Grade 6 Fall — Argumentative Writing, Claim-Evidence-Warrant (Toulmin Lite), Counterclaim Acknowledgment, and Pronoun Mastery
Lesson 18 60 min eng.g6.f.lesson_18.sbar_peer_edit_protocol

SBAR peer edit — Specific, Based-on-evidence, Actionable, Respectful

Skills targeted
Objectives
  • Students apply the SBAR peer-feedback protocol to a partner's argument draft.
  • Students give 3 SBAR comments (one per category: claim/counterclaim/mechanics) addressing rubric criteria.
  • Students receive feedback and identify 2 revision priorities.
Vocabulary
SBARspecificbased-on-evidenceactionablerespectfulfeedback

Lesson plan

Warm-up

5 min

Compare 2 feedback comments: (1) 'Good job.' (2) 'In paragraph 3, sentence 2, you write "this is important." Try replacing with a specific warrant explaining WHY this matters — like "because attention is a cognitive resource."' Which is SBAR?

Teacher moves
  • Hear (2) — SBAR specific/based/actionable/respectful
  • Connect: 'good job' fails all 4 criteria
  • Frame: peer review is only useful if SBAR

Direct instruction

15 min

Peer edit is where many classrooms fail — students give 'good job' or 'I liked it' or 'try harder.' These are not feedback; they are politeness or punishment. SBAR (MG-22): SPECIFIC (name the exact sentence or paragraph), BASED-ON-EVIDENCE (quote the line), ACTIONABLE (name a move from MG-21), RESPECTFUL (assume good intent — frame as suggestion or question). Each comment hits ALL 4. Today: read your partner's draft fully. Then write 3 SBAR comments — one on the CLAIM/argument structure, one on the COUNTERCLAIM, one on a MECHANICS issue (pronoun, punctuation, sentence pattern). Use the rubric as your move-bank.

Key examples
  • All 4 elements explicit. Even if your partner disagrees, they know what you mean.
    model SPECIFIC: In paragraph 2, sentence 4. BASED-ON-EVIDENCE: You write 'This shows that recess matters.' ACTIONABLE: This is a circular warrant. Try the principle move: 'This finding matters because [principle: attention is a cognitive resource that fatigues with sitting].' RESPECTFUL: What if you tried this in your next draft?
    prompt SBAR comment on a weak warrant.
  • Constructive — names the move and the upgrade path.
    model SPECIFIC: Paragraph 4, your counterclaim sentence. BASED-ON-EVIDENCE: You write 'Some say recess is bad because kids don't want to learn.' ACTIONABLE: This feels like a weak version of the opposing view. The stronger version is 'recess takes instructional minutes from a packed curriculum.' Try the steel-man. RESPECTFUL: What's the strongest version of the opposing view you could honestly engage with?
    prompt SBAR comment on counterclaim strawman.
  • Praise-only is not SBAR. It's polite but not useful. The writer can't act on it.
    model Your argument is great! Loved it!
    prompt BAD peer feedback (NOT SBAR).
Checks for understanding
  • Quick check: which letter is missing from 'In paragraph 3, your warrant is weak — try better' — (specific YES, based YES, actionable NO — what move?, respectful NEUTRAL)
  • Pair-share: name your 3 categories of feedback you'll give (claim/counter/mechanics)
Media
M-6-F-WR-18-A Chart Physical / non-image

MG-22 enlarged to 18x24. 4-band card: SPECIFIC (blue), BASED-ON-EVIDENCE (orange), ACTIONABLE (green), RESPECTFUL (red). Each band has 1-sentence definition + worked example sentence. Bottom: 'Each comment hits all 4. "Good job" hits zero.' Dyslexic-friendly font.

MG-22 Chart
SBAR peer-feedback protocol card: 4-step card. STEP 1 (blue) — SPECIFIC: 'Name the exact sentence or paragraph. "In para

SBAR peer-feedback protocol card: 4-step card. STEP 1 (blue) — SPECIFIC: 'Name the exact sentence or paragraph. "In paragraph 2, sentence 3, ___".' STEP 2 (orange) — BASED-ON-EVIDENCE: 'Quote the line you are responding to. "You wrote ___".' STEP 3 (green) — ACTIONABLE: 'Name a specific move the writer could try. "Try ___ in this sentence" or "Consider adding ___ to your warrant."' STEP 4 (red) — RESPECTFUL: 'Assume the writer's good intent. Frame feedback as a question or suggestion, not a judgment. "What if you ___?" not "You're wrong about ___."' Below: 'Vague ("good job") is NOT SBAR. Each comment must hit all 4.' Print-ready 11x17.

M-6-F-WR-18-B Video Physical / non-image

4-minute video of two G6 students peer-editing. Timestamped overlays: 0:00 reading partner's draft; 1:00 first SBAR comment (specific paragraph/sentence); 2:00 second SBAR comment (counterclaim feedback); 3:00 third SBAR comment (mechanics); 3:30 priority identification by writer. Both students visible with MG-21 rubric + MG-22 card. Real-feel classroom.

MG-21 Chart Physical / non-image

14-criterion argumentative peer-editing rubric (extension of G5-spring's 12): 1. INTRO has hook + context + arguable claim. 2. EACH BODY PARAGRAPH uses CEW (claim + evidence + warrant). 3. EVIDENCE is embedded with signal phrase + quote + citation + warrant sentence after; uses at least 2 sources. 4. WARRANT explains HOW evidence supports claim (the 'because' move; not 'this shows'). 5. COUNTERCLAIM is acknowledged with concession-pivot-refutation sequence. 6. SOURCE CREDIBILITY: each source passes 3 of 4 credibility criteria (author / publication / date / bias). 7. PRONOUN CASE is correct (subjective for subject; objective for object; possessive for ownership). 8. INTENSIVE PRONOUNS used correctly (for emphasis, not as objects). 9. PRONOUN NUMBER/PERSON is consistent (no drifting between 'you' and 'one'). 10. VAGUE PRONOUNS fixed (every this/that/which/it has a clear antecedent). 11. NONRESTRICTIVE ELEMENTS use commas/parentheses/dashes correctly. 12. SENTENCE-PATTERN VARIATION (at least 3 of 6 patterns visible across the essay). 13. TONE consistent and audience-appropriate (formal at G6 default; named tone maintained). 14. CONCLUSION synthesizes or calls to action (not summary). Each criterion = YES/PARTLY/NO + notes + quote space. Print-ready 8.5x11.

Guided practice

22 min
Tasks
  • Read partner's draft fully (5 min).
    scaffold Active-reading: highlight 2 strong moves, mark 3 spots for SBAR feedback
  • Write 3 SBAR comments — claim/argument, counterclaim, mechanics.
    scaffold SBAR card + 14-criterion rubric
  • Exchange comments. Read partner's comments aloud back to them. Identify 2 priorities.
    scaffold Priority-decision card
Media
M-6-F-WR-18-C Interactive Physical / non-image

Print-ready 8.5x11 form. Header: 'Feedback for [writer name] from [reviewer name].' 3 rows for 3 SBAR comments. Each row: COMMENT TYPE (claim / counterclaim / mechanics), then 4 sub-cells (SPECIFIC: paragraph/sentence; BASED: quoted line; ACTIONABLE: move from MG-21; RESPECTFUL: framing). Bottom: 'TOP 2 PRIORITIES for the writer.' Dyslexic-friendly font.

MG-21 Chart Physical / non-image

14-criterion argumentative peer-editing rubric (extension of G5-spring's 12): 1. INTRO has hook + context + arguable claim. 2. EACH BODY PARAGRAPH uses CEW (claim + evidence + warrant). 3. EVIDENCE is embedded with signal phrase + quote + citation + warrant sentence after; uses at least 2 sources. 4. WARRANT explains HOW evidence supports claim (the 'because' move; not 'this shows'). 5. COUNTERCLAIM is acknowledged with concession-pivot-refutation sequence. 6. SOURCE CREDIBILITY: each source passes 3 of 4 credibility criteria (author / publication / date / bias). 7. PRONOUN CASE is correct (subjective for subject; objective for object; possessive for ownership). 8. INTENSIVE PRONOUNS used correctly (for emphasis, not as objects). 9. PRONOUN NUMBER/PERSON is consistent (no drifting between 'you' and 'one'). 10. VAGUE PRONOUNS fixed (every this/that/which/it has a clear antecedent). 11. NONRESTRICTIVE ELEMENTS use commas/parentheses/dashes correctly. 12. SENTENCE-PATTERN VARIATION (at least 3 of 6 patterns visible across the essay). 13. TONE consistent and audience-appropriate (formal at G6 default; named tone maintained). 14. CONCLUSION synthesizes or calls to action (not summary). Each criterion = YES/PARTLY/NO + notes + quote space. Print-ready 8.5x11.

Formative assessment

5 min
Exit ticket
  • Share 1 SBAR comment you wrote.
  • Name 2 revision priorities you've identified from peer feedback.
scoring SBAR comment hits 4 elements + 2 priorities named = mastery; partial = practicing; missing elements or no priorities = reteach

Closure

3 min
Moves
  • Restate: SBAR = ___, ___, ___, ___
  • Preview tomorrow's revision integration

Homework

15 min
Tasks
  • Integrate partner's 2 priority feedback comments into your draft. Revise.

Exercises in this lesson

eng.g6.f.ex_37
Write 3 SBAR comments on your partner's draft: one on CLAIM/argument, one on COUNTERCLAIM, one on a MECHANICS issue. Each must hit all 4...
 write three sbar comments · diff 4
eng.g6.f.ex_38
Receive partner's 3 SBAR comments. Read each. Identify your top 2 revision priorities (which 2 are most important to address?).
 identify revision priorities from feedback · diff 3

Differentiation

Scaffolds
  • MG-22 SBAR card at every desk
  • MG-21 14-criterion rubric for move-bank
  • SBAR feedback form (3 rows pre-formatted with 4 SBAR elements per row)
  • Sample SBAR comment provided for low-floor reference
Extensions
  • Give a 4th SBAR comment on a craft move (figurative language, voice, ethos/pathos/logos balance)
  • Receive feedback from a SECOND partner with a different perspective
English Learners
  • Bilingual MG-22 SBAR card
  • Verbal SBAR feedback option with teacher transcription
  • Pair with L1-fluent peer for first feedback pass
Ieps 504s
  • Reduce to 2 SBAR comments (not 3)
  • Pre-formatted feedback template with sentence starters
  • Extended time

Teacher notes

Peer edit is high-stakes for classroom culture. If feedback is unproductive (vague or harsh), students disengage. SBAR makes feedback both rigorous AND kind. Coach the RESPECTFUL element heavily — frame as 'what if you tried ___?' not 'this is wrong.' The cross-disciplinary tie is to SL.6.1 collaborative discussion. Save SBAR cards for use across G7-G12.