<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

The only sentence structure problem is a fragment (&#8220;A frog??&#8221;), which was intended for effect.

There are many missing commas; these errors cause occasional confusion and indicate a lack of control for that skill. Representative examples include missing commas in compound independent clauses (Paragraph 3: &#8220;These animals are all great and I would choose any of them&#8221;). There are also missing commas after introductory elements, including phrases (Paragraph 3: &#8220;From monkeys to pigs what will be next?&#8221;) and clauses (Paragraph 4: &#8220;…if the animal isn&#8217;t allowed to go in neither is the person&#8221;). Sometimes both error types occur in the same sentence (Paragraph 3: &#8220;Although dogs are the most common service animal all of them are just as great and I think having a different animal as a guide would be fun!&#8221;).

There are no capitalization errors.

There is an error with the pronoun/antecedent reference in paragraph 4 (&#8220;…the person is now not able to go in because it needs its service animal…&#8221;). Note, however, that in the earlier reference from that same paragraph (&#8220;…the human can&#8217;t go in because they need their animal…&#8221;) the agreement is acceptable because of the lack of a clear gender preference.

There are a few spelling errors; however, it’s the same word misspelled more than once (“payed”).

The response provides convincing elaboration of the evidence supporting the opinion. Much of the evidence is well-integrated, although some of the reasons are general (&#8220;even though you may not want the animal in the store&#8221;) or repetitive (&#8220;because they need their animal to see&#8221;; &#8220;because it needs its service animal to get around&#8221;). Overall, the response is lengthy and complex enough to compensate for minor shortcomings.

The details used to support the argument come from more than one source, although none of the sources are attributed.

The response effectively supports the opinion using a variety of development strategies. For example, the ideas in the third body paragraph (paragraph 4) are derived from the source-based inference about the expense of training a service animal (e.g., paying money [to train animals] and then being unable to use them for their intended purpose &#8211; a waste of money). Other inferences also provide logical extensions of the evidence (&#8220;if the animal isn&#8217;t allowed to go in neither is the person&#8221;). In addition, the response develops ideas by personalizing them (&#8220;I would choose any of them for a guide&#8221;; &#8220;I know if I was disabled&#8221;).

There is some effective language used (&#8220;judge&#8221;; &#8220;stand against&#8221;; &#8220;stand up&#8221;), but the formulaic phrasing used throughout is distracting (&#8220;My reasons are…&#8221;; &#8220;My first reason…&#8221;; &#8220;My second reason…&#8221;; &#8220;My last reason…&#8221;; &#8220;The 3 reasons are…&#8221;) and repetitive (e.g., &#8220;My opinion…&#8221;; &#8220;My…reason…&#8221;; &#8220;I think…&#8221;). Nonetheless, the overall language use is adequate.

There is an evident style that is effective overall. The response begins with a rhetorical question intended to attract the audience (&#8220;Would you stand for an unfair law?&#8221;). The response also personalizes the issue (&#8220;I know if I was disabled&#8221;) and includes subtle calls to action such as &#8220;we need to let everyone know… and we need to stand up….&#8221; Other stylistic devices, however, are less effective. The weakness of this response is the formulaic approach, which diminishes the overall success of the attempted style.

The opinion is adequate (&#8220;…we should let any kind of animal in a public place that helps people with disabilities&#8221;) if somewhat obscured by generalities (&#8220;My opinion on the new law about only letting service dogs to go with their owner in public places would have to be that I think…&#8221;). The focus on that opinion is sustained throughout.

Transitions are mixed. The formulaic transitions, particularly those in the introduction, conclusion, and between body paragraphs, are distracting. But internal connections, that is those within the body paragraphs, are formulaic but effective. For example, in paragraph 5, the transitions &#8220;Now…&#8221;; &#8220;Since…&#8221;; followed by &#8220;This is…&#8221; effectively connect the ideas and clarify relationships. Note that in paragraph 4, the same strategy is used: &#8220;Now…because…&#8221;; &#8220;This is…&#8221;.

The introduction nicely sets up the issue and the opinion with a rhetorical question intended to attract the audience’s attention. The opinion, however, is nearly lost in the overwrought sentence (&#8220;My opinion on the new law about only letting service dogs to go with their owner in public places would have to be that I think….&#8221;). That opinion is then followed with a listing of the supports. The conclusion also begins with a personal appeal (&#8220;I know if I was disabled&#8221;) and nicely returns to the idea of “standing for” from the introduction, but then it virtually repeats the “3 reasons” listed in the introduction. This formulaic approach is somewhat distracting but arguably adequate.

The progression of ideas is clear. The response is narrowly focused, concentrating on the “fairness” issue and ignoring the information that argues against some of these animals. For this grade level, this is an adequate approach.

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: 4082

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy