The Writing Process — Skinny¶

Standard: 9-10.W.6 — Develop and strengthen writing through the writing process to produce a quality product for a specific purpose and audience Applies across: All studios — scaffolds every writing standard; active during any multi-draft writing task Integrated with: W.3 (explanatory), W.4 (argument), W.1 (clarity), W.2 (organization) NDSBL Target: 3.0 score Estimated Time: Ongoing — applies throughout a writing project Subject: ELA — Writing

What You Need to Know (Score 2.0)¶

Good writing is not written in one sitting. The writing process is a set of iterative stages that, used deliberately, produce stronger writing than any first draft. At the 2.0 level, you can move through the stages. At the 3.0 level, you can use feedback from each stage to make targeted, meaningful revisions.

Prewriting: The planning stage — before you write a draft. Includes brainstorming, outlining, gathering sources, clarifying your thesis, and deciding on your audience and purpose. Time spent prewriting reduces revision time.
Drafting: Writing your first full version. A draft is not supposed to be perfect — it's supposed to exist. The goal of drafting is to get ideas on paper so you can see what you have and what you need.
Feedback: Input from another reader (teacher, peer, yourself after stepping away) about what is and isn't working. Useful feedback is specific: not "this is confusing" but "this transition between paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 is confusing because you don't explain how the two ideas connect."
Revision: Changing the content of your draft — adding, deleting, moving, clarifying ideas. Revision is not the same as editing. Revision might mean completely rewriting a paragraph, restructuring your argument, or cutting half your evidence because it isn't actually relevant.
Editing: Fixing technical errors — grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence structure. Editing happens after revision. You don't edit a draft you're about to throw out.
Purpose: Why you're writing this piece — to inform, to persuade, to analyze, to entertain. Purpose should shape every decision: word choice, structure, evidence selection, tone.
Audience: Who will read this. The same information explained to a younger student vs. a professor vs. a peer requires different vocabulary, different assumed knowledge, and different levels of explanation.
Quality Product: A finished piece that accomplishes its purpose for its intended audience — not necessarily perfect, but deliberate and complete.

Basic Processes: - [ ] Before drafting: write a 2–3 sentence statement of purpose and audience. - [ ] Before drafting: outline your main claims (even roughly). - [ ] After receiving feedback: identify the 2–3 most important changes to make. - [ ] Distinguish between revision (content changes) and editing (technical changes) — do them separately. - [ ] Read your draft aloud — you'll catch problems you miss reading silently.

A student who can score a 2.0: A student who drafts, receives feedback ("your argument is unclear in paragraph 3"), and then only edits for grammar — not revising the unclear argument because revising is harder than fixing commas.

The Standard (Score 3.0)¶

9-10.W.6 — Develop and strengthen writing through the writing process to produce a quality product for a specific purpose and audience

To meet this standard, your revisions must be targeted, substantive, and responsive — showing that you understood the feedback, diagnosed the problem, and made a deliberate change that actually solves it.

3.0 Example: A student drafts an argument essay about the Versailles Treaty. Feedback: "Your counterclaim paragraph doesn't address the strongest opposing argument — it addresses a weak version." The student's revision process: (1) Rereads the counterclaim and identifies what argument they actually made vs. what the strongest opposing argument is; (2) Researches the strongest version of the opposing position; (3) Rewrites the counterclaim paragraph to address the stronger version; (4) Revises the refutation to respond to this stronger claim. The revision is targeted (focused on the specific problem identified), substantive (the paragraph is substantially rewritten, not just tweaked), and responsive (it actually addresses the feedback, not a different problem).

The Difference: A 2.0 student receives feedback and fixes surface-level issues (word choice, comma errors) while leaving the structural problems untouched. A 3.0 student diagnoses the actual problem in the feedback, makes substantive revisions that address the root issue, and produces a stronger draft.

Going Further (Score 4.0)¶

To reach a 4.0, you must use the writing process to identify and address problems you find yourself — not just respond to feedback from others. Self-revision requires being a ruthless reader of your own work.

Transfer Tasks: 1. Self-assessment before feedback: Before submitting a draft for feedback, read it as if you are the intended audience — someone who disagrees with your argument and will look for weaknesses. Write a 100-word critique of your own draft. Then revise based on your self-critique before getting outside feedback. 2. Purpose revision: Take a piece of writing you completed for one purpose (e.g., an informational explanation) and revise it for a completely different purpose (e.g., an argument) with the same content. What changes? This exercise reveals how purpose shapes every writing decision. 3. Feedback quality: Not all feedback is helpful. Analyze the feedback you've received on past writing: What was specific and actionable? What was vague? What was wrong — feedback that would have made your writing worse if you'd followed it? Develop your own standard for what makes feedback useful.

4.0 Example: A student revising their essay on the causes of WWI realizes, while rereading, that their thesis and their body paragraphs are arguing slightly different things — the thesis says nationalism was the primary cause, but the body paragraphs build a stronger case for the alliance system. Without any external feedback, the student recognizes this as a coherence problem (thesis and evidence don't align), diagnoses the cause (the thesis was written before the research was complete), and makes a substantive revision: either revising the thesis to match the body paragraphs' argument, or restructuring the body paragraphs to make the thesis's claim more convincingly.

Applying the Process to Your Studio Writing¶

Before you draft (15 minutes): - What is my argument or explanation in one sentence? - Who is my audience? What do they already know? What do I need to explain? - What are my 2–3 main points? Do I have evidence for each?

After drafting (self-read): - Read aloud. Where do you stumble or lose the thread? That's where revision is needed. - Does every paragraph have: a clear point, evidence, and explanation? - Is your counterclaim the strongest version of the opposing argument, or a straw man?

When revising from feedback: - What is the specific problem the feedback identifies? - What is causing that problem in the draft? - What change would fix the root cause — not just the symptom?

Demonstration of Learning — Choose One¶

How will you show you know this standard? Pick one mode.

#	Mode	What You Do for This Specific Standard
1	Written Assessment	Submit two drafts of one piece: original and revised. With a 100-word reflection explaining: What specific feedback or self-assessment problem did you identify? What specific revision did you make? How does the revision address the problem?
2	Extended Writing	Write a "Process Document" for one studio writing project. Include: your prewriting notes, your first draft, the feedback you received (or self-critique), a list of the 3 most important revisions you made, and the revised draft. Show your work.
3	Verbal Conversation	Record a 2-minute explanation of one revision you made to a piece of writing: (1) What did the original draft do? (2) What was the problem? (3) How did you diagnose the problem — what was causing it? (4) What specific change did you make? (5) Why does the revision solve the problem?
4	Visual/Creative	Create a "Before/After" visual for one paragraph: show the original version, annotate the problems, and show the revised version with annotations explaining what changed and why.
5	Multimedia/Performance	Record a 2-minute "Writer's Commentary" video showing one revision: open to the original paragraph on screen, explain what the problem is, then show the revised version and explain why the revision solves it.
6	Portfolio Annotation	Select any two drafts from your portfolio. Write a 200-word reflection analyzing: What changed between drafts? Were the changes responses to specific feedback or your own self-revision? Which changes made the writing stronger, and how do you know?

Scale Tasks¶

[ ] 2.0 task: Before drafting a piece, write 2–3 sentences stating your purpose and your intended audience. After drafting, list the 3 things you are least satisfied with in the draft.
[ ] 3.0 task: After receiving feedback on a draft, write a 100-word "revision plan": (1) What is the specific problem identified? (2) What is causing it? (3) What specific change will you make? Then make the revision.
[ ] 4.0 task: Read your draft as if you are the intended reader who disagrees with your argument. Write a 100-word self-critique identifying the 2–3 weakest points in your own writing. Then revise based on your own critique — before getting outside feedback.