Writing Framework

for the 2017

National Assessment

of Educational Progress

National Assessment Governing Board

U.S. Department of Education
WHAT IS NAEP? 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a continuing and nationally representative measure of 

trends in academic achievement of U.S. elementary and secondary students in various subjects. For nearly four 

decades, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. 

history, civics, geography, and other subjects. By collecting and reporting information on student performance at 

the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress 

of education. 

The 2015–2016 National Assessment Governing Board 

The National Assessment Governing Board was created by Congress to formulate policy for NAEP. Among the Governing 

Board’s responsibilities are developing objectives and test specifications and designing the assessment methodology for 

NAEP. 

Members 

Terry Mazany, Chair 

President and CEO 

The Chicago Community Trust 

Chicago, Illinois 

Lucille E. Davy, Vice Chair 

President and CEO 

Transformative Education 

Solutions, LLC 

Pennington, New Jersey 

Alberto Carvalho 

Superintendent 

Miami-Dade County Public Schools 

Miami, Florida 

Honorable Mitchell Chester 

Commissioner 

Massachusetts Department of 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Malden, Massachusetts 

Frank Fernandes 

Principal 

Kaimuki Middle School 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

Honorable Anitere Flores 

Legislator 

Florida Senate 

Miami, Florida 

Rebecca Gagnon 

Director 

Minneapolis Board of Education 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Shannon Garrison 

Fourth-Grade Teacher 

Solano Avenue Elementary School 

Los Angeles, California 

Honorable James Geringer 

Director of Policy and Public Sector 

Strategies 

Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI) 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Doris Hicks 

Principal and CEO 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter 

School for Science and Technology 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Andrew Ho 

Professor 

Harvard Graduate School of Education 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Carol Jago 

Associate Director 

California Reading and Literature 

Project at UCLA 

Oak Park, Illinois 

Tonya Matthews 

President and CEO 

Michigan Science Center 

Detroit, Michigan 

Tonya Miles 

General Public Representative 

Mitchellville, Maryland 

Honorable Ronnie Musgrove 

Founding Member 

Musgrove/Smith Law 

Jackson, Mississippi 

Dale Nowlin 

Teacher and Mathematics Department 

Chair 

Bartholomew Consolidated School 

Corporation 

Columbus, Indiana 

Father Joseph O'Keefe, S.J. 

Professor 

Boston College Lynch School of 

Education 

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 

W. James Popham 

Emeritus Professor 

University of California, Los Angeles 

Los Angeles, California 

B. Fielding Rolston 

Chairman 

Tennessee State Board of Education 

Kingsport, Tennessee 

Linda Rosen 

CEO 

Change the Equation 

Washington, DC 

Cary Sneider 

Associate Research Professor 

Portland State University 

Portland, Oregon 

Ken Wagner 

Commissioner for Elementary and 

Secondary Education 

Rhode Island Department of Education 

Providence, Rhode Island 

Chasidy White 

Teacher 

Brookwood Middle School 

Brookwood, Alabama 

Joe Willhoft 

Consultant 

Tacoma, Washington 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–9328 

National Assessment Governing Board 

Terry Mazany 

Chair 

Lucille E. Davy 

Vice Chair 

William J. Bushaw 

Executive Director 

Mary Crovo 

Deputy Executive Director and 

Project Officer 

Developed for the National Assessment Governing Board under contract number 

ED–05–R–0022 by ACT, Inc. 

For further information, contact: 

National Assessment Governing Board 

800 North Capitol Street, N.W. 

Suite 825 

Washington, DC 20002–4233

www.nagb.org 

March 2016
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS ..................................................................................................................................III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... V

Key Features of the Framework ...................................................................................... vi

Plans for 2011, 2013, 2017, and Future Assessments .................................................... vii

NAEP WRITING PROJECT STAFF AND COMMITTEES ............................................................. VIII

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 1

OVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Content of the NAEP Writing Assessment ....................................................................... 4

Design of the NAEP Writing Assessment ......................................................................... 7

Evaluation of Responses for the NAEP Writing Assessment ......................................... 10

Reporting Results of the NAEP Writing Assessment ..................................................... 11

NAEP Writing Special Study .......................................................................................... 14

Comparison of the 1998–2007 and the 2011–2017 NAEP Writing Frameworks ........... 14

CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................................... 19

CONTENT OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT................................................................................19

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 19

Communicative Purposes for Writing ............................................................................. 21

Audience .......................................................................................................................... 25

Student Choice of Form................................................................................................... 26

Example Task Illustrating Communicative Purpose, Audience, Example Approaches to 

Thinking and Writing, and Potential Forms .................................................................... 27

CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 29

DESIGN OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT....................................................................................29

Writing with Computers on the NAEP Writing Assessment .......................................... 29

Time per Task .................................................................................................................. 31

Distribution of Communicative Purposes ....................................................................... 31

Assessing Students with Special Needs .......................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 35

EVALUATION OF RESPONSES ON THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT.........................................35

Which Features of Writing Will Be Evaluated ................................................................ 35

How Responses Will Be Evaluated ................................................................................. 40

CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 43

REPORTING RESULTS OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT........................................................43

How NAEP Results are Reported .................................................................................... 43

Reporting Scale Scores and Achievement Levels ........................................................... 44

Reporting Background Variables .................................................................................... 46

New Component of NAEP Reporting: Profile of Student Writing ................................. 47

Methodology and Reporting of the Profile of Student Writing ....................................... 48

Uses of NAEP Reporting................................................................................................. 49

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................ 53

GLOSSARY OF TERMS .....................................................................................................................................53

APPENDIX B1 ......................................................................................................................................... 59

PRELIMINARY HOLISTIC SCORING GUIDE FOR TO PERSUADE ....................................................59
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

ii

APPENDIX B2 ......................................................................................................................................... 63

PRELIMINARY HOLISTIC SCORING GUIDE FOR TO EXPLAIN........................................................63

APPENDIX B3 ......................................................................................................................................... 67

PRELIMINARY HOLISTIC SCORING GUIDE FOR TO CONVEY EXPERIENCE, REAL OR 

IMAGINED ............................................................................................................................................................67

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................ 71

NAEP WRITING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................71

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................ 75

NAEP WRITING SPECIAL STUDY...............................................................................................................75

STUDY: GRADE 4 COMPUTER-BASED WRITING ................................................. 75

APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................................ 77

NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT REFERENCES ........................................................................................77

APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................................................ 91

ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED TO REVIEW INITIAL 2011 NAEP WRITING FRAMEWORK 

RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................................91
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

iii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1.1. Key Guidelines for Writing Tasks ......................................................................... 6

Exhibit 1.2. Percentage Distribution of Communicative Purposes by Grade ............................ 9

Exhibit 1.3. Criteria for Evaluating Responses........................................................................ 11

Exhibit 1.4. Generic Achievement Level Policy Definitions for NAEP ................................. 13

Exhibit 1.5. Comparison of 1998–2007 and 2011–2017 NAEP Writing Frameworks .......... 15

Exhibit 2.1. Content Components for the NAEP Writing Assessment ................................... 20

Exhibit 2.2. Example Writing Task for To Persuade (Grade 4) .............................................. 23

Exhibit 2.3. Example Writing Task for To Explain (Grade 12) .............................................. 24

Exhibit 2.4. Example Writing Task for To Convey Experience (Grade 8) .............................. 25

Exhibit 2.5. Example Task Illustrating Communicative Purpose, Audience, 

Example Approaches to Thinking and Writing, and Potential Forms ................. 28

Exhibit 3.1. Percentage Distribution of Communicative Purposes by Grade .......................... 31

Exhibit 4.1. Criteria for Evaluating Responses on the NAEP Writing Assessment ................ 36

Exhibit 5.1. Generic Achievement Level Policy Definitions for NAEP ................................. 45

Exhibit 5.2. Highlights of Background Variables Recommended for 

the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment .................................................................. 47

Exhibit 5.3. Summary of NAEP Reporting Components ........................................................ 50

Exhibit 6.1. Basic Achievement Level Descriptions ............................................................... 71 

Exhibit 6.2. Proficient Achievement Level Descriptions ........................................................ 72 

Exhibit 6.3. Advanced Achievement Level Descriptions .................................................... ....73 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework is to describe how the new NAEP 

Writing Assessment is designed to measure students’ writing at grades 4, 8, and 12. As 

the ongoing national indicator of the academic achievement of students in the United 

States, NAEP regularly collects information on representative samples of students in 

those three grades. 

The use of written language has become a critical component of the daily lives of 

millions of Americans. This is in part because, as technology continues to alter societies 

and cultures, it has fostered and supported an unprecedented expansion of human 

communication. In 2005, 172,000 new books were published in the United States alone. 

One hundred million websites existed worldwide. One hundred and seventy-one billion 

e-mail messages were sent daily. To write in this world is to engage in a millennia-old act 

that is reinventing and regenerating itself in the modern age. 

The impact of communications technologies has changed the way people write and the 

kinds of writing they do. Writing in the 21st century is defined by its frequency and 

efficiency, and modern writers must express ideas in ways that enable them to 

communicate effectively to many audiences. It is clear that the ability to use written 

language to communicate with others—and the corresponding need for effective writing 

instruction and assessment—is more relevant than ever. 

Given expanding contexts for writing in the 21st century, the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Framework is designed to support the assessment of writing as a purposeful act of 

thinking and expression used to accomplish many different goals. Although NAEP 

cannot assess all contexts for student writing, the results of the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment will offer new opportunities to understand students’ ability to make effective 

choices in relation to a specified purpose and audience for their writing in an “ondemand” writing situation. In addition, the assessment results will provide important 

information about the role and impact of new technologies on writing in K12 education 

and the extent to which students at grade 12 are prepared to meet postsecondary 

expectations. 

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment reflects writing situations common to both 

academic and workplace settings, in which writers are often expected to respond to ondemand writing tasks. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will assess ability to respond 

to a 30-minute writing task. Students at all three grades, including students with 

disabilities and English language learners, will complete two on-demand writing tasks. 

Development of this framework involved extensive research, outreach, and in-person 

meetings over the course of 18 months. More than 500 individuals from across the nation 

participated in the process. This framework reflects the results of extensive and thorough 

research on writing assessment (appendix E). Many resources were consulted, including 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

vi

states’ writing standards and assessments, policy statements on writing assessment, and 

numerous journal articles. In addition, the framework reflects the perspectives of a 

diverse array of individuals and groups who collaborated on this project. These 

contributors included elementary, middle, secondary, and postsecondary educators; 

coordinators of writing instruction and assessment; experts in communication 

technologies; policymakers at the local, state, and national levels; representatives of the 

military; and business professionals. Members of many key professional organizations 

(appendix F) reviewed elements of the framework at various stages of development and 

provided their guidance. State testing and curriculum experts were consulted via inperson and computer conference sessions held throughout the framework project. This 

18-month effort has resulted in a rigorous and innovative framework for the 2017 NAEP 

Writing Assessment. 

KEY FEATURES OF THE FRAMEWORK 

COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSES AND RHETORICAL FLEXIBILITY

On the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment, students will have the flexibility to make 

rhetorical choices that help shape the development and organization of ideas and the 

language of their responses. Using age- and grade-appropriate writing tasks, the 

assessment will evaluate writers’ ability to achieve three purposes common to writing in 

school and in the workplace: to persuade; to explain; and to convey experience, real or 

imagined. Because understanding the nature of one’s audience is fundamental to 

successful communication, writing tasks will specify or clearly imply an audience, and 

writers will be asked to use approaches that effectively address that audience. 

Given the topic, purpose, and audience for the writing task, writers will be expected to 

draw upon a variety of approaches to thinking and writing in order to develop and 

organize their ideas and to craft language in ways that help them achieve their purpose 

for writing. At grades 8 and 12, students may be asked to choose the form or text type 

they wish to use in responding to the writing task—such as an editorial, a letter, an essay, 

etc.—that they believe best helps them achieve their purpose for writing. Writers’ work at 

all three grade levels will be evaluated using a holistic scoring guide that will support the 

assessment of how well all elements of a piece of writing work together.

COMPUTER-BASED WRITING

The design of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment reflects the way today’s students 

compose—and are expected to compose—particularly as they move into various 

postsecondary settings. The assessment is designed to measure the ability of students to 

write using word processing software with commonly available tools. Students will 

complete writing tasks by using their knowledge of effective uses of language in order to 

make use of common tools for editing, formatting, and text analysis. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

vii 

PROFILE OF STUDENT WRITING

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment may introduce a new component to reporting that 

will provide a more detailed survey of writing achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12. This 

Profile of Student Writing will provide a deeper analysis of more specific dimensions of 

students’ responses, particularly with regard to how writers have approached the 

development and organization of ideas and to how they have used language in 

relationship to each communicative purpose being assessed. 

PLANS FOR 2011, 2013, 2017, AND FUTURE ASSESSMENTS 

In May 2010, the National Assessment Governing Board made several changes to the 

NAEP Schedule of Assessments, including a delay of the grade 4 NAEP Writing 

Assessment to 2013. The plan is to conduct a computer-based assessment at grade 4, 

which will enable NAEP to collect baseline data on fourth graders’ computer-based 

writing skills. This change is also consistent with the Board’s goal to move all NAEP 

assessments to a computer-based platform in the future. In the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment at grades 4 and 8, NAEP will report achievement results for a nationally 

representative sample of students as it did for the 2011 NAEP Writing Assessment at 

grades 8 and 12. As computers become more prevalent in schools, reporting state-level 

results and results for districts in the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment may also 

become feasible. 

As in the past, the depth and extent of the information available from the results of the 

assessment will provide important data on writing achievement in 2017 and beyond. The 

assessment results reported by NAEP will provide the public, policymakers, and 

educators with important new information about the achievement of student writers and 

the nature of their performance in different communicative situations. There are, 

however, limitations to the range and scope of skills that NAEP can assess because, like 

most standardized assessments, NAEP is an “on-demand” assessment with limited time 

and resources. Therefore, the assessment results in 2017 and beyond should not be 

interpreted as a complete representation of student writing performance. 

Results of the assessment will also be reported in The Nation’s Report Card by means of 

scale scores and achievement levels, which present the percentage of students who 

perform at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels. Demographic and subject-specific 

data gathered from students, teachers, and schools will also be available. While student 

performance trends in writing were reported from 1998 to 2007, the resulting information 

from the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will be used to continue a trend line from 2011 

Assessment that should continue for at least 10 years. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

viii 

NAEP WRITING PROJECT STAFF AND 

COMMITTEES

STEERING COMMITTEE

Sandra Murphy (Co-Chair) 

Professor, School of Education 

University of California, Davis 

Davis, California 

Michael Aitken 

Director, Governmental Affairs 

Society for Human Resource 

Management 

Alexandria, Virginia 

Charles Bazerman 

Professor of Education 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

Santa Barbara, California 

Cherry Boyles 

Assistant Director of Curriculum 

Kentucky Department of Education 

Frankfort, Kentucky 

Kevin Byrne 

Director, Scholarships 

Michael and Susan Dell Foundation 

Austin, Texas 

Patricia Cobb 

4th Grade Teacher 

St. Mary Magdalen Catholic School 

Altamonte Springs, Florida 

Darnella Cunningham 

Principal 

Lee Hill Elementary School 

Fredericksburg, Virginia 

Stephen Dunbar 

Director, Iowa Testing Programs 

and Professor, Educational Measurement 

and Statistics 

University of Iowa 

Iowa City, Iowa 

Ronni Ephraim 

Chief Instructional Officer 

Los Angeles Unified School District 

Los Angeles, California 

William Fitzhugh 

Founder 

The Concord Review 

Sudbury, Massachusetts 

Tom Gentzel 

Executive Director 

Pennsylvania School Boards Association 

Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 

Darion Griffin 

Associate Director, Educational Issues 

American Federation of Teachers 

Washington, D.C. 

Arthur Halbrook 

Senior Associate 

Council of Chief State School Officers 

Washington, D.C. 

Bobbi Ciriza Houtchens 

12th Grade Teacher 

Arroyo Valley High School 

San Bernardino, California 

Abigail Hurt 

8th Grade Teacher 

Inman Middle School 

Decatur, Georgia 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

ix

Ann Johns 

Professor Emerita, Linguistics and

Writing Studies 

San Diego State University 

San Diego, California 

Carlton Jordan 

Literacy Consultant 

The Education Trust 

Washington, D.C. 

Dorry Kenyon 

Director, Language Testing Division 

Center for Applied Linguistics 

Washington, D.C. 

Judith Levinson 

Director, Research, Evaluation and

Assessment 

Evanston Township High School District 

#202 

Evanston, Illinois 

Megan O’Neil

Access to Assets Project Manager 

World Institute on Disability 

Oakland, California 

Laurie Pessah 

Professional Development Literacy 

Liaison 

Teachers College Columbia University 

New York, New York 

Edys Quellmalz

Director, Assessment Research and 

Design 

SRI International 

Menlo Park, California 

Charles Saylors 

Secretary Treasurer 

National Parent Teacher Organization 

Taylors, South Carolina 

Kathleen Yancey 

Kellogg W. Hunt Professor of English 

Florida State University 

Tallahasee, Florida 

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Arthur Applebee (Co-Chair) 

Leading Professor and Director of the 

Center on English Learning and

Achievement 

University at Albany 

Albany, New York 

Phyllis Aldrich 

Adjunct Professor, Education 

Department 

Skidmore College 

Saratoga Springs, New York 

Depeka Croft

Elementary Writing Consultant 

Kentucky Department of Education 

Frankfort, Kentucky 

Barbara Dogger 

Lead Faculty for ESOL 

Writing/Grammar 

Richland College 

Dallas County Community College 

District 

Dallas, Texas 

Jill Dowdy 

English Language Arts Teacher 

C.A. Johnson Preparatory Academy 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Elyse Eidman-Aadahl 

Director, National Programs and Site 

Development 

National Writing Project 

Berkeley, California 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

x 

Nikki Elliott-Schuman 

Washington State Writing Assessment 

Specialist 

Office of Superintendent of Public 

Instruction 

Olympia, Washington 

JoAnne Eresh 

Senior Associate for English Language 

Arts 

Achieve, Inc. 

Washington, D.C. 

Glenna Fouberg 

President 

South Dakota State Board of Education 

Aberdeen, South Dakota 

Melodie Friedebach (Retired) 

Assistant Commissioner 

Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education 

Jefferson City, Missouri 

Edward Gadsden 

Vice President, Global Diversity and 

People Practices 

The Coca-Cola Company 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Carolee Gunn 

Assessment Specialist 

Utah State Office of Education 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Steven Hansen 

Chief, Institutional Effectiveness 

Air Command and Staff College 

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 

Lou Howell 

Facilitator, Iowa Support System for the 

Schools in Need of Assistance and 

Past President, Iowa Association for 

Supervision Curriculum and Development 

Iowa Department of Education 

Des Moines, Iowa 

Carol Jago (Retired) 

Co-Director, California Reading and 

Literature Project (UCLA) and 

English Department Chairperson 

Santa Monica High School 

Pacific Palisades, California 

George Kamberelis 

Associate Professor, Department of 

Reading 

University at Albany 

Albany, New York 

Barbara Kapinus 

Senior Policy Analyst 

National Education Association 

Washington, D.C. 

Andrea Keech 

8th Grade Language Arts Teacher 

Northwest Junior High School 

Iowa City, Iowa 

Rosalyn King 

Professor of Psychology and 

Chair, Center for Teaching Excellence 

Northern Virginia Community College 

Sterling, Virginia 

Patsy Mills 

Title III Bilingual/ESL Coordinator 

Houston Independent School District 

Houston, Texas 

Jennifer O’Brien

8th Grade Language Arts Teacher 

St. Dominic School 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Patricia Porter 

Vice President, Large-Scale Assessment 

Data Recognition Corporation 

Austin, Texas 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

xi

Cynthia Rudrud (Retired) 

High School Principal and 

Past President, National Association of 

Secondary School Principals 

Glendale, Arizona 

Vicki Urquhart 

Lead Consultant 

Mid-continent Research for Education 

and Learning 

Denver, Colorado 

Jacquelyn Varnado 

4th Grade Language Arts Teacher 

Beecher Hills Elementary 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Timothy Wade 

Assistant Professor of Education 

Administration 

Rider University 

Lawrenceville, New Jersey 

Carl Whithaus 

Associate Professor and 

Coordinator of Professional Writing 

Old Dominion University 

Norfolk, Virginia 

Edward Wolfe 

Associate Professor, Educational 

Research and Evaluation 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University 

Blacksburg, Virginia 

NAEP WRITING PROJECT CONSULTANTS

Beverly Ann Chin, Senior Project 

Consultant 

Professor of English and 

Director of English Teaching Program 

University of Montana 

Missoula, Montana 

Barbara Kolupke, Project Consultant 

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adams State 

College, and Head of the English 

Department 

Alamosa High School 

Alamosa, Colorado 

Catherine Welch, Project Consultant 

Professor, Educational Measurement and 

Statistics 

University of Iowa 

Iowa City, Iowa 

NAEP WRITING PROJECT STAFF—

NAGB 

Mary Crovo 

Deputy Executive Director 

NAEP WRITING PROJECT STAFF—ACT

Rosanne Cook 

Project Director 

Carly Bonar 

Assistant Project Director 

Bradley Cawn

Assistant Project Director 

Teri Fisher 

Project Manager 

Tim Burden 

Technical Project Advisor 

Dean Colton 

Technical Project Advisor 

Note: This list of project staff and committees reflects professional affiliations during the project period for 

framework development. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

1 

CHAPTER ONE 

OVERVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment. 

INTRODUCTION

The ability to write well is essential to the economic success of the nation. Americans in 

the 21st century need to be able to communicate in a variety of forms and mediums, 

create texts under the constraints of time, and play a productive role in an economy that 

increasingly values knowledge and information. The pace of written communication in 

today’s environment—the velocity of writing—reflects the transition to an informationbased economy built on speed, efficiency, and complexity. 

Writing is essential to productivity and to personal and social advancement. Corporations 

in almost all industries and services report that a significant majority of salaried 

employees—80 percent or more—have some responsibility for writing in their 

professions, a substantial growth from previous decades (Berman, 2001). It is no wonder, 

then, that communicating effectively is considered the most desirable skill among new 

hires by major corporations, and that good writing is essential to mid-career professionals 

for both day-to-day operations and long-term career advancement (National Association 

of Colleges and Employers, 2005; Light, 2001). 

Developments in the theory and practice of composition underscore these changes and 

provide the basis for the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework. Researchers, conscious of how 

social influences shape the composing process, define writing as an action shaped by its 

intended goal and by the expectations of a reader (Miller, 1984). Writing, then, can be 

understood to be a negotiation between the demands of a writing situation—its 

objectives, its audience, etc.—and what one decides to act upon in order to complete the 

writing task and satisfy the demands of those reading it. Clarity of expression and 

effective presentation of ideas depend on a writer’s ability to focus and organize 

information and to correctly employ conventions of language. 

In K-12 education, good writing instruction empowers students to acquire new 

knowledge and to develop critical thinking skills. This is true of writing in all subject 

areas, not just English language arts. Writing and reasoning effectively are increasingly 

embedded in the learning of every subject discipline (Squire, 1988). Moreover, writing is 

not merely a school-based practice but a lifelong skill used to accomplish specific goals 

and convey particular messages within community and workplace settings. 

The use of computers—in the workplace, in schools, and in the home—has also reshaped 

the nature of writing and the importance of effective communication. Government studies 

have shown that as many as 96 percent of K-12 students use computers to some degree 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

2 

for academic or personal purposes (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002; DeBell and

Chapman, 2006). Similarly, a Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005) survey reports that more 

than 90 percent of college graduates use computers at work. The increasing frequency of 

computer-based writing outside of school or the workplace (e.g., e-mails, instant 

messaging, blogs) will undoubtedly expand the variety of writing situations in the future 

to include many new purposes and audiences. Future trends in writing instruction must 

take into account how computers affect both the writing process and the types of text 

produced. 

The computerization of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment takes into consideration the 

prevalence of computer technology in schools and the workplace, the projected future 

growth of large-scale computer-based tests, and the increasing role computers play in the 

economic and educational activities of the nation. Initial research on the effects of 

computer-based writing in the K-12 curriculum is promising. Several studies suggest that 

using word processing applications can lead to more collaboration with other writers, 

support the production of longer compositions, and encourage the use of researched 

arguments that require inquiry and investigation (Baker and Kinzer, 1998; Goldberg, 

Russell and Cook, 2003; Graham and Perin, 2007; Grejda and Hannafin, 1992; Lunsford 

and Lunsford, 2007). 

KEY GOALS FOR THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

Though the number of large-scale direct writing assessments has increased since the 1998 

NAEP Writing Framework was developed—particularly with the incorporation of a 

writing component into the ACT and SAT college admissions tests—NAEP continues to 

provide the only nationally representative data on writing achievement. As a survey of 

student achievement, NAEP items are designed to measure what students know and are 

able to do in relation to the instruction they have received and in relation to expectations 

for postsecondary preparedness. To that end, the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework has the 

following goals: 

To encourage student writers to move beyond prescriptive or formulaic approaches in 

their writing. In this framework, the decisions writers make about how to develop and 

organize ideas and use language are considered an important component of their writing 

ability. The most successful writers are those who are able to consistently make effective 

decisions in all dimensions of their writing in order to communicate effectively with their 

audience. Therefore, writing tasks in this assessment will be designed to support the 

evaluation of students’ ability to make a variety of effective choices in how they 

approach the development and organization of ideas and in how they craft language to 

support their communicative purpose. 

To assess students’ writing using word processing software with commonly available 

tools. Because the computer plays a significant role in writing production, the technology 

used to compose is an important part of the writing process and reflects new conditions 

for writing at school and at work. Thus, in 2011, at grades 8 and 12, NAEP began to 

assess writing with word processing software. At grade 4, students’ keyboarding 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

3 

expertise and experience using computers on assessments was reviewed in 2012 as part 

of the Grade 4 Writing Computer-Based Assessment Study. 

To measure students’ ability to respond to a writing task in an on-demand scenario. 

While writing tasks in schools or the workplace often involve composing and editing 

processes lasting days or weeks, on-demand writing situations occur in both academic 

and professional settings where writers must often compose to achieve goals under time 

constraints. The 2017 NAEP Writing Framework is designed to provide information 

about what students can accomplish in such on-demand writing situations. 

WRITING IN THE CONTEXT OF NAEP

Writing is a complex, multifaceted, and purposeful act of communication that is 

accomplished in a variety of environments, under various constraints of time, and 

with a variety of language resources and technological tools. 

People communicate to accomplish goals or meet needs. Writing, then, can be thought of 

as a relationship or negotiation between the writer and reader to satisfy the aims of both 

parties. As a result, the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework focuses on writing for 

communicative purposes and on the relationship of the writer to his or her intended 

audience. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will measure three communicative 

purposes common to academic and professional settings. 

In a complex society with a plurality of perspectives and opinions, students need to be 

capable of expressing their viewpoints clearly and logically to convince others. 

Therefore, the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will measure the ability to persuade in 

order to change the reader’s point of view or affect the reader’s action.

The ability to inform others of ideas and concepts is also critical in an information-driven 

society. Therefore, another communicative purpose to be measured by the 2017 NAEP 

Writing Assessment is the ability to explain in order to expand the reader’s 

understanding. 

Finally, in an era in which many of the borders that have long separated the world’s 

peoples blur, exploring and sharing human experience through writing helps define not 

only individual identity, but also the universal connections that people share. Therefore, 

the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment also will measure writers’ ability to convey 

experience, real or imagined, in order to communicate individual and imagined 

experience to others. 

In choosing to evaluate these purposes for writing, developers of the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Framework do not intend to discount the importance of other common purposes for 

writing. K-12 curricula are rich with writing experiences in all subject areas. Many 

writing situations encourage students to write as a means of self-expression and 

comprehension, as is the case with writing-to-learn activities when the student composes 

as a means of thinking through key ideas on a topic. The importance of written 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

4 

communication for personal purposes cannot be overstated: students given adequate 

practice in developing their own thoughts and feelings through such writing are better 

able to perform well in all forms of writing (Britton, et al., 1975). While NAEP cannot 

assess personal writing tasks (e.g., journals) or longer assignments (e.g., research reports 

or multimedia projects), it can provide a national survey of writing for these three 

communicative purposes in an on-demand writing situation. 

For a glossary of terms used in the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework, see appendix A. 

CONTENT OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

Writing tasks for the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will allow students to include 

information and ideas from their own reading, observations, and experiences, or to 

respond to short reading passages or to visual stimuli such as photographs or simple 

visual displays of information. The NAEP Writing Assessment will measure student 

ability to write in English. At all three grade levels, age- and grade-appropriate reading 

passages and visual stimuli will be incorporated as resources in some writing tasks. 

Writing tasks will be as open ended as is appropriate to allow students to use supporting 

ideas that best fit the purpose and audience for the writing task. Tasks will not be subjectarea specific; if they choose, students will be able to respond with ideas from areas 

outside of English language arts, such as history and science. The complexity of the tasks 

and the level of sophistication expected in the responses will increase at each grade level. 

Examples of writing tasks at grades 4, 8, and 12 are provided in chapter two and in the 

NAEP Questions Tool (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nqt).

THE ROLE OF PURPOSE 

Throughout K-12 and higher education, as well as in the workplace, most required 

writing falls under the broad categories of persuasive texts; explanations of events and 

phenomena; and narratives and reflective pieces, both real and imagined. Thus, the 2017

NAEP Writing Framework assesses these three communicative purposes: to persuade, to 

explain, and to convey experience, real or imagined. Tasks for the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment will clearly identify the purpose for writing, providing NAEP with an 

important context for assessing student writing achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12. 

THE ROLE OF AUDIENCE

Writing is a social act—not only do writers always write for a purpose, but they usually 

write to communicate ideas to others. Demonstrating an awareness of audience is 

considered to be one of the most important writing skills, particularly by college 

instructors and business professionals (Harris, 2006). 

In most school and postsecondary writing situations, writers are either assigned an 

audience or the audience is clearly implied by the nature of the task. Therefore, tasks on 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

5 

the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will specify or clearly imply an audience for the 

writing. These audiences will be realistic audiences that correspond to the purpose of the 

writing task. Audiences specified on the assessment will generally vary for each grade. 

At grade 4, audiences may include peers, teachers and school officials, and parents; at 

grades 8 and 12, writers may more often be asked to write for less familiar, more 

authoritative audiences, such as school or community leaders and government officials. 

THE ROLE OF APPROACHES TO THINKING AND WRITING

When given a purpose and audience for writing, writers must decide how to develop and 

organize their ideas to achieve the demands of the task. Defined by various composition 

theorists as thinking and writing approaches or problem-solving strategies, such 

techniques allow writers to develop responses of depth and substance (Claggett, 2005; 

National Writing Project and Nagin, 2003; Flower, 1993). Some approaches commonly 

used to develop and organize ideas in effective written communication include analyzing, 

describing, evaluating, and narrating. By using these and other approaches to thinking 

and writing, alone and in combination, writers have considerable flexibility for the 

development and organization of a text. 

While writing tasks on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will not specify the use of 

particular approaches to thinking and writing, tasks will be designed to encourage 

students to draw upon a wide variety of approaches to support the development and 

organization of ideas. Responses will be evaluated for the effectiveness of writers’ 

development and organization of ideas in relation to purpose and audience. 

THE ROLE OF FORM IN THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

The term “form” refers to text features characteristic of a particular kind of writing, such 

as a short story or a newspaper editorial. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment may call 

for students at grades 8 and 12 to choose the form they believe is most effective for the 

purpose and audience specified in the task. 

However, because the impact of asking students to choose a form in an on-demand 

writing task is unknown, three kinds of writing tasks will be considered during 

assessment development at grades 8 and 12: with the specification of form, without the 

specification of form, and with suggestions for two or more possible forms. The 

information from the assessment development process will help determine which tasks, if 

any, require the specification of form on the NAEP Writing Assessment. 

However, students at grade 4 will be assigned a specific form in each writing task. 

SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR WRITING TASKS

The key guidelines for writing tasks are summarized in Exhibit 1.1 and presented as a 

graph in chapter two (see Exhibit 2.1). 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

6 

Exhibit 1.1. Key Guidelines for Writing Tasks 

Key Characteristics

Guidelines for Development of Writing Tasks

Topic

Topics will: 

 Address real-world, age-appropriate, and grade-appropriate 

issues. 

 Be familiar and accessible to students and not controversial 

in nature.

 Encourage the use of effective approaches to thinking and 

writing.

Purpose

Purpose will be:

 Clearly stated in the writing task.

 Age-appropriate and grade-appropriate.

 Consistent with the audience identified in the writing task.

 Distributed appropriately at all three grades.

Audience

Audience will be:

 Specified or clearly implied by the context of the writing 

task.

 Age-appropriate and grade-appropriate.

 Familiar to students.

 Consistent with the purpose identified in the writing task.

Student Engagement with Writing Tasks

Content

Students will:

 Make choices within parameters provided by the writing 

task (e.g., “persuade a classmate to read your favorite book” 

– writer would choose the book to write about). 

 Draw upon their experiences and observations.

 Occasionally respond to an external stimulus, such as a brief 

reading passage or an illustration, photograph, table, chart, 

or other visual representation.

Approaches 

to Thinking 

and Writing 

Students will:

 Consider the purpose and audience for their writing task 

when determining how to develop and organize ideas and 

how to craft language.

 Decide for themselves which thinking/writing approaches to 

use in developing and organizing ideas.

Form

Students may:

 Choose the form most suitable to their purpose and audience 

at grades 8 and 12. Grade 4 students will be asked to 

respond by using a specific form.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

7 

DESIGN OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

WRITING WITH COMPUTERS 

In 2017 and beyond, the NAEP Writing Assessment will measure computer-based 

writing. For the purposes of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment, “computer-based 

writing” means that students compose and construct their responses using word 

processing software on a computer, with the option to use commonly available tools. 

At grade 4, a computer-based assessment was previously impractical because of time 

constraints for computer instruction, the unequal availability of technology in elementary 

schools, and elementary school students’ current limited keyboarding proficiency. The 

goal, however, was for the assessment at grade 4 become computer-based during the 

tenure of this NAEP Writing Framework. It was expected that by 2019, widespread 

access to computers and increased keyboarding instruction in elementary schools would 

provide students with more opportunities to compose on the computer, thus warranting 

the delivery of a computer-based assessment at grade 4. In 2011, at grades 8 and 12, 

NAEP began to assess writing with word processing software. At grade 4, students’ 

keyboarding expertise and experience using computers on assessments was reviewed in 

2012 as part of the Grade 4 Writing Computer-Based Assessment Study. As a result of 

this study, it was determined that NAEP should assess grade 4 students using the 

computer-based NAEP Writing Assessment in 2017. 

RATIONALE FOR COMPUTER-BASED ASSESSMENT OF WRITING

The movement to a computer-based assessment for the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment 

reflects radical changes in the uses of technology for writing since the development of the 

1998 NAEP Writing Framework. The number of students ages 12-17 who regularly or 

occasionally use computers to complete schoolwork and to access the Internet has 

increased from 32 percent in 1995 to a range in 2006 between 87 and 93 percent (Pew 

Research Center, 1995; Rainie and Hitlin, 2005; DeBell and Chapman, 2006). During the 

tenure of the previous NAEP Writing Framework, the students to computer ratio of 6 to 1 

in 1998 decreased to 3.8 to 1 in 2005 (Goldberg, et al., 2003; Technology Counts, 2006). 

In addition to an increase in the number of computers available to students, the use of 

computers to write has become nearly universal: 97 percent of grade 8 teachers surveyed 

on the 1998 and 2002 NAEP Writing Assessments indicated that their students used 

computers to compose. These teachers saw the use of computers during the composing 

process as positively affecting student writing achievement, particularly with regard to 

increases in student motivation and time spent on revising written drafts (Solomon, et al., 

2004).

As computers are increasingly becoming the established mode for completing academic 

and professional tasks, computer-based testing is increasingly becoming the established 

mode for large-scale assessments. In 2006, half of all states assessed student learning on 

computers or were piloting computer-based assessments, and several other states outlined 

plans to transition to computer-based tests. By 2011, a majority of states were expected to 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

8 

offer some form of testing via computers (ACT Research Brief, 2006). In 2007, 19 states 

were using, piloting, or developing direct writing assessment using computers. Fortyseven states had separate standards for technology use; the remaining states have 

embedded technology expectations in their subject area standards (ACT Research Brief, 

2006; Russell and O’Connor, 2003).

Concerns about students’ access to computers and equity of access are common among 

policymakers and educators. However, progress continues to be made in bridging the 

“digital divide.” As of 2009, the ratio of students to computers in the classroom every day 

was 5.3 to 1 (Gray, Thomas, and Lewis, 2010). The 2005 computer-to-student ratio at 

high-poverty and high-minority schools was only slightly higher than the national 

average of 3.8—at 3.9 for high-poverty schools and 4.1 for high-minority schools 

(Technology Counts, 2006). Expectations for student computer proficiency remain 

consistent across all educational contexts. The Trial Urban Districts that participated in 

the 2007 NAEP Writing Assessment all possessed benchmarks for computer 

proficiency—some developed their own, others followed state standards—that call for 

competence at grades 8 and 12 in producing written texts on computers and utilizing 

electronic resources. In several studies, including a 2002 NAEP pilot study examining 

computer-based writing assessment, most research has found that no significant 

differences exist in performance within subgroups (gender, race, socio-economic, etc.) 

when paper and pencil scores were compared to an online assessment (Horkay, et al., 

2006; Russell, Higgins, and Hoffman, 2004; Sandene, et al., 2005). 

Although there were students who reported not using computers for writing in 2011, it is 

reasonable to expect that the number of students who commonly use computers to write 

will substantially increase. Indeed, though the implementation of a computer-based 

writing assessment at grades 8 and 12 in 2011 may have raised equity issues for those 

students who were not comfortable with electronic composition, a paper and pencil 

assessment would have created similar issues of bias for students who commonly use 

computers to write (Russell, et al., 2004). Research has shown that paper and pencil 

assessments negatively affect the writing performance of computer-proficient students 

(Carlson, 2000; Russell, et al., 2004; Russell, 1999; Sandene, et al., 2005). 

ASSESSING COMPUTER-BASED WRITING

The decision to assess computer-based writing addresses expectations for what students 

should know and be able to do at those grade levels. Because the ability to use word 

processing software and its tools has become a critical component of the composing 

process, the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework supports an assessment environment for 

writing more similar to that used by students and adults who write on computers in 

postsecondary education, in the workplace, and in their daily lives. The goal of this 

assessment, then, is to measure writing achievement using word processing software with 

commonly available tools. 

In the context of NAEP, “tools” refers to the extensions built into word processing 

software that help writers modify or revise their written documents. For the 2017 NAEP 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

9 

Writing Assessment, the following kinds of tools will be considered: prewriting tools 

(e.g., notepad windows, paper); editing tools (e.g., cut, copy, paste); formatting tools 

(e.g., line spacing, indenting); spelling tools (e.g., spell check, automatic capitalization); 

grammar tools (e.g., grammar check); and reference tools (e.g., dictionary, thesaurus). 

The specific tools to be used will be determined at a later time, pending changes in 

technology. Features considered distracting or irrelevant to what is being assessed will 

not be available to students, nor will the Internet or other online applications (e.g., 

databases, encyclopedias, etc.). 

Framework developers considered whether to enable any composing and editing tools. 

However, eliminating access to common word processing tools on the computer would 

create a highly artificial platform for composing, since a writer normally has access to 

and uses at least some common tools when composing on a computer. The purpose of 

assessing writing produced on the computer comes into question when access to such 

common features of word processing software is eliminated. 

TIME PER TASK

NAEP ascertains what students know and can do in a limited amount of time with limited 

resources (e.g., with limited opportunities for reflection and revision or for feedback from 

peers and teachers). The NAEP Writing Assessment assigns students two on-demand 

writing tasks. Each task will represent one of the three communicative purposes NAEP 

writing assesses—To Persuade; To Explain; or To Convey Experience, Real or Imagined. 

The writing assessment will be administered as two 30-minute, computer-based writing 

tasks. 

DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSES

Exhibit 1.2 shows the distribution of communicative purposes on the 2017 NAEP 

Writing Assessment. The percentages represent the proportion of tasks for a particular 

purpose out of the total number of tasks developed for each grade. 

Exhibit 1.2. Percentage Distribution of Communicative Purposes by Grade 

Purpose Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

 To Persuade 30% 35% 40%

To Explain 35% 35% 40%

To Convey 

Experience

35% 30% 20%

There is a progression of emphasis on writing to explain and to persuade, though many 

students in all three grades will also write to convey experience, real or imagined. The 

distribution of percentages reflects the focus on these three communicative purposes in 

writing instruction at the elementary and secondary levels, as well as the writing 

expectations in postsecondary settings. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

10

ASSESSING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

The NAEP Writing Assessment is designed to measure the writing skills and academic 

achievement of students at grades 4, 8, and 12, so tasks on the NAEP Writing Assessment 

will be as fully and clearly explained as possible in order to be accessible to all students. 

Further, students with disabilities and English language learners are included in the 

assessment sample. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will be administered to English 

language learners and students with disabilities who, based on inclusion criteria specified 

by NAEP, are capable of participating. 

Some students may need accommodations to be able to participate in the NAEP Writing 

Assessment. NAEP attempts to provide accommodations to students that match the 

accommodations these students are allowed in school (for example, a student would be 

offered the same accommodations as directed by the student’s Individualized Education 

Program) as long as those accommodations do not alter the construct being measured on 

the assessment. Appropriate accommodations will be available for computer-based 

delivery of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. 

EVALUATION OF RESPONSES FOR THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT 

WHICH FEATURES OF WRITING WILL BE EVALUATED 

Three broad features of writing will be evaluated in students’ responses: 

 Development of Ideas 

 Organization of Ideas 

 Language Facility and Conventions 

These broad features are consistent with state learning standards and reflect what most 

states evaluate in their direct writing assessments at grades 4, 8, and 12. They are also 

consistent with expectations for postsecondary preparedness. 

Exhibit 1.3 presents these three broad domains and the important features within each 

domain that will be used to determine the level of achievement in students’ writing. The 

effectiveness of these features will be evaluated in relation to the purpose and audience 

specified in the writing task. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

11

Exhibit 1.3. Criteria for Evaluating Responses 

 Development of ideas is effective in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Depth and complexity 

 Approaches to thinking and writing 

 Details and examples 

Organization is logical in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Text structure 

 Coherence 

 Focus 

Language facility and conventions support clarity of expression and the effectiveness of 

the writing in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Sentence structure and sentence variety 

 Word choice 

 Voice and tone 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics (capitalization, punctuation, and spelling) 

HOW RESPONSES WILL BE EVALUATED

The evaluation of responses will be based on the criteria listed in the three broad domains 

above. The recommended tool for evaluation is a holistic scoring rubric, which is 

designed to guide scorers’ evaluation of the response as a whole using the criteria 

specified for the assessment. Individual elements or parts of the response will not be 

scored separately. Scoring rubrics will provide guidelines for determining the overall 

performance of a response on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being low and 6 being high. 

Trained readers will decide on a single score (one number on the scale of 1 to 6) based on 

a judgment about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the response in relation to 

specified criteria. 

Appendix B includes preliminary holistic scoring rubrics for each of the three 

communicative purposes to be assessed. 

REPORTING RESULTS OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

NAEP provides an ongoing representative sample survey of student achievement by 

administering assessments at regular intervals to students at grades 4, 8, and 12. In 

addition to reporting overall results at the national level, NAEP reports results at the state 

and jurisdiction levels, as well for large urban school districts participating in the NAEP 

Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA). NAEP also reports on the performance of 

various student subgroups at the national, state, and urban district levels. 

The 2011 NAEP Writing Assessment began a new trend line for writing, which should 

continue for at least 10 years. The results of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will 

offer new opportunities to examine students’ ability to write effectively in relation to the 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

12

purpose and audience for the writing and to understand the role and impact of computers 

on writing production. 

NAEP REPORTS

The primary means for public release of NAEP results is a printed summary report 

known as The Nation’s Report Card. This report is accompanied by a dedicated website: 

http://nationsreportcard.gov. The printed report and website will provide detailed 

information on the results of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment and the students who 

participated. Results will be reported for specific groups of students and for states and 

large urban districts that participate in the NAEP assessment. NAEP results are reported 

for demographic subgroups, including females and males, students from various 

racial/ethnic backgrounds, and students who took the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment 

with and without accommodations. Individual student performance on NAEP 

assessments is not reported.

The information available from the results of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will 

provide important new data during the tenure of the framework. Because the assessment 

measures student writing achievement within a specific context that is limited by time 

and resources, there are limitations to the data reported and to uses of those data. NAEP 

reports do not evaluate results or provide conclusive statements about the level of writing 

achievement among K-12 students, nor is the assessment designed to drive curriculum or 

writing instruction.

REPORTING SCALE SCORES AND PERCENTILES

NAEP writing results are reported in two ways: as scale scores and as percentages of 

students attaining each of the achievement levels. Scale scores, which are derived from 

student responses to assessment items, summarize the overall level of performance attained 

by a group of students. Scale scores are presented as average scale scores and as scale 

scores at selected percentiles. Achievement levels provide further information about 

student achievement by indicating the degree to which student performance meets the 

standards set for what students should know and be able to do. 

ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS AND CUT SCORES

NAEP achievement levels are the primary means of reporting NAEP results to the 

general public and policymakers. Achievement Level Descriptions represent an informed 

judgment of “how good is good enough” in the various subjects assessed. NAEP 

achievement levels define in general terms what students at grades 4, 8, and 12 should 

know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels. Cut scores 

represent the minimum score required for performance at each NAEP achievement level 

and are usually reported along with the percentage of students who scored at or above the 

specified level. Sample student responses provide illustrations of student skills within 

each level of achievement. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

13

Exhibit 1.4 displays the Governing Board’s generic policy definitions for Basic, Proficient,

and Advanced achievement that pertain to all NAEP subjects and grades. 

Exhibit 1.4. Generic Achievement Level Policy Definitions for NAEP 

Achievement 

Level Definition

Advanced This level signifies superior performance.

Proficient

This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. 

Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging 

subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such 

knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the 

subject matter.

Basic This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that 

are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

 

The full text of Achievement Level Descriptions for the 2017 NAEP Writing Framework is 

located in appendix C.

BACKGROUND VARIABLES

Students participating in the NAEP Writing Assessment respond to questionnaires designed 

to gather information on variables important to understanding writing achievement 

nationwide. Teachers and school administrators also complete questionnaires to gather data 

relevant to student achievement. This information is used as part of the summative report 

on writing achievement. 

Questionnaires for students on the NAEP assessments will contain questions about 

demographics, learning habits or attitudes, and reactions to the NAEP Writing Assessment 

itself. Teachers and school administrators will be asked questions on these topics as well as 

others related to instructional practices, professional development, and teacher 

qualifications. Background questionnaires may also contain subject-specific questions that 

elicit more information from students and school personnel about different elements of the 

content areas. For the purposes of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment, the questionnaires 

will reflect two primary interests: computer use (particularly with regard to writing with 

computers) and the number and kinds of opportunities students have to write. The 2017

NAEP Writing Framework includes some highlights of these recommendations in chapter 

five. 

Recommendations for background variables for the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment are 

presented in Writing Background Variables Recommendations. 

NEW COMPONENT OF NAEP REPORTING: PROFILE OF STUDENT WRITING 

Framework developers recognize that more information about the meaning of the data 

gathered from the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will be useful to K-12 schooling and in 

various postsecondary settings. The 2017 NAEP Writing Framework, therefore,

recommends that a national sample of student responses at grades 4, 8, and 12 be selected 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

14

and examined to obtain more in-depth information on key features of student performance 

in writing. By selecting a nationally representative sample, the results of the analyses can 

be generalized to the whole population, supporting external validity of the conclusions. 

Four studies may be included in the Profile. 

 Analysis of Development of Ideas: The decisions students make when developing 

ideas—particularly those that relate to the communicative purposes assessed, the 

rhetorical flexibility offered in the tasks, and the criteria used to evaluate the 

development of ideas—will be analyzed. 

 Analysis of Organization of Ideas: Students’ methods of organization, the 

structures of their texts, and their use of forms in relation to communicative 

purposes will be analyzed.

 Analysis of Language Facility: Collection of data on students’ language use and 

stylistic choices, common errors in the use of conventions, and students’ level of 

language complexity (e.g., word choice, sentence length) will be analyzed in 

relation to student performance data and background variable information.

 Exploratory Analysis: Data produced by these three studies will be analyzed in 

relation to performance and in relation to information collected on the background 

variables. These analyses will address what patterns, if any, exist between 

observations of various dimensions of writing and the quality of the responses.

The results of this investigation should be reported for writing done within the context of 

an on-demand writing assessment and at the national level only. 

NAEP WRITING SPECIAL STUDY

The transition to a computer-based delivery by 2019 for grade 4 required further study 

before such a recommendation could be implemented. A special study was conducted to 

investigate changes in computer instruction at the fourth grade, on fourth graders’ 

keyboarding proficiency, and on the extent to which fourth graders are accustomed to 

composing using word processing software. 

Appendix D includes further discussion about the proposed design of the special study. 

COMPARISON OF THE 1998–2007 AND THE 2011–2017 NAEP WRITING 

FRAMEWORKS

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment Framework continues the 2011 NAEP Writing 

Assessment Framework, which replaced the framework developed for the 1998, 2002, and 

2007 NAEP Writing Assessments. The 2017 NAEP Writing Framework honors many 

aspects of the previous framework but also introduces important changes that will lead to 

better measurement of student writing and more precise reporting of assessment results. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

15

Exhibit 1.5 highlights key differences between the 1998–2007 and 2011–2017 NAEP 

Writing Frameworks. 

Exhibit 1.5. Comparison of 1998–2007 and 2011–2017 NAEP Writing Frameworks 

1998–2007 Writing Framework 2011–2017 Writing Framework Explanation for Change

Content of NAEP Writing Assessment

The 1998–2007 NAEP Writing 

Assessments measured three 

modes: 

 Persuasive mode:

o Writing to convince

o Writing to construct an 

argument

o Writing to refute a position

 Informative mode:

o Description 

o Explanation

o Analysis 

 Narrative mode:

o First-person and thirdperson fictional stories, 

personal essays

The 2011–2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessments measure three 

communicative purposes:

 To Persuade, in order to 

change the reader’s point 

of view or affect the 

reader’s action

 To Explain, in order to 

expand the reader’s 

understanding

 To Convey Experience, 

real or imagined, in order 

to communicate individual 

and imagined experience 

to others

Purposes for writing are 

emphasized as a way of:

 Recognizing that most 

writing is influenced in 

significant ways by 

interaction between writer, 

purpose, audience, and 

topic.

 Focusing the writer’s 

attention on the goal of the 

writing task and the needs 

of the audience. 

 To Convey Experience is a 

broader representation of 

the kinds of writing students 

will be asked to do. In the 

2011–2017 Framework, 

“narrative” is viewed as an 

approach, not a purpose, 

and is a strategy also used 

in explanatory and 

persuasive writing.

On the 1998–2007 NAEP Writing 

Assessments, some writing tasks 

required students to write for a 

particular audience (e.g., a peer, 

school principal, or committee). For 

other writing tasks, an audience was 

not specified.

In 2011–2017, a specific audience 

will be stated or clearly implied in 

all writing tasks at grades 4, 8, and 

12.

 The specification of 

audience on all prompts 

and at all grades will 

encourage students to 

make decisions about how 

to develop and organize 

ideas ( “approaches to 

thinking and writing”) and 

how to craft language that 

meets the needs of the 

specified audience.

Design of NAEP Writing Assessment

Percentage of Writing Tasks for 

Each Writing Mode:

Grade 

4

Grade 

8

Grade 

12

Persuasive 25% 33% 40%

Informative 35% 33% 35%

Narrative 40% 33% 25%

Percentage of Writing Tasks for 

Each Writing Purpose:

Grade 

4

Grade 

8

Grade 

12

To Persuade 30% 35% 40%

To Explain 35% 35% 40%

To Convey 

Experience 35% 30% 20%

 An increase in the 

percentage of tasks for the 

persuasive purpose at 

grade 4 reflects emerging 

pedagogical practices in 

elementary schools and 

complements expectations 

for postsecondary 

preparedness at grades 8 

and 12. The distribution 

also reflects a progression 

of emphasis on writing to 

explain and to persuade, 

though many students in all 

three grades will also write 

to convey experience, real 

or imagined.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

16

Exhibit 1.5 (continued). Comparison of 1998–2007 and 2011–2017 NAEP Writing 

Frameworks 

1998–2007 Writing Framework 2011–2017 Writing Framework Explanation for Change

Design of NAEP Writing Assessment

Paper and pencil assessment for 

grades 4, 8, and 12.

Recommendation to provide 

computer-based assessment at 

grade 4 by 2019 or earlier.

Computer-based assessment for 

grades 8 and 12.

 As students have become 

accustomed to composing, 

revising, and editing on 

computers, a computerbased assessment will 

offer students an 

environment for writing that 

more accurately reflects 

how students compose. 

Students will also have the 

option of using commonly 

available editing, 

formatting, and text 

analysis tools to compose 

their response. 

 The 2011–2017 computerbased assessments offer 

students the opportunity to 

compose in an 

environment that is similar 

to that of many writing 

situations in postsecondary

education and training.

Evaluating Responses on the NAEP Writing 

Assessment

On the 1998–2007 assessments, 

evaluation criteria are defined as 

“general characteristics of writing 

by mode;” some characteristics 

(e.g., “organization” and 

“mechanics”) apply to all three 

modes, whereas others are modespecific (e.g., “develops character” 

for the narrative mode).

The 2011–2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessments will evaluate three 

broad domains of writing in all 

students’ responses:

 Development of Ideas 

 Organization of Ideas

 Language Facility and Use of 

Conventions

 The 2011–2017 NAEP 

Writing Assessments

clearly and consistently 

define criteria for the 

evaluation of effective 

writing across grades.

 Features of writing will be 

evaluated in relation to the 

purpose and audience 

specified in the writing 

task.

 Development and 

organization of ideas will 

be evaluated for writers’ 

use of relevant and 

effective approaches to 

thinking and writing (e.g., 

analyzing, evaluating, 

narrating, etc.).
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

17

Exhibit 1.5 (continued). Comparison of 1998–2007 and 2011–2017 NAEP Writing 

Frameworks 

1998–2007 Writing Framework 2011–2017 Writing Framework Explanation for Change

Reporting NAEP Writing Assessment Results

On the 1998–2007 assessments, 

student performance was reported 

in two ways:

 Scale scores

 Achievement Level 

Descriptions 

Average scale scores are derived 

from the overall level of 

performance of groups of students 

on NAEP assessment items. For 

Writing, average scale scores 

have been expressed on a 0–300 

scale. 

Achievement levels are 

performance standards set by 

NAEP that provide a context for 

interpreting student performance. 

These performance standards are 

used to report what students 

should know and be able to do at 

the Basic, Proficient, and 

Advanced levels of performance 

in each subject area and at each 

grade assessed.

For the 2011–2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessments, reports on student 

performance may include a new 

component. Assessment results will 

be reported in three ways:

 Scale scores

 Achievement levels

 Profile of Student Writing: A 

nationally representative sample 

of student responses at each 

grade will be closely analyzed in 

relation to the evaluative criteria 

used to score student writing. 

Utilizing both qualitative and 

quantitative methods, data will 

be analyzed in order to detect 

patterns between attributes of 

the responses and performance 

at the Basic, Proficient, and 

Advanced levels of achievement.

 The Profile of Student 

Writing enhances the 

traditional NAEP reporting 

methods—scale scores 

and achievement levels—

by providing information 

about various dimensions 

of writing and the 

relationship between those 

attributes and 

achievement. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

19

CHAPTER TWO

CONTENT OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the content of the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment. 

INTRODUCTION

The focus of the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment is to assess “effective communication,” 

the ability to achieve the intended aims of composing and to address the needs of an 

audience (Britton, et al., 1975). Therefore, the writing tasks on the assessment will clearly 

identify the purpose for writing and will state or clearly imply the audience on the written 

task. This approach reflects writing research on the need to develop writing tasks that 

offer students genuine opportunities to communicate (Graves, 1999; National Writing 

Project and Nagin, 2003). Moreover, the principles underlying this writing framework are 

in accordance with the learning standards of most states (ACT Research Brief, 2006), 

which specify that effective written communication involves adjusting written language 

for specific audiences and purposes. Writing to meet specified purposes and audiences is 

also an objective of writing at the college level (Council of Writing Program 

Administrators, 1999). 

On the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment, each student at grades 4, 8, and 12 will respond 

to two writing tasks. Topics that students will respond to on these tasks will include realworld, age- and grade-appropriate issues that are familiar and accessible. To increase 

students’ engagement with the topic and their motivation to write, writing tasks will be as 

open ended as is appropriate to encourage a variety of potential responses within the 

parameters of the task. In responding to NAEP writing tasks, students may include 

information and ideas from their own reading, observations, and experiences, or they may 

be asked to respond to short reading passages or to visual stimuli such as photographs or 

simple visual displays of information. 

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment highlights successful writers’ negotiation between a 

task’s specified purpose and audience and the rhetorical choices writers need to make to 

communicate effectively. Writing tasks will require writers at all three grade levels to 

develop, organize, and craft the language of their text by drawing upon approaches to 

thinking and writing that are most effective for their purpose and audience. At grades 8 

and 12, the writing task may also require students to determine what form is best suited to 

their purpose for writing. Exhibit 2.1 illustrates the process involved in completing tasks 

on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment and the relationship between this process and the 

evaluation of the writing task. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

20

Exhibit 2.1. Content Components for the NAEP Writing Assessment 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

21

COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSES FOR WRITING 

Any piece of writing is constructed with a goal or objective in mind—a “communicative 

purpose.” While writers often try to achieve multiple goals when composing texts—such 

as affecting a reader’s emotions when trying to persuade an audience to change their 

point of view on an issue—certain overarching aims are more common to school and 

workplace settings and are also more appropriate for an on-demand writing assessment 

such as NAEP. The purposes for writing assessed by the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment 

are found throughout the core curriculum in K-12 education—in English language arts, in 

science, in social studies, and in mathematics—and take many forms, including short 

stories, personal narratives, essays, reports, summaries, research papers, letters, 

proposals, newspaper articles, and so on. The three communicative purposes assessed are: 

 To Persuade, in order to change the reader’s point of view or affect the reader’s 

action

 To Explain, in order to expand the reader’s understanding

 To Convey Experience, real or imagined, in order to communicate individual 

and imagined experience to others

These three communicative purposes are also important in postsecondary education and 

in the workplace, where most writing can be broadly described as persuading readers to 

change their perspectives or to take action; explaining information, issues, and ideas; and 

reflecting on experience to make thoughtful judgments and create connections between 

the writer and the audience. 

When completing writing tasks for any of these purposes, writers draw upon a variety of 

approaches to the development and organization of ideas in order to achieve their 

communicative purpose. These “approaches to thinking and writing” represent the ways 

in which all writers shape text and include such strategies as storytelling (e.g., narrating, 

describing), logical reasoning (e.g., analyzing, synthesizing), or critiquing (e.g., 

evaluating, interpreting). These approaches are sometimes used alone, but are also often 

used in various combinations, depending on the writer’s purpose for writing. Approaches 

to thinking and writing will not be specified in the assessment writing tasks, but writers at 

all three grades will be expected to use relevant and effective approaches to developing 

and organizing their ideas. 

TO PERSUADE 

Persuasive writing is a demanding task that requires critical thinking, complex language, 

and the ability to consider one’s own views and those of others (Nippold, WardLonergan, and Fanning, 2005). People write to accomplish persuasive purposes 

throughout their lives: adults write to persuade in many situations, including business 

proposals, letters of recommendation, or grant applications, and persuasive writing tasks 

are found in content areas throughout K-12 education. The demands and number of 

persuasive tasks increase across the grade levels as middle school and secondary school 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

22

students are asked to integrate research, address many perspectives on an issue, and craft 

language to move an audience that is disinterested or holds opposing views. 

In writing to persuade, writers draw on a variety of approaches to thinking and writing 

that help them accomplish their communicative purpose. For example, someone writing 

to persuade an audience of parents with young children on the dangers of excessive 

television viewing might reflect on his or her own experiences by narrating, describing, 

and evaluating his or her own television viewing habits on a typical day. The writer might 

also analyze the viewing habits of Americans by comparing and contrasting 

contemporary television viewing habits with those of the past, or the writer might analyze 

the effects of television viewing on Americans’ health or social interactions. Finally, the 

writer might argue for reducing the number of hours that American children and adults 

watch television by giving reasons, based on evidence, for the positive changes in 

people’s lives that could result from a more physically active and socially involved 

lifestyle. In this example, the writer might decide to focus on extensive use of one or two 

of these approaches to thinking and writing, combine all of the approaches mentioned in 

the example, or employ others that are not included here. 

On the NAEP Writing Assessment, persuasive writing tasks will ask writers to convince 

an audience to take action or change a viewpoint on a variety of topics important to 

others (e.g., peers, school, the nation). In writing tasks for grade 4, students may be asked 

to express and support a point of view. Grade 8 students may be expected to review a 

proposal and convince others of its soundness with reasons and detailed evidence. Grade 

12 students may be assigned to compose an argument that demonstrates an understanding 

of other perspectives through its development and organization of ideas and that supports 

a position with logical reasoning. 

Exhibit 2.2 on the following page is an example of a writing task for the purpose To 

Persuade for grade 4. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

23

Exhibit 2.2. Example Writing Task for To Persuade (Grade 4) 

Imagine that students at your school are going to select a new school mascot. A mascot is 

an animal or object used to represent a group. For example, many sports teams have 

mascots. 

Four choices are being considered as your school’s mascot: Tigers, Rising Stars, 

Dolphins, and Rockets. You have been asked to choose one of the four mascots and to 

support your choice in a letter to the school principal. 

Write a letter to your principal convincing him or her that your choice should be the 

school mascot. Be sure to include reasons and examples in your letter. 

For additional examples of To Persuade writing tasks, visit the NAEP Questions Tool 

(http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nqt).

TO EXPLAIN 

Writers who compose to explain seek to present information and ideas to others in a 

manner that aids understanding of a topic. Throughout the K-12 curriculum, writing to 

explain is the most commonly assigned communicative purpose (Graham and Perin, 

2007): students write summaries, research reports, and other kinds of explanatory tasks in 

all of their school subjects. Writing to explain is an everyday occurrence in the workplace 

and the adult world as well, where people write informative e-mail messages, fill out 

applications, and write instructions. 

As with writing to persuade, writers seeking to explain a subject to an audience also draw 

upon a variety of approaches to thinking and writing that help them present their ideas. 

For example, a writer who wants to explain to middle school science students how DNA 

was discovered might narrate the story of the competing efforts of James D. Watson and 

Francis Crick to discover DNA. The writer might also describe the steps in the process 

that led to the discovery of DNA and analyze how each step helped scientists toward the 

discovery. To explain the importance of the discovery, the writer might evaluate the 

impact of DNA research on other scientific research and on other fields by synthesizing 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

24

information from several perspectives. In this example, the writer might decide to focus 

on extensive use of one or two of these approaches to thinking and writing, combine all 

of the approaches mentioned in the example, or employ others that are not included here.

On the NAEP Writing Assessment, tasks designed to assess students’ ability to write to

explain at grade 4 might call for a basic explanation of personal knowledge or an 

explanation of a sequence of pictures and/or steps provided in the task. Grade 8 tasks may 

ask students to analyze a process or write a response that compares similarities and 

differences between two events or ideas. Grade 12 tasks may focus on asking students to 

identify the causes of a problem or define a concept. At all three grade levels, writers will 

be expected to explain a topic to an audience by drawing upon approaches to thinking 

and writing that help them clearly present their ideas and by using language that helps the 

audience fully understand the topic or subject being explained. 

Below is an example of a writing task for the purpose To Explain for grade 12. 

Exhibit 2.3. Example Writing Task for To Explain (Grade 12) 

 

Members of your community, including local leaders and the mayor, are concerned about 

civic awareness and town pride. In order to open a dialogue with area residents, your 

local newspaper is inviting residents to respond to a question civic leaders have debated: 

“What makes a good community?” The newspaper wants those who respond to define a 

good community and to explain what elements are needed to create a good community. 

Responses to this question will be read by members of the city council, including the 

mayor, and used to support their efforts to improve civic awareness and town pride. 

Write a response for the newspaper in which you define a good community and explain 

what elements make a good community. Be sure to use specific examples and details to 

explain your ideas. 

For additional examples of To Explain writing tasks, visit the NAEP Questions Tool 

(http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nqt).

TO CONVEY EXPERIENCE, REAL OR IMAGINED

In conveying experience, writers seek to bring real or imagined experience to life for 

their readers. Writers connect to their audiences through descriptive details, voice, style, 

reflection on the meaning and significance of events and actions, and evocation of 

emotional response. Writing to convey experience reflects many text forms in the K-12 

and postsecondary curricula: stories, personal statements, and reflective essays; 

biographies; satirical essays; and so on. Writing to convey experience is commonly used 

throughout life to establish and convey identity in forms such as blogs, interviews, and 

memoirs. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

25

Narration is a common approach used in writing to convey experience, but writers also 

draw upon other thinking and writing approaches. For example, in writing to convey a 

particularly important event in one’s life to peers, a writer might analyze the causes of the 

event and then tell the story of the event by narrating what happened and describing the 

setting and others who were involved. The writer might also reflect on the meaning of the 

event by sharing thoughts about how it has affected his or her attitudes or actions. The 

writer might also evaluate the importance of the changes brought about by the event. In 

this example, the writer might decide to focus on extensive use of one or two of these 

approaches to thinking and writing, combine all of the approaches mentioned in the 

example, or employ others that are not included here. 

Tasks designed to assess writing to convey experience on the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment will encourage flexibility in thinking and form, allowing writers to organize 

complex reflective or imaginative responses. A grade 4 student could be asked to craft a 

short story by narrating events and describing setting and characters. A grade 8 student 

could be asked to write a narrative account of a favorite memory or experience and 

convey how it affected the writer and others. A grade 12 student might use writing to 

explore, reflect, and evaluate aspects of his or her character or growth as a person, using 

extended examples and self-questioning to illustrate the discussion. 

Below is an example of a writing task for the purpose To Convey Experience for grade 8. 

Exhibit 2.4. Example Writing Task for To Convey Experience (Grade 8) 

 

Teen Life, a magazine for young adults, has announced a writing contest for middle 

school students. The theme of the contest is “Achieving Goals.” The magazine has 

published the following contest instructions: 

Teen Life wants to hear about the experiences of young people who have achieved goals. To 

enter, write about a memorable moment in your life when you achieved a goal you set for 

yourself. All successful responses will need to clearly convey the experience of achieving a goal 

so that the reader can fully understand the experience and its importance. The staff of Teen Life

will select a winner, whose name will be published in next month’s issue. 

Write a response for the contest describing an experience of achieving a goal and the 

importance of that experience to your life. Be sure to include details in your response that 

help readers understand your experience and its importance.

For additional examples of To Convey Experience writing tasks, visit the NAEP 

Questions Tool (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nqt).

AUDIENCE

The intended recipient of a written text plays an important role in shaping the writer’s 

approach to all dimensions of his or her response. From developing and organizing ideas 

to the language the student uses, clear and effective communication requires an 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

26

awareness of readers’ needs and their level of knowledge about the writing topic. For this 

reason, audience will be clearly specified or implied in all writing tasks on the 2017

NAEP Writing Assessment. 

The kinds of audiences specified on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will differ at 

grades 4, 8, and 12 based on grade-level expectations and students’ familiarity with 

writing for other audiences. These audiences will progressively broaden: grade 4 students 

will be asked to write for peers or familiar individuals, while grade 12 students may be 

asked to write for more distant, authoritative audiences, such as government officials or 

community leaders. 

STUDENT CHOICE OF FORM 

The term “form” refers to the organizational features customarily required by a particular 

kind of writing, such as a short story, friendly letter, letter of complaint, and so on. Since 

a writer’s purpose and audience should determine the selection of the most appropriate 

form, several forms may be effective for a given writing task. On the 2017 NAEP 

Writing Assessment, students at grades 8 and 12 may have the flexibility to choose the 

form they believe best accomplishes the assigned communicative purpose for the 

audience the task specifies. For example, in response to a task asking students to “explain 

what the concept of community means to you,” a student in grade 12 might choose to 

address the task by writing a definition essay, an editorial/opinion column, a letter to the 

City Council, and so on. In this instance, the writer would choose the form that, in his or 

her judgment, is most effective for communicating ideas to the intended audience. 

Framework developers, however, recognize that it is necessary to make writing tasks 

accessible within the time allotted for writing, so it may be necessary for some or all 

tasks to explicitly state which form a writer will use. Therefore, the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Framework recommends that three types of writing tasks be considered at grades 8 and 

12: 

 Tasks that specify a text type, or form (e.g., “Write a letter to persuade the 

principal of your school to ....”)

 Tasks that do not specify a text type (e.g., “Persuade the principal of your school 

to ....”)

 Tasks that recommend several possible text types (e.g., “Write a letter, editorial, 

or essay to persuade the principal of your school to ....”)

Given grade 4 students’ limited experience writing without a specified form, the NAEP 

writing tasks at grade 4 will clearly state the form the response should take. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

27

EXAMPLE TASK ILLUSTRATING COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSE,

AUDIENCE, EXAMPLE APPROACHES TO THINKING AND WRITING, AND 

POTENTIAL FORMS

The negotiation between the parameters of the written task and the choices the writer 

makes within these parameters is central to the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. Writing 

tasks will specify the topic, the purpose for writing, the audience, and (at grade 4) the 

form, but writers will be expected to craft language and draw upon approaches to 

thinking and writing that they feel will best achieve their communicative purpose. 

Students at grades 8 and 12 may be asked to choose the form that they believe best 

supports the communicative purpose of the writing task. 

In the example task on the following page, all content components of the assessment are 

identified: the writing task, the communicative purpose, the audience, some examples of 

approaches to thinking and writing that a writer might draw upon, and possible text 

forms. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

28

Exhibit 2.5. Example Task Illustrating Communicative Purpose, Audience, Example 

Approaches to Thinking and Writing, and Potential Forms 

Example Task 

Scientists recently announced that a state 

park in your state contains large amounts of 

oil—a substance that can be converted into 

gasoline for cars or used to heat homes. 

Your state legislature is now debating 

whether to allow energy companies access 

to the protected land in this park in order to 

drill for the oil. In a speech to residents of 

the state, one of the state legislators 

identifies two sides of the debate:

“The debate over whether the state should 

allow energy companies to drill for 

petroleum on protected land is important to 

this state’s future. Some in the state 

legislature believe that allowing access to 

lands currently protected would benefit our 

economy, creating thousands of jobs and 

lowering the costs of goods and services. 

Others, however, believe it is more 

important to protect our natural 

environment and support a high quality of 

life for citizens of this state.

The state legislature has called on citizens 

of the state to express their opinions about 

this issue. Take a position and write a 

response persuading members of your state 

legislature to support your position on 

whether or not protected land in your state 

should be opened to energy companies for 

drilling.

Analysis of Task 

Grade: 12

Purpose: To Persuade (write a response 

persuading members of your state 

legislature to support your position on 

whether or not protected land in your state 

should be opened to energy companies for 

drilling)

Audience: Members of the student’s state 

legislature

Examples of Approaches to Thinking 

and Writing: Students might address this 

writing task using multiple approaches, 

alone or in combination with each other. 

For example, students could:

 Discuss the role of governments in 

protecting natural resources and whether 

economically beneficial land should be 

preserved (analyze, evaluate).

 Summarize and review current attitudes 

toward the issue, noting how these 

attitudes have affected the environment or 

economy (summarize, analyze).

 Critique the solutions offered by 

proponents and opponents of drilling, 

conceptualizing an alternative by finding a 

central idea that highlights opposing 

viewpoints (evaluate, synthesize).

 Analyze the importance of state parks or 

strong industries to the state (analyze, 

evaluate).

 Describe what an area in the state might 

look like if the land is or is not open to 

energy companies to drill oil (describe).

 Write personal anecdotes illustrating how 

their experiences with state parks or 

protected natural areas inform their views 

on the issue (describe, narrate, and 

reflect).

Potential Forms: Letter, essay, opinion 

piece
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

29

CHAPTER 3 

DESIGN OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the design of the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment. 

WRITING WITH COMPUTERS ON THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

In 2017 and beyond, the NAEP Writing Assessment will measure computer-based 

writing. “Computer-based writing” means that students compose and construct their 

responses using word processing software, with commonly available word processing 

tools enabled. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will measure how well students write 

when using word processing software on a computer. 

The move to a computer-based assessment from traditional paper and pencil assessments 

acknowledges the vital role computers play in both student composition and writing 

instruction. Word processing programs are a common composing mode for multi-draft 

process writing in middle school language arts classes (Christy, 2005) and are routinely 

used by high school students to create complex texts or to collaborate during the writing 

process (Thomas, 2005; Perry, 2005). In fact, two separate studies conducted in 2002 

found that 90 to 94 percent of middle and high school students reported using computers 

to produce drafts during the school year; 86 percent of teachers surveyed in one study 

said they used word processing for in-class writing instruction that year (Goldberg, 

Russell, and Cook, 2003; Horkay, et al., 2006). Results from two separate series of 

student background questions on the 2002 NAEP Writing Assessment also found that 

more than 75 percent of grade 8 and 12 students always or occasionally used computers 

throughout the writing process, while more than 70 percent of grade 12 students used 

word processing tools to compose and revise their drafts (Horkay, et al., 2006; Applebee 

and Langer, 2006). 

As writing on computers becomes an increasingly common means of composing, a 

computer-based assessment is the best method of understanding the writing practices of 

K-12 students. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment reflects students’ preference for the 

composing mode that more easily and efficiently allows them to generate and revise texts 

(Russell and Plati, 2000), and research has shown that students prefer to compose on 

computers when completing a large-scale writing assessment (McClarty, Keng, and 

Davis, 2006; Bennett, 2002). A computer-based writing assessment also provides 

students with writing environments more similar to those of postsecondary education and 

the workplace than a paper and pencil assessment can provide. 

WRITING WITH COMMONLY AVAILABLE WORD PROCESSING TOOLS

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment measures computer-based writing skills: students 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

30

will complete writing tasks using word processing software and the software’s commonly 

available tools. In the context of NAEP, “tools” refers to the extensions built into word 

processing software that help writers modify or revise their text documents. These 

tools—such as paragraph formatting, copy, cut, and paste; or thesaurus—are often used 

by students when producing texts. Tools help students revise and rethink their writing 

during the process of composing (Cramer and Smith, 2002) and have not been shown to 

have a detrimental effect on the development of language skills (Grejda and Hannafin, 

1992). In fact, the availability of a fuller set of tools on a computer-based writing 

assessment has been shown to lead to considerable improvement in the development of 

ideas in students’ responses to an assessment task (Russell, et al., 2004). 

The following list includes tools that were commonly available to writers when the 

Framework was adopted by the Governing Board. The list provides examples of the kinds 

of tools that will be considered for the NAEP Writing Assessments, pending the nature of 

tools available. 

Prewriting/Planning Tools: those used to help the student prepare to compose, 

such as scratch paper to brainstorm or a simple text editor (such as Notepad) to 

outline or take notes. 

Editing Tools: those used to add, delete, correct, or adapt typed text, such as copy, 

cut, paste, undo/redo, clipboard, and select all. 

Formatting Tools: those used to alter the physical appearance of the text, 

including the fonts, paragraphs, margins, and general layout. Current examples of 

such tools include paragraph formatting and templates. 

Spelling Tools: those used to verify or suggest options for the accurate spelling of 

typed words or phrases. 

Grammar Tools: those used to verify or suggest options for altering the grammar; 

usage; and mechanics of typed words, phrases, and sentences. 

Reference Tools: those used to verify the meaning or usage of a word or to find a 

synonym/antonym for a word or phrase. These tools include electronic 

dictionaries and thesauruses. 

 

Composing tools considered irrelevant to an assessment of writing or distracting to 

students—including such tools as clip art, font color, and the Internet—will not be 

enabled on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. 

A computer-based writing assessment creates additional opportunities to develop 

assessments that align with what students know and can do, but requires considerable 

resources and cooperation to be administered successfully. Extensive research, study, and 

field testing will be necessary before implementing the components of a computerized 

NAEP Writing Assessment. Considerations related to the delivery and administration of a 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

31

computer-based assessment, security, collection of responses, and reporting results will 

be considered in detail in the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment Specifications. 

COMPUTER-BASED TESTING AT GRADE 4

A computer-based assessment at grade 4 has been impractical because of limited 

instructional time for computer use prior to grade 4 and the limited keyboarding 

proficiency of many grade 4 students. However, the grade 4 assessment should become 

computer-based at some point during the tenure of the 2011 NAEP Writing Framework, 

potentially by 2019. By this time, computer instruction and keyboarding proficiency 

among grade 4 students should support a computer-based assessment. Pursuant to the 

Governing Board’s May 2010 decision, NAEP conducted a pilot computer-based writing 

assessment at grade 4 in 2013, which allowed for an in-depth examination of these issues 

and a determination that the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will be computer based for 

grade 4. 

TIME PER TASK

For the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment, students will be presented with two extended 

response tasks. This design is the best means of constructing a fair and effective largescale survey of student achievement in writing. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will 

be administered as two 30-minute writing tasks. 

DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSES

Exhibit 3.1 shows the distribution of tasks at each grade level in relation to 

communicative purposes on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. The percentages 

represent the proportion of tasks designed to assess each purpose out of the total number 

of tasks at each grade.

Exhibit 3.1. Percentage Distribution of Communicative Purposes by Grade 

Purpose Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

To Persuade 30% 35% 40%

To Explain 35% 35% 40%

To Convey Experience 35% 30% 20%

The assessment measures responses to a variety of communicative purposes at all grades, 

with an increase of To Persuade tasks at grades 4, 8, and 12; a consistent range of To 

Explain tasks among all three grades; and a decrease in the distribution of To Convey 

Experience tasks across the later grades. Students are accustomed to writing for all three 

communicative purposes in grades and subject areas throughout the K-12 curriculum, and 

this distribution highlights the particular importance of To Convey Experience and To 

Explain tasks in elementary and middle school, and To Persuade and To Explain tasks in 

secondary school settings. This progression also reflects the increasing importance of 

these two purposes in postsecondary and workplace settings. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

32

ASSESSING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

The framework committees have endeavored to design a writing assessment that allows 

for the participation of the widest possible range of students at grades 4, 8, and 12. 

Students with a range of backgrounds and experiences are included in the assessment, 

including English language learners (ELL) and students with disabilities (SD) who, based 

on inclusion criteria provided by NAEP, are capable of participating. 

Item and assessment development procedures will be followed that build accessibility 

into the assessment, while assessing student ability to write in English. Tasks on the 2017

NAEP Writing Assessment will be as fully and clearly explained in order to allow more 

sophisticated tasks to be included without disadvantaging students who have limited 

English language proficiency. Writing tasks that rely heavily on cultural or experiential 

knowledge for a successful response will not be included in the assessment. 

Special care will be taken to ensure that all student populations have an equal opportunity 

to demonstrate what they know and are able to do on the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment. As many students as possible should be encouraged to participate in the 

NAEP Writing Assessment. Accommodations should be offered, if necessary, to enable 

students with disabilities and English language learners to participate, but should not alter 

the knowledge and skills being assessed as defined in this framework.

INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

A student identified as having a disability—that is, a student with an Individualized 

Education Program (IEP), a Section 504 Plan, or an equivalent classification—will be 

included in the NAEP assessment unless the student has previously been identified in an 

IEP as having the most significant cognitive disabilities and is assessed by the state on an 

alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. 

In deciding how a student will participate in NAEP: 

a) If the student has an IEP or Section 504 plan and is tested without 

accommodation, then he or she takes NAEP without accommodation. 

b) If the student’s IEP or 504 plan specifies an accommodation permitted by NAEP, 

then the student takes NAEP with that accommodation. 

c) If the student’s IEP or 504 plan specifies an accommodation or modification that 

is not allowed on NAEP, then the student is encouraged to take NAEP without 

that accommodation or modification. 

(National Assessment Governing Board, 2010) 

INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

The NAEP program has established procedures to include and accommodate as many 

English language learners as possible in NAEP assessments. All English language 

learners selected for the NAEP sample who have been in United States schools for one 

year or more should be included in the National Assessment. One year or more shall be 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

33

defined as one full academic year before the year of the assessment. School staff make 

the decisions about whether to include ELL students in the NAEP assessments, and 

which testing accommodations, if any, they should receive. The NAEP program furnishes 

tools to assist school personnel in making those decisions. 

A sample of students is first selected at each grade level being tested. Students are 

selected for participation in the NAEP assessments without regard to English language 

learner (or disability) status. Accommodations should be offered that maximize 

meaningful participation, are responsive to the student’s level of English proficiency, and 

maintain the knowledge and skills being assessed as defined in this framework. 

A student may still be able to participate in the assessment even if the student did not 

participate in the regular state assessment, or even if he/she generally uses 

accommodations NAEP does not allow. In either instance, school staff would be asked 

whether that student could participate in NAEP with the allowable accommodations. 

ACCOMMODATIONS

Some students may need accommodations to be able to participate in the 2017 NAEP 

Writing Assessment. Accommodations in NAEP assessments include: 

 Extended time in regular session 

 Small group testing 

 One-on-one testing 

 Large-print booklets 

 Other: format or equipment accommodations such as a Braille version of 

the assessment, amplification devices, or magnification equipment (if 

provided by the school) 

Accommodations will be offered in combination as needed (e.g., students who receive 

one-on-one testing generally also use extended time) and attempts will be made to match 

the accommodations students are allowed in school and on their state assessment(s). To 

ensure consistency in administering the assessment, accommodations will be 

standardized to as great an extent as possible across the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. 

Appropriate accommodations for English language learners and students with disabilities 

will also be available for computer-based delivery of the assessment. 

Additional information about assessing students with special needs is included in the 

2017 NAEP Writing Specifications. Detailed manuals and training procedures will also 

be developed by NAEP contractors to ensure that inclusion criteria are applied uniformly 

and that students are assessed appropriately with accommodations.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

35

CHAPTER 4 

EVALUATION OF RESPONSES ON THE NAEP WRITING 

ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how students’ responses will be evaluated for 

the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. 

WHICH FEATURES OF WRITING WILL BE EVALUATED 

The most successful writers consistently make effective choices in all dimensions of their 

writing to achieve the writing task’s purpose and to meet the needs of their intended 

audience. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment has been constructed to emphasize that 

many important features of writing contribute to the overall quality of a written response. 

For the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment, three broad domains will be evaluated: 

 Development of Ideas 

 Organization of Ideas 

 Language Facility and Conventions 

These broad domains are consistent with learning standards and benchmarks in most 

states. In 2006, over 90 percent of states’ standards, benchmarks, and assessments at 

grades 4, 8, and 12 included development and organization of ideas, style and varied 

sentence structure, vocabulary and precise diction, and conventions of standard written 

English (grammar, usage, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling). In addition, 

approximately 60 percent of states had benchmarks for complexity of ideas and the 

logical progression of ideas, primarily at grades 8 and 12 (ACT Research Brief, 2006). 

Representatives from higher education and workplace settings also agree that a strong 

demonstration of many important features of writing is critical for success in these 

postsecondary arenas. Postsecondary educators value abstract reasoning and marshalling 

strong evidence in support of an argument, while representatives from various workplace 

settings tend to emphasize the importance of clarity and conciseness. All of these groups, 

however, emphasize the importance of awareness of audience, strong organization of 

ideas, and correct use of the conventions of standard written English (ACT Research 

Brief, 2006). 

Exhibit 4.1 presents the three broad domains assessed by the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment and the features within each domain that will be used to evaluate student 

performance on the writing tasks. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

36

Exhibit 4.1. Criteria for Evaluating Responses on the NAEP Writing Assessment

Development of ideas is effective in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 The depth and complexity of ideas are effective in relation to the writer’s purpose 

and audience. 

 Approaches to thinking and writing (e.g., analyzing, synthesizing) are used 

effectively in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 The details and examples used to develop ideas are specific and effective in relation 

to the writer’s purpose and audience.

Organization is logical in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Text structure is logical and effective in relation to the writer’s purpose and to the 

approaches to thinking and writing that the writer has used. 

 Coherence is maintained within and between paragraphs. 

 Focus is maintained throughout the response. 

Language facility and conventions support clarity of expression and the effectiveness of 

the writing in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Sentence structure is well controlled and sentence variety is appropriate for the 

writer’s purpose and audience.

 Precise and appropriate word choice supports clarity of expression and enhances the 

presentation of the writer’s ideas.

 Voice and tone are effective in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics (capitalization, punctuation, and spelling) support 

clarity of expression and enhance the presentation of the writer’s ideas.

DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS

To communicate thought to others, writers need to develop ideas to go beyond the 

presentation of superficial assertions—or mere opinions—which are likely to raise 

unanswered questions about the writers’ thoughts or experiences. When informing or 

persuading the audience, for example, writers must show in detail how generalities apply 

to particular cases, the basis for their conclusions, or how their conclusions differ from 

those of others. When conveying experience, writers often need to include extensive and 

exact descriptive detail to communicate a clear understanding of the experience. 

Although not all forms of writing require the same kind or extent of development (e.g., a 

detailed analysis of a problem versus a brief business letter or memorandum), effective 

writing is dependent on writers’ ability to anticipate the questions that might arise in the 

reader’s mind. Effective writers judiciously address those questions, with the depth and 

extent of the development of ideas determined by the difficulty of the material to be 

explained and by the purpose and audience for the writing. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

37

As Exhibit 4.1 illustrates, the following features will be used to evaluate the 

Development of Ideas in a written response. 

Depth and Complexity 

Successful writers show depth and complexity by demonstrating insight, knowledge, 

and/or understanding that allows them to move beyond a superficial discussion of a topic 

and establish credibility with their readers. Some of the most common means of creating 

substance include examining the relationships between a topic and related concepts, 

examining the topic from a global or “big picture” perspective, and/or demonstrating a 

broad understanding of how a topic might be perceived by the writer’s audience or by

other readers. On To Persuade tasks, then, successful writers might demonstrate depth 

and complexity by examining different perspectives on an issue and by providing 

convincing evidence to support the writer’s own position. On To Explain tasks, 

successful writers might demonstrate depth and complexity by providing a thoughtful and 

insightful explanation of the subject in terms the reader can readily understand or by fully 

examining the relationship of its parts. 

Approaches to Thinking and Writing 

The 2017 NAEP Writing Framework emphasizes that a number of approaches to thinking 

and writing (e.g., describing, evaluating, reflecting/questioning) may be used effectively 

to support the development of ideas and connect with the reader. Successful writers draw 

upon relevant approaches to thinking and writing that enhance their communicative 

purpose, or they extend the development of their ideas by weaving multiple approaches 

into a successful written response. Specific approaches to thinking and writing will not be 

specified on NAEP tasks, but responses will be evaluated for their use of effective 

approaches in relation to the development and organization of ideas. 

Details and Examples 

Successful writers develop responses by providing compelling details and examples that 

illustrate the writer’s points and expand the reader’s understanding. For example, on a 

task asking students to explain to a curious new student what to expect on the student’s 

first day of class, a writer might discuss recess and lunchtime rules, describe the way the 

cafeteria smells at lunchtime, and/or tell a story illustrating how kind the teachers are to 

the students. For the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment, students will be able to develop 

their ideas with details and examples taken from their own experiences or observations, 

or, in some cases, from brief reading passages or visual stimuli. 

ORGANIZATION OF IDEAS

Organization refers to the logical arrangement of sentences and paragraphs in order to 

coherently express ideas that readers can understand and follow. Organization is thus a 

fundamental component of effective writing—no matter the purpose, the form, or the 

audience—because the order and presentation of ideas is an important component of what 

compels readers to be convinced, enlightened, or affected. If writing is poorly organized, 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

38

the writer’s ideas will not be clearly conveyed and readers are likely to become confused 

or frustrated. Good organization requires the writer to remain focused on the writing topic 

by establishing a clear presentation and progression of ideas.

The following text features will be used to evaluate Organization of Ideas. 

Logical Text Structure 

The rhetorical flexibility available to the writer on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment 

will impact how the written response is constructed and how ideas are arranged. Students 

may respond to the topic, purpose, and/or audience in any number of different ways to 

best accomplish the demands of the writing task, leading to many kinds of effective text 

structures. For example, the use of analysis to explain might result in comparing and 

contrasting two or more ideas or objects, or an evaluation intended to persuade the reader 

might address potential solutions to a problem in some order of priority. In a text written 

To Convey Experience, writers might use a basic chronological approach to telling a 

story, or they might use other narrative techniques (e.g., flashbacks). Writers will be 

evaluated for the way their approach to organization helps build a logical progression of 

ideas to achieve the purpose of the task and to communicate to an audience. 

Eighth and twelfth graders will also draw upon their knowledge of form to structure their 

texts. Successful writers will use a form and structure appropriate to the topic, purpose, 

and audience when responding to a task on the assessment. For example, when asked to 

persuade members of a state legislature to support a particular position about drilling for 

oil in state parks, a student might effectively structure her ideas in the form of a 

newspaper editorial addressing and refuting points of opposition to her beliefs. 

Depending on the purpose and audience for the task, other potential forms eighth and 

twelfth graders may use include letters, different kinds of essays, articles, reports, and so 

on. 

Coherence and Focus 

Successful writers maintain focus by ensuring that ideas, details, and examples are 

relevant to the purpose, topic, and audience for the text. A written text is coherent if its 

ideas are clearly connected within and between paragraphs. Similarly, a text is coherent if 

the sentences within paragraphs and the paragraphs themselves are presented in a clear 

and logical order. Strong use of transitions helps to ensure that the reader perceives the 

relationship among parts of the writing and the relationship of the parts to the whole. 

LANGUAGE FACILITY AND CONVENTIONS

Language facility refers to stylistic effectiveness and grammatical clarity in the ways 

writers express ideas to the reader. Good writers make many choices about language use. 

They decide what kinds of sentences to use and how to construct sentences to clearly 

convey relationships among ideas; they also purposefully arrange these sentences to 

enhance the organizational qualities of their writing. They choose particular words and 

alter how emotion and voice are expressed to clearly and effectively communicate 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

39

meaning—and to maintain the reader’s interest. They adhere to established rules of 

communication to ensure understanding and avoid distractions. 

The following text features will be used to evaluate students’ language facility and 

conventions. 

Sentence Structure and Sentence Variety 

Good writers craft the structure and variety of their sentences to illuminate their topic, to 

effectively accomplish the purpose of the task, and to engage the reader. Effective 

sentence structure can also enhance the development and organization of ideas and is a 

device used by writers to emphasize ideas within a sentence. For example, students on the 

2017 NAEP Writing Assessment might use parallel sentence structure to demonstrate the 

comparability of points when explaining similarities or differences, or they might 

combine clauses with colons or semicolons in order to persuade an audience that their 

ideas are connected and logical—and thereby worth believing. 

Alternating the length and kinds of sentences used can also make a text easier to follow 

and more interesting to read. Successful writers achieve sentence variety by strategically 

crafting shorter and longer sentences, by varying the ways sentences begin, and by using 

a variety of sentence types (e.g., simple, compound, complex). These stylistic choices are 

made in order to best express or develop ideas that help the writer achieve the 

communicative purpose of the task. 

Word Choice, Voice, and Tone 

Successful writers are able to decide what words will most precisely and clearly express 

their ideas and what words will support their purpose for writing. Successful writers also 

consider their relationship with the reader, choosing words that encourage a reader to 

connect to their ideas and intentions. When conveying experience, for example, writers 

often choose evocative words that appeal to the reader’s senses and give the sensation of 

experiencing the event. 

Effective writing also involves adapting word choice, voice, and tone depending on the 

purpose, audience, and/or topic of a writing task. In other words, the most successful 

writers recognize the context of the writing situation—what they are writing about, who 

their audience is—and deliberately alter their style and language to achieve a purpose. 

Two ways this is achieved are through voice, the writer’s ability to convey a personality 

or attitude in language, and tone, the writer’s attitude toward the topic or audience. 

Writers alter their manner of expression (e.g., their word choice, sentence structures, etc.) 

as a means of demonstrating their attitudes towards a topic or an audience. For example, 

a writer composing a satirical essay may express a tone of mockery or disgust for a topic 

by altering his or her voice to include common elements of sarcasm, such as exaggeration 

or rhetorical questions. The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will evaluate how these 

stylistic choices help the writer achieve the purpose of the writing task and communicate 

effectively to the audience. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

40

Conventions: Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics 

Grammar is the system through which a given language is ordered according to an 

agreed-upon set of internal rules; usage refers to established conventions of written 

language commonly used in forms of communication; and mechanics refers to 

conventions of capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Good writers have a command of 

grammar, usage, and mechanics so that only minimal errors, if any, are present in their 

writing. Just as the variety, severity, and pervasiveness of errors in grammar, usage, and 

mechanics can distract readers and make it difficult to understand the writer’s meaning, 

correct use of language can facilitate understanding by allowing the reader to focus on the 

writer’s thoughts and ideas. 

HOW RESPONSES WILL BE EVALUATED

SCORING RUBRIC FOR EACH COMMUNICATIVE PURPOSE

The use of a holistic rubric is recommended as the basic tool for evaluation of responses 

on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. The holistic approach to scoring focuses on an 

evaluation of the whole response rather than on its individual parts (Myers, 1980). That 

is, a response will not be evaluated with a separate score for each writing feature, and an 

overall score will not be derived by adding together scores for each separate feature. 

Instead, a response will be scored by assessing performance across multiple criteria—

development of ideas, organization of ideas, language facility and conventions—to 

evaluate overall performance. Because of the depth of evaluative criteria and the wide 

range of potential responses to the writing tasks, responses to tasks on the 2017 NAEP 

Writing Assessment will be scored on a six-point scale, with 1 being low and 6 being 

high. A six-point scale provides the clearest possible distinction among achievement 

levels, the most explicit operational definitions, and a continuum of performance 

(Wolcott, 1998). 

To score responses for the writing assessment, a holistic rubric unique to each 

communicative purpose will be used. This approach will result in the use of three rubrics: 

one for the communicative purpose To Explain, another for the purpose To Persuade, and 

a third for the purpose To Convey Experience. Each scoring rubric will contain all the 

features to be evaluated and will include descriptions of the performance expected at each 

score point. 

Although the same scoring rubric will be used for each communicative purpose across 

grades 4, 8, and 12, the interpretation, or application, of the rubric will be different at 

each grade. Scorers will be carefully and extensively trained to interpret and apply the 

scoring rubric by reading actual responses selected at each grade level. These responses 

will be chosen to demonstrate appropriate and increasing expectations for performance at 

each grade level. For example, responses selected to guide evaluation of writing at grade 

4 for the purpose To Persuade might, at the highest level of performance, use some 

specific and relevant details to support the writer’s opinion. At grade 12, however, 

responses selected to demonstrate performance at the highest level might demonstrate the 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

41

ability to consistently present reasons and details that show an awareness of other 

perspectives on the issue. 

SCORING RUBRICS

Final scoring rubrics will be developed by using actual student responses obtained during 

field testing of NAEP Writing Assessment tasks. All features of writing to be evaluated 

will be present in the final scoring rubrics for the NAEP Writing Assessment. That is, the 

features used as a basis for evaluating responses will not change. However, the language 

used to describe expectations for the levels of performance may differ in the final scoring 

rubrics based on actual student performance found in the field test responses. 

The preliminary scoring rubric for To Persuade uses the following description of the 

qualities of a response at score point 5. The words and phrases describing the level of 

expectation at this score point are italicized in the excerpt below. These are the kinds of 

descriptors that may be revised based on actual performance in field test responses prior 

to scoring actual responses from the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. 

Score = 5 Responses in this range demonstrate competent skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are usually well controlled and clearly support the writer’s purpose, 

audience, and form. 

 The response formulates a position that usually recognizes and acknowledges multiple 

significant aspects of the issue but may not fully address some of the complexities of the 

issue. The response demonstrates some insight by acknowledging and partially

addressing other perspectives, by evaluating some implications of the writer’s position, 

and/or by using affective arguments that are usually persuasive. 

 The response usually provides persuasive reasons and evidence to support the writer’s 

position. Approaches to the development of ideas are usually used skillfully to support 

the persuasive purpose. 

 Ideas are usually focused on the topic. Organization is clear and may demonstrate a 

logical progression of ideas that supports the persuasive purpose and is relevant to the 

writer’s approaches to organization. Transitions clearly convey relationships among 

ideas. 

 Sentence structure is well controlled to communicate relationships among ideas and 

varied as appropriate for the writer’s purpose. Word choice is usually precise and 

evaluative and usually supports the persuasive purpose. Voice and tone are usually

controlled and effective for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are usually correct with a few distracting errors, but 

meaning is clear. 

Preliminary holistic scoring rubrics for each of the three communicative purposes are 

provided in appendix B.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

42

TRAINING READERS TO SCORE RESPONSES

In a large-scale assessment like NAEP, scorers are taught to use the scoring rubric 

through extensive training using many example responses at each score point. Scorers are 

also required to demonstrate their ability to score accurately by passing a qualification 

test. Responses to writing tasks on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will likely vary 

widely, so scorers will be carefully trained to evaluate the effectiveness of responses that 

may look very different from one another. Therefore, the responses used to train scorers 

will be selected to demonstrate many different examples of how writers employ different 

approaches when communicating ideas to the audience identified in the writing task. 

In addition, scorers will be trained to evaluate students’ responses as on-demand writing. 

Scorers will be trained to assess responses based on all of the features included in the 

scoring rubric, but they will take into consideration that the time limit for writing does 

not allow writers to pursue all the possibilities for revision and editing of their initial 

draft.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

43

CHAPTER 5 

REPORTING RESULTS OF THE NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the results of the NAEP Writing 

Assessment will be reported. 

HOW NAEP RESULTS ARE REPORTED

The National Assessment of Educational Progress provides the only national report on 

student achievement in a variety of subjects. NAEP administers writing assessments at 

regular intervals to students in grades 4, 8, and 12 attending both public and nonpublic 

schools, collecting a significant, representative sample of student writing at these grades. 

The 2007 NAEP Writing Assessment, for example, sampled 20,000 grade 12 students 

from public and private schools at the national level. In 2007, NAEP also sampled 

152,000 grade 8 students at the state and national levels from public and private schools 

and from the districts participating in NAEP’s Trial Urban District Assessment. 

The primary means for public release of NAEP results is a printed summary report 

known as The Nation’s Report Card. This report is also available on a dedicated website: 

http://nationsreportcard.gov. Both resources provide detailed information on the nature of 

the assessment, the students who participate, and the assessment results. 

The Nation’s Report Card includes information on the performance of various subgroups 

of students at the national, state, and urban district levels. Subgroups for NAEP include: 

 Gender 

 Race/Ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American 

Indian/Alaska Native) 

 Eligibility for Free/Reduced-Price Lunch 

 Students with Disabilities 

 English Language Learners 

Detailed data on NAEP results, demographic variables, and subject-specific background 

information are available via the NAEP Data Explorer. Additional restricted data are 

available for scholarly research, subject to National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) licensing procedures. 

The Nation’s Report Card also reports performance for public schools in states and 

jurisdictions and the NAEP Trial Urban Districts. The Trial Urban District Assessment 

(TUDA) was initiated in 2002 in five large urban school districts that are members of the 

Council of the Great City Schools (Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and New 

York). Five additional districts were added between 2003 and 2005: Boston, Charlotte-
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

44

Mecklenburg, Cleveland, San Diego, and Austin. These 10 districts participated in the 

2007 NAEP Writing Trial Urban District Assessment. 

In addition to The Nation’s Report Card, the NAEP website provides access to other 

NAEP reports, sample writing tasks, and scoring rubrics with example responses. The 

website also lists data sources that can be used for more in-depth analysis of student 

achievement results or of the assessments themselves. The Nation’s Report Card and its 

website include references and links to the National Assessment Governing Board’s 

website and to the National Center for Education Statistics website. 

REPORTING SCALE SCORES AND ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS

NAEP writing results are reported in two ways: as scale scores and as percentages of 

students attaining achievement levels. Scale scores, which are derived from student 

responses to NAEP assessment items, summarize the overall level of performance 

attained by a group of students. In 1998, 2002, and 2007, NAEP writing scale scores 

were presented as average scale scores on a 0–300 scale and as scale scores at selected 

percentiles. For example, grade 8 students who scored 180 on the 2002 administration 

fell into the 75th percentile. When used in conjunction with interpretive aids, such as item 

maps, scale scores provide information about how much students know and can do in 

writing. Performance for each grade is scaled separately; therefore, average scale scores 

cannot be compared across grades. For example, equal scores on the grade 4 and grade 8 

scales do not imply equal levels of writing ability. The scale score range for 2017 will be 

determined during the assessment development process. 

Reporting on achievement levels is the primary way in which NAEP results reach the 

general public and policymakers. Achievement level results indicate the degree to which 

student performance meets the standards set for what students should know and be able to 

do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels. Descriptions of achievement levels 

articulate expectations of performance at each grade level. They are reported as 

percentages of students within each achievement level range, as well as the percentage of 

students at or above Basic and the percentage at or above Proficient. Results for students 

not reaching the Basic achievement level are reported as below Basic. Results are also 

reported for subgroups of students using demographic data and background variables 

specific to the NAEP Writing Assessment. An individual student’s performance cannot 

be reported based on NAEP results. 

Exhibit 5.1 displays the Governing Board’s generic policy definitions for Basic, 

Proficient, and Advanced achievement that pertain to all NAEP subjects and grades. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

45

Exhibit 5.1. Generic Achievement Level Policy Definitions for NAEP 

Achievement 

Level Definition

Advanced This level signifies superior performance.

Proficient

This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. 

Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over 

challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application 

of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate 

to the subject matter.

Basic This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that 

are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

There are three components to the NAEP achievement levels: 

 Achievement Level Descriptions 

 Cut scores 

 Examples of students’ responses

ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS

The Achievement Level Descriptions represent an informed judgment of how good is 

good enough at each grade. Achievement Level Descriptions represent student 

performance on the evaluative criteria specified in the rubrics. 

The full text of the Achievement Level Descriptions for the NAEP Writing Assessment 

(appendix C) includes descriptions for all three achievement levels at each grade. The 

following text presents the description for grade 8 at the Proficient level. 

Grade 8 

Eighth-grade students writing at the Proficient level demonstrate competence in 

writing a response appropriate to the topic, purpose, and audience. They develop their 

ideas with some well-chosen details, reasons, or examples. Writers at this level create an 

organized structure that shows a mostly logical, coherent progression of sentences and 

ideas. Their writing contains some sentence variety and precise word choices, and voice 

and tone are usually appropriate for the topic, purpose, and audience. These writers 

demonstrate an overall command of grammar, usage, and mechanics, including 

capitalization, punctuation, and spelling, although their writing may contain some errors. 

Achievement Level Descriptions are included in the NAEP Writing Framework to guide 

the development of writing tasks of increasing complexity across grade levels and to 

support the process of standard setting. 

After decisions about the implementation of the assessment have been finalized (i.e., 

standard versus non-standard platform, what word processing tools will be enabled, etc.), 

the Governing Board convenes panels of experts to recommend final Achievement Level 

Descriptions for each grade level. A broadly representative panel of exceptional teachers, 

educators, and professionals is then convened to engage in a standard setting process to 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

46

determine the cut scores that correspond to these Achievement Level Descriptions. The 

panelists are trained and engage in a series of discussions designed to ensure informed 

judgments about mapping cut scores to the assessment. 

CUT SCORES

Cut scores, the second component of reporting on achievement levels, represent the 

minimum score required for performance at each NAEP achievement level. Cut scores 

are reported along with the percentage of students who scored at or above the cut score. 

EXAMPLES OF STUDENTS’ RESPONSES

The third component of achievement level reporting includes examples of student 

responses on released writing tasks. As in previous NAEP writing assessments, these 

examples provide illustrations of student skills within each level of achievement. In 

addition to examples of responses at each achievement level, the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment will provide examples to demonstrate achievement for each communicative 

purpose at grades 4, 8, and 12 and at each score point. Example responses will be 

annotated to explain the score for the response and salient features of development, 

organization, and language use in relation to the writer’s purpose and audience. 

Significant strengths and weaknesses of the response will be addressed in annotations as 

well. 

REPORTING BACKGROUND VARIABLES

Background data on students, teachers, and schools are needed to fulfill the statutory 

requirement that NAEP include information, whenever feasible, for groups identified in 

the first section of this chapter (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity). Therefore, students, teachers, 

and school administrators participating in NAEP are asked to respond to questionnaires 

designed to gather demographic information. Information is also gathered from nonNAEP sources, such as state, district, or school records. 

In addition to demographic information, background questionnaires include questions 

about variables related to achievement in writing. The variables are selected to be of 

topical interest, to be timely, and to be directly related to academic achievement and 

current trends and issues in writing. Questions do not solicit information about personal 

topics or information irrelevant to the collection of data on writing achievement. 

Background variables for the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment reflect two primary 

interests: computer use (particularly with regard to writing with computers) and the 

number and kinds of opportunities students have to write. NAEP’s ability to show 

similarities and differences among groups in relation to achievement in writing has the 

potential to inform educational policy at the national level as well as in states and school 

districts. For example, data from a question about students’ use of computers might show 

that students who score in the Proficient range compose on the computer more often than 

those who score in the Basic range. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

47

Recommendations for background variables for the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment are 

presented in Writing Background Variables Recommendations, but some highlights 

follow. Exhibit 5.2 displays several topics for background variables on technology and 

opportunities to write. 

Exhibit 5.2. Highlights of Background Variables Recommended for the 2017

NAEP Writing Assessment 

Topics Grades 4, 8, and 12

Students: Computer 

Use

Frequency and purpose of computer use (e.g., doing homework, 

writing, Internet research, computer games)

What tools are commonly used for composing and what tools were 

used on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment

English Language Arts 

(ELA) Teachers: 

Computer Use

How often and how computers are used in instruction (e.g., to write 

papers, do Internet research, use an online encyclopedia)

How students are instructed to use computers for writing (e.g., find 

information for writing, generate ideas, compose their first draft)

Schools: Computer Use School expectations or standards for computer proficiency and/or 

technological literacy

Location and accessibility of computers (e.g., classrooms, labs, 

libraries)

Students: 

Opportunities to Write

How often the student is given a specific time period for writing in 

class (not including tests), and how much time is usually allowed

Kinds of writing students compose on the computer outside of 

school (e.g., e-mail, blogs, instant messaging)

ELA Teachers: 

Opportunities to Write

Purposes for writing taught or assigned

Participation in professional development related to the teaching of 

writing

Schools: Opportunities 

to Write

Existence of and extent to which writing is a school-wide initiative 

(e.g., writing across the curriculum, literacy coaching, etc.)

Opportunities for professional development in writing

NEW COMPONENT OF NAEP REPORTING: PROFILE OF STUDENT WRITING 

The 2017 NAEP Writing Framework recommends that a subset of student responses at 

grades 4, 8, and 12 be selected and examined to obtain more in-depth information about 

what students do in relation to the three domains of writing assessed by NAEP—

development of ideas, organization of ideas, and language facility and conventions. The 

analyses in the Profile of Student Writing will be reported at the national level only and 

will provide the public, policymakers, and educators with data about important features 

of student writing. The Profile will also include a considerable number of student 

responses that model qualities of the text features and language facility analyzed in 

student responses, along with detailed annotations describing particular features of the 

response. 

While the feasibility of this new component of NAEP reporting is to be determined, the 

Profile should include four components. The first three would include the results of 

studies of a variety of characteristics of student writing. These three analyses are intended 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

48

to provide observations of what students do in their responses, independent of how the 

responses were scored. For example, one analysis might be designed to investigate how 

the communicative purposes for the tasks impact the choices students make in their 

approaches to developing and organizing ideas and in their uses of language. 

The fourth component of the Profile would then link the results of these analyses to 

achievement. In this section of the Profile, data derived from analyses of rhetorical 

features present in responses would be correlated with performance reflected in the 

achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced). For example, this component 

might report on achievement levels in relation to students’ selection of form (at grades 8 

and 12) for To Persuade tasks, or on achievement levels in relation to students’ use of 

certain sentence structures. 

METHODOLOGY AND REPORTING OF THE PROFILE OF STUDENT WRITING

SAMPLING

By selecting a nationally representative sample, the results of the analyses can be 

generalized to the whole population. To produce stable estimates of statistical results for 

the Profile and to enable sound conclusions from the data, the national sample would be 

selected according to specific guidelines based on demographic attributes, geographical 

diversity, kinds of schools, scores on responses, and so on. 

METHODOLOGY FOR RHETORICAL ANALYSES

Analyses of the responses for the first three components of the Profile should be done in 

two stages. In the first stage, an observational study should be conducted to determine 

what specific dimensions of the responses will be studied, and how key questions used to 

guide further investigation will be developed. In the second stage, evidence drawn from 

the responses should be quantified in relation to the key questions. In some cases, 

computer software can be utilized to support analysis of responses. It is expected that this 

approach will be particularly useful in supporting analyses of some language features. 

For example, if types and variety of sentences were analyzed, computer software could 

be used to efficiently identify and count types of sentences (e.g., simple, compound, 

complex, periodic, etc.) used in responses. Additionally, if the nature and extent of errors 

were analyzed, computer software could be used to identify and count most kinds of 

language errors that may occur in the responses. 

REPORTING RESULTS OF RHETORICAL ANALYSES

Because NAEP will have collected information about a variety of demographic factors 

and about students’ writing experiences, including those related to composing on the 

computer, data drawn from analyses of the responses should be aggregated and 

disaggregated in many different ways in order to illuminate how students approach the 

writing tasks. Background variables relevant to key questions should also be analyzed to 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

49

learn what information about the students might be related to findings from the 

quantitative analyses of dimensions of writing. For example, background variables might 

be used to better understand how students from different demographic groups or how 

students who report different kinds of writing experiences respond to each 

communicative purpose across tasks at their grade level. 

REPORTING RESULTS OF RHETORICAL ANALYSES IN RELATION TO ACHIEVEMENT

The fourth component of the Profile should include information relating the findings 

from the analyses of development and organization of ideas and from the analysis of 

language use to performance based on achievement levels. In this section of the Profile, 

observations about various dimensions of writing analyzed should be correlated with 

performance at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels. Thus, for example, if one 

component of rhetorical analysis were to address what forms students at grades 8 and 12 

choose (for tasks where a choice is given), this section of the Profile could report what 

kinds of forms students at each achievement level use, whether responses at different 

achievement levels tend to display a greater variety of approaches to thinking and writing 

in relation to forms chosen, and whether form impacts text structures differently at each 

achievement level. 

In all components of the Profile, and in particular in the section linking characteristics of 

students’ texts to performance, care will be taken to avoid reporting results that might 

appear to prescribe specific instructional practices. All results reported will be 

appropriately contextualized in relation to the parameters of the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment with regard to time allowed for composing and the nature of the writing task. 

USES OF NAEP REPORTING

The depth and extent of the information available from results of the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment will provide important data during the tenure of the framework. The results 

of the 2011 NAEP Writing Assessment began a new trend line: policymakers, educators,

and the public can use data from the assessments as a tool for monitoring certain aspects 

of student achievement in writing over time. NAEP reports compare student performance 

across states, within the subject area of writing, and among groups of students within the 

same grade. Long-term achievement trends (e.g., the comparison of score performance to 

previous administrations) can also be reported in 2017.

Because the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will measure some writing experiences but 

not all, there will be limitations to the range and scope of information it can produce. 

NAEP publishes data on student performance in relation to various achievement levels 

and demographic subgroups; the information reported does not evaluate results or 

provide conclusive statements about the level of achievement among the nation’s K-12 

students. Furthermore, the NAEP Writing Assessment is not designed to inform 

instruction—to guide how writing is taught—only to measure a representative sample of 

the student population at grades 4, 8, and 12 and students’ performance within the 

assessment context outlined in this framework. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

50

The important components of NAEP reporting are summarized in Exhibit 5.3. 

Exhibit 5.3. Summary of NAEP Reporting Components 

Key Characteristics

Components of NAEP Reporting

How 

Information is 

Reported

Elements released to the public include:

 Printed summary report known as The Nation’s 

Report Card 

 Dedicated website: http://nationsreportcard.gov

 Performance of various subgroups at the 

national, state, and district level published in 

print and online

What is 

Reported

NAEP data are reported by:

 Percentage of students attaining achievement 

levels 

 Scale scores 

 Sample responses to illustrate Achievement 

Level Descriptions

What 

Information is 

Gathered

Types of background variables distributed to students, teachers, 

and schools:

 Demographics

 Computer use (especially in writing) 

 The number and kinds of opportunities to write

New Component for 

NAEP Reporting 

Profile of 

Student Writing

Components of the Profile include:

 Analysis of students’ development of ideas

 Analysis of students’ organization of ideas

 Analysis of students’ language facility and 

conventions 

 Exploratory Analysis: relationship between 

performance and attributes of writing
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

51

CONCLUSION

The goal of the 2017 NAEP Writing is to meet the demands of assessing young 

people’s ability to write to communicate in the 21st century. 

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment represents a way forward for the large-scale 

assessment of writing. By focusing on the kinds of purpose-centered writing most 

common to K-12 and postsecondary settings, and by emphasizing the engagement of 

clearly defined audiences, the assessment better emulates many real-world writing 

situations. The 2017 assessment’s emphasis on students’ rhetorical flexibility encourages 

a rich variety of response approaches—students have the freedom to and are expected to 

draw upon many critical thinking and writing approaches to develop, organize, and 

articulate ideas. 

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment reflects emerging definitions of what “effective 

communication” means. Because students will compose with word processing software 

and because common word processing tools that support writing will be enabled, the 

assessment offers a writing environment reflective of the way students most commonly 

compose in the 21st century. The on-demand writing scenarios that will be presented in

the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment are similar to many writing situations in academic 

and professional settings and provide a relevant survey of how students perform under 

time constraints. 

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment seeks new ways of understanding student writing 

achievement. By using holistic rubrics designed specifically to assess performance in 

relation to particular communicative purposes for writing, and by training scorers to 

recognize the effectiveness of a variety of kinds of responses, the assessment design 

encourages writing that moves beyond prescriptive or formulaic qualities. In addition, 

new information on the kinds of writing students and teachers are composing in and out 

of school, as well as the role computers play in that writing (and writing instruction) will 

be gathered. Further, analysis of a nationally representative subset of responses will 

provide a deeper understanding of important features of students’ writing and of 

connections between student performance and specific components of the assessment. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

53

APPENDIX A 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

This glossary provides brief definitions of terms used throughout the 2017 NAEP Writing 

Framework. The terms are defined according to their use in the framework. The list 

includes terms that relate to types of reading materials, text structures and features, 

techniques of author’s craft, and other key terms. 

Accessibility: Content and design considerations that ensure all student populations can 

demonstrate what they know and can do on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment. 

Achievement Level Descriptions: Statements established by the National Assessment 

Governing Board that define what students know and can do at each achievement level of 

writing (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced).

Accommodations: Changes to test materials or procedures (e.g., large print booklets, 

extended time) that allow students with disabilities and English language learners an 

equal opportunity to demonstrate what they know and can do. 

Analyzing: An approach to thinking and writing that breaks down a large topic into 

logical parts, which can then be extensively examined individually or in relation to a 

broad subject as a whole. 

Approaches to thinking and writing: Methods used on a writing task (e.g., analyzing, 

describing, narrating, synthesizing) to support the development and organization of ideas 

in relation to the purpose and audience specified. 

Arguing: An approach to thinking and writing that attempts to prove or disprove by 

using a range of strategies, such as giving reasons, supporting and organizing evidence 

(e.g., analogies, illustrations), and/or by considering pros and cons on a subject. 

Assessment: The evaluation of students’ academic skills to determine what they know 

and can do. 

Framework: For each NAEP subject, a framework is developed to describe the design of 

the assessment, the content to be assessed by NAEP, how that content will be measured, 

and how results will be reported. 

Assessment Specifications: The document that specifies how framework guidelines are 

to be implemented in relation to the content, design, evaluation, and reporting of a NAEP 

subject assessment. 

Audience: The specified or clearly implied person(s) on a 2017 NAEP Writing 

Assessment task to whom writers address their responses. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

54

Background variables: Student, teacher, and school background questionnaires used to 

collect data that may support analysis of student performance on an assessment. 

Coherence: The consistent relationship of parts and ideas in a piece of writing, helping 

the reader understand the writer’s purpose and his or her argument.

Communicative purposes: The aim or goal of a writing task. In the context of NAEP, 

three communicative purposes are assessed: to persuade; to explain; and to convey 

experience, real or imagined. 

Complexity: Refers to a) the level with which writing addresses the implications, 

complications, and multiple dimensions of a topic or issue, and b) the increase in 

difficulty of tasks and expectations for writing across grades. 

Computer-based testing: The administration of any assessment on computers. 

Construct (noun): The articulation of all components of the assessment as they relate to 

what the assessment is designed to measure. 

Contextual information: Information provided in the task that supports understanding of 

the situation or topic to be addressed in a response. Contextual information on some 

NAEP Writing Assessment tasks will also include visual stimuli and reading passages. 

Constructed response: A type of assessment task that requires students to produce their 

own answer rather than selecting from a given list (e.g., multiple choice). On the 2017

NAEP Writing Framework, the method of constructed response is the completion of 

written composition. 

Conventions: Commonly accepted rules and guidelines for formal written language 

concerning grammar and usage, as well as mechanics (e.g., punctuation, capitalization, 

and spelling). 

Convey experience, real or imagined: A communicative purpose in which students 

engage the reader in an event or perspective, real or imagined. 

Cut score: The minimum score required to attain a NAEP achievement level (e.g., Basic, 

Proficient, or Advanced).

Describing: An approach to thinking and writing that depicts a person, object, or idea in 

ways that appeal to the senses of the writer’s audience.

Development of ideas: The use of evidence, support, and approaches in expressing a 

purpose so that an audience can comprehend the writer’s understanding of a topic or 

issue.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

55

Direct writing assessment: The measurement of students’ writing abilities by their 

performance on a writing task. 

Distracting errors: Mistakes in language conventions and/or usage that prevent a reader 

from fully understanding the writer’s ideas or message.

Domain: A broad feature of all writing (e.g., language facility) comprised of specific and 

important components that can be used to assess student performance within this feature. 

English language learner: A student who is not a native English speaker and is still in 

the process of English language acquisition. 

Evaluating: An approach to thinking and writing that defines and justifies the 

significance, value, or quality of an object or idea. 

Explain: A communicative purpose in which a writer’s aim is to make a subject, issue, or 

concept understandable to the reader. 

Field testing: The process by which tasks under consideration for an assessment are 

determined to be accessible, comparable, and effective in discriminating among various 

levels of achievement or ability. Field tests are designed to simulate an actual assessment.

Focus: The emphasis on and/or consistent development of a main point, controlling idea, 

or theme. 

Form: Types of text readily identifiable because of common organizational patterns or 

language features. 

Grammar: A set of rules that define how a language is structured and communicated, 

thereby creating a standard language that writers commonly follow.

Holistic scoring rubric: A guide for scorers to evaluate writing performance, focusing 

on assessing performance across multiple domains—e.g., development, organization, 

language facility and conventions —to evaluate overall performance. Scorers evaluating 

responses on the 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will use a holistic rubric with a scale 

of 1-6. 

Inclusion criteria: The parameters used to determine whether a student with special 

needs or an English language learner is eligible for participation on a NAEP assessment. 

Individual Education Program (IEP): The document that outlines an appropriate 

instructional program and relevant accommodations for a student with special needs.

Interpreting: An approach to thinking and writing that explains the meaning or 

significance of an idea not readily apparent from initial reading, discussion, or common 

understanding. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

56

Large-scale assessment: Standardized assessment program designed to evaluate the 

achievement of large groups of students. 

Mechanics: Conventions of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. 

NAEP special study: Research conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics 

that provides new information on NAEP assessments or a subject matter NAEP assesses. 

Narrating: An approach to thinking and writing that presents events in a meaningful 

order—often chronological—that imparts experience, knowledge, or description. 

On-demand writing: The assessment of students’ writing abilities in a limited time 

frame. 

Persuade: A communicative purpose in which a writer attempts to convince an audience 

of his or her point of view or to move the audience to action. 

Reading passages: Text (e.g., such as a quotation or short excerpt from a book or article) 

included in a writing task to stimulate and support the writer’s response.

Reflecting/Questioning: An approach to thinking and writing in which a writer 

demonstrates self-examination or contemplation in his/ or her response. 

Rhetorical flexibility: The writer’s ability to adapt his or her ideas, organization, syntax, 

word choice, and other conventions of writing depending upon the purpose and audience 

of the writing task. 

Rubric: A scoring guide that notes what specific features of student learning will be 

assessed and the expected level of performance at each score point. A rubric is used to 

guide evaluators’ assignment of numerical scores to different levels of performance.

Scaffolding: In a writing task, the clarity and quality of contextual information provided 

to support and guide the writer’s response.

Scale score: A score derived from student responses to NAEP assessment items that 

summarizes the overall level of performance attained by a group of students. This 

score—presented as a number on a set scale—provides information about what a 

particular aggregate of students (e.g., grade 4 students) know and can do in writing. 

Scorers: The evaluator or rater of responses to NAEP writing tasks. 

Section 504 plan: The document that outlines a program of instructional services to 

assist students with special needs who are in mainstream educational settings. 

Sentence structure: The ways in which sentences are organized and composed.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

57

Sentence variety: The use of different lengths and kinds of sentence structures to engage 

an audience and support the clear expression of ideas. 

Students with disabilities: Those students identified as having a disability, specified in 

an Individualized Education Program or a Section 504 Plan, and potentially in need of 

accommodations to complete the NAEP Writing Assessment. 

Style: Elements of language (e.g., word choice, sentence variety) that the writer utilizes 

to produce the most effective presentation of ideas in relation to his or her purpose and 

audience. 

Summarizing: An approach to thinking and writing that expresses the main points of one 

or several resources, including readings, research findings, events, the writer’s own ideas, 

etc. 

Syntax: The order of words, phrases, and clauses within a sentence. 

Synthesizing: An approach to thinking and writing that combines different ideas or 

information into a coherent whole so a new understanding of a subject or issue is 

conveyed. 

Text: A piece of writing. 

Text structure: The organizational arrangement of written information to convey the 

purpose of a piece of writing to an audience (e.g., directions, problem-solution).

Tone: The writer’s attitude toward the subject matter of the writing and/or the audience 

reading his or her work. 

Trend line: For the purposes of NAEP, a long-term measure of student achievement as it 

corresponds to other factors (e.g., time, demographics, etc.).

Usage: Established conventions of word choice and phrasing. 

Visual stimuli (in a writing task): Pictures, drawings, charts, graphs, or other images 

used in a writing task to stimulate and support the writer’s response.

Voice: A writer’s ability to convey attitude, personality, and/or character appropriate to 

the writing situation.

Word choice (diction): The use of vocabulary appropriate for the purpose and audience 

of a writing task. 

Word processing software with commonly available tools: Computer applications that 

allow users to write, edit, and produce texts. “Commonly available tools” refers to the 

extensions built into this software that help writers modify or revise their text documents. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

58

Writing process: A series of overlapping and recursive processes (e.g., prewriting, 

drafting, revising, and editing) a writer often moves among when developing a piece of 

writing. 

Writing task: Assessment item designed to elicit an extended written response that can 

be evaluated using specified criteria. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

59

APPENDIX B1 

PRELIMINARY HOLISTIC SCORING GUIDE FOR 

TO PERSUADE

Score = 6 Responses in this range demonstrate effective skill in responding to the writing 

task. All elements of the response are well controlled and effectively support the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response formulates a clear position that recognizes and acknowledges multiple 

significant aspects of the issue and insightfully addresses the complexities of the issue. 

The response demonstrates insight by fully addressing other perspectives, by fully 

evaluating implications of the writer’s position, and/or by using affective arguments that 

are consistently persuasive. 

 The response provides strong persuasive reasons and evidence to support the writer’s 

position. Approaches to the development of ideas (e.g., summarizing, narrating, etc.) are 

used skillfully to support the persuasive purpose. 

 Ideas are clearly focused on the topic throughout the response. Organization demonstrates 

a logical, well-executed progression of ideas that effectively supports the persuasive 

purpose and is relevant to the writer’s approaches to organization (e.g., analyzing, 

evaluating, narrating, etc.). Transitions effectively convey relationships among ideas. 

 Sentence structure is well controlled and varied to communicate relationships among 

ideas. Word choice is precise and evaluative and supports the persuasive purpose. Voice 

and tone are well controlled and effective for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Though there may be a few minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics, meaning is 

clear throughout the response. 

Score = 5 Responses in this range demonstrate competent skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are usually well controlled and clearly support the writer’s purpose, 

audience, and form. 

 The response formulates a position that usually recognizes and acknowledges multiple 

significant aspects of the issue but may not fully address some of the complexities of the 

issue. The response demonstrates some insight by acknowledging and partially 

addressing other perspectives, by evaluating some implications of the writer’s position, 

and/or by using affective arguments that are usually persuasive. 

 The response usually provides persuasive reasons and evidence to support the writer’s 

position. Approaches to the development of ideas are usually used skillfully to support 

the persuasive purpose. 

 Ideas are usually focused on the topic. Organization is clear and may demonstrate a 

logical progression of ideas that supports the persuasive purpose and is relevant to the 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

60

writer’s approaches to organization. Transitions clearly convey relationships among 

ideas. 

 Sentence structure is well controlled to communicate relationships among ideas and 

varied as appropriate for the writer’s purpose. Word choice is usually precise and 

evaluative and usually supports the persuasive purpose. Voice and tone are usually 

controlled and effective for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are usually correct with a few distracting errors, but 

meaning is clear. 

Score = 4 Responses in this range demonstrate adequate skill in responding to the writing 

task. Most elements are controlled and support the writer’s purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response takes a position and may acknowledge significant aspects of the issue. The 

response demonstrates some understanding of other perspectives and may evaluate some 

implications of the writer’s position. If affective arguments or examples are used, they 

are persuasive.

 While details and examples provide adequate evidence to support the writer’s position, 

their development may be somewhat uneven. Approaches to the development of ideas are 

adequate, but their relevance to the persuasive purpose may not always be clear. 

 Ideas are usually focused on the topic, and an organizational structure is evident. Ideas 

are logically grouped and adequately reflect the writer’s use of relevant approaches to 

organization. Relationships among ideas are mostly clear. 

 Sentence structure is adequately controlled and somewhat varied to communicate 

relationships among ideas. Word choice is clear, often evaluative, and adequately 

supports the persuasive purpose. Voice and tone are mostly controlled and usually 

effective for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are mostly correct with some distracting errors, but 

meaning is clear. 

Score = 3 Responses in this range demonstrate developing skill in responding to the 

writing task. Some elements are controlled and provide some support for the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response states a position but addresses only some of the aspects of the issue. The 

response shows little understanding of other perspectives, although most ideas are 

relevant to the persuasive purpose. 

 Some relevant reasons and evidence for the writer’s position are used, but they are not 

developed enough to be convincing, or they may be unevenly developed. Approaches to 

development of ideas are evident, but they may not be clearly relevant to the persuasive 

purpose. 

 Most ideas are focused on the topic. The response uses a simple organizational structure, 

and, for the most part, ideas are logically grouped. There is some evidence of the writer’s 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

61

use of approaches to organization, but they may not be clearly relevant, or they may be 

confusing. Relationships among ideas are sometimes unclear. 

 Sentence structure is usually correct, and there may be a little sentence variety to 

communicate relationships among ideas. Word choice is usually clear and sometimes 

evaluative but at times may not be appropriate for the writer’s purpose. Voice and tone 

show some understanding of what is appropriate for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are mostly correct but with some distracting errors that 

may occasionally impede understanding. 

Score = 2 Responses in this range demonstrate marginal skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are sometimes controlled but provide weak support for the writer’s purpose, 

audience, and form. 

 The response states a position and provides a few reasons to support the writer’s position.

 A few reasons may be given, but they are not developed enough to be convincing. If 

details and examples are present, they are brief, general, or inadequately developed, and 

they may not be clearly relevant to the persuasive purpose. There may be minimal 

evidence of relevant approaches to the development of ideas. 

 Some ideas may not be clearly focused on the topic. The response shows an attempt to 

organize thoughts by grouping ideas, and there may be minimal evidence of relevant 

approaches to organization. However, relationships among ideas are often illogical or 

unclear. 

 Sentence structure is sometimes correct, but there is little, if any, sentence variety. Word 

choice is rarely specific and does little to support the persuasive purpose. Voice and tone 

show little understanding of what is appropriate for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are usually correct but with many distracting errors that 

impede understanding. 

Score = 1 Responses in this range demonstrate little or no skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are seldom controlled and provide almost no support for the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response may state a position and may give a few simplistic reasons to support the 

writer’s position. 

 If any details or examples are present, they are brief, general, undeveloped, or not 

relevant to the persuasive purpose. 

 The response shows an attempt to organize thoughts by grouping ideas, but groupings are 

illogical, and there is little or no evidence of relevant approaches to organization. 

Relationships among ideas are mostly unclear. 

 Sentence structure is often incorrect, word choice is often unclear and inappropriate, and 

there is little or no control of appropriate voice and tone. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

62

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are sometimes correct but with frequent distracting 

errors that often impede understanding. 

 The response may be too brief to support a sound judgment about the development of 

ideas, organization, or language facility and conventions. 

Score = 0 Unscorable: Response is too brief to score, not written in English, off topic, or 

illegible. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

63

APPENDIX B2 

PRELIMINARY HOLISTIC SCORING GUIDE FOR 

TO EXPLAIN

Score = 6 Responses in this range demonstrate effective skill in responding to the writing 

task. All elements of the response are well controlled and effectively support the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response provides a thoughtful and insightful explanation of the subject by fully 

examining the topic as a whole, by identifying and fully discussing significant parts of 

the subject, and/or by evaluating and fully discussing the importance of the parts. 

 The explanation maintains an effective balance between broad assertions and well-chosen 

general and specific details and examples to fully support understanding. Approaches to 

the development of ideas (e.g., analyzing, evaluating, narrating, etc.) are used skillfully to 

support the clarity of the explanation. 

 Ideas are clearly focused on the topic throughout the response. Organization demonstrates 

a logical, well-executed progression of ideas that supports the clarity of the explanation 

and is relevant to the writer’s approaches to organization (e.g., summarizing, narrating, 

etc.). Transitions effectively convey relationships among ideas. 

 Sentence structure is well controlled and varied to communicate relationships among 

ideas. Word choice is specific, precise, and evaluative and supports the clarity of the 

explanation. Voice and tone are well controlled and effective for the writer’s purpose and 

audience. 

 Though there may be a few minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics, meaning is 

clear throughout the response. 

Score = 5 Responses in this range demonstrate competent skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are usually well controlled and clearly support the writer’s purpose, 

audience, and form. 

 The response provides a clear explanation of the subject by examining the topic as a 

whole, identifying and discussing various parts of the subject, and/or by evaluating and 

discussing the importance of those parts. 

 The explanation usually maintains an effective balance between broad assertions and 

general and specific details and examples to support the clarity of the explanation. 

Approaches to the development of ideas are usually used skillfully to support the clarity 

of the explanation. 

 Ideas are usually focused on the topic. Organization is clear and may demonstrate a 

logical progression of ideas that supports the clarity of the explanation and is relevant to 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

64

the writer’s approaches to organization. Transitions clearly convey relationships among

ideas. 

 Sentence structure is well controlled to communicate relationships among ideas and 

varied as appropriate for the writer’s purpose. Word choice is usually specific and 

precise, and it usually supports the clarity of the explanation. Voice and tone are usually 

controlled and effective for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are usually correct with a few distracting errors, but 

meaning is clear. 

Score = 4 Responses in this range demonstrate adequate skill in responding to the writing 

task. Most elements are controlled and support the writer’s purpose, audience, and form.

 The response provides an explanation by addressing most parts of the subject and may 

include an evaluation of the importance of some of these parts. 

 The explanation maintains an adequate balance between broad assertions and specific 

examples and details. While details and examples adequately support the clarity of the 

explanation, their development may be somewhat uneven. Approaches to the 

development of ideas are adequate, but their relevance to the explanation may not always 

be clear. 

 Ideas are usually focused on the topic, and an organizational structure is evident. Ideas 

are logically grouped and adequately reflect the writer’s use of relevant approaches to 

organization. Relationships among ideas are mostly clear. 

 Sentence structure is adequately controlled and somewhat varied to communicate 

relationships among ideas. Word choice is sometimes specific and adequately supports 

the clarity of the explanation. Voice and tone are mostly controlled and usually effective 

for the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are mostly correct with some distracting errors, but 

meaning is clear. 

Score = 3 Responses in this range demonstrate developing skill in responding to the 

writing task. Some elements are controlled and provide some support for the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response provides some explanation of the subject. 

 The explanation may provide both broad assertions and general and specific examples, 

but the balance may be uneven and only somewhat controlled. Some relevant details and 

examples are used, but they are not developed enough to support the explanation, or they 

may be unevenly developed. Approaches to the development of ideas are evident, but 

they may not be clearly relevant to the explanation. 

 Most ideas are focused on the topic. The response uses a simple organizational structure, 

and for the most part, ideas are logically grouped. There may be some evidence of 

approaches to organization, but they may not be clearly relevant, or they may be 

confusing. Relationships among ideas are sometimes unclear. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

65

 Sentence structure is usually correct, and there may be a little sentence variety to 

communicate relationships among ideas. Word choice is usually clear and sometimes 

specific, but at times it may not be appropriate for the writer’s purpose. Voice and tone 

show some understanding of what is appropriate for the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are mostly correct but with some distracting errors that 

may occasionally impede understanding. 

Score = 2 Responses in this range demonstrate marginal skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are sometimes controlled but provide weak support for the writer’s purpose, 

audience, and form.

 The response provides a little explanation of the subject. 

 A balance between broad assertions and general and specific examples may not be 

evident. If details and examples are present, they are brief, general, or inadequately 

developed, and they may not be clearly relevant to the explanation. There may be 

minimal evidence of relevant approaches to the development of ideas. 

 Some ideas may not be clearly focused on the topic. The response shows an attempt to 

organize thoughts by grouping ideas, and there may be minimal evidence of approaches 

to organization. However, relationships among ideas are often illogical or unclear. 

 Sentence structure is sometimes correct, but there is little, if any, sentence variety. Word 

choice is rarely specific and does little to support the clarity of the explanation. Voice and 

tone show little understanding of what is appropriate for the writer’s purpose and 

audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are usually correct but with many distracting errors that 

impede understanding. 

Score = 1 Responses in this range demonstrate little or no skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are seldom controlled and provide almost no support for the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response may provide little or no explanation of the subject. 

 If any details or examples are present, they are brief, general, undeveloped, or not 

relevant to the explanation. 

 The response shows an attempt to organize thoughts by grouping ideas, but groupings are 

illogical, and there is little or no evidence of relevant approaches to organization. 

Relationships among ideas are mostly unclear. 

 Sentence structure is often incorrect, word choice is often unclear and inappropriate, and 

there is little or no control of appropriate voice and tone. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

66

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are sometimes correct but with frequent distracting 

errors that often impede understanding. 

 The response may be too brief to support a sound judgment about the development of 

ideas, organization, or language facility and conventions. 

Score = 0 Unscorable: Response is too brief to score, not written in English, off topic, or 

illegible.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

67

APPENDIX B3 

PRELIMINARY HOLISTIC SCORING GUIDE FOR 

TO CONVEY EXPERIENCE, REAL OR IMAGINED

Score = 6 Responses in this range demonstrate effective skill in responding to the writing 

task. All elements of the response are well controlled and effectively support the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form. 

 The response effectively conveys the significance of the experience, either explicitly or 

implicitly, and conveys the complexities of the experience, whether real or imagined. 

 Well-chosen examples and sensory details, if appropriate, are effectively used to illustrate 

and recreate the experience for the audience. Approaches to the development of ideas 

(e.g., narrating, describing, analyzing, etc.) are used skillfully to convey the experience. 

 Ideas are clearly focused on the topic throughout the response. Organization demonstrates 

a logical, well-executed progression of ideas that effectively conveys the experience and 

is relevant to the writer’s approaches to organization (e.g., summarizing, narrating, etc.). 

Transitions effectively convey relationships among ideas. 

 Sentence structure is well controlled and varied to communicate relationships among 

ideas. Word choice is connotative, specific, and precise and effectively conveys the 

experience. Voice and tone are well controlled and effective for the writer’s purpose and 

audience. 

 Though there may be a few minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics, meaning is 

clear throughout the response. 

Score = 5 Responses in this range demonstrate competent skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are usually well controlled and clearly support the purpose, audience, and 

form. 

 The response clearly conveys the significance of the experience, either explicitly or 

implicitly, and conveys some complexities of the experience, whether real or imagined. 

 Effective examples and sensory details, if appropriate, usually illustrate and recreate the 

experience for the audience. Approaches to the development of ideas are usually used 

skillfully to convey the experience. 

 Ideas are usually focused on the topic. Organization is clear and may demonstrate a 

logical progression of ideas that supports the writer’s purpose and is relevant to the 

writer’s approaches to organization. Transitions clearly convey relationships among 

elements of the experience. 

 Sentence structure is well controlled to communicate relationships among ideas and 

varied as appropriate for the writer’s purpose. Word choice is usually connotative, 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

68

specific, and precise, and it usually supports the writer’s purpose. Voice and tone are 

usually controlled and effective for the writer’s purpose and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are usually correct with a few distracting errors, but 

meaning is clear. 

Score = 4 Responses in this range demonstrate adequate skill in responding to the writing 

task. Most elements are controlled and support the intended purpose, audience, and form.

 The response adequately conveys the significance of the experience, either explicitly or 

implicitly, and may convey some complexities of the experience, whether real or 

imagined.

 Some examples and sensory details, if appropriate, are used to illustrate experience, but 

they may need to be more developed or more may be needed to support the writer’s 

purpose. Approaches to the development of ideas are adequate, but their relevance to the 

writer’s purpose may not always be clear. 

 Ideas are usually focused on the topic, and an organizational structure is evident. 

Elements are logically grouped and adequately reflect the writer’s use of relevant 

approaches to organization. Relationships among elements of the experience are mostly 

clear. 

 Sentence structure is adequately controlled and somewhat varied to communicate 

relationships among ideas. Word choice is often connotative and specific, and it 

adequately supports the experience being conveyed. Voice and tone are mostly controlled 

and usually effective for the writer’s purpose.

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are mostly correct with some distracting errors, but 

meaning is clear. 

Score = 3 Responses in this range demonstrate developing skill in responding to the 

writing task. Some elements are controlled and provide some support for the writer’s 

purpose, audience, and form.

 The response conveys some elements of the significance of the experience and may 

demonstrate a little awareness of the complexities of the experience.

 Some examples and sensory details, if appropriate, are used, but they are not developed 

enough to support the writer’s purpose, or they may be unevenly developed. Approaches 

to the development of ideas are evident, but they may not be clearly relevant to the 

writer’s purpose. 

 Most ideas are focused on the topic. The response uses a simple organizational structure,

and for the most part, elements of the experience are logically grouped. There may be 

some evidence of approaches to organization, but they may not be clearly relevant, or 

they may be confusing. Relationships among elements of the experience are sometimes 

unclear. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

69

 Sentence structure is usually correct, and there may be a little sentence variety to 

communicate relationships among ideas. Word choice is usually clear and sometimes 

connotative and specific, but at times it may not be appropriate for the writer’s purpose. 

Voice and tone show some understanding of what is appropriate for the writer’s purpose 

and audience. 

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are mostly correct but with some distracting errors that 

may occasionally impede understanding. 

Score = 2 Responses in this range demonstrate marginal skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are sometimes controlled but provide weak support for the writer’s purpose, 

audience, and form. 

 The response conveys a few elements of the experience. 

 If details and examples are present, they are brief, general, or inadequately developed, 

and they may not be clearly relevant to the writer’s purpose. There may be minimal 

evidence of the use of relevant approaches to the development of ideas. 

 Some ideas may not be clearly focused on the topic. The response shows an attempt to 

organize the elements of the experience, and there may be minimal evidence of relevant 

approaches to organization. However, relationships among ideas are often illogical or 

unclear. 

 Sentence structure is sometimes correct, but there is little, if any, sentence variety. Word 

choice is rarely specific and does little to convey the experience. Voice and tone show 

little understanding of what is appropriate for the writer’s purpose and audience.

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are usually correct but with many distracting errors that 

impede understanding. 

Score = 1 Responses in this range demonstrate little or no skill in responding to the writing 

task. Elements are seldom controlled and provide almost no support for the purpose, 

audience, and form. 

 The response conveys few elements of the experience. 

 If any details or examples are present, they are brief, general, undeveloped, or not 

relevant to the writer’s purpose.

 The response shows an attempt to organize thoughts by grouping ideas, but groupings are 

illogical, and there is little or no evidence of relevant approaches to organization. 

Relationships among elements are mostly unclear. 

 Sentence structure is often incorrect, word choice is often unclear and inappropriate, and 

there is little or no control of appropriate voice and tone.

 Grammar, usage, and mechanics are sometimes correct but with frequent distracting 

errors that often impede understanding. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

70

 The response may be too brief to support a sound judgment about the development of 

ideas, organization, or language facility and conventions. 

Score = 0 Unscorable: Response is too brief to score, not written in English, off topic, or 

illegible.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

71

APPENDIX C 

NAEP WRITING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS

NAEP Achievement Level Descriptors define what students should know and be able to 

do at three levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The matrices in Exhibits 6.1 to 6.3 

below correlate these three achievement levels to expectations of performance on 

important components of writing. Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels apply to all 

students assessed at grades 4, 8, and 12; however, writing achievement at each of these 

levels will differ at each grade and cannot be compared across grades. To support 

understanding of the Achievement Level Descriptions, student responses should be used 

to define the expectations expressed at each grade level (e.g., “adequate” or “welldeveloped”) and should also function as a demonstration of increasing levels of 

achievement across the grades. 

Exhibit 6.1. Basic Achievement Level Descriptions

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Fourth grade students writing 

at the Basic level develop 

ideas with a few supporting 

details, reasons, or examples 

relevant to the topic, the 

writer’s purpose, and the 

audience. Students may 

loosely organize their writing 

using one or more approaches, 

such as chronology, steps in a 

process, or main idea with 

some details. Word choice is 

generally clear and appropriate 

for the topic. Most sentences 

are simple and show little 

variety in structure. Students 

demonstrate some control of 

grammar, usage, and 

mechanics, including 

capitalization, punctuation, 

and spelling, although there 

may be distracting errors that 

occasionally impede readers’ 

understanding.

Eighth grade students writing 

at the Basic level demonstrate 

an ability to write a response 

that is appropriate to the topic, 

purpose, and audience. They 

develop their ideas with some 

relevant details, reasons, or 

examples. Writers at this level 

often create a loosely 

organized structure with some 

transitions. Their writing may 

contain some sentence variety 

and clear word choices, as 

well as minimal evidence of 

voice and tone that may be 

appropriate for the topic, 

purpose, and audience. 

Students demonstrate an 

overall command of grammar, 

usage, and mechanics, 

including capitalization, 

punctuation, and spelling, 

although there may be errors, 

at least some of which impede 

readers’ understanding.

Twelfth grade students writing 

at the Basic level demonstrate 

an ability to write a response 

that is appropriate to the topic, 

purpose, and audience. They 

develop their ideas with some 

details, reasons, and examples. 

Writers at this level may 

create a somewhat loose 

organizational structure with 

some transitions. The writing 

contains some sentence variety 

or complexity, though it may 

be inconsistently executed. 

Although word choice may be 

somewhat limited in variety

and richness of expression, it 

generally conveys meaning 

clearly. Tone may be 

ineffective for the purpose and 

audience, fluctuating 

inconsistently in places. 

Writing at the Basic level 

reflects a general command of 

grammar, usage, mechanics, 

and spelling but may include a 

number of errors.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

72

Exhibit 6.2. Proficient Achievement Level Descriptions

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Fourth grade students writing 

at the Proficient level develop 

ideas using some well-chosen 

details, reasons, or examples 

relevant to the topic, purpose, 

and audience. Students 

organize their writing using 

logical groupings and 

relationships among ideas, 

such as chronology, steps in a 

process, or main idea and 

details. The presence of some 

variety in word choice 

enhances the presentation of 

the writer’s ideas and 

maintains the attention of the 

audience. Students vary some 

sentences in length or type, for 

example, by using 

exclamations or questions to 

engage the audience. Students 

demonstrate overall control of 

grammar, usage, and 

mechanics, including 

capitalization, punctuation, 

and spelling, but their writing 

may contain errors that detract 

from meaning.

Eighth grade students writing 

at the Proficient level 

demonstrate competence in 

writing a response appropriate 

to the topic, purpose, and 

audience. They develop their 

ideas with some well-chosen 

details, reasons, or examples. 

Writers at this level create an 

organized structure that shows 

a mostly logical, coherent 

progression of sentences and 

ideas. Their writing contains 

some sentence variety and 

precise word choices, and 

voice and tone are usually 

appropriate for the topic, 

purpose, and audience. These 

writers demonstrate an overall 

command of grammar, usage, 

and mechanics, including 

capitalization, punctuation, 

and spelling, although their 

writing may contain some 

errors.

Twelfth grade students writing 

at the Proficient level produce 

a competent response to the 

topic that addresses a specific 

audience and states a clear 

purpose. They develop their 

ideas with some well-chosen 

details, reasons, and examples 

that clearly address the 

audience. Writers maintain 

focus on the topic and purpose 

and make relationships among 

ideas clear. Overall, sentences 

are varied and structured to 

clarify the relationships among 

ideas, as well as to maintain 

the reader’s interest. Precise 

word choices reinforce the 

purpose of the writing and are 

appropriate for the topic and 

audience. The tone is 

appropriate for both the 

purpose for writing and the 

audience. Writing at the 

Proficient level exhibits solid 

control of grammar, usage, 

mechanics, and spelling, 

although there may be some 

errors.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

73

Exhibit 6.3. Advanced Achievement Level Descriptions

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

Fourth grade students writing 

at the Advanced level develop 

ideas using well-chosen 

details, reasons, or examples 

relevant to the topic, purpose, 

and audience. Their writing is 

organized effectively and 

shows an overall logical 

progression of ideas. Precise 

and varied word choice 

enhances the presentation of 

the writer’s ideas and 

successfully sustains the 

attention of the audience. 

Students vary the length and 

complexity of sentences to 

engage the reader. Students’ 

writing demonstrates control 

of grammar, usage, and 

mechanics, including 

capitalization, punctuation, 

and spelling, with relatively 

few errors.

Eighth grade students writing 

at the Advanced level 

demonstrate strategic 

composing in addressing the 

topic, purpose, and audience. 

They develop their ideas with 

precise, well-chosen details;

reasons; or examples that 

elaborate and extend those 

ideas. Writers at this level 

create a well-organized, 

effective piece of writing that 

shows a logical, coherent, and 

well-elaborated progression of 

sentences and ideas. Their 

writing contains varied and 

well-crafted sentences and

precise word choices and uses 

voice and tone that support the 

topic, purpose, and audience 

effectively. These writers 

demonstrate a strong 

command of grammar, usage, 

and mechanics, including

capitalization, punctuation, 

and spelling, although there 

may be a few errors.

Twelfth grade students at the 

Advanced level demonstrate 

flexible and strategic 

composing in addressing the 

topic, purpose, and audience. 

Well-chosen details, reasons, 

and specific examples support, 

extend, and deepen their ideas. 

Writers develop an 

organizational structure that 

supports a natural, logical, and 

coherent progression of ideas. 

Skillfully crafted sentences 

enhance the response, 

reinforce the purpose, and 

engage the audience. Word 

choices are purposeful, 

precise, and at times powerful. 

Appropriate tone clearly 

conveys the writer’s position 

on the topic and is appropriate 

for the intended audience. 

Writing at the Advanced level 

exhibits a strong control of 

grammar, usage, mechanics, 

and spelling that supports the 

presentation of ideas. Errors 

may be present, but they are 

few.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

75

APPENDIX D 

NAEP WRITING SPECIAL STUDY

To improve the quality of the NAEP assessment and to gain maximum information on 

student achievement, NAEP coordinates special studies on framework topics and issues. 

For the 2011 NAEP Writing Assessment, one special study was proposed. 

STUDY: GRADE 4 COMPUTER-BASED WRITING 

PURPOSE

This special study seeks to frame trends in computer support—both in the accessibility of 

computers in all schools and instruction on the computers—in order to achieve a greater 

understanding of how grade 4 students compose on computers. The study will also 

address the expectations for computer proficiency and the role of computers in instruction 

at the middle school level. This information will provide a clearer research base for future 

computer-based assessment practices by NAEP. 

RATIONALE

The 2017 NAEP Writing Assessment will assess computer-based writing with some 

commonly available tools. The NAEP Writing Framework recommends that a computerbased platform also be implemented at grade 4 during the tenure of this framework—by 

2019, if feasible. 

Prior to any implementation of a computer-based writing assessment at grade 4, NAEP 

would benefit from additional research on the computer use of elementary students, 

particularly on keyboarding pedagogy; levels of computer literacy among elementary 

students; and computer use within the composition process. Exploration of these issues 

will inform the discussion of when a computer-based writing assessment at grade 4 will 

be warranted. 

Research interests for this study comprise five categories: keyboarding experience, 

writing instruction and computers, computer tools and applications, assessment validity, 

and computer proficiency needed when students reach middle school. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

76

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Opportunities for computer-based writing 

• How frequently do grade 4 students use computers and for what purposes? 

• How often and in what ways does writing instruction at grade 4 involve 

computers? 

• What parts of the writing process are computer based? 

2. Keyboarding experience 

• Are there significant differences among groups with regard to keyboarding 

proficiency (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, type of school 

[e.g., large urban/suburban/rural, etc.])? 

• What factors impact differences in keyboarding proficiency (e.g., access to 

computers, when instruction in keyboarding begins)? 

• When are keyboarding skills first taught? When do elementary students have the 

finger size, manual dexterity, attention span, and hand-eye coordination skills 

needed to begin keyboarding instruction? What is the interaction between 

keyboarding instruction and developing cursive handwriting skills? 

• How many words per minute do students need to type in order to successfully 

compose on the computer for time-limited writing? 

• In what ways is access to computers outside of schools a factor in grade 4 

students’ proficiency with computers?

3. Platform for computer-based writing at grade 4 

• What applications and tools are most commonly available to grade 4 students for 

computer-based writing? Which tools are most commonly used? Are tools a 

positive or negative influence on the development of ideas, organization of ideas, 

and/or language facility? 

4. Proficiency grade 4 students should have 

• What proficiency should grade 4 students have with computer-based writing? 

What is expected on states’ grade level assessments? What skills are needed for 

success in middle school? 

5. Accuracy of assessment 

• What mode (handwritten or computer based) is most likely to support an accurate 

assessment of grade 4 students’ writing ability?

As a result of the Governing Board May 2010 decision supporting a computer-based 

NAEP Writing Assessment at grade 4, a significant amount of research will be needed in 

the assessment development, which may include one or more studies addressing the 

research questions in this special study.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

77

APPENDIX E 

NAEP WRITING ASSESSMENT REFERENCES

Achieve, Inc. (2004). The expectations gap: A 50 state review of high school graduation 

requirements. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 

No. ED484793) 

ACT, Inc. (1998-99). ACT’s national curriculum survey. Iowa City, IA: Author. 

ACT, Inc. (2003, September). Analysis of commonalities and gaps: Comparing the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to ACT Workkeys®

assessments. (Study Conducted for the National Commission on NAEP 12th

Grade Assessment and Reporting.) Iowa City, IA: Author. 

ACT, Inc. (2004). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Iowa 

City, IA: Author. 

ACT, Inc. (2006). Survey of states’ policies regarding computer-based applications and 

tools. (Research Brief). Iowa City, IA: Author. 

ACT, Inc. (2006, January-November). Overview of national and state writing standards 

taken from personal interviews and states’ websites. (Research Brief). Iowa City, 

IA: Author. 

ACT, Inc. (2006, October-November). Survey of state technology standards. (Research 

Brief). Iowa City, IA: Author. 

ACT, Inc. (2006, October-November). Survey of states’ use of computer-based testing. 

(Research Brief). Iowa City, IA: Author. 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2005, July). Improving 

alignment, advancing students: Demands and opportunities for states, systems, 

and campuses. Perspectives, 1-13. 

Anderson, O. R. (2001). The writing process rejected. The National Writing Project 

Quarterly. National Writing Project Publications. Retrieved January 14, 2006, 

from http://www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/print/nwpr/150 

Applebee, A. (1998). Student achievement: Making sense of the national assessment. In 

J. David and J. Marshall (Eds.) Ways of knowing – research and practice in the 

teaching of English. Iowa City, IA: ICTE. 

Applebee, A. (2005, December). NAEP 2011 Writing Assessment: Issues in developing a 

framework and specifications. Paper commissioned by the National Assessment 

Governing Board. 

Applebee, A. and Langer, J. A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, IL: 

National Council of Teachers of English. 

Applebee, A. and Langer, J. A. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s 

schools: What existing data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and 

Achievement. 

Armstrong, J. (2005, January). State strategies for redesigning high schools and 

promoting high school to college transitions (Issue Brief No. 5774). Denver, CO: 

Education Commission of the States. 

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Upper 

Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

78

August, B. (2005, December 12). Interview.

Austin, J. L. (1965). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Babkie, A., and Provost, M. C. (2004). Teachers as researchers. Intervention in School 

and Clinic, 39 (5), 260-68.

Baker, E. (1998). Understanding educational quality: Where technology meets validity. 

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Baker, E., and Kinzer, C. K. (1998). Effects of technology on process writing: Are they 

all good? National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 428-440.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. (M. 

Holquist, Ed.). (C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas 

Press.

Barritt, L., Stock, P. T., and Clark, F. (1986). Researching practice: Evaluating 

assessment essays. College Composition and Communication, 37 (3), 315-27.

Bartholome, L. W. (2002). Typewriting/keyboarding instruction in elementary schools. 

Unpublished manuscript.

Bawarshi, Anis. (2005, December 29). Interview. 

Bazerman, C. andRussell, D. (Eds.). (1984). Landmark essays on writing across the 

curriculum. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Beck, N., and Fetherston, T. (2003). The effects of incorporating a word processor into a 

year three writing program. Information Technology in Childhood Education 

Annual, 139-61.

Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: the continuing story of technology and 

assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bennett, R. E. (2005). Current issues and future direction for the computer-based 

assessment of writing. Paper presented to the National Exam Congress.

Berman, J. M. (2001, November). Industry output and employment projections to 2010. 

Monthly Labor Review, 40.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.

Britton, J. N. (1970). Language and learning. London: Penguin Books.

Britton, J. N., Burgess, T., Martin, N., et al. (1975). The development of writing abilities. 

London: MacMillan Education Foundation.

Broad, B. (2003). What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing 

writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., et al. (1998). Automated scoring using a hybrid 

feature identification technique. Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the 

Association of Computational Linguistics, Montreal, Canada, 206-10.

Burstein, J., Marcu, D., Andreyev, S., and Chodorow, M. (2001). Towards automatic 

classification of discourse elements in essays. Proceedings of the 39th annual 

meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, France, 90-92.

Bushweller, K. (2000). Electronic exams. Electronic School, 187 (6), 20-4.

Butler, D. L. (2003, January/February). The impact of computer-based testing on student 

attitudes and behavior. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://ts.mivu.org/ 

default.asp?show=article&id=1034

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cambourne, B. (1998). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy 

in the classroom. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

79

Campbell, K. K. (1982). The rhetorical act. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.

Campbell, K. K., and Jamieson, K. H. (1978). Form and genre in rhetorical criticism: An 

introduction. In K. K. Campbell and K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Form and genre: 

Shaping rhetorical action. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication 

Association, 9-33.

Cardellichio, T. L. (1995). Curriculum and the structure of school. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 

629-32.

Carlson, S. (2000, April 18). Computer-savvy students perform poorly on handwritten 

composition, study finds. Chronicle of Higher Education, A40.

Carnevale, A. P., and Desrochers, D. M. (2003, October). Considerations in using 12th

grade NAEP as a prospective indicator of readiness for college and employment.

(ETS Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Executive Committee. 

(1998-2005). CCCC position statement on second-language writing and writers. 

National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from 

http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/123794.htm

Center on Education Policy. (2004). State high school exit exams, a maturing reform. 

Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://www.cep-dc.org/highschoolexit/ 

statematuringAug2004.cfm

Christy, J. (2005). Integrating technology in the language arts classroom. 

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from 

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/subject/int_tech_lit_la.phtml

Claggett, F. (2005). Teaching writing: craft, art, genre. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Coley, R., Cradler, J., and Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: 

The status of technology in U.S. schools. (Policy Information Report). Princeton, 

NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Consortium for Innovative Instruction. (2002, July). Aligning writing instruction in 

secondary and postsecondary institutions. Tidewater Community College, VA.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (1999). WPA outcomes for first-year 

composition. Writing Program Administration, 23 (1), 59-66.

Crafton, R. E. (1996). Promises, promises: Computer assisted revision and basic writers. 

Computers and Composition, 13, 317-326. 

Cramer, S., and Smith, A. (2002). Technology’s impact on student writing at the middle 

school level. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29 (1), 3-14.

Daniels, A. (2004). Composition instruction: Using technology to motivate students to 

write. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 157-77.

DeBell, M. (2005, October). Rates of computer and Internet use by children in nursery 

school and students in kindergarten through twelfth grade: 2003. (Issue Brief 

NCES 2005-111rev). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

DeBell, M., and Chapman, C. (2003, October). Computer and Internet use by children 

and adolescents in 2001. (NCES 2004-014). Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

DeBell, M., and Chapman, C. (2006, September). Computer and Internet use by students 

in 2003. (NCES 2006-065). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

80

Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive Black educator. Harvard 

Educational Review, 56 (4), 379-85.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: 

New Press, Distributed by W. W. Norton.

Department of the Army. (1986, June). Effective writing for Army leaders. [Brochure]. 

Author, 600-67.

Diederich, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of 

Teachers.

Duran, R. (2000, August). Implications of electronic technology for the NAEP 

assessment. (Commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies Panel.) Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Dybdahl, C. S., Shaw, D. G., and Blahous, E. (1997). The impact of the computer on 

writing: No simple answers. Computers in the Schools, 13 (3/4), 41-53.

Dyson, A. H., and Warshauer Freedman, S. (1990). On teaching writing: A review of the 

literature. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing.

Dyson, A. H., and Genishi, C. (1994). The need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom 

and community. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Economics and Statistics Administration and National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration. (2002, February). A nation online: How Americans 

are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: Author. 

The Education Trust. (1999). Ticket to nowhere: The gap between leaving high school 

and entering college and high-performance jobs. Thinking K-16, 3 (2), 1-31.

The Education Trust. (2003, September). What can grade 12 NAEP tell us about 

readiness for college-level work? An analysis for the National Assessment 

Governing Board. 

The Education Trust. (2004). A dream deferred: 50 years after Brown v. Board of 

Education, the struggle continues ... A 50 state look at achievement, attainment 

and opportunity gaps. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://www2.edtrust.org/ 

EdTrust/Press+Room/2004+reports.htm

English standards provoke criticism. (1996). Education Reporter, 125. Retrieved January 

14, 2006, from http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/june96/english.html.

Espin, C.A., Weissenburger, J.W., and Benson, B.J. (2004). Assessing the writing 

performance of students in special education. Exceptionality, 20 (1), 55-66.

Fitzpatrick, A.R., Ercikan, K., and Yen, W. M. (1998). The consistency between rater 

scoring in differing test years. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 195-228.

Fleming, S. (2002, August 2). When and how should keyboarding be taught in 

elementary school? Unpublished manuscript.

Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. R., and Jensen, J. M. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of research 

on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates.

Flower, L. (1993). Problem-solving strategies for writing. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt 

Brace.

Foster, G. D. (1986, Spring). Research, writing, and the mind of the strategist. Joint 

Force Quarterly, 111-115.

Fox, E. (2005). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week, 24 (35), 40-2, 44-8, 50, 52-3.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

81

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., and Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student 

writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, 

Learning, and Assessment, 2 (1), 2-51.

Goldschmidt, N. P. (2005). Lessons learned from surveying employers. Assessment 

Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education, 17 (4), 1-4.

Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of 

adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of 

New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Education.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: 

Heinemann.

Graves, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). Writing, teaching, learning: A sourcebook. Portsmouth, NH: 

Heinemann.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in 

U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC.

Greene, B. M. (1999). The role of the personal in academic writing. In George Otte

(Ed.), Looking both ways: Studies in cross-institutional professional development

(Vol. I). (pp. 89-95). New York: CUNY Office of Academic Affairs.

Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., et al. (1998). The NAEP 1998 writing 

report card for the nation and the states. U.S. Department of Education. National 

Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main1998/1999462.asp

Grejda, G. F. and Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Effects of word processing on sixth graders’ 

holistic writing and revisions. Journal of Education Research, 85 (3), 144-149.

Gundlach, R. A., Litowitz, B. E., and Moses, R. A. (1979). The ontogenesis of the 

writer's sense of audience: Rhetorical theory and children's written discourse. In 

R. Brown and M. Steinmann, Jr. (Eds.), Rhetoric 78: Proceedings of theory of 

rhetoric: An interdisciplinary conference (pp. 117-129). Minneapolis: University 

of Minnesota Center for Advanced Studies in Language, Style, and Literary 

Theory.

Hackbarth, S. (2004). Changes in 4th-graders’ computer literacy as a function of access, 

gender, and race. Information technology in childhood education annual, 187-

212.

Hamp-Lyons, E., and Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for 

practice, theory, and research. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.

Harrington, S. M., Rollins, A. L., and Shermis, M. D. (2000). The influence of word 

processing on English placement test results. Computers and Composition, 17, 

197-210. 

Harris Education Research Center. (1991, September). An assessment of American 

education: The view of employers, higher educators, the public, recent students, 

and their parents. New York: Author. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. 

ED354797)

Harris, M. (2006). What does the instructor want? The view from the writing center. In 

Patrick Sullivan and Howard Tinburg (Ed.), What is college-level writing?

Urbana, IL: NCTE
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

82

Harrison, S., Midyett, J., and Whithaus, C. (2006). Keyboarding compared with 

handwriting on a high-stakes writing assessment: The influence of the material 

conditions for composing on students’ and graders’ perceptions of writing 

quality. Unpublished manuscript.

Haswell, R. H. (1998). Rubrics, prototypes, and exemplars: Categorization and systems 

of writing placement. Assessing Writing, 5 (2), 231-268.

Haswell, R. H. (2004). Post-secondary entry writing placement: A brief synopsis of 

research. Corpus Christi: Texas A. & M. University. 

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and 

classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hedges, L., Konstantopoulos, S., and Thoreson, A. (2003, April). NAEP validity studies: 

Computer use and its relationship to academic achievement in mathematics, 

reading, and writing. (Commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies Panel). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics.

Heldrich, J. J. (2000). Nothing but net: American workers and the information economy. 

Work trends: Americans’ attitudes about work, employers and government. New 

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University, Center for Workforce 

Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466753)

Hill, I., and Matthews, J. (2005). Supertest: How the International Baccalaureate can 

strengthen our schools. Chicago: Open Court.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. 

New York: Teachers College Press.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (2005, December 29). Interview.

Hillocks, G., Jr., and Smith, M. W. (1991). Grammar and usage. In J. Flood, J.M. Jensen, 

D. Lapp, and J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English 

Language Arts (pp. 591-603). New York: Macmillan.

Hobson, E. H., and Steele, D.J. (1992, November). Holistic scoring procedures for 

scoring writing samples. Presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational 

Research Association, Knoxville, TN.

Hopkins, G. (1998). Keyboarding skills: When should they be taught? Educational 

World. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr076.shtml

Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., Allen, N. et al. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test 

on computer? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of 

Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5 (2), 1-50.

Houghton, M. (1996). Setting educational standards: Experiences in four states. 

Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Research. 

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED406720)

Howell, D, Kopczynski, C., and Nolden, J. (2002). A comparison of writing standards 

across the United States. Unpublished master’s thesis, Portland State University, 

Portland, OR.

Hoyt, J. E., and Sorensen, C. T. (1999, May). Promoting academic standards?: The link 

between remedial education in college and student preparation in high school. A 

report of the Department of Institutional Research and Management Studies. 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

83

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates of the California Community 

Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California. (2002, 

Spring). Academic literacy: A statement of competencies expected of students 

entering California’s public colleges and universities. Sacramento: Author.

Issacson, S. (2004). Instruction that helps students meet state standards in writing. 

Exceptionality, 12 (1), 39-54.

Jackiewicz, G. (1995, April). The effect of computer based instruction on writing at the 

elementary level. Unpublished manuscript.

Johnson, J., Duffett, A., and Ott, A. (2005). Life after high school: Young people talk 

about their hopes and prospects. New York: Public Agenda. (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No. ED485309)

Jones, I. (1994). The effect of a word processor on the written composition of secondgrade pupils. Computers in the Schools, 11 (2), 43-54.

Kamberelis, G. (2006). Thinking psychologically and rhetorically about genres and 

writing practices. Unpublished manuscript. 

Kamberelis, G. (2006). Writing and/in genres and/in fourth and fifth grades. [Briefing 

Paper]. National Center on Education and the Economy.

Keech, C. (1982). Practices in designing writing test prompts: Analysis and 

recommendations. In J. Gray and L. Ruth (Eds.), Properties of writing tasks: a 

study of alternative procedures for holistic writing assessment. Berkeley: 

University of California, Graduate School of Education, Bay Area Writing 

Project.

Ketter, J., and Pool, J. (2001). Exploring the impact of a high stakes direct writing 

assessment in two high school classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English,

35 (3), 344-393.

Kirst, M. W. (2000). The senior slump: Making the most of high school preparation. 

National CrossTalk, 8 (4). A Publication of the National Center for Public Policy 

and Higher Education, 5-12. 

Kirst, M. W. (2003, September). College preparation and grade 12 NAEP. Paper 

presented to The National Assessment Governing Board. 

Kopriva, R. (2000). Ensuring accuracy in testing for English language learners.

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Koretz, D., and Barton, K. (2003-2004). Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and 

evidence. Educational Assessment, 9(1 and 2), 29-60.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Harper Collins.

Kroll, B. (2005, December 8). Interview. 

Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and 

secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI 

International. Retrieved November 10, 2006, from http://www.sri.com/ policy/ 

csted/reports/sandt/it/Kulik_ITinK-12_Main_Report.pdf

Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent 

semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of 

knowledge. Psychological Review, 104 (2), 211-240.

Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., and Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automated scoring and annotation 

of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis and J. Burstein 
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

84

(Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 87-112.

Lee, C. D. (1993). Signifying as a scaffold for literary interpretation: The pedagogical 

implications of an African American discourse genre. Urbana, IL: National 

Council of Teachers of English.

Lewin, T. (2003, April 26). Writing in schools is found both dismal and neglected. The 

New York Times.

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their mind. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press.

Lunsford, A. A. (2006). Writing, technologies, and the fifth canon. Computers and 

Composition, 23 (2), 169-77.

Lunsford, A. A., and Lunsford, K. (2007). "Mistakes are a fact of life: A comparative 

national study. College Composition and Communication (forthcoming). 

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-conduct: The Marsh-Shavelson 

model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-36.

Masters, J.R. (1992, April). A study of arbitrations in Pennsylvania’s writing assessment. 

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in 

Education, San Francisco.

McClarty, K. L., Keng L., and Davis, L. L. (2006). Secondary analysis methods in 

comparability research: a review of methods used with the Texas assessment of 

knowledge and skills. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from 

http://www.pearsonedmeasurement.com/research/c_papers.htm#

McCracken, N. M., and Appleby, B. C. (Eds.). (1992). Gender issues in the teaching of 

English. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

McGarvey, J. (1997, October). Writing a wrong. Teacher Magazine, 52.

McIntosh, W. A. (2003). Guide to effective military writing (3rd ed.). Mechanicsburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books. 

McNabb, M. L. (2005). Raising the bar on technology research in English language arts. 

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (1), 113-119.

McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized 

testing. New York: Routledge.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70 (2), 151-

167.

Moeller, D. (2002). Computers in the writing classroom. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Murphy, S. (2006). Teaching writing/teaching genres. (Briefing Paper). National Center 

on Education and the Economy.

Myers, M. (1980). A procedure for writing assessment and holistic scoring. Urbana, IL: 

National Council of Teachers of English.

Myers, M. (1985). The teacher-researcher: How to study writing in the classroom. 

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2002). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 

2002. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/ 

main2002/2003529.pdf.

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2005). National Association of 

Colleges and Employers’ 2006 job outlook. Bethlehem, PA: NACE, 1-23.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

85

National Center for Education and the Economy. (1995). Performance standards: 

English language arts, mathematics, science, applied learning (Vol. 3: high 

school [consultation draft]). Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No. ED434798)

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). NAEP inclusion policy. The Nation’s 

Report Card. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp

National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2003). Special topic area: Universally 

designed assessments. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Retrieved July 17, 

2007, from 

http://education.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/UnivDesign/UnivDesign_topic.htm

National Commission on NAEP 12th Grade Assessment and Reporting. (2004, March 5). 

12th grade student achievement in America: A new vision for NAEP. A report to 

The National Assessment Governing Board. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

The National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. 

(2004, September). Writing: A ticket to work...or a ticket out, a survey of business 

leaders. Berkeley, CA: Author.

The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2005, July). 

Writing: A powerful message from state government. New York: Author. 

National Council of Teachers of English. (1998-2005). Grammar. Retrieved January 14, 

2006, from http://www.ncte.org/profdev/online/ideas/freq/114025.htm

National Council of Teachers of English. (2005). The impact of the SAT and ACT timed 

writing tests. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://www.ncte.org/library/files/ 

About _NCTE/Press_Center/SAT/SAT-ACT-tf-report.pdf

National Research Council. (1997a). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities 

and standards-based reform. Committee on Goals 2000 and the Inclusion of 

Students with Disabilities. L. McDonnell, M. McLaughlin, and P. Morison (Eds). 

Board on Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and 

graduation. Committee on Appropriate Test Use. J. P. Heubert and R. M. Hauser 

(Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Writing Project and Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving 

student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Naval War College. (2000, August). Writing guide. In A handbook of the United States 

Naval War College. 

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. 

Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 60-93.

Nichols, L. (1996). Pen and paper vs. word processing: A comparative study of creative 

writing in the elementary school. Journal of Research on Computing in 

Education, 29, 159-66.

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., and Fanning, J. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in 

children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic 

development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125-138.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

86

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., et al. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot 

surveys of educational technology in K–12. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 36 (1), 15-27.

Oakland T., and Lane, H.B. (2004). Language, reading, and readability formulas: 

Implications for developing and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 

4 (3), 239-252.

Ogilvie, R. W., Trusk, T. C., and Blue, A. V. (1999). Students’ attitudes towards 

computer testing in a basic science course. Medical Education, 33 (11), 828.

Olson, J. F., and Goldstein, A. A. (1997). The inclusion of students with disabilities and 

limited English proficient students in large-scale assessments: A summary of 

recent progress (NCES Publication No. 97-482). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Padolsky, D. (2005). Ask NCELA, National Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition (NCELA) and language instruction educational programs. 

Page, E. B., and Paulus, D. H. (1968). The analysis of essays by computer. Final report. 

Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Parjares, F., Miller, M. D., and Johnson, M. J. (1997). Gender differences in writing selfbeliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50-

61.

Perry, Debbie. (2005). Peer editing with technology: Using the computer to create 

interactive feedback. English Journal, 94 (6), 28-29.

Perry, T., and Delpit, L. (Eds.). (1998). The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and 

the education of African American children. Boston: Beacon Press.

Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies. (2005). Rising to the 

challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college and work? A study of 

recent high school graduates, college instructors, and employers. (Document 

Number 5842). Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from 

http://www.achieve.org/files/pollreport.pdf

Peterson, S. (2000). Fourth, sixth, and eighth graders’ preferred writing topics and 

identification of gender markers in stories. The Elementary School Journal, 101

(1), 79-100.

Pew Research Center. (October 16, 1995). Americans going online: explosive growth, 

uncertain destinations. Survey Report. Washington DC: Pew Research Center for 

the People and the Press. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://peoplepress.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=136

Peterson, S. (2000). Gender meaning in grade eight students’ talk about classroom 

writing. Gender and Education, 14 (4), 351-366.

Piaget, J. (1955). The language and thought of the child. New York: World Publishing 

Company.

Promoting teachers as researchers. (2004). Reading Today, 22 (2), 7.

Public Agenda: Reality check 2002. (2002, March 6). Education Week, 21 (25), S1-S8.

Rabinowitz, S., and Brandt, T. (2001). Computer-based assessment: Can it deliver on its 

promises? (Knowledge Brief Report). San Francisco: WestEd.

Rainie, L., and Hitlin, P. (2005, August). Teen use of the Internet at school has grown 

45% since 2000. (Data Memo.) Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Revitalizing grammar (2003). [Special issue]. English Journal, 92 (3).
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

87

Riddlebarger, Col. S. E. (1987-88, Winter). Effective writing: A new millennium—an old 

challenge. Airpower Journal, 301-306.

Rief, L. (1992). Seeking diversity. Language arts with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: 

Heinemann.

Robelen, E. W. (1999). The promise and the pitfalls: Technology in schools. (ACSD 

Infobrief 16).

Rogers, H. D. (1997). A longitudinal study of elementary keyboarding computer skills. 

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 1, (2). Retrieved November 2, 2006, 

from http://facstaff.uww.edu/rogersh/keyresearch/DRstdyek.pdf#search=%22 

longitudinal%20study%20of%20elementary%20key%22

Rorschach, B. (1999). Understanding error. In George Otte (Ed.), Looking both ways: 

Studies in cross-institutional professional development (Vol. I) (pp. 63-70). New 

York: CUNY Office of Academic Affairs.

Russell, M. (1999, June 8). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing 

performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 

Retrieved December 8, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20/(20). 

Russell, M. (2006, February 6). Interview. 

Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., et al. (2003). An AlphaSmart for each student: Do 

teaching and learning change with full access to word processors? Computers and 

Composition, 20 (1), 51-76.

Russell, M., and Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment 

comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper 

and pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5 (3).

Russell, M., Higgins, J., and Hoffman, T. (2004). Examining the effect of text editor and 

robust word processor use on student writing test performance. Boston: 

Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.

Russell, M., and O’Connor, K. (2003). Computer-based testing and validity: A look back 

and into the future. Boston: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, 

Boston College. 

Russell, M., and Plati, T. (2000, May). Mode of administration effects on MCAS 

composition performance for grades four, eight, and ten. A report of findings 

submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Education. Retrieved December 8, 

2006, from http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/statements/ws052200.pdf

Russell, M., and Plati, T. (2002, May 29). Does it matter with what I write? Comparing 

performance on paper, computer and portable writing devices. Current Issues in 

Education, 5 (4). Retrieved December 8, 2006, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/ 

volume5/number4/

Sandene, B., Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., et al. (2005, August). Online assessment in 

mathematics and writing: Reports from the NAEP Technology-Based Assessment 

Project, research and development series. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics.

Scott, T. (2006). Writing work, technology, and pedagogy in the era of late capitalism. 

Computers and Composition, 23 (2), 228-43.

Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University 

Press.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

88

Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., and Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions and 

outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade level 

achievement level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 386-398.

Shellard, E. (2004). Writing across the curriculum to increase student learning in middle 

and high school. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.

Shuller, S. (1989, August). Keyboarding in elementary schools: Curricular issues. 

Unpublished manuscript. 

Solomon, C., Lutkus, A. D., Kaplan, B., et al. (April 2004). Writing in the nation’s 

classrooms: teacher interviews and student work collected from participants in 

the 1998 NAEP Writing Assessment. ETS NAEP Technical and Research Report. 

Princeton, NJ: ETS

Sperling, M., and Freedman, S. W. (2001). Review of writing research. In V. Richardson 

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 370-389). New York: 

American Educational Research Association.

Squire, J. (1988). Critical issues in writing and reading today. In J. Davis and J. Marshall 

(Eds.), Ways of knowing – Research and practice in the teaching of writing. Iowa 

City, Iowa: ICTE. 

Strickland, K., and Strickland, L. (1993). Uncovering the curriculum: Whole language in 

secondary and post-secondary classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Technology counts 2003 – Pencils down: Technology’s answer to testing. (2003). 

Education Week, 22 (35), 63.

Technology counts 2006 – The information edge: Using data to accelerate achievement. 

(2006). Education Week, 25 (35), 52.

Thomas, P. L. (2005). Grading student writing: high-stakes testing, computers, and the 

human touch. English Journal, 94 (3), 28-30.

Thompson, S., Johnstone, C. J., and Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to 

large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of 

Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 17, 2007 

from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html

Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., and Moore, M. (2003). Using computer-based tests with 

students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 15). Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved 

April 10, 2007 from 

http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy15.htm

Tindal, G., and Crawford, L. (2003). Technology applications for students with 

disabilities:Using learning assessments to design effective programs. Eugene, 

OR: Behavioral Research and Testing.

Tompkins, G. E. (2004). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. Upper 

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Tongue and quill. (2004, August 1). U.S. Air Force. (AFH 33-337). Retrieved January 

14, 2006, from http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/33/afh33-337/afh33-

337.pdf

Totten, S. (2003). The neglected ‘R’: The need for a writing revolution. New York: 

College Entrance Examination Board.

Urquhart, V. (2005). What principals can do. Principal Leadership, 5 (6), 45-48.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

89

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding 

their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 14, 2006, 

from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/nationonline_020502.htm

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005, March). 

Computer technology in the public school classroom: Teacher perspectives. 

(Issue Brief NCES 2005-083). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Occupational outlook 

handbook: Writers and editors. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (August 2, 2005). Computer and 

Internet use at work in 2003. (News release). 

Valencia, S. W., and Wixon, K. K. (2001). Inside English/language arts standards: 

What’s in a grade? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 202-217.

Vantage Technologies. (1998). How robust is IntelliMetricTM? A subsample cross 

validation study. (Research Brief RB-301). Yardley, PA: Author.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Waner, K. K., Behymer, J., and McCrary, S. (1992). Two points of view on elementary 

school keyboarding. Business Education Forum, 47, 27-29.

Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Whithaus, C. (2005). Teaching and evaluating writing in the age of computers and highstakes testing. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

White, E. (1985). Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco: Josey Bass.

White, E. (1993). Holistic scoring: past triumphs, future challenges. In M. Williamson 

and B. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: 

Theoretical and empirical foundations. (pp.79-108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton 

Press, Inc.

Williams, J. M.and McEnerney, L. (1995). Writing in college: A short guide to college 

writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Writing Program. 

Wolcott, W., with Legg, S. M. (1998). An overview of writing assessment: Theory, 

research, and practice. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Wolfe, E. W., et al. (1996). The influence of student experience with word processors on 

the quality of essays written for a direct writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 3, 

(1), 123-47

Wollman-Bonilla, J. (2004). Principled teaching to(wards) the test: Persuasive writing in 

two classrooms. Language Arts, 81 (6), 502-11.

Wren, S. (2003). Ten myths about learning to read. Balanced Reading.com. Retrieved 

January 14, 2006, from http://www.balancedreading.com/myths.html.

Writing: The neglected R returns. (2003). District Administration, The Magazine for K–

12 Education Leaders. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from 

http://www.districtadministration.com/page.cfm?p=974.

Yancey, K. B. (2004). Using multiple technologies to teach writing. Educational 

Leadership, 62 (2), 38-40.

Zimmerman, B. J., and Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated 

learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

90

Zoghi, C., and Wulff Pabilonia, S. (2005, September). Which workers gain upon 

adopting a computer? Paper presented at the Conference on the Evolving 

Workplace, Ottawa, Canada.
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

91

APPENDIX F 

ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED TO REVIEW INITIAL NAEP WRITING 

FRAMEWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Organization

Conference

or Focus 

Group 

Session

Listserv, Web 

Posting or 

Mass E-mail 

Achieve, Inc. Yes

ACT Item Writers—Educators from all subjects Yes

Alliance for Excellent Education

Multiple 

advisory boards 

and AEE 

newsletter 

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Yes

Assembly of State Coordinators of ELA (ASCELA) Yes

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Directors (ASCD) Yes Yes

Business Coalition for Educational Excellence (BCEE) Yes

Business Round Table Yes

California Association of Teachers of English (CATE) Yes

Chicago Area Reading Coaches Yes

The Coca-Cola Company Yes

Conference on College Composition and Communication 

(CCCC) Yes Yes

Conference on English Leadership (CEL) Yes

Council for American Private Education (CAPE) Yes

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Yes

Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) Yes

Eastern Community College Social Science Association Yes

Education Information Management Advisory Consortium 

(EIMAC) Yes

Education Service Agency Yes

Houston ESL Supervisors and Lead Teachers Yes

International Reading Association (IRA) Yes Yes

Iowa Guidance Counselors Yes

Los Angeles Unified School District Yes

Midcontinent Regional Education Lab (McREL) Yes

Minnesota District Assessment Coordinators Yes

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Yes

National Association of Elementary School Principals 

(NAESP) Yes Yes

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Yes
NAEP 2017 WRITING FRAMEWORK

92

Organization

Conference

or Focus 

Group 

Session

Listserv, Web 

Posting or 

Mass E-mail 

National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Yes

National Association of State Directors of Special Education 

(NASDSE) Yes

National Association of Workforce Development Professionals 

(NAWDP) Yes Yes

National Catholic Education Association and Diocese 

Connections Yes Yes

National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy 

(NCRLL) Yes

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Yes

National Middle School Association Yes

National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Yes

National Reading Conference Yes

National School Board Association (NSBA) Yes

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Yes

National Writing Project (NWP)—directors and teacherconsultants, technology experts, urban directors and teacher 

consultants, English language learner experts

Yes (x 5)

Northern Virginia Community College System Yes

Recent high school graduates Yes

Richland College of the Dallas County Yes

Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) Yes (x 4)

South Dakota State Department of Education Yes

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Yes Yes

Various technology and writing listservs Yes

Washington State Writing Assessment Leaders Yes

Additional Organizations Contacted:

Air Force Academy

Air Force ROTC 

Army ROTC 

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) 

The Citadel 

Education Trust 

Marines ROTC 

National Rural Education Association (NREA) 

United States Naval Academy 

Navy ROTC 

United States Military Academy at West Point 

Virginia Military Institute