WHST.9-10.10Common CoreELAWriting in History, Science and Technical SubjectsGrades 9-10
WHST.9-10.10: Keeping and Auditing a History and Biology Writing Portfolio
In plain English: WHST.9-10.10 is the Common Core literacy standard that asks students in grades 9 and 10 to write routinely in history, science and technical classes, both over extended time frames that leave time for reflection and revision and in shorter ones of a single sitting or a day or two. The writing spans many subject tasks, purposes and readers, from lab notebooks to source-based essays.
Write routinely over extended time frames (time for reflection and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of discipline-specific tasks, purposes, and audiences.
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: Range of Writing · Official standard
WHST.9-10.10 is the range standard for writing in history, science and technical subjects. It asks for writing that happens routinely, in two kinds of time. A shorter time frame is a single sitting or a day or two: a quick write on a primary source, a lab notebook entry, a lab conclusion due tomorrow. An extended time frame leaves, in the standard's own words, "time for reflection and revision." Unlike its English-class partner W.9-10.10, this standard does not list research in that parenthesis, so the lesson puts the weight on what reflection and revision do to a history or science draft.
Students read the first-grading-period portfolio of Imani Okoro, an invented tenth grader, in U.S. History and Biology: a ten-minute quick write about the 1954 polio vaccine trial, a ruler-drop lab notebook entry, the lab conclusion she wrote over two evenings, a note for the school newsletter, two versions of a paragraph from her history essay and the portfolio letter in which she reflects on all of it. They audit the portfolio for time frames, tasks, purposes and readers, practice three single-sitting tasks for three readers, audit a weaker portfolio log and plan an extended revision of their own. Imani, her classmates, her teachers and her school are invented, and so are her lab data; the facts about polio and the 1954 trial are real.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Classify history and science writing by time frame (a single sitting, a day or two, or extended), task, purpose and reader
Explain why an extended time frame depends on time for reflection and revision rather than on the length of the assignment window
Adjust a single-sitting piece to the conventions of a discipline and a reader, such as a lab notebook, a lab conclusion or a note for the public
Trace revisions in a history draft to a reflection note and a teacher conference
Audit a portfolio log for gaps in range and plan dated sessions for the next extended piece
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Writing routinely over extended and shorter time frames in grades 6-8 WHST.6-8.10
Writing an explanation that states a claim and supports it with evidence WHST.6-8.2
Revising a draft with guidance from peers and adults WHST.6-8.5
"List the last three things you wrote for a history or science class. For each one, write how long it took, how many sittings it took and who read it."
Give three minutes, then ask volunteers for one item each and write them on the board in three columns: one sitting, a day or two and more than a few days. Ask whether anything in the third column was reread and changed after a break. Read the standard aloud and underline "routinely" and "time for reflection and revision." Point out that a history or science class produces its own kinds of writing, and that the standard asks for range in tasks, purposes and audiences, not only in length.
Hand out Text 1, the portfolio log that Imani Okoro, an invented tenth grader, kept for one grading period of 30 school days. Students circle every reader named in the log and box every piece that took more than one session.
1Portfolio log, U.S. History and Biology, first grading period (30 school days). Kept by Imani Okoro, Grade 10.
2Piece 1. Quick write, U.S. History. Day 3, in class, one sitting of 10 minutes. Reader: Mr. Whitcomb. Task: explain one reason parents in 1954 let their children join a trial of a polio vaccine.
3Piece 2. Lab notebook entry, Biology. Day 8, during the lab, one sitting of 15 minutes. Readers: me and my lab partner, Theo. Task: record the ruler-drop data as we collected it.
4Piece 3. Lab conclusion, Biology. Days 8 and 9, two evening sessions of 25 and 20 minutes. Reader: Dr. Salazar, reading as a biologist who was not in our lab. Task: say what the data show and how far to trust them.
5Piece 4. Note for the driver's education page of the school newsletter. Day 11, one sitting of 20 minutes. Readers: students who are about to start driving. Task: explain our reaction-time result in plain words.
6Piece 5. History essay, "Why Did the 1954 Polio Vaccine Trial Use a Placebo?" Assigned Day 10, due Day 26. Drafted on Days 12 and 13 (40 and 35 minutes). Conference with Mr. Whitcomb on Day 15. No work on Days 16-18. Reflection note on Day 19 (15 minutes). Revised on Days 20 and 22 (45 and 30 minutes). Edited on Day 25 (20 minutes). Reader: Mr. Whitcomb, reading as a historian.
7Piece 6. Biology warm-ups. Five minutes at the start of every biology class, 15 entries. Reader: me. Task: write what I remember from the last class before the notes come out.
8Piece 7. Portfolio letter. Days 28 and 29, sessions of 20 and 15 minutes. Readers: my parents, at the fall conference; my teachers read it too. Task: look back at the grading period and set a goal.
SVHS lesson authors, Portfolio Log, First Grading Period (Text 1: kept by Imani Okoro; Imani, Theo, Mr. Whitcomb, Dr. Salazar and Bellmont High School are invented). Original passage written for this page.
Direct Instruction15-20 minutes
Show Diagram 1, which draws every piece in Text 1 to scale. Ask which bar is longest in minutes and which pieces are split into many sessions. Then pose a question to hold until the end of the lesson: does a piece become extended because it has many minutes, many sessions or something else? Students write a first answer in the margin of Text 1.
Work through the examples, then read Texts 2, 3 and 4 as three short-time-frame pieces from two disciplines. For each, students note the reader and one convention of the discipline: the quick write states a cause and admits what it cannot yet check; the notebook records method and raw data for the writer and a partner; the conclusion states a claim, the evidence and its limits for a reader who was not there.
Reading a portfolio log line
"Source note, U.S. History. Day 6, in class, one sitting of 12 minutes. Reader: my teacher. Task: say who made a 1936 poster and why."
Result: Time frame: a single sitting. Task: sourcing a primary source. Purpose: analyze who made it and why. Reader: a history teacher, who expects the creator, the date and the purpose named before any opinion about the poster.
Is it really extended?
A chemistry research summary is assigned 15 school days before it is due. The student writes all of it on the last night, in one three-hour session, and turns it in the next morning.
Result: A single sitting, despite the 15-day window. Nothing was reread after a break and nothing was revised, so there was no time for reflection and revision. The same three hours split into a draft, a two-day gap, a reflection note and two revision sessions would be extended work.
Fitting a science reader
Notebook line: "Plant C, 12 mL water/day, 4 leaves yellow by Day 10. Soil soggy??"
Result: Conclusion sentence for a reader who was not in the lab: "Plant C, which received the most water (12 mL per day), was the only plant with yellowing leaves by Day 10, which may mean that it was overwatered; the soil was not tested, so this is a possibility, not a finding." The claim, the measurement and the limit are all written out.
Fitting a history reader
Quick-write sentence: "Lots of people were scared of polio back then."
Result: Revised for a history teacher: "In the early 1950s, polio epidemics returned almost every summer, and in 1952 the United States recorded more than 50,000 cases." The time, the place and a checkable figure replace "lots," "people" and "back then."
Scheduling reflection and revision
A history essay is due Day 20. The first draft will be finished on Day 8, and the student can write about 30 minutes a day.
Result: Days 9-10: no work on the essay. Day 11: reread and write a reflection note (what the reader needs, what is in the wrong place, what to check) before changing anything. Days 12, 14 and 16: revise one problem per session. Day 18: edit. Day 19: final read aloud. The gap comes first so that the rereading is fresh.
1Prompt: In 1954, parents across the country signed forms that let their children take part in a trial of a polio vaccine that had not yet been proven to work. In 10 minutes, explain one reason they agreed.
2Parents agreed because they were afraid of polio, and the trial gave them a chance to do something about it. Outbreaks came almost every summer, and in 1952 the United States had more than 50,000 cases. The disease could paralyze children, and some needed an iron lung to breathe. Some towns closed swimming pools and movie theaters during outbreaks, so families saw the fear everywhere. A vaccine trial meant their child might be protected, and even if their child got the fake shot, they were helping find an answer. I think the fear was stronger than the worry about an untested vaccine, but I am not sure how much parents knew about the risks. I would need to check what the forms told them.
SVHS lesson authors, Why Parents Said Yes, a 10-Minute Quick Write (Text 2: Portfolio Piece 1; the facts about polio are real). Original passage written for this page.
1Day 8. Ruler-drop reaction time. Partner: Theo drops, I catch with my right hand.
2Question: Does counting backward by 3s slow down how fast I catch the ruler?
3Method: Theo holds a meter stick with the 0 cm mark level with the top of my open thumb and finger. He lets go without warning. I read the cm mark at the top of my thumb. 5 trials for each condition. Distracted = counting backward by 3s from 100 out loud.
4Normal (cm): 14, 16, 13, 15, 17. Mean 15.0.
5Distracted (cm): 21, 24, 19, 26, 22. Mean 22.4.
6d = ½gt², so t = √(2d/g). Normal 15.0 cm is about 0.17 s.
7Notes: Flinched on normal trial 2, redid it. Theo might have moved his hand right before letting go on a few trials. Another group started talking during the distracted trials, so it was louder. Only one catcher (me).
SVHS lesson authors, Ruler-Drop Reaction Time, Lab Notebook Entry (Text 3: Portfolio Piece 2; the data are invented). Original passage written for this page.
1Our data support the hypothesis that a mental distraction lengthens reaction time. When I counted backward by threes out loud, I caught the falling meter stick at a mean of 22.4 cm, compared with 15.0 cm when I was not counting. Using t = √(2d/g), those distances correspond to reaction times of about 0.21 s and 0.17 s. Every distracted catch (19 to 26 cm) was farther down the stick than every normal catch (13 to 17 cm), so the difference does not come from one unusual trial.
2These results come from one catcher and five trials in each condition, so they show a difference for me, not for people in general. Two sources of error could have affected them. My partner may sometimes have moved his hand slightly before letting go, which would warn me that a drop was coming. The room was also louder during the distracted trials, so noise and counting changed at the same time. A better test would use several catchers, alternate the two conditions and run every trial in the same quiet room.
SVHS lesson authors, Counting and Catching, Lab Conclusion (Text 4: Portfolio Piece 3, written over two evenings; the data are invented). Original passage written for this page.
Guided Practice20 minutes
Now follow the one extended piece in the portfolio. Pairs read Draft 1 of the essay paragraph with Mr. Whitcomb's comment (Text 5), Imani's portfolio letter (Text 6) and the revised paragraph (Text 7). On a three-column chart headed Change, Where it came from (the conference, the days away and the reflection note, or both) and Why the reader needs it, they record at least three changes between Text 5 and Text 7. Circulate and ask each pair to point to the sentence in Text 5 or Text 6 that explains each change.
Then show Diagram 2, which places the seven pieces by time frame and main reader. Ask the class which cells are empty and which empty cell a history or science student should fill first. Collect answers without settling the question; students return to it in Activity 1.
1Draft 1, paragraph 2, written on Day 13:
2The trial used a placebo because the scientists wanted to be fair. Some kids got the real vaccine and some got a fake shot, and nobody knew which one they got. This way they could compare the two groups. If the vaccine kids got polio less, then the vaccine worked. The trial was huge and more than a million kids took part, which shows how much people wanted to beat polio. On April 12, 1955, the results were announced and the vaccine was declared safe and effective, and everyone celebrated.
3Mr. Whitcomb's margin comment at the Day 15 conference: "Fair" to whom? Your reader needs the problem the placebo solved. Why couldn't they just vaccinate children and count the cases? Also, was every area of the trial run this way? Check. Your last two sentences are true, but they belong in a different paragraph.
SVHS lesson authors, Why Did the 1954 Polio Vaccine Trial Use a Placebo?, Draft 1 of Paragraph 2 with the Teacher's Comment (Text 5: Portfolio Piece 5). Original passage written for this page.
1Dear Mom and Dad (and Mr. Whitcomb and Dr. Salazar),
2This grading period I wrote seven kinds of pieces for history and biology, from five-minute warm-ups to an essay I worked on for two weeks. Looking at them together, I notice three things.
3First, my short pieces are the ones I write most often, and they have gotten faster. On Day 3 my quick write took the whole ten minutes and ended with a question I could not answer. By the last biology warm-ups I could write three full sentences in the five minutes. Writing a little every day made starting easier.
4Second, the essay changed most after the days I did not work on it. After the conference on Day 15, I did not open the essay for three days. I planned that, because earlier this year I noticed that I cannot see the problems in a paragraph I wrote the day before. When I reread it on Day 19, I wrote a reflection note before changing anything. The note said my paragraph explained what a placebo is but not why the trial needed one. That note is the reason my revised paragraph starts with the problem instead of the definition.
5Third, almost everything I wrote was for a teacher. Only the newsletter note had readers outside our two classes, and it was the hardest thing to write because I could not use words like "mean" or "condition." Next grading period I want one longer piece for readers outside school, with time to revise it too.
6Love, Imani
SVHS lesson authors, Portfolio Letter (Text 6: Portfolio Piece 7, Imani's reflection on the grading period). Original passage written for this page.
1Revised paragraph 2, written on Days 20 and 22:
2The trial needed a placebo because polio was too unpredictable to judge a vaccine any other way. Epidemics rose and fell from year to year and from town to town, so a drop in cases after vaccination could have happened anyway. Researchers needed groups of children who were alike except for the vaccine, followed through the same polio season. In the placebo areas of the 1954 trial, children received either the vaccine or an injection that looked the same but contained no vaccine, and neither the families nor the doctors knew which. That second part mattered too, because a doctor who knew that a child had been vaccinated might be slower to call a mild illness polio. Not every area was run this way. In other areas, second graders were offered the vaccine, while first and third graders received no shots and were observed for comparison.
SVHS lesson authors, Why Did the 1954 Polio Vaccine Trial Use a Placebo?, Revised Paragraph 2 (Text 7: Portfolio Piece 5; the facts about the trial are real). Original passage written for this page.
Independent Practice15 minutes
Hand out Text 8, the portfolio log of Dario Mendes, an invented ninth grader in Chemistry and World History. Each student labels every piece with its time frame, task, purpose and reader, then writes a short audit: one strength of the portfolio, two gaps in range or time frames, and a claim about whether Dario's note at the bottom is right, supported by the log. The homework and the quiz also use Text 8.
1Portfolio log, Chemistry and World History, first grading period (30 school days). Kept by Dario Mendes, Grade 9.
2Piece 1. Lab notebook, Chemistry. Day 4, in the lab, 15 minutes. Readers: me and my lab group.
3Piece 2. Lab report, Chemistry. Day 6, one evening, 50 minutes. Reader: Ms. Adeyemi.
4Piece 3. Document response, World History. Day 9, in class, 20 minutes. Reader: Mr. Farrow.
5Piece 4. Research essay, World History, "Why Did Wages Rise in England After the Black Death?" Assigned Day 5, due Day 25. Written on Day 24, one evening, 3 hours. Reader: Mr. Farrow.
6Piece 5. Lab report, Chemistry. Day 18, one evening, 45 minutes. Reader: Ms. Adeyemi.
7Piece 6. Short answers on a unit test, World History. Day 21, in class, 15 minutes. Reader: Mr. Farrow.
8Dario's note: I spent more time on the essay than on anything else, 180 minutes, so it counts as my extended piece.
SVHS lesson authors, Portfolio Log, First Grading Period (Text 8: kept by Dario Mendes, for Independent Practice, the homework and the quiz; Dario, Ms. Adeyemi and Mr. Farrow are invented). Original passage written for this page.
Closure5 minutes
Exit ticket: (1) Write one portfolio log line for a piece you wrote this week in any history or science class, with its time frame, task, purpose and reader. (2) Name one piece you will write in the next two weeks that should get an extended time frame, and write the date of the day you will reread it after a break.
Teacher note: Text 2 mentions the iron lung and paralysis in children. Some families have relatives who had polio or who live with its after-effects; let students share such stories only if they choose to.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Give a portfolio log template with the four labels already printed (time frame, task, purpose, reader) so students only fill in each line
For the Guided Practice chart, pre-fill the first row with a change in word choice ("kids" became "children") and have students add that it is an edit for a history reader
In Activity 2, provide a sentence starter for each round, such as "The data show that ..." for the science reader
For Advanced Students
Ask students to write Imani's reflection note for Day 19, using only what Text 5 and Text 6 say, then compare it with the changes in Text 7
Have students rewrite Text 4 as a note for families at a science night and explain which conventions of a lab conclusion they kept and which they dropped
Ask students to design a portfolio for the next grading period that fills at least two empty cells of Diagram 2
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
In short pieces, look for writing that fits its discipline and reader: a history quick write that names time, place and cause, a notebook that records method and raw data, a conclusion that states a claim, evidence and a limit. In extended pieces, look for a break before rereading, a reflection note or conference that names what the reader needs, and revisions that change content rather than only spelling. In the portfolio audit, look for accurate labels and gaps backed by the log itself. The standard is met by the pattern across a grading period, so judge the portfolio as a whole, not any single piece.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
Portfolio Range Sort
15 minGroups of 3
Groups sort nine piece cards from history and science classes onto a 3-by-3 mat, time frame across the top and main reader down the side, then decide which empty cell matters most for a student's range.
Piece Cards
1. Chemistry pre-lab answers, due tomorrow. Reader: the chemistry teacher.
2. A 6-minute exit ticket on a political cartoon, U.S. History. Reader: the history teacher.
3. A school-garden field notebook entry, 10 minutes, Biology. Reader: yourself.
4. A history research paper with a draft, a conference, three days away and a revision week. Reader: the history teacher.
5. A letter to the city's historic preservation board about saving a 1920s theater sign, drafted, set aside and revised over three weeks. Readers: the board members.
6. A caption for a lab poster at Family Science Night, written in one sitting. Readers: families.
7. A history reading journal, 5 minutes a night. Reader: yourself.
8. A density lab report written over two evenings. Reader: a scientist who was not in the lab.
9. A 30-minute in-class essay on the causes of a war. Reader: the history teacher.
Procedure
Draw the mat: columns "One sitting," "A day or two" and "Extended"; rows "Yourself," "A teacher" and "Readers outside class"
Place each card in one cell and write one sentence on the back of any card the group argued about
Name the cells that stay empty
Agree on the one empty cell that a history or science student should fill next, and write the piece you would assign to fill it
Discussion Questions
Card 4 and card 9 have the same reader. What does card 4 give the writer that card 9 cannot?
Which cards could move to a different cell if the writer changed one thing about how they wrote them?
Why might a reader outside class need more revision than a teacher does?
2
Three Rounds, Three Readers
20 minIndividual, then pairs
Students write three single-sitting pieces of five minutes each from one invented science data card, each for a different reader and in a different form. The activity practices the fast switching between disciplines and readers that a routine demands.
Data Card (invented)
Another biology class placed identical ice cubes on an aluminum block and on a plastic block of the same size at room temperature, three trials each. Mean time for the cube to melt completely: aluminum 6 minutes; plastic 18 minutes. Every aluminum trial finished before every plastic trial.
Procedure
Round 1, 5 minutes: a lab notebook entry for yourself and your partner (method and results, abbreviations allowed)
Round 2, 5 minutes: a two-sentence conclusion for a science teacher who was not in the lab (a claim, the evidence and one limit)
Round 3, 5 minutes: a two-sentence note for a family newsletter that explains the result without the word "conductivity"
Pairs trade their three pieces and underline one word or phrase in each round that shows the writer had a specific reader in mind
Discussion Questions
Which round took you the longest to start, and why?
What did the notebook allow that the conclusion did not?
If you had two more days for Round 3, what would you check or change before it was printed?
Modification for Distance Learning
Post the data card on a shared slide and run the rounds with an on-screen timer. Students type each round in a separate box of a shared document so that partners can comment on each one.
3
Portfolio Goal Conference
15 minPairs
Each student logs their own history and science writing from the past month, places it on the Diagram 2 grid and then holds a short goal conference with a partner, who plays the teacher. The conference ends with one goal for range and a dated plan for the next extended piece.
Materials
Each student's planner or class pages from the past month, from at least one history and one science class
A blank copy of the Diagram 2 grid and Text 1 as a model log
Procedure
Write a log line, in the style of Text 1, for at least four pieces you wrote in the past month, with the time frame, task, purpose and reader of each
Place each piece on the blank grid and shade the cells that hold at least one piece
Conference, 4 minutes each way: the partner asks (1) Which piece had a break before you reread it? (2) Which reader is missing? (3) Which empty cell will you fill next, and with what?
Write a goal for the next grading period and the dates of three sessions for your next extended piece: the last drafting day, the rereading day after a break of at least two days and the first revision day
Partners sign each other's goal and check that the rereading day comes after the break
Discussion Questions
Which cell of the grid was empty for most of the class, and why might that be?
Did anyone find a piece that had a long window but was written in one sitting?
How is your goal different from the one Imani sets in her portfolio letter?
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
2 diagrams
Diagram 1: Imani's Portfolio Drawn to Scale, Minutes and Sessions
Each bar is one portfolio piece from Text 1, drawn at 1.8 pixels per minute; each block inside a bar is one writing session. Pieces written in one sitting are light, pieces written over a day or two are mid-blue and the extended piece is dark. The time frame of each piece comes from Text 1.
Diagram 2: Where Each Piece Sits by Time Frame and Main Reader
Each numbered circle is one of the seven pieces from Text 1, placed by time frame (columns) and main reader (rows). Piece 7, the portfolio letter, is placed with its main readers, Imani's parents. Shaded cells hold at least one piece; white cells hold none.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
WHST.9-10.10 Homework: Audit, Write Short, Then Revise Long
Directions: Parts 1 and 2 take about 30 minutes tonight. Part 3 runs over the next five to seven days in short sessions; write the date and the number of minutes at the top of each session's work. Use Text 8 (Dario's portfolio log) for Part 1, and keep your Part 2 pieces exactly as you wrote them.
Part 1: Audit a Portfolio (Problems 1-2)
Using Text 8, make a table of Dario's six pieces with four columns: time frame (one sitting, a day or two, or extended), task, purpose and reader. Then name two gaps in the range of his portfolio and support each gap with details from the log.
Write a short note to Dario (4-6 sentences) explaining whether his essay counts as an extended piece and what he could do differently next grading period so that it would. Use the Day numbers in his log.
Part 2: Two Single Sittings, Two Disciplines (Problems 3-4)
History, one sitting of 12 minutes. Choose a topic from your current history unit and write a quick write for your history teacher that explains one cause of an event, with the time, the place and at least one checkable fact. End with one question you would need to check. Write the start and end times at the top.
Science, one sitting of 12 minutes. A student repeated the ruler-drop test with her non-dominant hand and recorded these catch distances (invented): 18, 20, 17, 19, 21 cm. Find the mean, convert it to a reaction time with t = √(2d/g), using g = 9.8 m/s² and the distance in meters, and write a three-sentence conclusion for a reader who was not in the lab: a claim, the evidence and one limit.
Part 3: One Extended Piece (Problems 5-6)
Choose one of your Part 2 pieces and turn it into an extended piece for a new reader outside class (for example, a family newsletter, a younger student or a local museum's website). Leave at least two days with no work on it, then write a reflection note before changing anything, then revise in at least two dated sessions. Keep a log of each session with its date, minutes and job.
Hand in the original piece, the reflection note, the revision and a portfolio log line for each version. In a paragraph, name two changes and explain, for each, whether the break, the reflection note or the new reader caused it.
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Portfolio Audit
All six pieces labeled accurately; two gaps each backed by details from the log; the note to Dario uses Day numbers
Some labels wrong, or gaps named without support from the log
No table or no note
Single-Sitting Pieces
Both pieces finished within the time; each fits its discipline (cause, time and place in history; claim, evidence and limit in science); the mean and the time are correct
One piece incomplete or off its discipline's conventions, or the computation has an error
Pieces missing
Extended Process
Dated log shows a break of two or more days, a reflection note written before revision and at least two revision sessions
A stage is missing, or revisions are surface edits only
No revision or no log
Reflection
Names two content changes and ties each to the break, the note or the new reader
Lists changes without explaining where they came from
No reflection
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
The questions use Imani's portfolio (Texts 1-7, in the Warm-Up, Direct Instruction and Guided Practice) and Dario's portfolio log (Text 8, in Independent Practice). Piece numbers refer to the numbered pieces in each log, and paragraph numbers to the numbered paragraphs of each text. 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
A biology teacher assigns a lab report on Monday that is due on Friday. Which plan gives the report time for reflection and revision?
Answer: D
D is the only plan with a break before rereading and a revision after it. A is a single sitting, and a quick proofread is editing, not revision. B spreads the drafting over four nights, but nothing is ever reread or changed, so the time is not used for reflection. C finishes early in one sitting and gives up the time the window offered.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
In Text 1, Piece 3, Dr. Salazar reads the lab conclusion "as a biologist who was not in our lab." What does that reader need from Imani that her notebook entry did not give?
Answer: C
The log says the task is to "say what the data show and how far to trust them" for a reader who did not see the lab, so the claim, the evidence and the limits must be written out. A describes the notebook, which records numbers for the writer and a partner. B is not part of a science conclusion. D widens the task beyond this one lab.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Why is the history essay (Text 1, Piece 5) the only piece in Imani's portfolio that uses an extended time frame?
Answer: B
The log shows "No work on Days 16-18," a "Reflection note on Day 19" and revision on Days 20 and 22: time for reflection and revision. A describes the window, not how the time was used. C describes the reader, which is the same for Piece 1. D is true of the essay, but minutes alone do not make a piece extended, as the warm-ups show.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Imani's biology warm-ups (Piece 6) add up to 75 minutes, more than the 45 minutes of her lab conclusion. Why are the warm-ups still short-time-frame writing?
Answer: A
The warm-ups are 15 entries of 5 minutes (15 x 5 = 75), and each is finished in one sitting with no reflection or revision. B and C are true, but a piece written in class or for oneself could still be extended if it were reread and revised later. D is wrong: routine short writing is exactly what the standard's "shorter time frames" include.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which part of Imani's quick write (Text 2) shows a limit of writing in a single sitting?
Answer: D
Her last sentences, "I am not sure how much parents knew about the risks. I would need to check what the forms told them," mark a question she had no time to answer in ten minutes. A is good practice in any time frame. B and C are evidence from her own knowledge, which a single sitting allows; they do not show the limit of the time frame.
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Imani's mean catch distances were 15.0 cm (normal) and 22.4 cm (distracted). By about what percent was the distracted mean greater than the normal mean?
Answer: A
The increase is 22.4 - 15.0 = 7.4 cm, and 7.4 / 15.0 is about 0.49, or about 49%. B divides by the distracted mean instead (7.4 / 22.4 is about 33%). C is the ratio 22.4 / 15.0, about 1.49, read as a percent increase. D reports the difference in centimeters as if it were a percent.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which sentence from Imani's lab conclusion (Text 4) limits her claim for a reader who was not in the lab?
Answer: B
B says how far the result reaches: one catcher, five trials, a difference "for me, not for people in general." A is the claim itself. C converts the evidence to times. D reports evidence. A limit is a convention of a science conclusion that a notebook entry (Text 3) usually leaves out.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Text 3 notes, "Another group started talking during the distracted trials, so it was louder." How does Text 4 turn this note for its new reader?
Answer: D
Text 4 says, "noise and counting changed at the same time," and proposes to "run every trial in the same quiet room." It names the problem as a source of error that a scientist reader can judge. A is wrong because the conclusion keeps the problem. B and C have no support in the text; Text 4 neither claims the noise had no effect nor blames anyone.
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
What did Mr. Whitcomb's comment on Draft 1 (Text 5) ask Imani to add?
Answer: A
The comment says, "Your reader needs the problem the placebo solved," and asks, "was every area of the trial run this way? Check." B is the opposite of his advice: he says the last two sentences "belong in a different paragraph." C is already in Draft 1 in plain words ("a fake shot"). D is already in Draft 1 ("more than a million kids").
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
According to Imani's portfolio letter (Text 6), why did she plan three days without working on her essay?
Answer: C
She writes, "I planned that, because earlier this year I noticed that I cannot see the problems in a paragraph I wrote the day before" (paragraph 4). That is time for reflection. A and D have no support in the text. B is wrong because the lab conclusion was written on Days 8 and 9 (Text 1), well before Days 16-18.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which change from Draft 1 (Text 5) to the revised paragraph (Text 7) came most directly from the reflection note Imani describes in Text 6?
Answer: A
Text 6 says the note found that the paragraph "explained what a placebo is but not why the trial needed one" and that the note is "the reason my revised paragraph starts with the problem instead of the definition." B is an edit of word choice for a history reader. C and D follow Mr. Whitcomb's comments in Text 5 ("belong in a different paragraph" and "was every area of the trial run this way?").
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
In the revised paragraph (Text 7), why does Imani say it mattered that the doctors did not know which children were vaccinated?
Answer: C
Text 7 says that "a doctor who knew that a child had been vaccinated might be slower to call a mild illness polio," which would make the vaccine look better than it was. A and B are not in the paragraph. D confuses the effect on the diagnosis with an effect on the vaccine itself.
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Dario's note in Text 8 says his essay "counts as my extended piece" because it took 180 minutes. What does his log show?
Answer: D
The log says the essay was "Written on Day 24, one evening, 3 hours": one sitting, however long, with no time for reflection and revision. A confuses total minutes with an extended time frame. B confuses the assignment window (Day 5 to Day 25) with the time actually used. C is wrong because a teacher can be the reader of an extended piece, as Imani's essay shows.
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which gap in range does Dario's log (Text 8) show most clearly?
Answer: C
Pieces 2 through 6 are all for Ms. Adeyemi or Mr. Farrow, and Piece 1 is for "me and my lab group," so no piece has a reader outside class. A is wrong: Pieces 3, 4 and 6 are for World History. B is wrong: Pieces 1, 3 and 6 were written in class in one sitting. D is wrong: Piece 5 is a chemistry lab report from Day 18.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Write one portfolio log line, in the style of Text 1, for this piece: a two-paragraph explanation of how a 1930s dam changed a river town, written for a history teacher over two evenings of 30 minutes each.
Model answer: "Piece 8. Explanation, U.S. History. Two evening sessions of 30 minutes each. Reader: my history teacher, reading as a historian. Task: explain how a 1930s dam changed a river town." The time frame is a day or two, the task is an explanation of change over time, the purpose is to inform and the reader is a history teacher. Rubric line: 2 points for a line that names the time frame (a day or two, with both sessions), the task, the purpose and the reader; 1 point if one of these is missing; 0 if the line does not fit the piece.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
Dario's research essay (Text 8) was assigned on Day 5 and is due on Day 25. Write a plan for next time, with at least five dated sessions, that gives the essay time for reflection and revision.
Model answer: Day 10: outline the claim and the causes. Days 12 and 13: draft (40 minutes each). Days 14-16: no work on the essay. Day 17: reread and write a reflection note on what Mr. Farrow needs, what is in the wrong place and what to check. Days 18 and 20: revise one problem per session. Day 23: edit and read aloud. Day 25: turn in. Rubric line: 2 points for dated sessions inside Days 5-25 that include a draft, a break of at least two days, a reflection step and at least one revision session in a sensible order; 1 point if the break or the reflection step is missing; 0 for no dates.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
Rewrite this line from Imani's notebook (Text 3), "Distracted (cm): 21, 24, 19, 26, 22. Mean 22.4," as one or two sentences for her newsletter readers (Text 1, Piece 4). Do not use the words "mean" or "condition."
Model answer: "When I counted backward out loud while waiting to catch a falling ruler, it slipped about 7 centimeters farther through my fingers on average than when I just watched it. Doing a second thing in your head, like carrying on a phone call, can slow down how fast you react." The rewrite turns the data into a picture a new driver can imagine, uses plain words and ties the result to the readers' situation. Rubric line: 2 points for accurate numbers or a fair summary, plain words with neither banned term and a link to the readers; 1 point if the result is right but the language is still technical; 0 if the result is wrong.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
Using Text 5, Text 6 and Text 7, explain two things the revised paragraph does that Draft 1 could not do in its original sessions, and say what gave Imani the chance to make each change.
Model answer: First, the revision explains why the trial needed a placebo: polio "rose and fell from year to year and from town to town" (Text 7), so a drop in cases could have happened anyway. Imani found that gap in her reflection note after three days away, when she saw that the draft "explained what a placebo is but not why the trial needed one" (Text 6). Second, the revision corrects the idea that the whole trial used a placebo: "Not every area was run this way" (Text 7). That change came from Mr. Whitcomb's question at the conference, "was every area of the trial run this way? Check" (Text 5). Rubric line: 2 points for two specific changes, each tied to its source (the break and note, or the conference) with evidence; 1 point for one change or changes without sources; 0 otherwise.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
In one sitting of 8 minutes, write a quick write for a history teacher that answers this prompt: "Why did many American cities begin filtering and treating their drinking water in the early 1900s?" Then write one sentence saying what you would check if you had a week to revise it.
Model answer: "In the early 1900s, many American cities began filtering and treating their drinking water because water taken from rivers and lakes carried diseases such as typhoid fever. Growing cities dumped sewage into the same rivers they drank from, and outbreaks killed thousands of people. Filtration removed much of the contamination, and in 1908 Jersey City, New Jersey, became one of the first American cities to add chlorine to its supply continuously." What I would check: how much typhoid deaths fell in one city in the years after its treatment began. Rubric line: 2 points for a complete answer with a cause, the time and at least one checkable fact, plus a specific question to check; 1 point if the answer is incomplete or the question is vague; 0 if the answer does not address the prompt.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
Imani's letter (Text 6) names a goal for her next grading period. Using Text 1 and Diagram 2, explain what gap the goal is meant to fill, then name one piece of history or science writing that would meet it.
Model answer: Imani wants "one longer piece for readers outside school, with time to revise it too" (Text 6, paragraph 5). In Text 1, her only piece for readers outside class besides the letter to her parents is the newsletter note, written in one 20-minute sitting, and her only extended piece, the essay, is for Mr. Whitcomb, so the extended-and-outside-class cell of Diagram 2 is empty. A piece that fills it: a short article for a local history museum's website on how her town took part in the 1954 trial, drafted, set aside for a few days and revised twice. Rubric line: 2 points for naming the gap with evidence from Text 1 or Diagram 2 and proposing a history or science piece with a real outside reader and an extended time frame; 1 point if the gap or the proposal is vague; 0 otherwise.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does WHST.9-10.10 mean?
WHST.9-10.10 means that students in grades 9 and 10 write often in history, science and technical classes, in both short and extended time frames, for many tasks, purposes and readers.
Short time frames are a single sitting or a day or two, such as a quick write on a primary source or a lab conclusion due tomorrow. Extended time frames leave time for reflection and revision, such as a history essay that is drafted, set aside, reread and revised over two weeks.
How is WHST.9-10.10 different from W.9-10.10?
The two standards are almost the same, but WHST.9-10.10 belongs to history, science and technical subjects, and its parenthesis names only "reflection and revision," while W.9-10.10 names "research, reflection, and revision."
In practice, WHST.9-10.10 is met through the writing that content classes already assign: lab notebooks, lab reports, source analyses and research papers. W.9-10.10 covers the same habits in English class.
Why does WHST.9-10.10 leave research out of the extended time frame?
The official text simply names reflection and revision; it does not explain the choice, and research is still expected in history and science writing through other standards.
WHST.9-10.7 and WHST.9-10.8 cover research projects and gathering sources. For WHST.9-10.10, what makes a piece extended is time to step back from a draft and change it, which is why this lesson focuses on the break, the reflection note and the revision.
What counts as a shorter time frame in a history or science class?
Any piece finished in one sitting or over a day or two counts.
Examples include a five-minute warm-up, a notebook entry written during a lab, an exit ticket on a political cartoon, a timed response to a document and a lab conclusion written over two evenings. They are the everyday writing of a content class, and the standard asks for them routinely, not as occasional events.
Does a long assignment window make a piece of writing extended?
No: a piece is extended when the time is used for reflection and revision, not because the due date is far away.
A lab report assigned ten days ahead but drafted and handed in the night before gets no reflection at all. The same total time split into a draft, a break of a few days, a reflection note and revision sessions is extended. A portfolio log with dates and minutes makes the difference visible.
How can a science teacher fit routine writing into lab-heavy weeks?
Build the writing into the lab itself, so that every lab produces at least one short piece.
A notebook entry during the lab, a two-sentence claim and evidence at the end of class and a conclusion due in a day or two are all shorter-time-frame writing. Once a grading period, choose one lab write-up to take through a break and a revision for a new reader, such as families at a science night.
Why use a writing portfolio to teach WHST.9-10.10?
Because the standard describes a pattern over time, a portfolio is one practical way to see it.
A log of every piece, with its time frame, task, purpose and reader, shows whether a student writes routinely, whether any piece received reflection and revision, and which readers are missing. Students can audit their own logs and set goals, as Imani does in her portfolio letter.
How is WHST.9-10.10 assessed?
It is assessed through the body of a student's work over time rather than through a single test.
Teachers can look at a grading period's writing for range (several tasks, purposes and readers across history and science), for routine (writing on most class days) and for at least one piece that shows a break, reflection and substantial revision. Timed writing on state tests and classroom exams draws on the shorter-time-frame skills.
Is WHST.9-10.10 taught by English teachers or by history and science teachers?
It is written for history, science and technical teachers, who assign the discipline-specific writing it describes.
English teachers often teach the matching habits under W.9-10.10, and schools that coordinate the two can share one portfolio log across classes, as Imani's history and biology teachers do in this lesson.
Are the facts about the 1954 polio vaccine trial in this lesson real?
Yes: the facts about polio and the 1954 trial are real, while Imani, her school, her teachers and her lab data are invented.
In 1954, more than a million schoolchildren took part in the field trial of Jonas Salk's vaccine. In some areas, children received the vaccine or a look-alike injection without the families or doctors knowing which; in others, second graders were offered the vaccine and first and third graders were observed. The results, announced on April 12, 1955, showed the vaccine to be safe and effective.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to WHST.9-10.10: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
WHST.6-8.10Prerequisite
Write routinely over long and short time frames in grades 6-8 subject classes
