Grade 3

Opinion

Writing Extended Response

Compose Full Texts

Islands

Conventions

Evidence/Elaboration

Organization/Purpose

This response receives No Score because it is Insufficient. Other than the insertion of the phrase “I like” at the start of the essay, the rest of the text is copied directly from Source 2. There is not a sufficient amount of original work from the student to determine trait scores.

This response receives a No Score because it is Off-Purpose. The assigned task is to “give your opinion about which type of island would be better to visit—a hot island or a cold island.” While this response is on-topic in that it deals with visiting a “hot” island, and it does reflect a preference for going to a hot island rather than a cold island, it is a fictional narrative and does not possess the characteristics of an opinion essay.

There are no errors with grammar usage.

There are no errors with sentence structure.

There is a single spelling error: &#8220;Maby&#8221;

There is an unnecessary use of a capital letter: Island.

There is a missing endmark (period) between “ice skating” and “All.”

There are nearly no specific references to text details and no attributions to source materials in this response.

The few details that are included refer to cold weather (snowman, skiing, ice skating) but do not reflect a close reading of the sources. References to sledding and bears, only vaguely related to the text details about dog-sledding and polar bears, are relevant enough to make this response scoreable even if only at the lowest score point category.

This brief response introduces a clear statement of opinion about the writer’s choice and concludes with a statement that generally matches that position.

There are no real transitions other than the phrase “All in all.”

The response is too brief to determine a purposeful progression of ideas. Instead, there is a seemingly random list of reasons that do not reflect the content of the source materials; they are relevant only in that they reflect cold weather activities.

It is difficult to separate how this response demonstrates competence with sentence structure and punctuation skills. Although grade 3 writers are not accountable for formal sentence errors such as run-ons and fragments, this response shows limited understanding of the need to separate ideas into punctuated sentences. This lack of understanding also causes confusion.

There are no identifiable errors with grammar usage.

There are no errors with capital letters (presumably “DANGERIS” is an attempt at style).

There are multiple spelling errors.

There are a few unattributed details from source materials in this response.

The attempted elaboration is limited to interpretations that don’t necessarily support the stated opinion (“dangeris” animals and “stuf” in the water) or are irrelevant as presented (“weapons” and “But you get a house”).

The language is general, and there is no evidence of style appropriate for the task.

There is a clear position in this response.

There is no distinct introduction, with the opinion combined with a list of reasons. There is a brief, one line conclusion.

There is no apparent progression of ideas and no appropriate transitions connecting the seemingly random reasons that do not always, as presented, support the opinion (“DANGERIS animals live there be care full with weapons,” “the water has dagneris stuf…” and “Cold islands have snow you half to hunt a lot its freezeing cold”).

There are no grade 3-specific errors with sentences.

There are no errors with grammar usage. Note that frequently confused words (e.g., “Their” for &#8220;There&#8221;) do not reflect grade 3 expectations.

The errors in punctuation are not relevant for grade 3.

There is an unnecessary capital letter for “More.”

This response does integrate (and in a simplistic way, synthesize) details from both sources (e.g., “you won’t have much of a food choice but you won’t have to have many hurricanes”). There is also some copying (“live in brightly colored houses that dot the hill side”) and close paraphrasing (“rocky…covered in ice, but they are very pretty” versus “rocky and are covered in ice but are very beutiful”).

Elaboration is limited to a few hypothetical connections (“You might be able to skate on the ice,” “you will be able to stay inside a house and it won’t get hot,” “you can bring coats,” and the somewhat specious connection: “if you run out of water…”).

Overall, the language use is general.

There is no separate introduction in this response, and the conclusion is missing entirely.

There is a clear statement of opinion (“you should visit the cold islands”).

There are few transitions other than “Also.”

The paragraphing is arbitrary, with the progression of ideas being mostly a list-like presentation of reasons to compare the cold and hot islands and support the position favoring “cold.”

There are no grade 3-relevant errors with sentence structure.

There are no grade 3-relevant errors with capitalization.

There are no grade 3-relevant errors with punctuation.

There is an error with subject/verb agreement with a close subject and verb (“…tropical island have…”). In the last sentence of the first paragraph, “hill” should be plural.

There are frequent spelling errors (e.g., “beutiful,” “swiming,” “baots”). “Vaction” and “chimpanzee” (which are in the source materials) as well as “uniqe” are probably not grade 3 words.

There are appropriate details used (but not attributed) primarily from source 2 in this response.

There is, however, almost no elaboration with only a few brief extensions going beyond the text (e.g., “You may get lucky” and “go exploring”).

Language use is appropriate, with words such as “unique” and “amazing” enhancing the response.

There is also a strong sense of style (e.g., use of imperative sentences such as “Try to find these unique animals” and “Do these amazing activities”). Despite the distinctive style, there is insufficient elaboration to earn more than a 2.

There is no separate introduction or conclusion in this response.

The first paragraph does present a clear position, and the final sentence offers closure.

It is somewhat difficult to distinguish the progression of ideas, with animals and activities being covered in both paragraphs.

There are few transitions (with  the exception of “and”) to clarify relationships in the list of details included.

There are no grade 3-appropriate errors with sentences (run-on sentences are not considered errors until grade 4).

There are no grade 3-appropriate errors with punctuation (commas in compound sentences and following introductory elements are not grade 3 errors).

There are no errors with capitalization.

There are no errors with  spelling.

Responsibility for subject/verb agreement begins in grade 3 as a “language progression skill,” meaning competency with the skills is dependent on the complexity of sentence compared with the grade level. Arguably, “there is soft, sandy beaches” has enough distance between the subject and verb to be above grade 3 level; however, the subject and verb in “there is vines” are close enough that the lack of agreement should count as an error. There are no other grade 3-appropriate errors in this category (3rd graders are not accountable for frequently confused words such as “your” for &#8220;you’re&#8221;).
&nbsp;

As would be expected, most of the details in this response come from source 2, about warm islands. However, paragraph 2 also references source 1, explaining what the writer deems as inferior food offerings on cold islands compared with what’s available on warm islands.

There are no specific attributions to the source materials (a distinctive weakness for this score point, but representing only one bullet point on the rubric).

There is some elaboration, although it is uneven. Paragraph 2 has no elaboration, although the writer has made some implied value judgments about preferable food. Paragraphs 3 &amp; 4 show some elaboration via inferences: “you don’t need as many clothes,” (although it’s not clear why that’s an advantage), and “vines to climb” (again, explaining that climbing vines would be fun would help).

The language use is general and often self-evident (“The island heat is a lot warmer than the cold islands”), and the repetitive transitions are distracting.

There is evidence of an emerging sense of (if not skill with) style: the rhetorical questions used to frame the essay attempt to engage the reader with a conversational style. Otherwise, the style is overall perfunctory but consistent. When considering the overall rubric descriptors, this essay edges into the score point 3 category.

There is a clear statement of opinion (“warm islands”), and the rhetorical question (“You want to know why?”) is used to set up the road map for the essay.

The last sentence in the introduction provides a transition that sounds artificial (“keep reading to find out…”). The transitions between paragraphs are predictable and repetitive (“The first/second/third reason I want to visit”). And the final sentence in each body paragraph echoes the first sentence (“That’s the first/second/last reason I want to visit”), rendering these transitions more distracting than appropriate. Internal transitions in paragraphs 2 and 3 are subtle (“On cold islands….But on warm islands…” and “If….than [then]…”), but in paragraph 4, they once again become needlessly repetitive (“first of all…second of all…last of all…”). Although the redundant and artificial transitions diminish the effectiveness of this response, it has enough qualities of a score point 3 to move into that scoring category.

Although the introduction is perfunctory, it is adequate. The conclusion, however, is inadequate, posing a rhetorical question that is ineffective to conclude an essay, providing only a limited sense of completeness.

The progression of ideas does maintain the focus (and roadmap) described in the introduction.

Although there are some awkward constructions (e.g., the last sentence in paragraph 5), there are no grade 3-appropriate sentence errors.
&nbsp;

The only grade 3-relevant error in grammar usage is the use of “a” instead of “an” to precede “island” (paragraph 2). Note: errors with frequently confused words (“your” instead of you’re and “then” instead of than) are grade 4 errors.
&nbsp;

There are no grade 3-relevant errors in punctuation.
&nbsp;

There is a missing capital letter for the pronoun I in paragraph 3. Note: the seemingly unnecessary capital on “Some” in paragraph 3 is likely there because it should have been the beginning of quoted material.
&nbsp;

There are numerous spelling errors of grade 3-appropriate words (e.g., “wheater,” “alot,” “mountins,” “opion/opioin,” “diffrent,” “islnds,” “bannanas,” “chmps”).

In this response, there are sufficient details selected from source #2; however, source #1 is not referenced other than to clarify the task – hot versus cold weather islands).  Many source details are copied, especially in paragraphs 3 and 4, which are word-for-word copies in some places. Failing to use quotation marks to indicate what material is quoted is a weakness.

The attributions to source materials are somewhat awkward (“I got this information on…”), but they are there.

However, there is an adequate amount of the student’s own writing in other paragraphs to evaluate for elaboration. Specifically, paragraphs 3 and 4 end with commentary : “That is something you would want to go see” and “How cool would it be to see….”  Paragraph 2 and the conclusion also develop the writer’s ideas (via personal connection: “When I want to go swimming…I want it to be warm” and advice: “Listen to me and take my advice”). Some parts of the response lack development. Paragraph 5, for example, lists the “tropical stuff” but doesn’t explain why these are special (presumably, coconuts and other fruits are tasty, but these qualities are implied rather than developed).

The language used is mostly general (“stuff”).

The style is appropriate, and the writer has attempted to utilize voice to persuade the audience (e.g., “Pack up all your things”). Although there are some weaknesses in this response, overall it has enough qualities of the score point 3 category to earn that score.

The introduction to this response begins by summarizing the task (although it says “reading a book” instead of “making a book”) followed by a statement providing context (“there are two types”) and a clear choice or opinion. The mildly repetitive conclusion is adequate, summarizing the “reasons” but also adding some personal spin (“Listen to me and take my advice”). The final advice to move to a tropical place (“But don’t sell your house.”) is somewhat distracting and off-task, but it doesn’t alter the focus of the writing.

Although the opinion is somewhat muddled (“If your planning…to go a nice, tropical island…go to a hot island”—as if there were any other kind of tropical island), this does not interfere with meaning.

Overall, the progression of ideas is quite clear and is clarified with formulaic transitions between paragraphs: “My first reason,” “Another reason,” etc. There are few internal transitions, and most of the details provided (those that aren’t copied from the sources) are listed.

There are no sentence structure errors. Note that phrases such as “Even adults” are deemed stylistic, not errors.

The few errors in punctuation do not reflect grade 3 requirements.

There are no errors in capitalization.

There are no errors in grammar usage.

This essay does integrate details from both sources primarily by drawing relevant comparisons (“You wouldn’t want to do this on a cold island because…,” “interesting plants on both…but it’s warmer…so plants might thrive…”).

The references to source materials are attributed.

There are a variety of effective elaborative strategies employed throughout. For example, paragraph 2 begins with an analogy about a zoo to help readers connect to the variety of wildlife in the tropics. Paragraph 4 turns negatives into positives, addressing the downsides of the rainy season first (lots of rain and hurricanes) and then contrasting by pointing out the upsides of the season (playing in puddles and homes built to withstand hurricanes). The response also includes commentary and comparisons such as “You wouldn’t want to do this on a cold island because that the water would probably be cold…”.

The language used is mostly effective with words (e.g., “thrive” and “relaxing”) and phrases (e.g., “sipping from a tall glass of ice-cold lemonade”), although there are occasional lapses (some repetitions, e.g., “tropical islands are better/best…”).

The style is mature for a third grader with the introduction serving as a good example of mixing effective rhetorical questions/answers, inviting readers to “imagine” themselves in this environment. Wording such as “Well…” show further evidence of an intentional conversational style.

This response has an engaging introduction that effectively defines “tropical,” invites readers to imagine themselves in the setting, and states a clear position on the question of hot or cold. The conclusion is not as effective as the introduction, although it does offer clear closure.

The essay progresses from tropical animals, to nature, to activities. That progression of ideas is sustained with two exceptions: Arguably, the middle of paragraph 2—about swimming—should have been in paragraph 5—about activities, and sentences 4 and 5 in paragraph 5 (“You can look at wildlife…Beautiful places everywhere.”) should have been in paragraph 2.

This response has an engaging introduction that effectively defines “tropical,” invites readers to imagine themselves in the setting, and states a clear position on the question of hot or cold.

Some transitions seemed forced, especially between body paragraphs. For example, the sentences “tropical islands are better”; “Tropical islands are the best!”; “Now do tropical islands seem comforting and warm?”; and “Obviously, you should either visit or move to a tropical island” appear to be tacked on: they are mildly distracting and more characteristic of a 3 paper than a 4. Internal transitions are appropriate and varied (“For example,” “But,” “In fact,” “Well,” “Now…”).

There are no sentence structure errors in this response.

There appears to be some struggle with compound words, evident by multiple word choice errors. For example, when the student uses “a” instead of “an” before the word&#8221; assortment.&#8221; Additionally, in the same paragraph, paragraph 3, “any where” is used instead of “anywhere.&#8221; The same error is later made with the word “water falls.&#8221;

There is a capitalization error in the fourth paragraph. The word “The” is capitalized in the second line when it does not need to be.

There are no spelling errors in this response.

There are a couple of places where the student missed and apostrophe (e.g., “cant” and “its”). Additionally, a period is used as an end mark to a question instead of a question mark in paragraph five.

This response contains convincing details that are attributed to source #2.

Overall, the response demonstrates a variety of elaboration strategies. For example, there is elaboration via commentary (“You cant do that anywhere else” “What an experience that would be”).  Much of the development comes through inferences. For example, there are some mature inferences (e.g., “You will be so occupied there will be no time to be bored”) along with a few somewhat obvious inferences (e.g., “it [source 2] says tropical islands are near the equator which means the ocean water is warm”), and some inferences that aren’t necessarily text-supported (e.g., “palm trees that you can’t find any where else!”).

However, some text details are directly copied (but not quoted) along with an additional brief comment (e.g., “Did you know that [copied detail about lagoons]?” “[copied detail about sea creatures] just to name a few”).

Despite some general language (especially transitions), there are many effective words (e.g., “escape,” “occupied,” and “terrifyingly”) along with phrases (e.g.,  “Interestingly enough” and “entertaining place”) that successfully engage the reader.

These same phrases, along with some well-chosen (if not well-punctuated) comments and question/answers (“You can’t do that….can you!”) establish a conversational style that is effective for the audience.

The introduction to this response begins by providing a context via a rhetorical question, along with a clear opinion about a comparison between tropical and cold islands. This is followed by a list of the support to be used. The conclusion basically repeats this list of topics and is not effective.

The introduction to this response begins by providing a context via a rhetorical question, along with a clear opinion about a comparison between tropical and cold islands.

The obvious progression of ideas is sustained, along with predictable transitions between paragraphs (“To begin with,” “Second,” “Third,” “Lastly,” “That is why I…”). Within paragraphs, there are some subtle transitions (“Amazingly enough,” “Interestingly enough”) as well as more typical connectors such as “also.”

Because there are so many missing or inappropriate words, and only one period, it is difficult to assess where sentences begin or end  (e.g., “so thats it id pick the hot island only if and my there was water so the winner is hot island yea and…bye”).

Again, missing and/or inappropriate phrases make it difficult to assess control of grammar usage.

Errors with spelling cause confusion (“head aces,” “becouse,” “thermea”).

There are missing capital letters for the personal pronoun “I” and at the beginning of sentences.

There are missing apostrophes with contractions (“that[’]s,” “i[’]d”) and the response has only one period.

There are no specific references to text details. The few details that are included refer to “thermea and coldness and head aces”.

There are no attributions to source materials in this response.

The few details that are included refer to “thermea and coldness and head aces”.

The vocabulary is limited and ineffective in that it is difficult to understand what the writer is trying to convey.

As a result, there is also no style evident that would be appropriate for the audience.

This brief response introduces a clear statement of opinion about the writer’s choice, and concludes with a statement that matches that position.

This brief response introduces a clear statement of opinion about the writer’s choice and concludes with a statement that matches that position.

The writer does not utilize any real transitional strategies.

The response is too brief to determine a purposeful progression of ideas. However, there is a brief list of difficult to comprehend reasons why the student would prefer a hot island over a cold island.

This response has no grade 3-appropriate errors in sentence structure. However, there are places where missing words (e.g., “My opinion is to [go] to a hot…”) and odd sentence order (“Hot islands i sugest you go to…”) cause confusion.

The personal pronoun “I” lacks capital letters.
&nbsp;

Overall, there are few errors with grammar usage although awkward or imprecise use of prepositions (“My opinion for a cold island…”) cause confusion.
&nbsp;

There are errors with missing end marks (“on a cold island My opinion…”) and the apostrophe is missing from the contraction “that[’]s.”
&nbsp;

There are relatively frequent errors with spelling (“can not” for “cannot,” “swiming,” “realy,” “sugest,” “vaction”).

There are nearly no specific references to text details, and no attributions to source materials in this response.

References to fishing, swimming, and vacation, only vaguely related to the text details about islands, are relevant enough to make this response scoreable even if only at the lowest score point category. The few details that are included refer to cold weather (fishing) and warm weather (swimming) but do not reflect a close reading of the sources.

The vocabulary is somewhat ineffective for the audience in that the writer directly addresses the reader by using the personal pronoun “you.”

The style of directly addressing the reader by using the personal pronoun &#8220;you&#8221; is not appropriate.

This response introduces a statement of opinion about the writer&#8217;s choice and concludes with a statement that generally matches that position.

This response introduces a statement of opinion about the writer&#8217;s choice.

The writer’s use of transitional strategies is basic (e.g., “you can also,” “Another reason,” and “If you choose”).

The response is brief, but the progression of ideas is distinguishable, although inconsistent and repetitive. There is a list of reasons that vaguely reflect the content of the source materials; they are relevant in that they reflect both hot and cold weather activities like swimming and fishing.

Although there are run-on sentences, these are not considered grade 3 skills.
&nbsp;

There are a few grade 3-appropriate errors with grammar usage (e.g., there is an error with what should be a single, not a plural noun–“hats”). There is an error with adverbs (the comparative eas[i]er should either be “more easily,” or the sentence should be [it is] easier to find…”). There is also an awkward or imprecise use of prepositions (“reason to lve in a warm island…”). Note also that grade 3 students are not accountable for frequently confused words (“witch” instead of which, “cloths” for clothes).
&nbsp;

There are missing apostrophes with contractions (wont, cant), and there are missing commas in a simple list (“your coat[,] your hats[,] or gloves”).
&nbsp;

There is an unnecessary initial capital letter in the word “Summer.”
&nbsp;

There are some spelling errors (“wam,” “helthy,” “caan,” “lve,” “alot”).

There are not many specific references to text details and no attributions to source materials in this response.

The details that are included refer to ease or difficulty of finding food based on whether the island is warm or cold, but do not reflect a close reading of the sources.

References to the inability to grow food on a cold island; not needing “your coat your hats or gloves”; and “helthy food to eat like fruits,” vaguely relate to the text details about islands.

The vocabulary is somewhat ineffective for the audience contributing to the inconsistency of the style.

This response introduces a statement of opinion about the writer’s choice but concludes with an extraneous statement about animals that strays from that position.

The writer’s use of transitional strategies is basic (e.g., “If you were…”, “Another reason”, “…you also…”, and “One thing”).

The progression of ideas in this response focuses on a formulaic comparison and contrast of ease or difficulty of accessing food and clothing on an island based on whether it is warm or cold. The list of reasons vaguely reflects the content of the source materials.

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.

Examples

Purpose

More Resources for Teachers

Connect

Policy