<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

There are no errors with grade-relevant sentence formation.

There are a few errors with punctuation: two unnecessary commas before dependent clauses in paragraph 5 (&#8220;Most people choose their service animal, so that they can&#8230;&#8221; and &#8220;For example, a service [dog] can’t get their master a drink, like [as] a monkey can&#8221;).

There are no errors with capitalization.

There are relatively few errors with grammar usage: There is an error with the incorrect verb form &#8220;chose&#8221; instead of &#8220;choose.&#8221; There is a minor error with using a single rather than plural noun/antecedent: &#8220;Service animals have many tasks that they help their master accomplish&#8221; (&#8220;master&#8221; should be &#8220;masters&#8221;). There is also an error with pronoun/antecedent agreement (&#8220;A service [dog] can’t get their master&#8230;&#8221;). Note regarding the sentence &#8220;&#8230;the owner needs to be comfortable with their service animal&#8221;: because the gender preference for the “owner” is not clear, the use of “their” is acceptable.

There are few errors with grade-appropriate spelling words (e.g., &#8220;dissabilities&#8221; and &#8220;veteraniarin&#8221; are above grade level words, although the writer might have consulted the sources for correct spelling of both).

This response incorporates a range of evidence from the source materials, but that evidence is inconsistently and/or weakly integrated. For example, in paragraph 4, the response states &#8220;…people with disabilities should be able to choose…&#8221;; yet 2 sentences later, &#8220;I think this because people with disabilities should have the right to choose…&#8221; is used as a support for the previous claim.

The response references information from more than one source, although there is no attribution of source materials.

The elaboration of evidence is inconsistent. For example, body paragraph 2 mostly repeats the same general idea (people should be able to choose what kind of service animal they want), with no elaboration. On the other hand, the opposing point of view is acknowledged and addressed (&#8220;…service animals need to be checked by a veterinarian….&#8221; and &#8220;I understand the fact that people don’t want animals with diseases in public places….&#8221;), which is not required till grade 7, and thus shows an emerging awareness of how to develop an argument. Overall, however, the elaboration is too weak for a higher score.

The language use is sometimes repetitive (&#8220;I think&#8221; which is distractingly repetitive, &#8220;some of [the reasons],&#8221; &#8220;comfort&#8221;/&#8221;comforting,&#8221;) and/or vague (&#8220;it should be different,&#8221; &#8220;many tasks&#8221;).

The style is somewhat appropriate, but occasional lapses distract readers. For example, paragraph 4 uses repetitive language (&#8220;I think that,&#8221; &#8220;I also think that,&#8221; &#8220;I think this because&#8221;) that actually confounds the logic of the argument. Similarly, repetition of words and ideas such as &#8220;comfortable&#8221; interferes with the development of the ideas.

The opinion is clear: the introduction restates the 2011 law, but only states that the writer thinks that law should be “different.” The subsequent support for abandoning the 2011 law is mostly sustained throughout the response. Note: While the 2011 law is inaccurately stated, that flaw does not affect the score for organization.

The use of transitions is uneven. While the response has a few appropriate transitions (&#8220;also&#8221;), other transitions become repetitive (&#8220;For example&#8221;; &#8220;Here are some&#8221;).

The opening demonstrates an emerging sense of effective introductions (it states an opinion and provides enough context—what the law states—to inform the reader). It is, however, needlessly formulaic (&#8220;In this opinion article I will be telling you my opinion…because of many reasons. Here are some of them&#8221;). The conclusion begins by addressing the opposing point of view; this is not required at this grade level, but it is an effective way of transitioning to a conclusion.

The progression of ideas is mostly adequate despite some weaker connections. For example, &#8220;I also think that the service animals need to be checked by a veterinarian to make sure that the animal doesn’t carry a disease around in public places. I think this because people with disabilities should have the right to choose a service animal they are comfortable with.&#8221; As stated, there is no logical connection between the two sentences, causing potential confusion about the relationship between ideas. However, because the qualification about diseased animals is brought back in the final paragraph, this represents more of a minor flaw that does not interfere with overall coherence.

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: 4039

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy