Transcript Rating the I-ELDA Writing

Rating the
I-ELDA Writing
Training of Raters
1
Table of Contents
The Need for Training……………………..p. 3 – 7
Recommended Ways to Rate………….....p. 8 - 9
The I-ELDA Writing Rubric...……………...p.10
Description of the Score Points…….........p.11 - 17
The Writing Rubric’s Criteria……………...p.18 - 44
Descriptions & Training Exercises
Cognitive Differences in I-ELDA Writing...p. 45 – 55
2
Training is Needed to Develop:
 Validity
= Accuracy in rating
the Writing
 Reliability
= Consistency in
rating the Writing
These are needed throughout the entire state to
identify the effectiveness of the I-ELDA items and
to get the best picture of our ELLs’ Writing abilities.
3
Rating the I-ELDA is different than how
teachers evaluate school writing.
Teachers:

Identify mistakes - Red Ink corrections

Diagnose kinds of errors:
100%
Mechanical and Grammatical
-25%
75%

Take away from the total possible
The I-ELDA Writing Rubric:

Focuses on strengths and not weaknesses
in ELLs’ writing.

It compares their skills to those of native writers.
4
Additional Challenges:

The tendency for raters to look at the student’s
writing as a final product.
”This is a first draft. However, do not look at
the written responses as a 1st draft that the
students will have an opportunity to rewrite.”
Dr. Carmen Sosa, 2008

Making inferences about what the students
meant to write if “given the opportunity”.
Be objective when rating and follow the
rubric for the written response that is given.
5
Rating I-ELDA Writing differs from
scoring an ESL Placement Test

The use of the I-ELDA Rubric requires a more
in-depth look at the writing skills used by native
writers of English.
 Main
Idea
 Details
 Comprehension
 Audience

I-ELDA Raters must develop a scoring philosophy
.
that applies the rubric in an accurate and
consistent way to guarantee that the ratings
are valid and reliable.
6
Our Goal ~ To train all raters to understand
and correctly use the I-ELDA Writing Rubric
when they are rating responses.
Resources available from Northwest AEA:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The I-ELDA Rubric (Same as last year’s)
Rater’s Manual: Guidelines for rating Part 1 of the I-ELDA’s
Writing Assessment.
Anchor Sets: Samples of actual score points & articulations
that explain the rationale for assigning the score.
 NEW this year: Short Anchor Set – Has the common
prompt from Forms 1, 2, & 3 (numeric instead of
alphabetical form name) and Articulations to guide
the rater in scoring this test item.
This Training Power Point & Articulations (Explanations).
7
Recommended Ways to Rate
Writing Responses
1.
Rate the responses for the prompt found in the Short
Anchor Set first to follow its framework and have
exemplars to use when starting the rating process.
FORM 3’s Common Prompt
Item #2 ~ Gr. 3-5 and Gr. 6-8
Item #1 ~ Gr. 9-12

Refer to the Articulations (Explanations)
2. Rate all students’ responses for a single prompt
before moving on to another prompt (vs. rating all
the responses of one student before moving on to
another student’s writing).
8
Recommended Ways,
continued…
3. 60 Second Time Limit for the 1st reading of each written
response. This prevents “over-thinking” the response.
 Set the paper aside if a score is not made in 60 seconds.
 Refer to the rubric before returning to rate the item.
4. “Blind” Rating – Remove identifiers on papers
(e.g., ELLs’ names, school) to reduce scorer bias.
5.
Multiple Rating = Have two or more people rate
the writing to determine a consensus score.
9
The I-ELDA Rubric
Score
Criteria
for
Scoring
0
1
2
3
Left blank
-Written in a language
other than English
States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
States or implies
the main idea of the
prompt
States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
Fails to demonstrate
an understanding of
the task
-Off-topic
Includes few, if
any, details
Includes vague,
partially relevant
details
Includes
relevant, specific
details
Incomprehensible due
to mechanical and/or
grammatical errors
Comprehension
may be interfered
with by mechanical
and/or grammatical
errors
 Comprehension
may be interfered
with by mechanical
by and/or
grammatical errors
Mechanical
and/ or
grammatical
errors do not
interfere with
comprehension
Language is
somewhat
appropriate to the
topic & audience
Language is
appropriate to the
topic & audience
10
Score Point 0 ~ Used to indicate any
written response that cannot be fairly assessed
(That is, it cannot receive a score of 1, 2, or 3).
* Left blank
X
* Written in a language other than English.
.
No entiendo.
ABCDEF
* Fails to demonstrate an understanding
of the task
I no rit gud
*Off-topic
I luv ESL.
*Incomprehensible due to mechanical
and/or grammatical errors
.
(See next page)
11
Score 0
.
Incomprehensible due to
mechanical and/or grammatical errors

English words are used in the response, but they
are put together in such a way that the main idea
or supporting details cannot be identified at all.
 Note - If even one new word or idea is
prompt,

recognizable, and it is related to the
the response can be scored.
Completely illegible handwriting.
 Note - Responses with some legible words
may be scorable.
12
Description of Score Point 1

Responses are usually very limited in the
amount of detail they include and the writing
skills they can demonstrate.

Some responses may also include any of the
scorable exceptions listed under Score Point “0”
(e.g., students use words in their 1st language in addition
to English).

This score should be given to responses with
the fewest supporting details.

Its responses lack a clear and full demonstration
of developing writing skills.
13
Description of Score Point 2

Able to do more than express a main idea
and offer a few supporting details (as shown at
Score Point “1”).




They do not have the range and consistency
expected for a score of “3”.
Responses at level “2” show some developing
writing skills, but they are often inconsistent.
Neither length nor fluency alone should ever be
the sole criterion for a score of “2”.
 Responses can be either long or short.
They may demonstrate fluent or weak language
skills, and sometimes both.
14
Description of Score Point 3


A score of “3” for an item on the I-ELDA should
indicate that the response shows student
readiness to participate in content-area writing
activities with native writers of English.
It does not indicate mastery of the English
language, so a response does not need to be
totally perfect.
 Native

writers make errors on their 1st drafts as well.
It shows that an ELL can produce a writing
sample that demonstrates an understanding
of the principles of good writing and meets
the criteria set by the I-ELDA Writing Rubric.
15
Additional Info

Individual Lapses (inconsistent production of
a student’s writing) can sometimes result from:
 Confusing
prompts
 Poor time management
 The student’s lack of familiarity with
the given topic

Length should not be used as
the sole factor for determining
the score of a response.
16

Poor handwriting should not
be penalized.
1.
The size or appearance doesn’t
affect the quality of the response.
2.
Seek assistance if you cannot read the writing.
The goal of scoring with the I-ELDA
Writing Rubric is to reward writers
for what they do well and not to penalize
them for what they do poorly.
17
I-ELDA Writing Rubric Criteria
for Score Points 1, 2, and 3
Note - This is not
the entire rubric.
Criterion 1 Main Idea
Criterion 2 Details
Criterion 3 Comprehension
Criterion 4 Audience
1
2
3
· States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
· States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
· States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
· Includes few, if
any, details
·Includes vague,
partially relevant
details
·Includes relevant,
specific details
· Comprehension
may be interfered
with by
mechanical and/or
grammatical
errors
· Comprehension
may be interfered
with by
mechanical and/or
grammatical
errors
· Mechanical
and/ or
grammatical
errors do not
interfere with
comprehension
· Language is
somewhat
appropriate to
the topic and
audience
· Language is
appropriate to
the topic and
audience
18
Taking a closer look at
each of the criteria…
Next, each Criterion (& its Writing Skill) will
be studied. This includes:
1.
2.
3.
A description of the 3 possible score points.
Considerations to use when assessing each skill.
A training exercise for rating the specific skill.
(Note I-ELDA test items are not used for this.)
4.
Scores for the training exercise along with
Articulations, which explain how the score
was reached.
19
Criterion #1 - States or Implies the
Main Idea of the Prompt
Criterion 1
Main Idea
1
States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
2
·
States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
3
States or implies
the main idea of
the prompt
Note:
 By itself, there is no distinction on the I-ELDA Writing Rubric
between the 3 score points for rating the Main Idea.

When rating, it is important to look at the “big picture” (= all
of the writing skills). Consider the other criteria when rating.
·
·
20
The following characteristics may be observed
with the Main Idea Criterion:
Score 1 - Responses may minimally restate the prompt and
add one new piece of information.



Note - Even a one word response can be scored a “1” if it can be
related to the topic of the prompt.
When the prompt asks for a paragraph, a response at a level “1”
may contain several (2-3) short, simple sentences.
Length should never be the sole criterion for a score of “1”.
Score 2 - Whether stated or implied, the main idea is usually
clear and related to the prompt.
Score 3 - Responses may, but do not always, state the main
idea in the form of a topic sentence.
21
Training Exercise for Rating the Main Idea
(Note: This is not a test item from any form of the I-ELDA)
Prompt:
Write 2 or more sentences in your journal. Tell your teacher
what is your favorite color and why you like this color.
Responses
A. My favorite color is
B. Blue
C. El color que me gusta más es azul porque es
el color del cielo. En inglés se llama BLUE.
D. My favorite movie is Shrek!
E. My favorite color is blue…
22
Articulations (Explanations) of the Scores for Criterion # 1 - MAIN IDEA
A. My favorite color is = 0
This response should receive a score of “0”. While it restates part of the prompt,
it does not add any new information and, thus, fails to create a main idea.
B. Blue = 1
This very brief response is still able to express an original idea that can clearly be
related to the prompt. Thus, it represents a minimal “1”.
C. El color que me gusta más… = 1
While this response is written mostly in Spanish, it contains the single English
word “blue.” As with the previous example, it does, then, contain an English
writing sample that is sufficient and appropriate for a score of “1” rather than “0”.
D. My favorite movie is Shrek! = 0
This response is also a “0”. While it expresses a main idea, the response cannot
be related to the original prompt, resulting in a response that is “off topic.”
E. My favorite color is blue... = 1, 2,or 3 – The other criteria affect this final rating.
As a stand-alone sentence in a response, this sentence warrants a score of”1”
since it expresses a clear main idea with no additional details. However, as you will see
in the examples that follow, writing sample Example E above contains sufficient
expression of the main idea of this prompt to serve as a topic sentence for responses at
score points 1, 2 and 3.
The I-ELDA rubric identifies main ideas as either stated or implied and does not
request qualitative evaluation of a main idea so long as it is appropriate for the topic of
the prompt. In fact, the rubric will even allow main ideas that are factually incorrect.
23
Criterion #2 – Use of Details
Criterion 2
Details
1
2
· Includes few,
if any, details
·Includes vague,
partially relevant
details
3
·
·Includes relevant,
specific details

Don’t count sentences; look for ideas.

The rating is rubric-driven, not prompt-driven.
24
Use of Details
Qualitative > Quantitative

Look for:
1. Ideas and not sentences
2. Groups of related ideas and
.
not paragraphs

Two good ideas in a complex or compound
sentence are still two good ideas, even if they
are grammatically-flawed.

Remember ~ Native writers have problems
forming correct sentences too on their 1st draft.
25
Criterion #2 – Use of Details

Rewrites and Restatements do not express
new ideas or new details, and should not be
considered when evaluating a response for
these criteria on the rubric.

Extra Information, or additional information in
the response, should not affect the score given.
 This
includes: Formulaic structures (e.g., lists),
and sentences that present non-essential, trivial,
incorrect, or repetitious information.
26
Criterion #2 - Details ~ Score 1
Includes few, if any, details


Responses may repeat or restate the same
ideas in multiple sentences.
They show little or no ability to expand or
develop supporting details.
27
Criterion #2 - Details ~ Score 2
Includes vague, partially relevant details

Provides more details than a “1”; however, these may not be
complete. They may be:



Vague = Too general to provide much clarification of the main idea
or too incomplete for anyone other than the writer to understand.
Partially relevant = Details do little to enhance the description,
explanation, or argument that the writer is making.
May show a greater level of writing skills.
One indicator of developing writing skills is the ability of the
writer to expand or develop the details used to describe the
main idea. In other words— They give details about
their details.
Writers at Score Point “2” may or may not be able to do this
consistently, if at all, but they should be rewarded when they can.
28
Criterion #2 - Details ~ Score 3
Includes relevant, specific details

Very often “3’s” can combine multiple ideas in
smooth complex and/or compound sentences.
 They
should be recognized for this advanced writing skill.

The majority of details should be relevant, specific,
or both.

Responses with extra ideas that are not specific
or relevant should not affect the score.
 If
the prompt asks for three sentences (ideas) and the
student provides 6 (= three that are appropriate and three
that wander off the topic), they should be rewarded for
meeting the minimum criterion for a score of 3.
29
Training Exercise for Rating Details
Prompt:
(Note: This is not a test item from any I-ELDA)
Write 2 or more sentences in your journal. Tell your teacher
what is your favorite color and why you like this color.
Responses
A. I like blue.
B. My favorite color is blue. My shoes is blue.
The sky is blue.
C. My favorite color is blue because it is best.
D. My favorite color is blue because it is a
color of nature. The sky is blue on a sunny
day. The ocean water looks blue.
E. It is the color of the sky on a sunny day.
30
It is the ocean and rivers.
Articulations (Explanations) of the Scores for Criterion # 2 – DETAILS
A. I like blue. = 1
This response offers only a main idea and no details. However, by the I-ELDA
rubric, it is sufficient for a score of ‘1”.
B. My favorite color is blue. My shoes is blue... = 2
This response offers us a clear main idea and several specific and/or relevant
details. As a result, it merits a score of “2”.
C. My favorite color is blue because it is best.= 1
This response offers a main idea and a single, vague detail. Because the detail
is unsupported, nonspecific and, as a result, irrelevant, the response remains
clearly at score point “1”.
D. My favorite color is blue because it is a color of nature... = 3
This response has a clear main idea and sufficient details to warrant a score
of “3”. While it does not address audience, voice or format, its level of detail
along with its clean mechanical and grammatical usage allow us to identify it
as a minimal”3”.
E. It is the color of the sky on a sunny day... = 2
This response does not have a stated main idea. It does, however, contain
several relevant and specific details that allow us to clearly identify an implied
main idea (My favorite color is blue.) Nevertheless, it contains neither sufficient
detail nor indicators of understanding of audience, voice or format that would
allow us to promote it to a “3”.
31
Criterion #3 - Comprehension
Criterion 3
Comprehension


1
2
· Comprehension
may be interfered
with by mechanical
and/or grammatical
errors
· Comprehension
may be interfered
with by mechanical
and/or grammatical
errors
·
3
· Mechanical
and/ or grammatical
errors do not
interfere with
comprehension
The comprehensibility of a response cannot be used to
distinguish a score of “1” and a score of “2”.
Comprehensible responses may be rewarded with a
score of “3” if they minimally meet the other criteria.
32
Kinds of Errors:
Mechanical = Spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc.
Grammatical = Correct use of verb tenses, plurals,
noun/verb agreement, etc.
Native-like errors that are understandable should not affect the
score. Examples: Common spelling errors, run-on sentences, etc..
Consider:
1.
2.
Whether the errors “interfere with comprehension”
= Affect one’s understanding of the response.
The consistency of errors in the writing.
Errors should never be the sole criterion to be considered
when determining a score.
33
Criterion #3 - Comprehension ~
Scores 1 and 2
Comprehension may be interfered with
by mechanical &/or grammatical errors



The I-ELDA Writing Rubric does not use these
errors to distinguish between score points “1”
and “2”, and raters should not either.
A response with no errors whatsoever may still
only receive a score of “1” if it has few, if any,
details.
Weak mechanical and/or grammatical skills should
never be the only criterion for a score of “1”.
34
Criterion #3 - Comprehension ~ Score 3
Mechanical and grammatical errors
do not interfere with comprehension



Errors may resemble those commonly made by native
writers of a similar grade level. Examples include:
 Incorrect subject-verb agreement.
 Spelling words like they sound- e.g. “there” for “ they’re”.
 Run-on sentences.
 Inconsistently leaving out words or grammatical markers
(e.g., past tense “-ed” or plural “-s”).
Occasional errors that do not interfere with the message
should not be penalized.
A response with complex grammatical structures that are
not perfect may actually show stronger writing skills than a
response with only simple correct grammatical forms.
35
Training Exercise for Rating Comprehension
Prompt:
(Note: This is not a test item from any form of the I-ELDA)
Write 2 or more sentences in your journal. Tell your teacher
what is your favorite color and why you like this color.
Responses
A. i lik blu
B.
My favorit color is blue, its found every were in
nacher. I relly like the blue colors their are in the
sky when the sun sets and rises and the ocen can
be many blues to.
C. Why I like this color blue my techer haf
blue ice
D. My frifort coler is blu. It is the coler of the sky
and the oshun. Blue is a prity coler.
36
Articulations (Explanations) for Criterion # 3 – COMPREHENSION
A. i lik blu. = 1
This response presents nothing more than a barely recognizable main idea
wrapped in spelling and usage errors. Nevertheless, it is still sufficient for
a score of “1”.
B. My favorit color is blue… = 3
While this response exhibits a variety and frequency of mechanical and
grammatical errors, they do not substantially impede comprehension and are
similar to the kinds of errors that occur in the writing of Native Writers at the same
grade level. This writer also demonstrates the ability to create correct complex
sentences, a strength that should be rewarded. In spite of its usage weaknesses,
this response shows a level of detail that is appropriate for a “3”.
C. Why I like this coler blue... = 1
This writing sample shows another way that students might use the prompt
framework in a way that does not add to the value of their response. We can,
however, locate a clear main idea (blue), a small indicator of audience awareness
(teacher) and one relevant and specific detail (blue ice). Nevertheless, this
response can earn a score no higher than a “1”.
D. My frifort coler is blue… = 2
Based on its main idea and several details, this response merits a score of “2”.
Although it is filled with mechanical errors, they do not seriously impair
comprehension. Please note that the Writing Rubric for I-ELDA does not
distinguish between score points 1 and 2 with regard to the quantity (or quality)
of mechanical and grammatical errors. This response does not contain the level
of detail or audience awareness that is needed for a score of “3”.
37
Criterion #4 - Language of the
Topic and Audience
Criterion 4
Audience


1
2
·
· Language is somewhat
appropriate to the topic
and audience
3
· Language is
appropriate to the
topic and
audience
The I-ELDA Rubric uses this criterion only to distinguish
between responses at a level “2” and “3”.
Responses that do not address the language of the topic
and/or the audience may still receive a score of “1,2,or 3”
depending on how well they meet the other criteria.
38
Criterion #4 - Language of the
Topic and Audience ~ Score 1


The I-ELDA rubric does not consider this
criterion (i.e., the writer’s “voice”) at level “1”.
If a short response with weak language use
shows a strong association to the topic and/or
audience, as described in the rubric, it may be
more appropriately scored a “2”.
A
weak association would keep the score at “1”.
39
Criterion #4 - Language of the Topic
and Audience ~ Score 2
Language is somewhat appropriate
to the topic and audience.



Many of the prompts give guidelines for the
voice, format, and/or audience to be used.
Attempts made by a “2” to meet this criterion
are usually weak, random, or incomplete.
A short “1-like” response that has only a few
details may promote itself to a “2” if a strong
appropriate audience awareness or voice is
expressed.
40
Criterion #4 - Language of the Topic
and Audience ~ Score 3
The language of the response is
appropriate to the topic & audience.

A “3” should express the guidelines given in many of the
prompts more clearly and completely for the expected voice,
format, and/or audience.

Students may respond by putting the task into a format or voice
that is not required by the prompt, but is appropriate to it.


These can be quite original and may deserve a higher score.
A response that shows no indication of the expected voice,
format, and/or audience may still receive a score of “3” if it
shows strength in all of the other criteria of the rubric.
41
Training Exercise for Rating Audience
Prompt:
(Note: This is not a test item from any form of the I-ELDA)
Write 2 or more sentences in your journal. Tell your teacher
what is your favorite color and why you like this color.
Responses
A. It is the color of the sky on a sunny day.
It is beautiful. Can you guess what my
favorite color is?
B. Teacher my favorite color is blue.
C. My favorite color is blue. Is it your
favorite color too? It is the color of your
shirt and my pants. It is the color of the
sky and the ocean.
42
Articulations (Explanations) for Criterion # 4 – AUDIENCE
A. It is the color of the sky... = 2
This nonstandard response has an implied main idea (My favorite color
is blue), one specific and relevant detail, and one vague detail. It also
uses a question to infuse an awareness of audience. Considering these
factors together, this response merits a score of “2”. It would need more
indicators of audience awareness or more details to receive a higher
score.
B. Teacher my favorite color is blue = 1
This response has a clear main idea and makes a minimal effort to
address audience. However, the I-ELDA Writing Rubric does NOT use
the “Audience Awareness” criterion as an indicator of differences
between responses at score points 1 and 2. Thus, without additional
details, it cannot rise above a score of “1”.
C. My favorite color is blue. Is it your favorite color too?... = 3
This response earns a score of “3”. While it is not particularly strong with
regard to any of the rubric criteria, it doggedly presents a clear main idea,
several relevant and specific details, and several (“Is it your…? “… your
shirt…”) indicators of audience awareness that are appropriate for lower
grade levels.
43
Reaching a Final Score

Examine each written response in relation to
all four of the criteria used in the I-ELDA
Rubric to determine the most appropriate score
to assign.

Do not hold a response down based solely on
one weaker criterion.

Refer to the rating resources available (Rater’s
Manual, this PowerPoint, the Anchor Sets), as
often as needed, to answer any questions that
may arise while rating.
44
Reaching a Final Score, continued

Realize that variations occur when rating the
criteria.
 Student
responses rarely fit all the criteria equally
at a single score point.
 More often, they show some characteristics of 2 or more
score points.

Choose the score that is the “best fit” for the
STRENGTHS (not the weaknesses) of the writing.

Consult your ELLs’ content area teachers and/or
ESL teachers for a consensus opinion.
45
Cognitive Differences in
I-ELDA Writing Responses


I-ELDA uses the same rubric to evaluate writing
responses of students from 3rd – 12th grade.
As a result, the descriptions* of the criteria
at each of the three score points (1, 2, 3)
apply equally when rating all ELLs,
REGARDLESS OF AGE OR GRADE LEVEL.
*Found in the Rater’s Manual and in this Training Power Point
46
As students mature, they:
~ Develop greater cognitive abilities,
including higher order thinking skills.
~ Have had more experience with
learning how to write, even if only in
their first language, unless their education
was interrupted.
Remember ~


Written material can be a very important
indicator of advanced thinking skills.
The ability to demonstrate such skills in
a second language should be rewarded
when evaluating the writing of ELLs.
47
It’s easy to introduce related biases into the
scores given to responses on the I-ELDA.


Raters must be careful not to “dumb-down”
(i.e., lower) the rubric’s standards for middle
school and high school ELLs simply because
they are using the same rubric that is used to
evaluate elementary ELLs.
Nor should raters ever artificially or randomly
inflate these standards just because their
students are older.
The I-ELDA Writing Rubric is what it is,
and should never be changed to match
any particular student population.
48
Developmental differences across grade levels are,
for the most part, reflected in I-ELDA’s prompts.
~ Older students are usually asked to produce
longer and more complex writing samples.

Cognitive development can also be identified in
responses to “brief prompts” (where no additional
directions are given).
 For
example, students at all grade levels may have
prompts that ask them to “Describe the picture”.
ELLs who have had no experience with this kind of
prompt may wrestle with their response.
Raters, similarly, may wrestle to determine each score
point with these prompts.
“How much is enough?”
49
Training Exercise
The following training exercise shows how raters
might recognize advanced cognitive ability with
brief prompts such as,
“Describe the picture”.

This exercise focuses on the complexity of ideas
as it relates to the I-ELDA Rubric’s criteria
for Main Idea and Details.

The criteria for Comprehension and Audience
are not considered in these examples.
50
TRAINING PROMPT:
Describe the picture.
From the Clip Art collection for “piano players”.
* Note – This is not a real prompt from any of the I-ELDA levels.
51
SCORE 0
Responses:

There is a paper.

A mi hermano le gusta la música.
Articulation / Explanations:

These responses are unscoreable.

They cannot be fairly compared to responses
that are on topic and/or in English.
52
SCORE 1
Responses:

piano

The boy plays piano.

The boy and girl like music.

The boy and girl hear music. He plays piano.

The boy plays. The girl listens.

The girl loves the boy. The boy loves the music.
Articulation / Explanations:

These responses present a minimal amount of
information.

They express only a main idea or a main idea and
one (“few, if any”) detail.
53
SCORE 2
Responses:
1.
There is a boy and a girl and a piano. There is a big room.
There is a big piano. There is a big light.
2.
The boy plays the piano loud. The girl listens to him play.
3.
The girl likes the boy because he plays the piano so WELL.
4.
The girl loves the boy. The girl loves the piano too.
5.
The boy at the piano is the student. The girl is the teacher.
Articulation / Explanations:


Traditionally, responses at Score Point 2 include a list of
several details from the prompt picture (Example 1.).
Some short responses, like #2 – 5, may add an additional
level of detail and warrant a score of “2” if they relate details
to each other or to the main idea.
 They give details about their details even if they use few
words to do so.
54
SCORE 3
Responses:
1.
The girl is sitting. She has yellow hair. She is listening to the music. The
music is very loud. The boy plays piano. He has a blue jacket. The
piano is big. The piano is black. The room is big.
2.
The girl loves the boy playing the piano. She thinks he plays well. Some
day they will get married and he will teach her how to play the piano.
3.
There is a boy playing the piano and the girl who is listening to him play.
They are in a big room. The boy and the girl look small at the big piano.
4.
The boy is playing the piano for the girl who is listening to him.
She thinks his music is beautiful, BUT he really doesn’t play very
well.
5.
The boy is practicing his music lesson. The girl is his sister.
Their mom said she must make sure he finishes his lesson.
55
SCORE 3
Articulation / Explanations:




Example 1 shows a basic response worthy of a “3”
ONLY because of its many relevant and specific details.
The other examples are less like lists and more like
small stories about the picture.
While they only have a few more details than those
in Score Point 2, they relate the details back to the main
idea and to each other.
 In other words, they give details about details that
expand the main idea.
When students demonstrate such advanced cognitive
abilities, they should be rewarded, as long as the
responses match reasonably well with the other rubric
criteria at Score Point 3.
56
Your care in rating the I-ELDA
Writing will assure that the scoring
is valid and reliable for our ELLs.
57