Compose an original argument with at least 3 NAMED RHETORICAL DEVICES applied (CCSS W.6.1.a-e; L.6.3.a applied)
Exercise Difficulty 3 ~15 min eng.g6.s.ex_50

Self Reflection Three Two One

MG-34 Chart Physical / non-image

Self-reflection rubric (assessment-as-learning): 3-2-1 reflection template extended for G6-spring. Three STRENGTHS in your literary-analysis essay + original argument (with quoted lines showing rhetorical-device application). Two REVISION TARGETS for next time (with specific moves named — e.g., 'try antithesis in my conclusion next time'). One GOAL for G7-fall (the next writing unit — research process and MLA). Print-ready 8.5x11.

Prompt

Complete MG-34 3-2-1 self-reflection on your original argument + Rhetorician's Forum performance: 3 strengths (with quoted lines showing device application) + 2 revision targets for next time (specific moves) + 1 goal for G7-fall.

M-6-S-WR-EX-50-A Interactive Physical / non-image

MG-34 3-2-1 self-reflection template printed at 8.5x11 — 3 strength slots with quoted-line space, 2 revision-target slots with specific-move space, 1 G7-fall goal slot. Reverse shows a model completed reflection for portfolio reference.

Answer criteria
type rubric
rubric
Not scored — formative growth data. 3 strengths + 2 targets + 1 goal complete with specifics = engaged-with-process; partial = engaged-but-shallow; missing = needs-conferring
Hints
  1. Strengths should quote specific lines.
  2. Revision targets = specific moves, not 'be better.'
Misconceptions to watch
  • Vague strengths/targets.
  • Goal is unrealistic or unmeasurable.