable, Route 9], and the ride takes about 40 minutes each way. A senior who tried it told us the round trip took close to two hours. The branch is a short walk from school.
8Sunday hours are not free. The city's budget office estimates about $520 for each Sunday the branch opens [link: City budget hearing, library section], or about $6,240 for 12 Sundays. So we are now asking for a trial: open the branch from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. for 12 Sundays this winter, count the visitors, and let the council decide with real numbers instead of our survey and our guesses.
9[link: Contact your city council member] before the October 20 meeting.
10[Correction, October 7] An earlier version of this article said that 72 percent of the students surveyed had wanted to study at the branch on a Sunday. The correct figure is 62 percent (212 of 340).
SVHS lesson authors, Text 4: The argument as updated, Version 2 (October 7). Original passage written for this page.
Correction: fixed and labeled
Rosa Delgado points out that "212 out of 340 is about 62 percent, not 72" (Text 2, paragraph 3). Nadia: "We fix it today and add a correction at the end that says what was wrong. We don't just change the number and hope nobody noticed" (Text 3, paragraph 1).
Result: Version 2 says "That is 62 percent" and ends with "[Correction, October 7] An earlier version of this article said that 72 percent..." (Text 4, paragraph 10). A reader who quoted the old number can see that it changed, when, and to what. A silent fix would leave that reader repeating an error with no way to know.
New argument: answered in the piece, not only in a reply
Mr. Bell asks why the city should pay for a second Sunday library when "Students can go downtown" (Text 2, paragraph 1). Ben: "If we only reply in the comments, people who read the article and skip the comments will never see our answer, so it belongs in the article" (Text 3, paragraph 2).
Result: Version 2 adds a paragraph that states the objection fairly ("Some readers have asked why students cannot use the main library downtown") and answers it: "For Linwood students, the problem is getting there" (Text 4, paragraph 7). A counterargument that has been raised in public is now part of the argument.
Producing a shared update: dividing the work and cross-checking
Nadia splits the update: "I'll draft the note and the correction. You take the downtown paragraph and the cost paragraph, and we each read the other's part before we publish" (Text 3, paragraph 7).
Result: The shared document lets two writers work on one product at the same time, and its comments and version history record who wrote which part. Reading each other's part before publishing is the co-writers' check that the new paragraphs fit the whole argument.
The update note: saying what is new
Ms. Adeyemi warns: "'Updated October 7' by itself does nothing for someone who read Version 1" (Text 3, paragraph 8).
Result: The note at the top of Version 2 names the changes: it "answers readers' comments about the downtown library and the cost of Sunday hours, and it changes our proposal to a 12-week trial" (Text 4, paragraph 3). A returning reader can decide in one sentence whether to reread.
Guided Practice15 minutes
Pairs trace every piece of feedback in Text 2 into Version 2. For each row, name the kind of feedback (correction, new information or new argument), find the paragraph of Text 4 that responds, and say how the change is marked for readers. Some comments contain two kinds of feedback, so they take two rows.
Feedback response table (pairs fill in the blank cells)
Feedback (Text 2)
Kind of feedback
Where Version 2 responds
How the change is marked
Mr. Bell, paragraph 1
Rosa Delgado, paragraph 3, first sentence
Rosa Delgado, paragraph 3, the cost
Jordan Wu, paragraph 4
Ms. Adeyemi, paragraph 5
Discuss: the October 20 meeting is 13 days after Version 2. Is the update finished? What would make the writers update again?
Independent Practice20 minutes
Read Text 5, which arrived after the council met. The quiz asks about it, so read it without discussing it yet.
1From the city council's published meeting summary, October 20: The council voted 5-2 to fund Sunday hours at the Linwood Branch as a trial of 10 Sundays, starting January 10, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. The budget office will report the number of visitors after the trial. Council Member Hollis, who voted no, said the same money would help more people if it kept all three branches open an hour later on weekday evenings.
2Comment, Rosa Delgado, October 21: Branch staff will post the Sunday visitor counts on the library's website every month during the trial.
3Comment, Jordan Wu, October 21: Will the article say what happened? People are still sharing Version 2, and it says the council hasn't voted yet.
SVHS lesson authors (the council and its members are invented), Text 5: New information after the October 20 council meeting. Original passage written for this page.
Then students turn to an argument of their own that has already been published to the class (for example, a W.11-12.1 essay posted to the class web page). They exchange links with two classmates, who each leave one comment in the published piece's comment thread: one a new fact or source, the other an argument the writer did not answer. Each writer then plans the update in three lines: (1) what kind of feedback each comment is; (2) what will change in the piece, and whether the claim itself changes; (3) the dated update note readers will see. Writers who finish early make the update and name the new version.
The quiz uses Texts 1-5 (Warm-Up, Direct Instruction and Independent Practice); point students back to those phases when they take it.
Closure5 minutes
Exit ticket: (1) Name one update in Version 2 that responds to new information and one that responds to a new argument. (2) Write one sentence explaining why Version 1 stays in the version history. Then hand out the homework texts below: a post Marisol Reyes published on her English 12 class blog (Text 6) and the comments it received over the next nine days (Text 7). This is an individual writing product, while the Ledger article was a shared one. Marisol, her teacher, the commenters and the school are invented for this lesson.
1[Title] Our School Needs Bottle-Filling Stations
2[Byline] Posted by Marisol Reyes on her English 12 class blog, February 3.
3Our school has 11 drinking fountains, and none of them has a bottle-filling station. Students who bring reusable bottles have to tilt them under a weak, arcing stream, and many give up and buy bottled water at the student store instead.
4A bottle-filling station is a spout above or beside a fountain that fills a bottle straight down in a few seconds. Many models also count how many bottles they have filled. Stations make it easy to drink water all day, and they cut plastic waste.
5The district should add a filling station to every fountain in our building this year. It is a small cost for a change students will notice every day.
SVHS lesson authors (Marisol and her school are invented), Text 6: Homework, Marisol's blog post as first published (February 3). Original passage written for this page.
1Comment, Mr. Victor Lin (district facilities office), February 5: Four of the 11 fountains already have filling stations. They were installed in the new science wing two years ago. Adding a station to an existing fountain costs about $1,200 installed.
2Comment, Talia Moreno (student store manager), February 6: Bottled water is the store's best seller, and store profits help pay for club buses. If stations cut water sales, clubs lose money. Has anyone thought about that?
3Comment, Mr. Lin, February 12: The school board will vote on next year's facilities budget on March 2. Also, the four stations in the science wing have counters. Together they show about 61,000 bottles filled since they were installed.
4Comment, Mr. Farouk (Marisol's teacher), February 12: Your readers include school board members as well as classmates. If you update the post, make it easy for someone who read the first version to see what changed and why.
SVHS lesson authors (all commenters are invented), Text 7: Homework, comments on Marisol's post, February 5-12. Original passage written for this page.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Give a three-column organizer headed "Correction", "New information" and "New argument", with one example in each from Text 2
Provide sentence frames for notes: "Updated [date]: This version adds..." and "[Correction, date] An earlier version said... The correct..."
Let students update one paragraph and write its note before updating the rest of the piece
For Advanced Students
Ask students to write Version 3 of the Ledger article from Text 5 and a short editor's note defending each decision
Have students draft a one-page corrections and updates policy for a school news site, with examples from this lesson
Ask students to track a published piece of their own for two weeks and write a reflection on which feedback changed the claim and which did not
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
Look for students who sort feedback before acting on it: they correct errors openly, take in new information even when it weakens their case, and answer new arguments in the piece rather than only in replies. When evidence changes, strong writers revisit the claim itself and keep the headline, the note and the body consistent with it. Check that every update is visible to returning readers (a dated note that says what is new, a labeled correction, a named version) and that new facts are attributed and linked to their sources. In shared work, the comment thread and version history should show how the writers divided and checked the update.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
Correction, New Information or New Argument? Feedback Sort
15 minPairs
Pairs sort nine comments left under an invented student argument published online: "The city should put a traffic signal at Pine Street and Third Avenue." For each card they name the kind of feedback and what the writer should do with it.
Categories
Correction
New information
New argument
No update needed
The Nine Cards
Card 1: "The city's count from last month shows about 900 students crossing there between 7:20 and 8:00 a.m."
Card 2: "You wrote that the intersection had 14 crashes last year. The police report on the city website says 4."
Card 3: "A signal will slow the buses on Third Avenue and make everyone late."
Card 4: "The city already approved a flashing crosswalk beacon there for next spring."
Card 5: "You spelled the principal's name wrong in paragraph 2."
Card 6: "Two crossing guards would be cheaper than a signal and could start next month."
Card 7: "Great article!!"
Card 8: "The link to the city's crash map opens an error page."
Card 9: "The school board will discuss traffic safety at Thursday's meeting."
Sort Key (for the teacher)
Correction: Cards 2, 5 and 8. New information: Cards 1, 4 and 9. New argument: Cards 3 and 6. No update needed: Card 7. Accept Card 4 as a possible reason to change the claim itself, and Card 8 as a broken-link repair rather than a correction of the writer's words, if pairs explain.
Discussion Questions
Which card could change what the writer is asking for, not only the evidence?
Which new argument is strongest, and how would you answer it in the piece?
Which cards would you also answer in the comment thread, and why?
2
Update Newsroom
25 minGroups of 3
Two co-writers and an editor keep one short published argument accurate while feedback keeps arriving. Each group starts from a 150-200 word argument a member has already written, shared in one document with comments and version history turned on.
Roles
Co-writer 1: drafts changes to the body of the piece
Co-writer 2: drafts the update note, any correction, and new links with link text that names each source
Editor: approves each version, checks that the headline, note and body agree, and names the version
Procedure
Round 1 (7 minutes): the teacher hands each group a correction card written for its piece; the group fixes and labels it
Round 2 (7 minutes): a new argument card; the group answers it in the piece
Round 3 (7 minutes): a new information card that weakens the claim; the group decides whether to change the claim
After each round: publish the version to the class page, with a dated note that says what is new
Discussion Questions
Which round was hardest, and why?
Did your claim change in Round 3? What would a reader of Version 1 need to know about that?
How did the version history help the editor?
Modification for Distance Learning
The teacher posts each round's card in the group's comment thread at a set time. Groups work in the shared document during a video call, and the editor posts the published link and the version name as a reply before the next round begins.
3
One-Week Living Argument
15 min in class, then one weekIndividuals
Each student publishes an argument of their own to the class web page and keeps it updated for one week as classmates and invited readers respond. The activity makes the feedback in the standard truly ongoing, not a single round.
Procedure
Day 1 (in class, 15 minutes): publish the argument with at least two links to sources, and invite two readers outside the class, such as a family member or a teacher
Days 2-6: check the comments each day; log each comment in a feedback log with the date, the kind of feedback and the decision (update, reply, both or neither)
Day 7: publish the final version with an update note, and submit the feedback log and a 150-word reflection
Feedback Log Columns
Date and commenter
Kind: correction, new information or new argument
Decision and reason
Version name and the note readers see
Discussion Questions
Which comment changed your piece the most?
Did you get feedback you chose not to act on? How did you decide?
Would a reader who read only your first version now be misinformed?
Short-Schedule Variation
Run the activity over two class days instead of a week: classmates comment at the end of Day 1, and students update and reflect at the start of Day 2.
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
2 diagrams
Diagram 1: Three Kinds of Feedback, Three Kinds of Update
Feedback on a published piece keeps arriving. Each kind calls for a different update, and every update is marked so that returning readers can see what changed.
Diagram 2: From Version 1 to Version 2 of the Ledger Article
A paragraph map of Texts 1 and 4. Solid lines join each Version 1 paragraph to the Version 2 paragraph it became; the dashed line shows the every-Sunday request in paragraph 6 replaced by the new cost and trial paragraph. Version 2 grows from 6 paragraphs to 10: two are kept, four are changed and four are new.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
W.11-12.6 Homework: Update Marisol's Published Post
Directions: Use Texts 6 and 7 in the Closure section of the lesson plan. Marisol published her post on February 3, and the comments in Text 7 arrived over the next nine days. You will update the published post for her readers, who include school board members. Mark links as [link: link text], as the Ledger article does. Use only facts given in Texts 6 and 7.
Part 1: Sort the Feedback (Problems 1-2)
For each comment in Text 7, name the kind of feedback (correction, new information, new argument, or advice about the update itself), and quote the words that show it, with the paragraph number.
Talia Moreno raises an argument Marisol never answered (Text 7, paragraph 2). Decide whether Marisol should answer it in the post, in a reply, or both. Explain in 2-3 sentences, then draft the sentences she would add.
Part 2: Update the Post (Problems 3-4)
Rewrite paragraphs 3 and 5 of Text 6 so they take in Mr. Lin's new information. Say whether Marisol's claim itself should change, and include at least two links, each with link text that names its source.
Write the dated update note for the top of the post and the correction for the end. The note must tell a reader of the first version what is new, as Mr. Farouk asks.
Part 3: Publish and Reflect (Problems 5-6)
Board members may have read the first version when it was posted. Name two ways Marisol can use the blog and the Internet to make sure they see the update before the March 2 vote, and write the version history line for the update.
In 100-150 words, explain which piece of feedback changed the post the most and why, and whether the updated post is a stronger argument for its readers than the first version.
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Sorting feedback
Every comment correctly classified with a quotation; a sound decision on where to answer the new argument
Most comments classified, or quotations missing
Feedback not sorted, or sorted without reasons
Updating the argument
New information used accurately; the claim reconsidered; two well-labeled links
New information used, but the claim is not reconsidered or links are vague
The post repeats the first version or misstates the new facts
Marking the update
Dated note says what is new; correction names the old and the correct wording; version line given
Note or correction present but vague
No note or correction; the change is silent
Publishing and reflection
Two workable ways to reach earlier readers; reflection weighs the feedback against the readers
One way given, or the reflection lists changes without judging them
Missing or off topic
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
The questions use Texts 1-5 in the lesson plan: Version 1 of the Ledger article (Warm-Up), the comments, the co-writers' thread and Version 2 (Direct Instruction), and the news after the council meeting (Independent Practice). Paragraph numbers match the numbers beside each text. Questions 9 and 14 use new practice situations. Your score updates as you answer, and Reset quiz clears everything so you or your students can try again.
Multiple choice: pick an option to check it. Short answer: write your answer, then reveal the model answer.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which comment in Text 2 gives the writers new information about the decision itself, rather than a correction or a new argument?
Answer: C
Ms. Adeyemi reports a new fact: "The city council has put library hours on the agenda for its October 20 meeting" (paragraph 5). It tells readers when the decision will be made, so Version 2 adds the date to the note and to the call to action. A is a new argument. B is a correction. D adds nothing new; it only promises a response.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Version 2 says, "A senior who tried it told us the round trip took close to two hours" (Text 4, paragraph 7). Why do the writers present Jordan Wu's trip this way instead of simply stating that the round trip takes two hours?
Answer: B
Nadia: "If we use it, we have to say where it comes from: one senior's trip, plus the city's Sunday timetable, which shows one bus an hour" (Text 3, paragraph 3). One person's trip is real evidence, but readers should be able to weigh it as one trip, so Version 2 attributes it ("A senior who tried it told us") and states the timetable facts separately. A invents a request; Jordan signed his comment with his name, and he asked nothing about it. C is false: one bus an hour and a 40-minute ride each way fit a round trip of close to two hours with the walks and the wait. D invents a rule; the Ledger's rule in Text 2, paragraph 5, is about labeling corrections.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Ben asks whether to leave the $520 cost out because "It hurts our case" (Text 3, paragraph 4). Why does Nadia say no?
Answer: B
Nadia: "Leaving out a number we know about would be worse, and someone would post it in the comments anyway" (paragraph 5). A published argument that hides new information loses readers' trust once the information appears. A invents a rule. C invents a comparison; no weekday cost is given anywhere. D misreads Rosa, who reports the figure but asks for nothing.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why do the writers propose a trial in which the branch counts visitors, instead of simply asking for fewer Sundays?
Answer: D
Version 2 asks the city to "count the visitors, and let the council decide with real numbers instead of our survey and our guesses" (Text 4, paragraph 8), and Nadia proposes the trial "so the council can decide with real numbers" (Text 3, paragraph 5). A is false: the trial costs about $6,240. B is false: the vote has not happened by October 7. C invents a statement; Mr. Bell never mentions a trial.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why does Ben say that the headline has to change (Text 3, paragraph 6)?
Answer: A
Ben: "Then the headline has to change too, or it promises something the article no longer argues." Version 1 argued that the branch "Should Open on Sundays"; Version 2 asks for a trial, so its headline says "Should Try Sunday Hours." When new information changes the claim, every part of the piece that states the claim has to change with it. B invents a rule. C invents a claim about search engines. D is false: the old headline has no numbers (Text 1, paragraph 1).
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Version 2 says the trial would cost "about $6,240 for 12 Sundays." Which calculation supports that figure?
Answer: C
The budget office estimate is "about $520 for each Sunday," and the trial is 12 Sundays: 12 x $520 = $6,240. A prices a full year of Sundays (52), which the writers no longer ask for. B multiplies by the 4 opening hours instead of the number of Sundays. D multiplies by the hours as well, although the $520 already covers a whole Sunday.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Rosa Delgado says that 212 out of 340 is about 62 percent, not 72. Which statement is accurate?
Answer: A
212 / 340 = 0.6235..., which rounds to 62 percent, so the correction is right. B misreads the survey: the other 128 did not say they had wanted to study there on a Sunday, which is not the same as never wanting to use the branch. C is an arithmetic error. D reports the share who did not say so, not the share who did.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why does Nadia want Version 1 to stay in the version history (Text 3, paragraph 7)?
Answer: D
Nadia: "Version 1 stays in the version history, so anyone can see exactly what we changed." A shared, published piece that changes after feedback stays trustworthy when its earlier versions can be checked. A invents a plan to go back to the old claim. B invents a site rule. C misreads the purpose: the history is for all readers, not for one commenter.
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
A school sports site updates a game report after the coach points out an error in the final score. Which update note best follows Ms. Adeyemi's advice?
Answer: B
Ms. Adeyemi says the note "should tell readers what is new, not only that something changed" (Text 3, paragraph 8). Only B names the change, so a returning reader knows what to look for. A is the date alone, which she says "does nothing for someone who read Version 1." C says that something changed without saying what. D thanks readers but tells them nothing about the update.
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Version 2 links the $520 estimate to "[link: City budget hearing, library section]" (Text 4, paragraph 8). What does that link add?
Answer: C
The figure first reached the writers in a comment (Text 2, paragraph 3). Linking it to the budget office's own record lets any reader, including a council member, verify it on the Internet. A confuses this link with the contact link in paragraph 9. B invents a role for Rosa, who only reports the estimate. D confuses two separate changes: the correction note is about the survey figure, not the cost.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
In Text 5, Jordan Wu writes that people "are still sharing Version 2, and it says the council hasn't voted yet." What does his comment show about publishing online?
Answer: D
Online, an article keeps being read after its first days, so a shared link keeps bringing new readers to whatever the page says now. Updating the published page, with a note, fixes the problem for everyone who follows the link. A is false: updating the page is exactly what the writers can do. B asks readers to change instead of the writers. C would break every shared link, the opposite of what Jordan needs.
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Suppose a reader comments that the new community center two blocks from the branch has free Wi-Fi and study tables and is open on Sundays. How should the writers respond?
Answer: B
If the comment is true, Version 2, paragraph 6, is wrong: it says the branch "is the only place in our neighborhood with free Wi-Fi, printers and study tables." That calls for a labeled correction, and the writers may also need to explain why the branch still matters (for example, its distance from school). A ignores new information because it hurts the case. C leaves an error in the article. D is a silent fix, which the Ledger's rule forbids (Text 2, paragraph 5).
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
The standard asks for updates "in response to ongoing feedback." Which situation in the lesson best shows that the feedback is ongoing?
Answer: A
Feedback keeps arriving after publication: four comments over four days (Text 2), then the council's decision and two more comments (Text 5), each calling for an update to the published piece. B is a check inside one round of work. C is a rule, not a stream of feedback. D is evidence gathered before publishing.
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
A reader comments only: "This article is biased and wrong." What should the writers do?
Answer: D
The comment names no error, fact or argument, so there is nothing yet to update. Asking which claim is wrong invites feedback the writers can use. A overreacts to a comment with no content. B labels a correction when nothing has been shown to be wrong. C abandons the argument, which the standard does not ask for.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Suppose a reader shows, from the downtown library's own website, that its Sunday hours are 1:00 to 5:00 p.m., not noon to 5:00 as Version 2, paragraph 7, says. Write the correction note, and explain in one or two sentences whether the correction weakens the writers' argument.
Model answer: "[Correction, date] An earlier version of this article said that the main library downtown is open on Sundays from noon to 5:00 p.m. It is open from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m." The correction does not weaken the argument, and it slightly strengthens it: with a shorter Sunday opening downtown and a round trip of "close to two hours" (Text 4, paragraph 7), a Linwood student has even less study time there. Rubric line: 2 points for a dated note that gives the old and the correct wording and a reasoned judgment tied to paragraph 7; 1 point if the note is vague or the judgment is missing.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
Compare the last paragraph of argument in Version 1 with the cost paragraph in Version 2. Quote both, and explain how new information changed the claim.
Model answer: Version 1 ends, "We urge the city council to open the branch every Sunday from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m." (Text 1, paragraph 6), and waves away the cost: "Opening on Sundays would cost the city something." Version 2 names the cost, "about $520 for each Sunday the branch opens," and changes the request: "So we are now asking for a trial" of 12 Sundays with visitors counted (Text 4, paragraph 8). The new figure made an open-ended request harder to defend, so the writers narrowed the claim to one the council can test. Rubric line: 2 points for accurate quotations from both versions and a clear account of how the claim changed and why; 1 point for quotations without the explanation, or the reverse.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
Using Text 5, write the update note for Version 3 of the Ledger article (2-3 sentences), and list the paragraphs of Version 2 that must change.
Model answer: "Updated October 21: On October 20 the city council voted 5-2 to fund a trial of 10 Sunday openings at the Linwood Branch, starting January 10, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. This version reports the vote, responds to Council Member Hollis's argument for later weekday hours, and links to the monthly visitor counts." Paragraphs to change: the byline (a new update date), possibly the headline (the trial is now funded, so it could report that), the update note (paragraph 3), the cost and trial paragraph (paragraph 8: 10 Sundays, about $5,200, not 12), and the call to action (paragraph 9), whose October 20 deadline has passed. Rubric line: 2 points for a dated note that says what is new with accurate facts from Text 5 and at least three correct paragraphs to change; 1 point for a vague note or a partial list.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
Council Member Hollis argues that "the same money would help more people if it kept all three branches open an hour later on weekday evenings" (Text 5). Is this a new argument the writers should answer in Version 3? Explain, and draft two sentences they could add.
Model answer: Yes. It is a new argument made in public by someone who voted, and readers of the article will meet it, so the article should answer it fairly rather than ignore it. Draft: "Council Member Hollis argued that the money would help more people by keeping all three branches open later on weekday evenings. Later weekday hours would help, but many students have the most time for long assignments on Sunday, and the trial's monthly visitor counts will show whether Sunday hours are used." Rubric line: 2 points for a reasoned decision and two sentences that state the argument fairly and answer it with evidence from the texts; 1 point for a decision without a fair statement of the argument.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
On October 3 Ben replied to Mr. Bell: "We'll look into how students would get there." Write the reply Ben could post in the comment thread on October 7, after Version 2 is published, and explain why the thread still needs a reply when the article already answers Mr. Bell.
Model answer: "Thanks for the question, Mr. Bell. We've updated the article (Version 2, October 7) to answer it: on Sundays the Number 9 bus runs once an hour and takes about 40 minutes each way, so the round trip downtown can take close to two hours. The paragraph links the city's Sunday timetable." The thread still needs a reply because Mr. Bell and other commenters may only check the thread, and Ben promised an answer there; the reply sends them to the published update. Rubric line: 2 points for a reply that points to the specific update with accurate facts and a clear reason for replying; 1 point for one of the two.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
A classmate says Version 2 is a weaker argument than Version 1 because it asks for less. For the city council as readers, do you agree? Answer in 4-5 sentences that quote Version 2.
Model answer: I disagree. Version 1 asked for every Sunday without a cost or an answer to the obvious objection, so a council member could dismiss it in one question. Version 2 names the cost, "about $520 for each Sunday the branch opens," answers the downtown objection with the bus schedule, and asks for something the council can approve with limited risk: "a trial" that will "let the council decide with real numbers" (Text 4, paragraph 8). It asks for less, but it is more likely to persuade the readers who decide. Rubric line: 2 points for a clear position tied to the council as readers, supported by two quotations; 1 point for a position with one quotation or no reference to the readers.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does W.11-12.6 mean?
W.11-12.6 means that students in grades 11 and 12 use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish and update writing, alone or with others, and that they keep updating it in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information.
A published piece is treated as something that can still improve: when readers respond, the writer decides what to change and makes the change visible.
What counts as "ongoing feedback" in W.11-12.6?
Any response that keeps arriving after a piece is published: comments, messages, replies from experts, new data or events such as a vote.
"Ongoing" is the key word. Feedback from a single peer review before publishing belongs mainly to W.11-12.5; this standard is about feedback that continues once readers can see the piece.
What is the difference between a correction and an update?
A correction fixes something the piece got wrong; an update adds or changes content because of new information or a new argument.
Both are marked for readers. A correction usually appears as a dated note that gives the old and the correct wording; an update usually appears as a dated note near the top that says what is new.
How is W.11-12.6 different from W.9-10.6?
Both ask students to produce, publish and update writing with technology; W.9-10.6 stresses linking to other information and displaying it flexibly and dynamically, while W.11-12.6 stresses updating in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information.
In practice, older students are judged on how they weigh feedback: which comments change the evidence, which change the claim and which need no change at all.
Is it dishonest to change an argument after it is published?
No, as long as the change is visible; changing an argument openly in response to new facts is what careful writers do.
What damages trust is a silent change, because readers who quoted or shared the first version cannot tell what happened. A dated note, a labeled correction and a version history keep the process honest.
Does W.11-12.6 apply to individual writing or only group work?
Both: the standard names "individual or shared writing products."
This lesson follows a shared article in class and an individual blog post for homework. In shared work, the comment thread and version history also show how the writers divided the update.
How long should a published piece stay open to updates?
As long as readers are still reaching it and the facts it depends on are still changing.
For a class project, a week or two of updates is realistic. When a piece will no longer be updated, a closing note with the date tells readers how current it is.
How is W.11-12.6 assessed?
It is usually assessed in class, through a published piece, its version history and the writer's record of feedback, because a timed test cannot show updates over time.
A strong task has students publish, collect feedback for a set period, update the piece and explain each decision in a feedback log. Check your state's assessment materials for how it tests writing on a computer.
What technology do students need for W.11-12.6?
A place to publish where readers can respond, such as a class web page, a school news site or a course discussion board, and a shared document with comments and version history for drafting updates.
No particular product is required. What matters is that the piece is public to its readers, that readers can respond and that earlier versions can be seen.
How can parents help with W.11-12.6 at home?
Read something your student has published and leave a real comment: a question, a fact they may not know or a point they did not answer.
Then ask how they plan to respond, and whether the comment calls for a correction, an update or just a reply.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to W.11-12.6: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
W.9-10.6Prerequisite
Use technology to produce, publish and update writing, with links and flexible displays
