<ul>
<li>All released anchors come from the pilot test, which did not specifically ask students to cite sources or to use multiple sources. Current Performance Tasks specifically tell students to use multiple sources and to attribute information to reference materials.</li>
<li>The sources on the pilot test differed from those on the practice test. The pilot test included a video. Information from the video was the basis for Source #1 on the practice test.</li>
</ul>

Grade 5

Opinion

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Service Animals

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

Exhibits NO control of sentence formation – The first and second sentences in the response are run-ons and demonstrate a lack of control of sentence formation that extends through the rest of the response. In fact, there are more run-ons than correctly formed sentences in this response.

Exhibits NO control of commas – There are too many comma errors to list; however, the second sentence in the second paragraph is representative of the errors that occur throughout the response, including missing commas after introductory elements and in compound clauses: &#8220;but when it comes to other peolpe the animals don’t know them as well or at all and no matter how much you train them there wild you can’t change that.&#8221;
There is also a missing apostrophe in the contraction &#8220;That’s.&#8221;

There is a capitalization error at the beginning of the sentence that begins with “but”.

There is a subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent agreement error in paragraph 2: &#8220;…has learned to know and like its owner.&#8221; There are several errors with frequently confused words. For example, in paragraph 2 alone, there are multiple errors (e.g. &#8220;there&#8221; instead of &#8220;they’re&#8221;).

There are many spelling errors (e.g., &#8220;peolpe,&#8221; &#8220;puting,&#8221; &#8220;imbaressesd,&#8221; &#8220;probaly,&#8221; &#8220;diffrent,&#8221; &#8220;espescily,&#8221; &#8220;coclusion,&#8221; &#8220;sevice,&#8221; &#8220;discused&#8221;).

There are some details, but because the opinion is confusing, the details offer only marginal and inconsistent support.

While there are references to the source materials (monkeys, training, horses), the references are unattributed.

The response seemingly attempts to develop ideas beyond just repeating what’s in the source materials, but these attempts are often confusing and, as presented, contradictory (&#8220;[animals are] wild you can’t change that&#8221; versus &#8220;[dogs] don’t want to hurt people&#8221;). In addition, some inferences are weak (&#8220;…because you didn’t want a dog&#8221;).

Much of the vocabulary is general (e.g., &#8220;all worth it in the end&#8221;), and there is some repetition (&#8220;needs are fitted&#8221;; &#8220;putting [people] in danger&#8221;).

The response can best be described as rambling with loosely connected ideas failing to establish an appropriate style.

The opinion is somewhat confusing: &#8220;To me this law [what law?] will help out a lot of people it will prevent accidents….but when it comes to other people…you are putting everyone around you in danger…that’s just being selfish.&#8221; By the end of the response, it is apparent the writer supports the ban on all service animals other than dogs, but even this clarifying statement does not reflect the task (the law referenced in the prompt allows both dogs and miniature horses).

There are a few transitions (&#8220;But,&#8221; &#8220;That means,&#8221; &#8220;So&#8221;), but some of them are repetitive (e.g., &#8220;To me&#8221;), and overall connections between ideas are inconsistent. While some ideas are connected logically ([because some service animals are wild] &#8220;that means your puting everyone around you in danger….just being selfish&#8221;), other connections are unclear. For example, there is almost no transition between paragraphs 1 and 2, leading readers to suspect that the second paragraph was an afterthought more than a part of a plan for a well-organized opinion article.

This response has a weak introduction that lacks clarity (&#8220;To me this law will help out a lot of people it will prevent accidents&#8221;), and the weak conclusion (&#8220;…so in conclusion the best service animal to me is a dog&#8221;) is tacked on to the end of a sentence that also contains a new “supporting” reason (&#8220;horses in hotels would be a problem&#8221;), which is somewhat contrary to the stated task in the prompt.

The response has too many randomly connected details (&#8220;…dogs are caring and loving animals that don’t want to hurt people. Dogs might be annoying sometimes when there barking or they want to play but to me it’s all worth it in the end&#8221;), and the overall focus of the response is not sustained enough to merit a higher score.

Content Explorer

Sample Items Website

Tools for Teachers

Smarter Reporting

Remote Teaching and Learning

More Resources for Teachers

Privacy

Diversity, Inclusion & Equity

Web Accessibility Statement

Policy

Instagram

YouTube

Pinterest

Twitter

Facebook

Connect

An annotation is the educator’s explanation of how a portion of the student’s response relates to the rubric and contributes to that trait’s score. For example, the educator might explain how the response meets the expectations of a specific score point. An annotation can also describe aspects of a student response that relate to multiple score points on the rubric to demonstrate nuance when determining a score.

Annotation

One of three traits scored for the ELA performance task full write, this trait measures a student’s ability to demonstrate command of grade-level conventions of standard English: grammar usage (including sentence formation), capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.

This trait measures students’ ability to select and integrate details that support, explain, illustrate, or develop ideas. Students should elaborate these details—that is, explain and connect them, guided by the writing purpose and audience needs.
For informative/explanatory and opinion/argumentative writing purposes, these details come from source materials.
For narrative writing, this trait is called Development/Elaboration, and students are expected to integrate and develop grade-appropriate story elements such as descriptive details and dialogue. For these tasks, events and experiences are inspired by source materials.

This trait measures students’ ability to establish and sustain a focus for the writing. This focus should be consistent with the task’s designated purpose and the intended audience. Strong introductions and conclusions (or, for narrative writing, beginnings and endings) and transitions help to create coherence.

Performance tasks measure a student’s ability to demonstrate critical-thinking and problem-solving skills by challenging students to apply their knowledge and skills to complex, real-world problems. In the performance task, students are presented with a collection of questions and activities connected to a single theme or scenario. These activities ask students to demonstrate capacities such as depth of understanding, writing and research skills, and complex analysis, which cannot be adequately assessed with traditional assessment questions. Performance tasks are taken on a computer (but are not computer adaptive) and take students one to two class periods to complete.

Performance Task

The prompt is the text provided to the student that requests their response. It includes some contextual information, but also includes a specific task that students complete in their writing response.

Prompt

For a deeper dive into the content behind this student response, navigate to the Sample Items Website to access the writing prompt or visit the Content Explorer to learn more about this content area.

Prompt & Target

“Purpose” is the context for a piece of writing, or what the writer intends to accomplish. Students write texts with the following purposes:
<ul>
<li>Narrative (grades 3–8): tell a story</li>
<li>Informational (grades 3–5): present facts or data using source material</li>
<li>Explanatory (grades 6–11): explain a topic or concept by analyzing source materials</li>
<li>Opinion (grades 3–5): present and defend a position</li>
<li>Argumentative (grades 6–11): present an argument using research to form and support claims</li>
</ul>
Purposes have subtle differences depending on grade, and each writing purpose has its own scoring rubric.

Purpose

This text was written by a student in response to a Performance Task writing prompt.

Response

A rubric is a set framework for scorers to reference when determining the quality of student writing. Each trait has its own rubric, and every point value is defined in detail with examples of what to expect from student writing at each level.

Rubric

Donec sed odio dui. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Nullam id dolor id nibh ultricies vehicula ut id elit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Sample Term One

Sample Term Two

Traits are different dimensions of a student response that educators evaluate when scoring. For example, an educator will assess grammar and spelling as part of the Conventions trait (maximum of two score points) but not take grammar or spelling into account when assessing the other traits. This approach ensures that scorers evaluate student writing from multiple angles.

Example for Grade 5: Opinion – Service Animals - ID: 4029

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy