ELA Grades 9–10 Proficiency Scales¶
Source: North Dakota Standards-Based Learning (NDSBL) Educator Scales · Updated 10.2023 Applies to: All ELA standards active in SDA Studios
This page contains the complete proficiency scales for every ELA 9–10 standard used in SDA. Each standard includes: - The exact standard language - What each score point (1.0–4.0) looks like in plain language - Specific "What 2.0 looks like" and "What 3.0 looks like" examples - Links to relevant skinnies
For the priority rotation (which standards are active in each studio), see Priority by Studio. For writing standards in depth, see Writing Standards.
How to Read a Scale¶
Every standard uses the same structure:
- 4.0 — Beyond the standard. You make connections and inferences that weren't directly taught.
- 3.5 — You're going beyond 3.0 but didn't fully get there. Partial success at the 4.0 level.
- 3.0 — Meeting the standard. No major errors or omissions. This is the target.
- 2.5 — Solid on all the 2.0 stuff and partially showing 3.0.
- 2.0 — You know the vocabulary and can do basic processes, but you're missing the complex ideas.
- 1.5 — Partial 2.0 knowledge. Still working on the fundamentals.
- 1.0 — With help, partial understanding of 2.0 content.
Your goal every studio: 3.0. That means no major errors or omissions on the standard as written. 4.0 is the extension — it's available to you if you go further.
COMMUNICATION STANDARDS¶
9-10.C.1 — Presentational Communication¶
Standard: Construct and deliver formal and informal presentations, incorporating multimedia components when appropriate for the audience and purpose.
Plain-language version: You can build and deliver presentations — knowing the difference between formal and informal — and you make smart choices about when to use video, images, slides, or other media.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You construct and deliver presentations for maximum impact. You use multimedia strategically — not just to add visuals, but to make the whole message more unified and effective. A student at 4.0 would say: "I chose to use a map animation in my presentation because it showed the spread of Islam more clearly than any words could."
3.5 — Demonstrates 4.0 ideas with partial success.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You construct and deliver formal and informal presentations and make appropriate choices about including multimedia.
What this looks like: A student presents their studio research at the Week 6 exhibition. They've prepared slides, know when to look at the audience vs. the screen, and their multimedia components (maps, photographs, clips) are genuinely connected to the content — not decorative.
2.5 — Strong on 2.0 content, starting to show 3.0.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary you know: formal, informal, audience, purpose. Processes you can do: clarify the difference between formal and informal presentations; identify the audience; identify the purpose; use multimedia components; construct a presentation with supports like an outline or graphic organizer.
What 2.0 looks like: A student can tell you what "formal presentation" means and can put together a slide deck. But when they present, they read off the screen without engaging the audience, or they add a video clip that doesn't connect to the content.
1.5 — Partial 2.0 knowledge. 1.0 — With help, partial 2.0 understanding.
Skinnies: Presentation Basics · Multimedia Choices
9-10.C.2 — Verbal and Nonverbal Communication¶
Standard: Implement proper verbal and nonverbal communication for tasks and situations.
Plain-language version: Your voice, body language, eye contact, and speed all communicate. You use these strategically, not accidentally.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You use verbal techniques — pauses, conversational tone, vocal inflection — deliberately and for effect. A 4.0 student doesn't just speak clearly; they make choices about how they speak to land a point.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You implement proper verbal and nonverbal communication for the specific task and situation.
What this looks like: During a Socratic seminar, you make consistent eye contact with the person you're responding to (not just the teacher), your volume is appropriate to the room, you speak at a pace people can follow, and your gestures support rather than distract from what you're saying.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: verbal communication, nonverbal communication. Processes: make eye contact with the audience; use body and gestures to communicate; speak at an appropriate volume; speak with intonation; enunciate words; speak at an understandable speed.
What 2.0 looks like: A student knows they should make eye contact and speaks loudly enough to be heard, but their presentation body language is stiff, or they unconsciously turn away from the audience when nervous.
Skinnies: Verbal Nonverbal Communication
9-10.C.6 — Collaboration: Discussions and Debates¶
Standard: Engage in respectful discussions or debates: listen to acknowledge varying perspectives and evaluate speaker's logic or argument; present or share synthesized research and information; ask and respond to questions to propel discussion.
Plain-language version: In a class discussion or debate, you're not just waiting to talk. You're actively listening, evaluating other people's reasoning, adding your research, and asking questions that push the conversation forward.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You synthesize the points of the whole discussion, make connections across what others have said, and defend your position in light of those connections. You also actively create space for others — you notice when someone hasn't spoken and prompt them in.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You engage respectfully: (a) listen and acknowledge varying perspectives and evaluate the speaker's logic; (b) share synthesized research and information; (c) ask and respond to questions that propel discussion.
What this looks like: In a debate about whether revolutionary governments actually improved people's lives, you listen to the other side, identify one place their logic holds and one place it doesn't, share a primary source you found that adds evidence, and ask a follow-up question that the class hasn't addressed yet.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: debate, perspective, logic, argument, synthesize. Processes: use nonverbal communication to show you're listening; respond to others' ideas respectfully; acknowledge validity in others' arguments; notice limitations in others' arguments; provide research and textual evidence to support ideas; ask questions about others' perspectives.
What 2.0 looks like: A student nods when others speak and can respond to a direct question, but rarely adds new evidence or asks questions that move the discussion in a new direction.
Skinnies: Socratic Seminar Prep · Debate Structure
9-10.C.7 — Collaboration: Task Climate¶
Standard: Collaborate on a specific task or purpose in a productive climate by following norms, processes, and roles.
Plain-language version: When you're working with others, you pull your weight. You know the norms, follow the process, and take on your role — and you help the group function even when it's bumpy.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You respectfully hold peers accountable. If someone's not following norms, you redirect them — not as a cop, but as a collaborator.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You collaborate on a specific task in a productive climate by following norms, processes, and roles.
What this looks like: In a group project, you know your role (researcher, scribe, presenter), you stick to it, you meet your part of the agreed-upon deadline, and when someone goes off-task, you redirect the group without it becoming a conflict.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: climate, norms, process, role. Processes: determine necessary norms and processes for the task; cooperate with peers; recognize when a norm, process, or role is not being followed.
Skinnies: Group Norms · Collaboration Roles
READING STANDARDS¶
9-10.R.2 — Reading: Comprehension¶
Standard: Comprehend a variety of texts with multiple levels of complexity while developing inferences and providing relevant textual evidence and reasoning.
Plain-language version: You can read hard texts — not just decode the words, but make inferences (smart educated guesses backed by the text) and support those inferences with actual evidence and reasoning.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You describe connections across genres, content areas, and/or time periods. A 4.0 reader pulls a thread from an ancient Roman text and traces it forward into a contemporary political speech — and explains why that connection matters.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You comprehend a variety of complex texts, develop inferences, and provide relevant textual evidence and reasoning to support those inferences.
What this looks like: You're reading a primary source — say, an excerpt from Hammurabi's Code. A 3.0 response doesn't just say "this is about laws." It says: "The repetition of 'if a man...' throughout the code suggests this was designed as a public-facing document — one where the logic of punishment had to be visible to the population." Then you point to specific lines that support that inference.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: complexity, inference, relevant textual evidence, reasoning. Processes: determine what the text says explicitly; make inferences from the text; support inferences with specific examples from the text; present reasoning behind inferences.
What 2.0 looks like: A student can identify what happened in a text ("Hammurabi listed punishments for different crimes") and can make a simple inference ("This shows he wanted order"), but can't yet support that inference with specific textual evidence and a reasoned explanation.
Skinnies: Making Inferences · Textual Evidence
9-10.R.4 — Reading: Main Idea and Theme¶
Standard: Determine main idea(s), claim(s), or theme(s) as they develop over the course of the text and support with textual evidence.
Plain-language version: You can track the big idea of a text not just as a single statement, but as something that builds and evolves from the beginning to the end. You can show where in the text that development happens.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You explain how multiple main ideas interact with one another throughout a text, OR you trace how a theme connects and evolves across genres, content areas, or time periods. Example: tracking how the theme of "order through fear" appears in both Hammurabi's Code (Era 1) and the Nuremberg Laws (Era 4).
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You determine the main idea(s), claim(s), or theme(s) and track how they develop over the course of the text, supported with textual evidence.
What this looks like: Reading MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A 3.0 response identifies that the central claim is not just "unjust laws should be broken" but that this claim evolves over the letter — starting with legal/philosophical grounding, then moving to emotional appeal, then closing with a prophetic vision. Evidence: specific paragraphs where each shift happens.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: main idea, claim, theme, textual evidence. Processes: identify the main idea, claim, or theme of a text; support the main idea, claim, or theme using specific examples throughout the text.
What 2.0 looks like: A student can state the main idea ("MLK argues that peaceful protest is necessary") and find one example from the text. But they don't yet show how that idea builds and changes across the full text.
Skinnies: Main Idea Vs Theme · Tracking Argument Development
9-10.R.7 — Text Analysis: Style and Language¶
Standard: Analyze the impact of specific style, syntax, and word choices on meaning, mood, and tone, including figurative and ambiguous language.
Plain-language version: You can look at how a writer says something — not just what they say — and explain how those choices create a specific feeling or meaning. You notice when language is deliberately slippery or multi-layered.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You determine the cumulative impact of an author's choices — not just analyzing individual moments, but explaining how the full pattern of choices creates meaning. You can also evaluate whether those choices are effective for the purpose.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You analyze the impact of specific style, syntax, and word choices on meaning, mood, and tone — including figurative and ambiguous language.
What this looks like: Reading propaganda from the Age of Global War. A 3.0 analysis says: "The passive voice in 'enemies of the state were dealt with' removes the perpetrators from the sentence entirely, which serves the government's goal of making violence seem procedural rather than personal. The ambiguous word 'dealt with' functions as a euphemism — its vagueness invites compliance because readers don't have to confront what it means."
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: style, syntax, mood, tone, figurative language, ambiguous language. Processes: identify style, syntax, and word choice in a text; identify figurative language in context; identify ambiguous language in context; determine the implied meaning of figurative language; determine the implied meaning of ambiguous language; determine mood and tone in a work.
What 2.0 looks like: A student can label a metaphor ("'iron curtain' is a metaphor") and can identify the general tone of a passage ("angry" or "persuasive"). But they haven't yet connected specific word choices to the reason those choices create that tone.
Skinnies: Style Syntax Wordchoice · Figurative Ambiguous Language
9-10.R.8 — Text Analysis: Literary Elements¶
Standard: Analyze the development and interaction of literary elements and determine how they impact meaning, using strong textual evidence to support the analysis.
Sub-standards: - (a) How complex characters, themes, and literary elements (symbolism, mood, setting, etc.) develop over the course of a text, interact with each other, and advance the plot or develop the theme(s). - (b) How the character's or author's point of view is influenced by background, environment, or culture — and how that affects the telling of the story. - (c) Multiple interpretations of the same scene or work across time periods — evaluating the choices of each.
Plain-language version: You look at how the pieces of a literary text (character, setting, symbolism, mood) work together to create meaning. Not just "what happens" but "how does the way this is constructed shape what it means."
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You synthesize multiple literary elements to explain how they work together as a system affecting the whole work. OR you create an original work that incorporates the literary elements you've been studying, with analysis of your own choices.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You analyze how literary elements develop and interact, and determine how they impact meaning — supported with strong textual evidence. You can handle all three sub-standards: element development, author POV, and multiple interpretations.
What this looks like: Analyzing Night by Elie Wiesel: "The setting shifts from the warmth of Sighet to the ash-filled air of Auschwitz — and Wiesel uses this shift to mirror Eliezer's loss of faith. The recurring symbolism of fire, which begins as Shabbat candles, ends as the crematoria. That reversal — fire as life becoming fire as death — is the emotional architecture of the whole memoir. Wiesel's Transylvanian Jewish background shapes what he chooses to say and what he cannot say: the silences in the text are as important as the words."
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: literary elements, textual evidence, theme, point of view, complex characters, interpretations. Processes: identify complex characters (static vs. dynamic); identify themes; identify literary elements (symbolism, mood, setting); identify character's or author's background, environment, and culture; compare and contrast multiple interpretations of the same scene or work.
What 2.0 looks like: A student can identify that Eliezer is a complex character (he changes) and can point to symbolism (fire). But they don't yet explain how those elements interact with each other to build meaning across the full text.
Skinnies: Literary Elements Interaction · Author Pov Culture · Multiple Interpretations
9-10.R.9 — Text Analysis: Informational and Argumentative Texts¶
Standard: Analyze the development and interaction of informational and argumentative elements over the course of a nonfiction text and how they impact purpose using textual evidence to support the analysis.
Sub-standards: - (a) Analyze the author's point of view or purpose and possible biases; compare texts from differing perspectives; analyze the author's style, content, characterization, and presentation choices. - (b) Analyze various accounts of a subject told in different media — determining which details are emphasized or omitted in each account. - (c) Delineate and evaluate how a text's argumentative reasoning, rhetorical techniques, and/or logical fallacies support or undermine the author's purpose.
Plain-language version: With nonfiction texts (speeches, articles, propaganda, historical documents), you analyze not just what the author argues but how and why — including what they choose not to say.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You justify how the author's purpose, context, and audience shapes their choices of rhetorical techniques, reasoning, and appeals. You evaluate multiple accounts of the same subject and determine which is most effective for a specific purpose or audience — and explain why.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You analyze informational and argumentative elements across a nonfiction text. You can handle all three sub-standards: author POV and bias; multiple media accounts; argumentative reasoning and rhetorical techniques.
What this looks like (reading a WWI propaganda poster + a soldier's diary entry): "The propaganda poster omits any mention of death or injury — the visual only shows soldiers marching confidently toward a bright horizon. The diary entry emphasizes mud, cold, and waiting. The government poster was designed to recruit; the diary was private, with no audience to perform for. The omission in the poster is the argument — it makes joining seem simple by making dying invisible. This is a rhetorical choice, not an oversight."
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: point of view, bias, perspective, rhetorical techniques, logical fallacy. Processes: identify the author's point of view or purpose; identify how an author shows bias; determine the author's style and characterization of a topic; identify the author's presentation choices; compare and contrast different accounts of a subject; identify argumentative reasoning and possible logical fallacies; identify rhetorical techniques.
What 2.0 looks like: A student can identify that a speech has bias ("the speaker is pro-war, so they leave out the costs") but can't yet explain how specific rhetorical choices (word choice, structure, what's omitted) create that bias.
Skinnies: Reading For Bias · Rhetorical Techniques · Multiple Media Accounts
WRITING STANDARDS¶
For a full deep dive on the writing standards and how they work together, see Writing Standards.
9-10.W.1 — Writing Clarity, Format, and Style¶
Standard: Write clearly and coherently with appropriate content, format, and style to accomplish a specific purpose for a target audience.
Plain-language version: Your writing is clear. You chose the right format and style for your purpose and audience — and it actually works for those specific readers.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You adapt your writing for multiple target audiences, recognizing the most effective style and format for each. You write with sophistication — not just correctness, but voice that lands.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard Your writing is clear and coherent. Content, format, and style are appropriate for your specific purpose and target audience.
What this looks like: A student writing an informational essay for a community audience about the Industrial Revolution writes differently than they would for a history professor. At 3.0, they've actually made that audience-based adjustment — the vocabulary, the sentence length, the examples chosen all reflect knowledge of who's reading.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: format, style, purpose. Processes: identify purpose and audience; describe the appropriate style and format for a given task; use language appropriate to audience and purpose; notice and correct when language is redundant or vague.
Skinnies: Audience Purpose Writing · Style Register
9-10.W.2 — Organizational Structure¶
Standard: Create a logical organizational structure with a relevant introduction, transitional words or phrases to connect major sections, paragraphs, and sentences, and an appropriate conclusion.
Plain-language version: Your writing has a clear shape. The intro sets up what's coming. Transitions connect your ideas so a reader can follow the logic. The conclusion wraps it cleanly.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard Your transitions create a unified piece — not just connecting paragraphs but weaving the whole argument into a cohesive whole. The organization itself advances your meaning.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard Your writing has: (a) a relevant introduction, (b) transitional words/phrases connecting major sections, paragraphs, and sentences, and (c) an appropriate conclusion.
What this looks like: The intro doesn't just say "I'm going to talk about the Industrial Revolution." It establishes a question or problem, gives the reader context, and ends with a clear thesis that the body will prove. Transitions between paragraphs carry the logic forward — not just "Another point is..." but something that shows how each point follows from the last.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: organizational structure, introduction, transitional words or phrases, conclusion. Processes: determine an appropriate introduction for the prompt or purpose; provide examples of effective transitional words and phrases; determine when and where transitions are necessary; organize information into separate paragraphs relevant to the overall topic; determine an appropriate conclusion.
Skinnies: Introductions · Transitions · Conclusions
9-10.W.3 — Explanatory/Informational Writing¶
Standard: Write to inform an audience and to explain complex information by creating a clear thesis and providing supporting claims, details, and evidence from a variety of relevant and reliable sources.
Plain-language version: Explanatory writing teaches. You take something complex, make a clear claim about it, and support that claim with evidence from multiple credible sources. The reader learns something real.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You synthesize multiple sources with analysis — not just stacking evidence, but weaving sources together so they speak to each other and build a more complex understanding of the thesis. You explain where sources agree, where they diverge, and what that means.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You write to inform. You have a clear thesis. You provide supporting claims, details, and evidence from a variety of relevant and reliable sources.
What this looks like: A student writes about how belief systems shaped political power in early civilizations (Studio 1). A 3.0 response has a specific thesis ("Early Islamic governance used the concept of caliphate to fuse religious and political authority in ways that had no precedent in pre-Islamic Arabia"), then presents three paragraphs each with a claim and evidence from at least two different sources. The sources are not just Wikipedia — they're primary or credible secondary sources.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: thesis, supporting claim, supporting detail, evidence, relevant source, reliable source. Processes: identify audience and purpose of informative writing; identify relevant and reliable sources; identify qualities of an effective thesis; write clear claims/topic sentences that support the thesis; support claims with relevant and reliable evidence.
What 2.0 looks like: A student writes a thesis ("Islam shaped politics") and finds some evidence. But the thesis is too broad, the claims don't have supporting evidence from multiple sources, and the connection between evidence and claims isn't explained.
Skinnies: Thesis Writing W3 · Explanatory Essay Structure · Sourcing For Explanatory
9-10.W.4 — Argumentative Writing¶
Standard: Write to persuade an audience by establishing relevant context, stating a clear position/thesis, incorporating valid and reliable evidence from a variety of sources to support specific claims and to refute counterclaims, and using logical reasoning to avoid fallacies.
Plain-language version: Argument writing takes a position and defends it. Unlike explanatory writing, you're not just teaching — you're trying to convince. That means you acknowledge the other side and argue against it, not just pile up evidence for your side.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You validate the opposing side with evidence and reasoning before refuting it — not dismissing counterclaims but engaging them seriously. You use rhetorical techniques and appeals to make your argument more persuasive. Includes logos (logic), ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion).
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You: (a) establish relevant context; (b) state a clear position/thesis; (c) incorporate valid and reliable evidence from multiple sources to support claims AND to refute counterclaims; (d) use logical reasoning to avoid fallacies.
What this looks like: A student argues that the Industrial Revolution ultimately harmed more workers than it helped. A 3.0 argument establishes the historical context (rise of factories, labor conditions, 1880s–1900s), states a clear thesis, uses specific evidence from primary sources (testimony of factory workers, labor statistics), addresses the counterclaim ("but industrialization raised living standards") with specific evidence and then refutes it, and avoids logical fallacies like "post hoc" or "false dilemma."
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: persuade, context, thesis, refute, claim, counterclaim, fallacy. Processes: identify relevant context surrounding an argument (time, place, audience); identify qualities of an effective thesis; provide rationale for the thesis; establish topic sentences for support; recognize valid and invalid evidence; acknowledge counterclaims in an argument.
What 2.0 looks like: A student takes a position and finds evidence for it. But they ignore the other side entirely, or acknowledge it only to dismiss it ("Some people think X, but they're wrong") without evidence.
Skinnies: Argument Thesis W4 · Counterclaims · Logical Fallacies
9-10.W.6 — Writing Process¶
Standard: Develop and strengthen writing through the writing process to produce a quality product for a specific purpose and audience.
Plain-language version: Good writing doesn't come out perfect the first time. You use the writing process (drafting, getting feedback, revising, editing) to make your writing better — and you can show what changed and why.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard Your revision process shows intentional, purposeful decision-making. You can explain every significant change you made and the effect that change creates.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You develop and strengthen writing through the full writing process, producing a quality product for your specific purpose and audience.
What this looks like: You have a draft with advisor and peer feedback. Your revision is not just fixing grammar — it's restructuring a paragraph because the evidence wasn't yet supporting the claim, or changing your opening because it didn't establish context clearly. You submit a revision note with at least three substantive changes explained.
2.0 — Foundation Processes: identify the stages of the writing process; revise for clarity and coherence; edit for grammar and usage; seek and incorporate feedback from others.
Skinnies: Writing Process · Revision Strategies
9-10.L.1 — Language Knowledge¶
Standard: Apply language knowledge for a specific task, purpose, intention, and audience, resolving issues of usage as needed.
Sub-standards include: syntax, phrases, colon and semicolon usage, parentheses, misplaced modifiers, pronoun reference, parallel structure.
Plain-language version: You apply grammar and usage conventions purposefully — not as arbitrary rules, but because specific choices (punctuation, syntax, word placement) affect meaning and how a reader receives your writing.
The Scale¶
4.0 — Beyond the Standard You make strategic language choices — using semicolons, parallel structure, or syntactic variation not just correctly, but for deliberate stylistic effect.
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You apply language knowledge for your specific task, purpose, intention, and audience — resolving issues of usage as they arise.
What this looks like: Your writing is grammatically clear, and when you're unsure about a construction (comma splice? pronoun reference?), you recognize the issue and resolve it. Parallel structure in your thesis makes the writing feel controlled.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary and processes: syntax, phrases, colon, semicolon, parentheses, misplaced modifier, pronoun, parallel structure. Can identify and correct these issues when pointed out.
Skinnies: Parallel Structure · Punctuation Usage · Pronoun Reference
INQUIRY AND RESEARCH STANDARDS (IR Bundle)¶
These five standards are bundled and active every single studio. They are always assessed together. See Priority by Studio for how the bundle is evaluated.
9-10.IR.1 — Developing Research Questions¶
Standard: Develop pertinent research questions and narrow or broaden the inquiry.
Plain-language version: You write a research question that is actually researchable — specific enough to investigate, broad enough to have real evidence. And you can adjust it when you discover the question needs to change.
The Scale¶
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You develop pertinent research questions and adjust the scope (narrowing or broadening) based on what the inquiry reveals.
What this looks like: You start Week 1 with a question: "How did the Industrial Revolution affect workers?" By Week 2, after initial research, you narrow it: "How did child labor practices in textile mills between 1870–1910 shape the progressive reform movement?" The narrowing reflects what you actually found in your sources.
2.0 — Foundation You can write a basic research question on a topic. You know the difference between a question that's too broad ("What is history?") and one that's specific ("What caused the crash of 1929?").
Skinnies: Research Questions Ir1 · Narrowing Broadening Inquiry
9-10.IR.2 — Gathering and Interpreting Sources¶
Standard: Gather and interpret relevant information from primary and secondary sources for a variety of purposes.
Plain-language version: You can find primary and secondary sources, understand the difference, and pull relevant information from them for a specific purpose — not just copy-paste, but interpret.
The Scale¶
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You gather and interpret relevant information from primary and secondary sources for a variety of purposes.
What this looks like: You're researching the causes of WWI. You find both a primary source (an excerpt from the July Crisis correspondence) and a secondary source (a historian's analysis of the alliance system). You interpret what each reveals: the primary source shows the emotional tone of decision-making; the secondary source provides structural analysis. You use both deliberately in your writing for different purposes.
2.0 — Foundation You know the difference between primary and secondary sources. You can find sources on a topic. You can pull information from a source and note where it came from.
Skinnies: Primary Vs Secondary Sources · Annotating Sources Ir2
9-10.IR.3 — Organizing Information¶
Standard: Organize relevant information from a variety of sources.
Plain-language version: You don't just have a pile of notes. Your research is organized so you can find and use it — grouped by idea, claim, or argument.
The Scale¶
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You organize relevant information from a variety of sources into a structure that serves your inquiry or writing purpose.
What this looks like: Your source log has columns: source, type, key information, where it connects to your argument. When you sit down to write, you can find your evidence for each claim quickly because it's organized, not buried in a notebook.
2.0 — Foundation You record information from sources. You have a system, even if basic — some students use sticky notes, some use a notebook, some use a digital doc. The key at 2.0 is that information isn't lost.
Skinnies: Source Organization Ir3 · Source Log Template
9-10.IR.4 — Evaluating Source Credibility¶
Standard: Evaluate the credibility of a source based on bias, perspective, and purpose.
Plain-language version: Not all sources are equal. You can look at a source and figure out who wrote it, why, when, and from what perspective — and you can explain how that affects how much to trust it.
The Scale¶
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You evaluate the credibility of sources based on bias, perspective, and purpose.
What this looks like: You find a 1942 U.S. government pamphlet justifying Japanese American internment. A 3.0 evaluation says: "This is a government document produced during wartime. Its purpose is to justify a policy that had already been decided — not to evaluate whether the policy was right. The bias is institutional and wartime-propagandistic. It is valuable as a primary source showing what the government wanted the public to believe, but it cannot be trusted as an objective account of whether internment was necessary."
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: bias, perspective, purpose, credibility. Processes: identify who created a source; identify when it was created; identify the purpose; note whether the source has an apparent perspective or bias.
Skinnies: Source Credibility Ir4 · Lateral Reading
9-10.IR.5 — Integrating Sources¶
Standard: Integrate information from sources using a standardized format.
Sub-standards: - (a) Reference sources for quotations, paraphrases, and/or summaries to avoid plagiarism and maintain academic integrity. - (b) Generate a citation/bibliography page using a standardized format.
Plain-language version: When you use someone else's words or ideas, you give them credit — in-text and in a works cited page. You know the difference between quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, and you use all three.
The Scale¶
3.0 — Meeting the Standard You integrate information from sources using a standardized format (MLA or whatever Reese specifies for the studio). In-text citations are accurate. Your bibliography is complete.
What this looks like: Every piece of evidence in your essay has a citation. Your works cited page uses consistent MLA format. When you paraphrase (put someone's idea in your own words), you still cite the source. You don't commit plagiarism — not because you're afraid of getting caught, but because attribution is how intellectual honesty works.
2.0 — Foundation Vocabulary: quotation, paraphrase, summary, plagiarism, academic integrity, citation, bibliography. Processes: identify the difference between a quote, paraphrase, and summary; know what plagiarism is; attempt in-text citation.
Skinnies: Mla Citation Ir5 · Quoting Paraphrasing Summarizing
See Also¶
Why This Is Relevant Today?¶
The scales in this document describe what real growth in reading and writing actually looks like — from recognizing what a text says (2.0) to analyzing how it works (3.0) to using it as a tool for original thinking (4.0). That progression mirrors how expertise develops in every field: you start by understanding what's in front of you, then you learn to interrogate it, then you learn to build on it. Students who reach 4.0 on R.9 — evaluating whether an author's reasoning actually supports their argument — have a skill that applies directly to political speeches, scientific papers, news articles, and legal documents. That's not an academic skill. It's the skill that makes the difference between a citizen and a passive audience member. For the texts where these standards are practiced at the deepest level, see the Studio Archive and the Reading Library.
Why This Is Relevant Today?¶
The proficiency scales on this page describe a progression from "I can identify it" through "I can use it independently" to "I can transfer it to new situations I haven't seen before." That progression is not an academic abstraction — it's a description of the difference between having a skill and owning it. The ability to read an argument carefully enough to know whether it's making a valid claim (R.9 at 3.0–4.0) is not a school skill; it's the skill that determines whether you get manipulated by misinformation or whether you catch it. The ability to write a clear argument with evidence (W.4 at 3.0+) is the skill that gets you taken seriously in a job, in a legal dispute, in a civic argument. The scales exist so you can see exactly where you are in that progression — which means you can see what to do next. See Writing Standards for the deep dive on W standards, and Priority by Studio for which standards are active in each studio.
ELA 9–10 Scales page — SDA Commons Wiki Source: NDSBL Educator Scales Updated 10.2023 · Maintained by Hermes See also: Priority by Studio · Writing Standards · Crosswalk Ela Ss