WHST.11-12.6Common CoreELAWriting in History, Science and Technical SubjectsGrades 11-12
WHST.11-12.6: Updating Published History and Technical Reports as Feedback Arrives
In plain English: WHST.11-12.6 is the Common Core literacy standard that asks students in grades 11 and 12 to use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish and update history, science and technical writing, alone or with others, in response to ongoing feedback. Students weigh new arguments and new information that arrive after publication, decide how far each update must reach, and mark each change for readers.
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 for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects 6-12 · Cluster: Production and Distribution of Writing · Official standard
Students follow two published pieces through the feedback that keeps arriving after publication. In the history context, two invented seniors publish an article on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 in their school's online history journal. Within five days, readers challenge a claim about the owners' motive, argue that the article's main claim leaves out the labor movement, and report that research in 2011 identified the last unnamed victims. The co-writers divide the feedback in a shared document and publish Version 2 with a dated update note. Seven months later, new information arrives again, and Version 3 follows. In the technical context, two invented engineering students publish a report on their school's rooftop solar array. A facilities manager supplies information their monthly data could not show, a physics teacher argues that their comparison is wrong, and new data keep arriving each month. The solar data are invented and labeled; the history facts are real.
WHST.11-12.6 asks students to produce, publish and update writing in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information. The grade 11-12 emphasis is judgment over time: deciding which feedback changes a fact, which changes a line of reasoning and which changes the claim itself; recalculating when new data arrive; and publishing each update so that readers who return can see what changed and why.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Distinguish feedback that brings a new argument from feedback that brings new information, and from feedback that needs only a reply
Decide how far an update must reach: a detail, a section, or the main claim
Divide and cross-check updates to a shared product in a shared document
Recalculate a technical claim when new information arrives, and revise the claim and recommendation to fit
Publish updates with dated notes, a kept version history and replies to the people who gave feedback
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Producing, publishing and updating linked writing in history and science, in grades 9-10 WHST.9-10.6
Writing arguments with claims and counterclaims in history and technical subjects WHST.11-12.1
Computing a percent and reading a grouped bar graph
Knowing the broad outlines of the Progressive Era and the labor movement
"A history article you wrote was published a month ago, and people are still reading and sharing it. Today you learn that one of its facts is out of date. Should you fix it quietly, fix it with a note, or leave it alone? What would each choice do to a reader who already quoted it?"
Take answers, then name the idea the lesson builds on: a published piece keeps meeting readers after it goes live, so feedback keeps arriving, and WHST.11-12.6 asks writers to keep updating in response to it. Introduce the history context: Crossroads, the online history journal of an invented high school, publishes student articles and lets readers comment. Read Text 1, Leah and Sam's article as first published. Students mark every sentence that states a cause, a motive or a count, since those are the sentences readers are most likely to challenge.
1[Headline] Why the Triangle Fire Changed New York's Laws
2[Byline] By Leah Moreno and Sam Okoro. Published March 20, 2023, in Crossroads, the online history journal of Wendell High School.
3On the afternoon of March 25, 1911, a fire broke out on the eighth floor of the Asch Building, near Washington Square in Manhattan. The Triangle Waist Company, which made women's blouses called shirtwaists, filled the building's top three floors. In less than half an hour, 146 garment workers were dead. Most were young immigrant women, many of them Jewish or Italian.
4The workers had almost no way out. The owners, Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, locked a door on the ninth floor to trap the workers inside. The fire escape collapsed under the weight of the people on it, and the fire department's ladders were several stories too short. Many workers jumped to their deaths while crowds watched from the street.
5The fire led directly to new laws. Within months, New York created the Factory Investigating Commission, led by two state lawmakers, Robert F. Wagner and Alfred E. Smith. Its investigations led to dozens of new state laws on fire exits, fire drills, sprinklers and working hours.
6Blanck and Harris were tried for manslaughter in December 1911, and the jury found them not guilty. Six of the victims have never been identified. Today a plaque on the building, which still stands, marks the fire.
7[Comments are open below this article.]
SVHS lesson authors, Why the Triangle Fire Changed New York's Laws, Version 1 (Text 1: the article as first published; Leah, Sam, Wendell High School and its journal are invented, and the facts are real). Original passage written for this page.
Direct Instruction20 minutes
Show Diagram 1. Feedback on a published piece does not arrive once; it keeps coming, from comments on day one to new research or events months later. For each piece of feedback the writer asks two questions. What does it bring? A new argument challenges the reasoning or the claim; new information adds or replaces a fact; some feedback brings neither. How far must the update reach? A reply only, a fixed detail, a reworked section, or a revised claim. Whatever the level, the update is published openly.
Read Text 2, the comments under Version 1, and Text 3, the co-writers' thread and the passages they rewrote. Then read Text 4, which arrives seven months later. Students draw a line from each comment in Text 2 to the change it caused in Text 3, or write "reply" beside it. Then work through the first four examples.
1Mr. Albrecht (retired history teacher), March 21: The evidence that a ninth-floor door was locked is strong, since survivors testified that they could not open it. But "to trap the workers inside" states a motive that no source gives. Survivors and historians say the company kept doors locked to stop workers from leaving early or taking goods, and made everyone leave through one exit where bags could be checked. Your sentence turns a deadly practice into a plot.
2Priya (classmate), March 22: Your third paragraph says the fire "led directly" to the laws. But shirtwaist makers had already gone on strike in 1909 and 1910, including workers at Triangle, and unions and reformers were pushing for safety rules before the fire. The fire gave them public anger to work with. "Directly" leaves all of them out.
3Ms. Dunmore (journal adviser), March 23: One fact needs updating. The six unidentified victims were identified in 2011 by a researcher, Michael Hirsch, so all 146 are now known by name. Cornell University's online archive on the fire lists every victim. Link to it.
4J.T. (reader), March 24: Great piece. I'm sharing it with my history class!
5Dana (reader), March 25: Why not mention Clara Lemlich? Her speech at a mass meeting in November 1909 helped launch the shirtwaist strike.
SVHS lesson authors, Comments Under Version 1, March 21-25, 2023 (Text 2: all five commenters are invented; the facts they cite are real). Original passage written for this page.
1Leah: Let's split the comments. I'll take Mr. Albrecht's and Priya's, since both change our argument. Sam, can you take Ms. Dunmore's update and the replies?
2Sam: Yes. For the six victims, I'll rewrite the sentence, add the 2011 identification and link the archive's list of names.
3Leah: Priya is right, and it changes our headline claim, not just one word. The fire didn't make the laws by itself. I'll rewrite the claim so the fire is the turning point for a movement that already existed. That also answers Dana: once the strike is part of the argument, one clause naming Clara Lemlich fits.
4Sam: For the door, we keep that it was locked, because survivors testified to it, and we give the company's reason from Mr. Albrecht's sources. We cut "to trap."
5Leah: And we don't just swap sentences. The note at the top has to say what changed and why, so someone who read Version 1 knows. The journal keeps Version 1 in the version history, so anyone who quoted it can check what it said.
6Sam: I'll reply under each comment with what we changed, so the people who took the time to write know it mattered. J.T. gets a thank-you; nothing to change there.
7[Version 2, published March 28, 2023: the update note and the rewritten passages]
8[Update note] Updated March 28, 2023: We revised our main claim after a reader pointed out the shirtwaist strike of 1909-1910, corrected our description of the locked door, and added the 2011 identification of the last six victims. Version 1 is in the version history.
9[Headline] How the Triangle Fire Turned a Labor Movement into Law
10[Rewritten sentences on the door] Survivors testified that a door on the ninth floor was locked. The company kept doors locked to stop workers from leaving early or taking goods, and made them leave through one exit where their bags could be checked.
11[Rewritten claim paragraph] The fire did not start the push for safer factories, but it turned that push into law. In 1909 and 1910, thousands of shirtwaist makers, including workers at Triangle, had gone on strike, a walkout that Clara Lemlich's speech at a mass meeting helped launch. After the fire, public anger gave unions and reformers the support they had lacked. Within months, New York created the Factory Investigating Commission.
12[Rewritten sentence on the victims] In 2011, a researcher identified the last six unidentified victims, so all 146 are now known by name. [link: List of the 146 victims, from Cornell University's online archive on the fire]
SVHS lesson authors, The Co-Writers' Thread and Version 2 (Text 3: Leah and Sam's shared-document comments, then the passages they rewrote; the facts are real). Original passage written for this page.
1Message from Ms. Dunmore, October 13, 2023
2Leah and Sam, a memorial to the victims was dedicated at the building this month, and it lists the names of all 146 people who died. Your last paragraph still says only that a plaque marks the fire. Readers are finding your article this week because the memorial is in the news, so please update it soon.
3Version history entry, October 16, 2023
4Version 3: Rewrote the last paragraph to add the memorial dedicated in October 2023 and linked a news report on the dedication. Added a dated line to the update note at the top. (Sam; checked by Leah)
SVHS lesson authors, New Information in October and Version 3 (Text 4: Ms. Dunmore's message and the version history entry; the memorial is real). Original passage written for this page.
A new argument that changes the claim
Priya's comment (Text 2, paragraph 2) does not report a wrong fact. She argues that "led directly" leaves out the strikers, unions and reformers who were pushing for safety rules before the fire.
Result: The update reaches the headline. Version 1: "Why the Triangle Fire Changed New York's Laws" and "The fire led directly to new laws." Version 2: "How the Triangle Fire Turned a Labor Movement into Law," with a paragraph that starts from the 1909-1910 strike. An argument the writers accept can change the claim itself, not only a word in it.
Producing a shared update: dividing the feedback
Five comments arrive in five days, and two writers share the article (Text 3).
Result: Leah takes the comments that change the argument, and Sam takes the factual update, the link and the replies. Splitting the feedback by kind gives each change an owner, and working in one shared document lets each writer see the other's changes before anything is republished.
New information about an old event
Version 1 says, "Six of the victims have never been identified." Ms. Dunmore reports that a researcher identified them in 2011 (Text 2, paragraph 3).
Result: Version 2 replaces the sentence and links the archive's list of all 146 names. The fire happened in 1911, but knowledge about it keeps changing, so a history piece built on an older source can be out of date the day it is published. A link to a maintained list lets readers check the current record.
Publishing the update where returning readers will see it
Leah refuses to "just swap sentences" (Text 3, paragraph 5).
Result: The Version 2 update note sits at the top, is dated March 28, 2023, and names each change and its reason; Version 1 stays in the version history. A reader who shared Version 1 can see exactly what changed, and a new reader can trust that the article says openly when it has been revised.
Guided Practice15 minutes
Move to the technical context. Nia and Kenji, two invented engineering students, publish a report on their school's 30-kilowatt rooftop solar array (a kilowatt-hour, kWh, is the energy a 1-kilowatt device uses in one hour). Read Text 5 and Table 1, then Text 6, the feedback that arrives over the next four weeks, and Table 2, the information Mr. Ostrowski attached. Diagram 2 shows actual and expected output side by side. Work through the fifth example together.
1[Title] How Much Electricity Does the Gym Roof Make? A First-Semester Report on Our School's Solar Array
2[Byline] By Nia Brooks and Kenji Watanabe, Engineering Design II. Published January 8 on the school's sustainability web page.
3[Summary] The 30-kilowatt solar array on the gym roof produced 10,410 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity from September through December. Monthly output fell by almost two-thirds from September to December.
4[Bar graph] Monthly output in kWh, September through December (the numbers in Table 1).
5[Claim] The drop suggests that the panels are losing efficiency and may need repair. Cold weather also reduces how well solar panels work, which may explain part of the drop.
6[Method] Monthly totals were read from the inverter's online monitoring page on the first day of each month. (The inverter is the device that converts the panels' direct current into the alternating current the building uses.)
7[Recommendation] The district should ask the installer to inspect the panels before spring.
8[Comments are open below this report.]
SVHS lesson authors, How Much Electricity Does the Gym Roof Make?, Version 1 (Text 5: the report as first published, described block by block; Nia, Kenji, the school and the array are invented). Original passage written for this page.
Table 1. Monthly output of the gym-roof solar array as reported in Version 1 (invented data)
Month
Actual output (kWh)
September
3,980
October
3,190
November
1,850
December
1,390
Total
10,410
1Mr. Ostrowski (district facilities manager), January 10: Two things your data can't show. A power outage on November 12 tripped the inverter, and it stayed off until we reset it on November 15, so the array produced nothing for four days. Snow covered the panels from December 5 through December 10, six more days with no output. Also, the installer's contract includes an estimate of expected output for each month. I've attached it (Table 2).
2Dr. Salazar (physics teacher), January 11: Your claim compares December with September, but a panel in December gets far less sunlight: the days are shorter and the sun is lower in the sky. Compare each month with what the installer expected for that month. And check your cold-weather sentence. Solar cells actually convert light to electricity slightly more efficiently when they are cold. Heat, not cold, lowers their efficiency.
3Parent comment, January 12: Is the array paying for itself yet? That's what taxpayers want to know.
4Student council, January 14: Could you post the numbers every month so we can follow them through the spring?
5Nia (reply), January 14: Yes. We'll add each month's numbers in the first week of the next month and note every change at the top of the report.
6Monitoring page, February 3: January output, 1,830 kWh. The array produced power every day in January. The installer's expected output for January is 1,950 kWh.
SVHS lesson authors, Feedback on the Solar Report, January 10 to February 3 (Text 6: all commenters and all data are invented). Original passage written for this page.
Table 2. Installer's expected output and days with no output, from Mr. Ostrowski's January 10 comment (invented data)
Month
Days in month
Days with no output
Expected output (kWh)
Actual output (kWh)
September
30
0
4,100
3,980
October
31
0
3,300
3,190
November
30
4
2,250
1,850
December
31
6
1,800
1,390
A new argument in a technical report: the right comparison
Version 1 of the solar report treats the fall in monthly output as a sign of failing panels (Text 5). Dr. Salazar argues that the comparison itself is wrong (Text 6, paragraph 2).
Result: A December panel gets less sunlight than a September panel, so each month should be compared with the installer's expected output for that month (Table 2), not with another month. The update reworks the evidence section and, once the numbers are recalculated, the claim and the recommendation too.
Pairs begin Activity 2. Discuss: Mr. Ostrowski's and Dr. Salazar's comments arrived only because the report was published where they could read it. What would Version 1 still claim if it had been handed in on paper?
Independent Practice15 minutes
Each student chooses a piece of their own writing from a history, science or technical class that others have read, or, if they have none, Version 1 of the solar report. (1) List every piece of feedback the piece has received or could receive in the next month, and say who would give it. (2) Label each one: new argument, new information or reply only. (3) For the two with the widest reach, write the changed sentences. (4) Write the update note and one version history line.
The quiz uses Texts 1-6 and Tables 1 and 2 (Warm-Up, Direct Instruction and Guided Practice); point students back to those phases when they take it.
Closure5-10 minutes
Exit ticket: (1) Name one update in Text 3 or Text 4 and the feedback that caused it. (2) In one sentence, say why an update note matters more for a piece that is still being shared. Then hand out the homework: another Crossroads article, on Frances Perkins, with the comments that arrive over the following month.
Teacher note on content: the Triangle fire killed 146 people, and many died by jumping from the building. Preview the texts for students who may find this distressing. Teacher note on sources: the facts in Texts 1-4 and 7 are standard in histories of the fire, and Cornell University's online archive on the fire lists all 146 victims. Historian Michael Hirsch identified the last six unidentified victims in 2011, and a memorial listing the names was dedicated at the building, now part of New York University, in October 2023. The journal, the writers and every commenter are invented.
1[Headline] Frances Perkins and the Laws That Followed the Fire
2[Byline] By Malik Brennan. Published April 17, 2023, in Crossroads, the online history journal of Wendell High School.
3Frances Perkins watched the Triangle fire from the street on March 25, 1911. Years later, she said that the New Deal began on the day of the fire.
4Perkins wrote the laws that made New York's factories safer. After the fire, the state created the Factory Investigating Commission, led by Robert F. Wagner and Alfred E. Smith, and Perkins guided its members through factories so they could see the conditions for themselves. In 1912 she also pushed hard for a law limiting women and minors to 54 hours of work a week in factories, and it passed. Perkins later became U.S. Secretary of Labor in 1933, one of the first women to serve in a presidential cabinet.
5Comments, April 18-24, 2023
6Ms. Dunmore (journal adviser), April 18: Perkins was the first woman to serve in a presidential cabinet, not one of the first.
7Omar (classmate), April 20: Your second paragraph says Perkins "wrote the laws." She wasn't a lawmaker. Wagner and Smith got the bills through the legislature, and her part was investigating conditions and pushing for the bills. The article gives her credit that belongs to others too.
8Reader, April 24: The commission's reports have been digitized and are free to read online. Your readers could see the evidence it gathered.
9Comments, May 2023
10Reader, May 8: Where does the 54-hour law come from? I'd like to see a source.
11Ms. Dunmore, May 15: New journal policy: every article must end with a Sources section, with a link for each source that is online.
SVHS lesson authors, Frances Perkins and the Laws That Followed the Fire, Version 1 with Its Comments (Text 7, homework: Malik and the commenters are invented, and the facts are real). Original passage written for this page.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Give a feedback log with four columns: who, when, what it brings (argument, information or neither), and how far the update reaches
Provide an update note frame: "Updated [date]: We [changed what] because [who or what showed us]. The earlier version is in the version history."
In Activity 2, compute one month together before pairs compute the rest
For Advanced Students
Write the section that answers the parent's question about cost, and list the new information you would need before publishing it
Find a real correction or update note in a news or science publication and compare its format with the Crossroads note in Text 3
Draft the journal's update policy: what counts as a correction, when a claim change needs a new headline, and how long old versions are kept
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
Look for writers who read each piece of feedback for what it brings before they change anything, and who can explain why an update reaches a detail, a section or the claim. Strong updates keep what the evidence still supports, change what it no longer supports and follow a change in reasoning all the way to the headline, summary or recommendation. Recalculations should use the new information correctly and be checkable. Every update should be published openly: a dated note that names the change and its reason, the earlier version kept, and a reply to the person who raised it. In shared products, the thread should show who made each change and who checked it.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
How Far Does It Reach?
15 minPairs
Pairs place eight pieces of feedback on a published technical proposal on the four levels of Diagram 1 and defend each placement. The activity practices deciding how far an update must reach before writing it.
The Published Piece
A student team has published a proposal on the school's sustainability web page: "The school should add a second solar array, on the library roof, next year." The proposal, the team and every comment are invented.
Feedback Cards
1. "Your October total is 3,190 in the table but 3,910 in the text."
2. "The district just announced that the library roof will be replaced in two years. Panels installed now would have to come off and go back on."
3. "Great proposal, thanks for doing this!"
4. "Your cost section uses last year's electricity rate. The rate went up in January."
5. "About half of the library roof slopes toward the north. Did you count only the south-facing half?"
6. "You wrote that the panels' warranty is 20 years. The warranty sheet on the district site says 25."
7. "Your savings estimate assumes the panels make the same amount every year, but output drops a little each year as panels age."
8. "Why should the school spend money on this instead of new lab equipment?"
Procedure
Pairs place each card on a level: 1 reply only, 2 fix a detail, 3 rework a section, 4 revise the claim
For each card, pairs write whether it brings a new argument, new information or neither
Teacher key, one defensible placement: level 1, card 3; level 2, cards 1 and 6; level 3, cards 4, 5, 7 and 8; level 4, card 2, since "next year" and "on the library roof" may no longer hold
Pairs compare with another pair and settle one disagreement by naming what the proposal would have to say differently
Discussion Questions
Card 8 is an argument, but it does not show that anything in the proposal is wrong. Should it change the piece, or only get a reply?
Card 5 could stay at level 3 or climb to level 4. What number would decide it?
2
Recalculate and Republish
20 minPairs
Pairs use Table 2 to recalculate each month of the solar report against the installer's expected output, then rewrite the claim, the cold-weather sentence and the recommendation for Version 2. The activity practices updating a technical product in response to new information and a new argument.
Procedure
For each month, find the expected output for the days the array could produce: expected output times (days with output divided by days in the month)
Divide actual output by that number and round to the nearest percent
Rewrite the Claim block of Text 5 in two or three sentences that the new numbers support, checking every sentence in it against both January comments
Rewrite the Recommendation block, and decide whether the summary needs to change too
Teacher key for the percents: September 97%, October 97%, November 95%, December 96%
Discussion Questions
After the recalculation, which block of Version 1 changed the most, and which could stay as it was?
Which of the two January comments could Nia and Kenji have checked for themselves before publishing, and how?
Spreadsheet Variation
Pairs enter Table 2 in a shared spreadsheet and write the formula once, so the percent for each new month appears as soon as its numbers are entered. They add a line to the report's method explaining the formula, so readers can check it.
3
A Week of Feedback
15 min in class, then over one weekGroups of 3
Groups produce and publish a short explanation on a topic from their current history, science or technical unit, then update it through three rounds of feedback released over a week. The activity practices producing a shared product and updating it in response to ongoing feedback.
Procedure
Day 1, in class: write a 150-200 word explanation with one clear claim in a shared document, divide the sections, and publish it on the class blog with comments open
Day 2: each student leaves one comment on another group's piece that brings either a new argument or new information, with its source
Day 4: the teacher adds one comment to each piece, bringing a fact or source the group did not use
Day 7: groups publish their final version, with every update logged
After each round, the group decides how far each update reaches, makes the changes, writes a dated update note and replies to every commenter
Version Log
Version number and date
The feedback it answers, and who gave it
What changed, at which level (detail, section or claim)
Who made the change and who checked it
Discussion Questions
Which round changed your claim, if any, and what did it take?
Did any feedback make you change something you had already updated once?
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
2 diagrams
Diagram 1: Feedback Over Time and How Far Each Update Reaches
Feedback on a published piece keeps arriving, from comments on the first day to new data and new events months later. For each piece, the writer decides how far the update must reach, from a reply that changes nothing to a revised claim. Every update that changes the piece is published the same way, so returning readers can see what changed.
Diagram 2: Expected and Actual Output of the Gym-Roof Array, September to January (invented data)
Light bars show the installer's expected output for each month and dark bars the array's actual output, drawn to scale from Tables 1 and 2 and the February 3 entry in Text 6. Both kinds of bar fall from September to December, because winter days are shorter and the sun is lower. The notes mark the days with no output reported by the facilities manager.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
WHST.11-12.6 Homework: Updating the Perkins Article
Directions: Use Malik's article and the comments on it (Text 7 in Closure). Crossroads publishes for students, families and other schools, and it keeps every earlier version of an article in its version history. The comments arrive in two rounds, April 18-24 and May 2023. Treat Malik's article as your own, published individually.
Part 1: Read the Feedback (Problems 1-2)
For each of the three comments of April 18-24, say whether it brings a new argument, new information or neither, and how far the update must reach: a reply only, a detail, a section or the claim. Give a one-sentence reason for each.
Omar's comment argues that the article gives Perkins credit that belongs to others too. Write the sentence or sentences of Version 2 that answer his argument while keeping what the evidence in Text 7 supports about Perkins.
Part 2: Update and Republish (Problems 3-4)
Write Version 2 of the article's second paragraph, making every update the April comments call for, including a link for the digitized reports, described in brackets like the links in Text 3. Then write the dated update note that will appear at the top.
Write a short reply to each of the three April commenters, saying what you changed or why you changed nothing. Each reply should make sense to someone who never reads the update note.
Part 3: The Second Round (Problems 5-6)
Two more comments arrive in May. Make Version 3 so that it answers both, and write its version history line with the version number, date, what changed and why.
In 100-150 words, compare how Malik's article changed from Version 1 to Version 3 with how Leah and Sam's article changed from Version 1 to Version 3 (Texts 1-4). Which feedback in each case reached furthest, and why?
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Reading the Feedback
Each comment labeled correctly, with a reach that fits and a clear reason
Labels mostly right but reasons missing or reach misjudged once or twice
Labels missing or unrelated to the comments
Accuracy of the Updates
Every change is accurate; Omar's argument answered without overcorrecting; the correction about the cabinet made
One update missing or inaccurate, or credit shifted too far in either direction
Updates missing or introduce new errors
Publishing the Updates
Dated update note and version line name each change and its reason; replies stand on their own; link text is clear
Note or version line incomplete, or replies vague
No note, version line or replies
Ongoing Response and Reflection
Version 3 answers both May comments; comparison names the furthest-reaching feedback in each article and explains why
One May comment answered, or comparison general
No Version 3 or no comparison
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
The questions use Version 1 of the Triangle article (Text 1) in Warm-Up, the comments, thread and later versions (Texts 2-4) in Direct Instruction, and the solar report (Text 5), its feedback (Text 6) and Tables 1 and 2 in Guided Practice. 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
What does Mr. Albrecht say the evidence does not support in Version 1 (Text 2, paragraph 1)?
Answer: B
B: he accepts that the door was locked, since "survivors testified that they could not open it," but says "to trap the workers inside" states "a motive that no source gives." A is the part he says the evidence does support. C and D are facts he does not question.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
How do the rewritten sentences on the door in Version 2 (Text 3) answer Mr. Albrecht's comment?
Answer: C
C: Version 2 keeps "a door on the ninth floor was locked" and explains that "the company kept doors locked to stop workers from leaving early or taking goods." The update reaches only what the evidence did not support. A and B overcorrect, throwing out a fact survivors testified to, and D leaves the unsupported motive in place.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which comment in Text 2 calls for a reply but no change to the article?
Answer: A
A: J.T. praises the piece and brings no argument or information, and Sam says, "J.T. gets a thank-you; nothing to change there" (Text 3, paragraph 6). B changes the claim, D changes a fact and adds a link, and C leads to a clause naming Clara Lemlich.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why do Leah and Sam add Clara Lemlich to Version 2 (Text 3)?
Answer: D
D: Leah says, "once the strike is part of the argument, one clause naming Clara Lemlich fits." Dana's suggestion became relevant only after Priya's argument changed the claim. B misreads the comment, which asks a question and corrects nothing. A invents a rule, and C is false: Lemlich was a strike leader, not a victim.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
What leads to Version 3 of the article (Text 4)?
Answer: B
B: Ms. Dunmore writes that "a memorial to the victims was dedicated at the building this month," while the last paragraph "still says only that a plaque marks the fire." This is new information that did not exist when Version 2 was published. A, C and D describe feedback that never arrives.
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
According to the version history entry in Text 4, how was the Version 3 change produced?
Answer: B
B: the entry ends "(Sam; checked by Leah)." In a shared product, one writer makes a change and the other checks it before it goes live. A confuses the person who brought the information with the writers, C describes a process the entry does not record, and D ignores the check.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why does Sam plan to reply under each comment (Text 3, paragraph 6)?
Answer: A
A: Sam says the replies are "so the people who took the time to write know it mattered." B is wrong, because Leah insists on an update note at the top as well. C reverses what the writers did, since they accepted most of the feedback, and D invents a rule.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Mr. Ostrowski reports that the inverter produced nothing for four days in November (Text 6). If the installer's expected output for November (2,250 kWh, Table 2) is spread evenly over the month's 30 days, how much expected output falls on those four days?
Answer: C
C: 2,250 kWh divided by 30 days is 75 kWh a day, and 4 days times 75 kWh is 300 kWh. A divides by 31, the days in December. B takes 4/30 of the actual output (1,850 kWh) instead of the expected output, and D is one day only.
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which sentence in Version 1 of the solar report (Text 5) does Dr. Salazar say gets the physics backwards?
Answer: D
D: Dr. Salazar writes that solar cells "convert light to electricity slightly more efficiently when they are cold. Heat, not cold, lowers their efficiency." A and C are facts no one challenges. B is affected by her comparison argument, but it is not a statement about physics.
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
How should Nia and Kenji respond to the parent's question, "Is the array paying for itself yet?" (Text 6)
Answer: A
A: the question is fair but brings no new argument or information about the report's research question, how much electricity the roof makes. A reply that explains the scope and names a possible future section respects the reader without changing a claim the question does not touch. B and D let one question redirect the report without the data to answer it, and C silences a reader.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
On February 3, January's numbers arrive (Text 6). To the nearest percent, what was January's actual output as a percent of the installer's expected output?
Answer: C
C: 1,830 / 1,950 = 0.938, or about 94%, and no days need removing, since the array produced power every day. A divides expected by actual. B compares January with September's actual output, the comparison Dr. Salazar rejected, and D compares it with December's actual output.
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Where should Nia and Kenji put January's numbers so that returning readers see them, keeping the promise in Nia's reply (Text 6)?
Answer: C
C: Nia promises to "add each month's numbers in the first week of the next month and note every change at the top of the report." A hides the update in the comments, B breaks the link for readers who return to the report, and D reaches only one group of readers.
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which feedback on the solar report (Text 6) brings new information rather than a new argument?
Answer: B
B: Mr. Ostrowski supplies facts the writers did not have: four days offline, six days of snow and the expected output for each month. A is an argument about which comparison is valid. C is a request about publishing, and D is a question that brings neither.
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Version 1's method says monthly totals were read from the monitoring page on the first day of each month (Text 5). Why could that method not show the November outage?
Answer: A
A: a total of 1,850 kWh cannot say whether the array ran every day at a lower rate or stopped for four days, which is why Mr. Ostrowski writes, "Two things your data can't show." B and D contradict Text 5, which reads the totals from the inverter's page, and C is false: the outage began on November 12.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Rewrite the last paragraph of Version 1 (Text 1) as it should read in Version 3, using the information in Texts 2 and 4. Keep every sentence the evidence still supports.
Model answer: "Blanck and Harris were tried for manslaughter in December 1911, and the jury found them not guilty. In 2011, a researcher identified the last six unidentified victims, so all 146 are now known by name. The building still stands, and in October 2023 a memorial listing the names of all 146 victims was dedicated there." The trial sentence stays because no one challenged it. The victims sentence takes the March update from Ms. Dunmore (Text 2, paragraph 3), and the last sentence replaces the plaque with the memorial, from her October message (Text 4). Rubric line: 2 points for keeping the trial sentence, updating both the identification and the memorial accurately, and changing nothing else; 1 point if one update is missing or an unchallenged fact is dropped.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
Using Table 1, find to the nearest percent how much the array's monthly output fell from September to December. Then explain, using Text 6, why Version 2 should no longer present that drop as evidence that the panels are failing.
Model answer: Output fell from 3,980 kWh to 1,390 kWh, a drop of 2,590 kWh, and 2,590 / 3,980 is about 65%. Dr. Salazar explains that December panels get far less sunlight because the days are shorter and the sun is lower, so a seasonal drop is expected. Mr. Ostrowski adds that six December days had no output because of snow. The drop describes the season and the snow, not the panels, so Version 2 should compare each month with its expected output instead. Rubric line: 2 points for the correct percent with work shown and an explanation citing both commenters; 1 point for the percent alone, or an explanation that cites only one.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
Mr. Albrecht's comment (Text 2) and Dr. Salazar's comment (Text 6) both bring new arguments. Compare how far the update each one causes reaches in its piece, and explain the difference.
Model answer: Mr. Albrecht's argument reaches one section: the sentences on the door. It challenges a supporting detail, and the article's claim about the laws is untouched by his comment. Dr. Salazar's argument reaches the claim: once each month is compared with its expected output, the evidence no longer shows failing panels, so the claim and the recommendation to inspect the panels both have to change. The difference is what the argument attacks: a supporting detail in one case, and the comparison the whole claim rests on in the other. Rubric line: 2 points for placing each update at the right reach with evidence from the texts and explaining why they differ; 1 point for a correct comparison without the explanation.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
WHST.11-12.6 says writers update "in response to ongoing feedback." Using at least two dates from Texts 2-4 and two from Text 6, explain how ongoing feedback differs from a single round of peer review, and what it asks of the writer.
Model answer: Feedback on the Triangle article arrived on March 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, then again on October 13, seven months after publication, when new information arrived. Feedback on the solar report arrived on January 10, 11, 12 and 14 and then as new data on February 3, and the student council asked for numbers every month. A single peer review happens once, before a piece is final. Ongoing feedback keeps coming as long as people read the piece, from readers the writer did not choose, and it can bring information that did not exist at publication. It asks the writer to keep watching the piece, decide each time how far an update must reach, and publish each change openly. Rubric line: 2 points for four accurate dates and a clear contrast with one-time review, including what the writer must do; 1 point for fewer dates or a contrast without the writer's responsibilities.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
Write the update note that Nia and Kenji should place at the top of Version 2 of the solar report, in 40-70 words. It should respond to the feedback of January 10-14 in Text 6.
Model answer: "Updated January 15: After comments from the district facilities manager and a physics teacher, we now compare each month with the installer's expected output and account for four days offline in November and six days of snow in December. With those corrections, the array performed close to its estimate, so we withdrew our claim that the panels are failing and our recommendation to inspect them. Version 1 is in the version history. New numbers will be added each month." Rubric line: 2 points for a dated note that names the new information, the new argument, the changed claim and recommendation, and where to find Version 1; 1 point if the note leaves out the claim change or its reason.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
Choose a piece of history, science or technical writing you could publish online this semester, such as a lab report, a research summary or a set of instructions. Explain who is likely to give feedback after it is published, what kinds of new arguments or information they might bring, and how you would publish and log your updates.
Model answer (one of many): A set of instructions for the chemistry lab's new balance, published on the science department page. Students who use it may report steps that confuse them, the lab manager may bring new information when the balance's software is updated, and a teacher may argue that the calibration step belongs first. I would write it with my lab partner in a shared document, publish it with comments open, check the comments weekly and publish each update with a dated note at the top, keeping earlier versions in the history and replying to each person who wrote. Rubric line: 2 points for realistic feedback sources, examples of both a new argument and new information, and a clear publishing and logging plan; 1 point if one of the three is missing.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does WHST.11-12.6 mean?
WHST.11-12.6 means that students in grades 11 and 12 use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish and update writing in history, science and technical subjects, alone or with others, and keep updating it as feedback, new arguments and new information arrive.
The focus is what happens after publication: a published history article or technical report keeps meeting readers, and the writer is responsible for responding.
How is WHST.11-12.6 different from WHST.9-10.6?
WHST.9-10.6 emphasizes linking to other information and displaying it flexibly and dynamically, while WHST.11-12.6 emphasizes updating in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information.
Both bands produce, publish and update. The grade 11-12 standard asks for judgment over time: deciding which feedback changes a fact, which changes the reasoning and which changes the claim.
What is the difference between WHST.11-12.6 and W.11-12.6?
The wording is the same, but W.11-12.6 is taught in English class, while WHST.11-12.6 applies to writing in history, science and technical subjects.
In those subjects, new information often means new sources, new research or new data, and new arguments often challenge a causal claim or the comparison behind a technical conclusion.
What counts as "new arguments or information" in history and technical writing?
New information adds or replaces facts, such as a newly found source, a later research finding or a new month of data; a new argument challenges the reasoning, such as a different explanation of causes or a better comparison.
Some feedback brings neither, such as praise or a question outside the piece's scope. It deserves a reply but need not change the piece.
When should an update change the main claim of a published piece?
An update should change the claim when the feedback shows that the evidence no longer supports it as written.
A writer can test this by rereading the claim after making the smaller changes. If the claim now says more than the revised evidence shows, or leaves out a cause the writer has accepted, the claim, the headline or summary, and any recommendation should change too.
How should students mark an update on a published piece?
Students should add a dated update note at the top that says what changed and why, keep the earlier version available, and reply to the person whose feedback led to the change.
A quiet change leaves anyone who quoted or shared the earlier version unable to tell what happened. Many news and science publications follow a similar practice with corrections and update notes.
Does WHST.11-12.6 require group work?
No: the standard covers individual or shared writing products, so either counts.
Shared products add a production task: dividing the feedback, making changes in a shared document and having a partner check each change. Individual products put all of the judgment on one writer, which is why this lesson's homework treats the article as the student's own.
How can a teacher make feedback "ongoing" in a semester?
A teacher can keep student pieces published and open to comments for weeks, and release new feedback or information in rounds.
Rounds might include classmates' comments, a teacher's new source, a guest reader from the field and, for technical pieces, new data each month. Students log every round, so the version history becomes the evidence of the standard.
How is WHST.11-12.6 assessed?
WHST.11-12.6 is usually assessed through classroom work, by looking at a published piece and its record of updates, not through a single test question.
Useful evidence includes the version history, the update notes, replies to commenters and a short reflection explaining why each update reached as far as it did. Quizzes like the one on this page check whether students can read feedback and judge an update.
How can families help with WHST.11-12.6 at home?
Read something your student has published for a class and leave one thoughtful comment, such as a question, a source or a counterargument.
Then ask how they plan to respond and whether your comment changes a detail, a section or the main point. Watching them decide, and seeing the dated update later, is the standard in action.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to WHST.11-12.6: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
WHST.9-10.6Prerequisite
Produce, publish and update linked writing that displays information flexibly
