Writing Framework and 

Specifications for the 2007 

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 congressionally mandated project of 

the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. It assesses what U.S. 

students should know and be able to do in geography, reading, writing, mathematics, science, U.S. 

history, the arts, civics, and other academic subjects. Since 1969, NAEP has surveyed the achievement of 

students at ages 9, 13, and 17 and, since the 1980s, in grades 4, 8, and 12. Measuring educational achievement trends over time is critical to measuring progress. 

The 2005–2006 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 

Darvin M. Winick, Chair 

President 

Winick & Associates 

Austin, Texas 

Sheila M. Ford, Vice Chair 

Former Principal 

Horace Mann Elementary 

School 

Washington, D.C. 

Francie M. Alexander 

Chief Academic Officer, 

Scholastic, Inc. 

Senior Vice President, Scholastic 

Education 

New York, New York 

David J. Alukonis 

Chairman 

Hudson School Board 

Hudson, New Hampshire 

Amanda P. Avallone 

Assistant Principal and EighthGrade Teacher 

Summit Middle School 

Boulder, Colorado 

Honorable Jeb Bush 

Governor of Florida 

Tallahassee, Florida 

Barbara Byrd-Bennett 

Executive Superintendent-inResidence 

Cleveland State University 

Cleveland, Ohio 

Shirley V. Dickson 

Educational Consultant 

Aliso Viejo, California 

Honorable David P. Driscoll 

Commissioner of Education 

Massachusetts Department of 

Education 

Malden, Massachusetts 

John Q. Easton 

Executive Director 

Consortium on Chicago School 

Research 

Chicago, Illinois 

David W. Gordon 

Sacramento County 

Superintendent of Schools 

Sacramento County Office of 

Education 

Sacramento, California 

Kathi M. King 

Twelfth-Grade Teacher 

Messalonskee High School 

Oakland, Maine 

Honorable Keith King 

Member 

Colorado House of 

Representatives 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Kim M. Kozbial-Hess 

Fourth-Grade Teacher 

Hawkins Elementary School 

Toledo, Ohio 

Andrew C. Porter 

Director, Learning Sciences 

Institute 

Peabody College 

Vanderbilt University 

Nashville, Tennessee 

Luis A. Ramos 

Community Relations Manager 

PPL Susquehanna 

Berwick, Pennsylvania 

John H. Stevens 

Executive Director 

Texas Business and Education 

Coalition 

Austin, Texas 

Mary Frances Taymans, SND 

Executive Director, Department 

of Secondary Schools 

National Catholic Education 

Association 

Washington, D.C. 

Oscar A. Troncoso 

Principal 

Socorro High School 

El Paso, Texas 

Honorable Thomas J. Vilsack 

Governor of Iowa 

Des Moines, Iowa 

Honorable Michael E. Ward 

Former State Superintendent of 

Public Instruction 

North Carolina Public Schools 

Jackson, Mississippi 

Eileen L. Weiser 

Member, State Board of 

Education 

Michigan Department of 

Education 

Lansing, Michigan 

Grover J. Whitehurst (ex 

officio) 

Director, Institute of Education 

Sciences 

U.S. Department of Education 

Washington, D.C. 

Charles E. Smith 

Executive Director 

National Assessment Governing 

Board 
Writing Framework and 

Specifications for the 2007 

National Assessment of 

Educational Progress 

Writing Assessment Framework developed under contract 

RS89174011 by the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, 

and Student Testing (CRESST); Writing Specifications developed 

under contract ZA95002001 by ACT, Inc. for the National Assessment Governing Board. 
National Assessment Governing Board 

Darvin M. Winick 

Chair 

Sheila Ford 

Vice Chair 

Charles Smith 

Executive Director 

Mary Crovo 

Project Officer 

Writing Framework Project 

(1989–90) 

Eva Banker 

Project Directory

Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing 

(CRESST) 

Writing Specifications Development Project 

(1995–96) 

Catherine Welch 

Project Director 

ACT, Inc. 

Writing Assessment Framework for the 2007 National Assessment 

of Education Progress. Developed under contract RS89174001 by 

CRESST for the National Assessment Governing Board. 

Writing Assessment and Exercise Specifications for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Developed under contract 

ZA95002001 by ACT for the National Assessment Governing Board. 

For further information, contact: 

National Assessment Governing Board

800 North Capitol Street, N.W. 

Suite 825 

Washington, DC 20002 

www.nagb.org 
Table of Contents 

Writing Assessment Framework..............................................1

Overview......................................................................................3 

Introduction ................................................................................5 

Chapter 1: Developing the Writing Framework .....................7 

The Nature of Writing and the NAEP Writing Assessment....7 

The Writing Process.................................................................8 

The Development Process for the Writing Framework............8 

Chapter 2: Designing the NAEP Writing Assessment ..........11 

Rationale and Objectives for the Assessment ........................11 

Chapter 3: Constructing and Scoring the Assessment..........19 

Designing Topics....................................................................19 

References .................................................................................23 

Appendix ...................................................................................25 

Writing Framework Panel ......................................................25 

Writing Assessment and Exercise Specifications...................29 

Introduction ..............................................................................31 

Overview of the NAEP Writing Assessment..........................33 

The Purposes of Writing.........................................................34 

Developmental Changes in Students’ Understanding of 

Writing Processes...................................................................37 

Section I: Assessment Specifications......................................41 

Content Specifications............................................................41 

Technical Specifications.........................................................42 

Review Specifications............................................................44 

Administration Specifications................................................46 

Scoring and Reporting Specifications....................................46 

iii 
Section II: Task Specifications................................................51 

Format Specifications.............................................................52 

Scoring Rubric Specifications................................................54 

Reader Training Specifications ..............................................55 

Appendix A................................................................................57 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 4 Writing...........59 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 8 Writing...........60 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 12 Writing.........61 

Appendix B................................................................................65 

A Suggested Process for Rubric Construction .......................67 

General Characteristics of Writing by Mode..........................67 

Appendix C................................................................................71 

Planning Committee Members...............................................73 

Technical Committee Members .............................................74 

Project Staff American College Testing (ACT).....................75 

iv 
Writing Assessment 

Framework 
Overview 

This section contains the Writing Framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as adopted 

by the National Assessment Governing Board (Governing 

Board). The Framework describes the basis for the Writing Assessment, the types of writing assessed, and the methods for scoring student responses. This Framework was developed during 1989–90 in 

preparation for the 1992 NAEP Writing Assessment. For the 1998– 

2007 assessment the Framework was augmented by a set of Writing 

Assessment and Exercise Specifications developed during 1995–96 

(see pages 23 to 67). 

This document contains the framework and specifications for the 

NAEP 2007 writing assessment, which will assess student achievement nationally in grades 8 and 12, continuing the trend begun in 

1998. Additionally, data for participating states and select urban districts will be gathered for grade 8. 

Developed by a committee of writing researchers, teachers, curriculum specialists, and business representatives, the Writing Framework 

builds on two decades of NAEP experience in large-scale direct writing assessment. In addition, the assessment incorporates important 

changes that reflect findings and recommendations from recent research on writing instruction and assessment, as well as the experience of many state writing programs. In developing this Framework, 

input was received from a wide array of writing educators, policymakers, scholars, and major education organizations. Highlights of 

the NAEP Writing Assessment include: 

• Assessment of narrative, informative, and persuasive writing. 

• A set of writing topics that incorporate a variety of stimulus materials, audiences, and forms of writing. 

• A special page accompanying each topic for students to plan and 

organize their writing. 

• Enhanced 6-point scoring criteria. 

3
Introduction 

The fundamental aim of writing is to communicate. However, 

its purpose, audience, form, and subject matter vary according 

to the specific writing situation. Good writers can communicate well in a range of situations. They can perform a variety of writing tasks, ranging from business letters to stories, reports, and essays. 

To become good writers students need expert instruction, frequent 

practice, and constructive feedback. 

Although some testing programs have used only multiple-choice 

exercises to assess writing, NAEP has been a pioneer in collecting 

actual samples of student writing and scoring them in a consistent 

way. In recent years, use of direct writing tests has increased. Currently, more than 35 states use direct measures of writing in their student assessment programs. Writing samples also are collected as part 

of the SAT, (ACT), Medical College Admissions Test, and a number 

of other large-scale assessment programs. 

In addition to measuring writing, NAEP continues to provide the 

only nationally representative data on student achievement in reading, 

mathematics, science, U.S. history, geography, and other academic 

subjects. Since its inception in 1969, NAEP has assessed representative samples of students aged 9, 13, and 17. In 1984, it also began 

sampling students by grade level and currently provides data for 

grades 4, 8, and 12. NAEP reports achievement results by 

race/ethnicity, gender, and region, as well as data that chart trends in 

achievement across time. Relationships are reported between student 

achievement and relevant background factors such as instructional 

practices, courses taken, and homework. 

As part of the 1988 legislation (which was updated in 1994) Congress created the Governing Board to set policy for NAEP. The 26­

member Board is composed of policymakers, school administrators, 

teachers, curriculum and measurement specialists, business representatives, and members of the general public. Congress charged the 

Board with specific policymaking duties that include determining 

5
NAEP assessment objectives and test specifications; improving the 

form and use of NAEP; identifying appropriate achievement goals for 

each grade and subject tested; ensuring that NAEP items are free from 

bias; and selecting subjects to be assessed by NAEP. 

As stated earlier, the 1992 Writing Framework was developed 

through a national consensus process directed by the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. The Framework was adopted by the Governing Board in August 1990 and 

formed the basis for the 1992 NAEP in writing. For the 1998 Writing 

Assessment, the Governing Board contracted with ACT, Inc. to augment the Framework with a set of Writing Assessment and Exercise 

Specifications. The Specifications Development work occurred during 1995–96. 

6
Chapter 1: Developing the 

Writing Framework 

The Nature of Writing and the NAEP Writing 

Assessment 

As the National Council of Teachers of English Commission 

on Composition has noted: 

Writing is a powerful instrument of thought. In the act of 

composing, writers learn about themselves and their world and 

communicate their insights to others. Writing confers the power to 

grow personally and to effect change in the world. 

—Commission on Composition, National Council of Teachers of 

English, 1979. 

Since 1969, the National Assessment of Education Progress 

(NAEP) has conducted six assessments to measure the writing 

achievement of students in our nation’s schools. Each time, student 

writing samples were collected and scored on a national basis. The 

results of these assessments have contributed significantly to the expanding body of research on written composition and writing assessment. In each assessment and set of writing test objectives, NAEP 

attempted to reflect advances in writing instruction and measurement. 

This sixth national assessment of writing draws heavily on NAEP’s 

prior experience while adding refinements based on recent research 

and best practice. 

Three types of writing are assessed—narrative, informative, and 

persuasive. Persuasive writing focuses on exerting an impact on the 

reader. Narrative discourse emphasizes the writer’s experiences, perceptions, and imagination. Writing for informative purposes stresses 

the subject matter that is being explained. A fuller description of these 

types of writing appears in chapter 2. 

7
The Writing Process 

Recent research and practice have indicated that focusing on what 

students do as writers, rather than on theory and grammar, results in 

more effective written communication. Unfortunately, instruction in 

the writing process often prescribes a simple linear formula: from 

prewriting (generating and organizing ideas) to writing to postwriting 

(revising and editing). In reality, all three stages in the process are 

interactive and recursive. Composing involves a variety of plans and 

subprocesses that are brought to bear as needed (Hillocks, 1986). 

Cooper and Odell (1977) define the writing process as follows: 

Composing involves exploring and mulling over a subject; planning the particular piece... getting started; making discoveries about 

feelings, values, or ideas, even while in the process of writing a draft; 

making continuous decisions about diction, syntax, and rhetoric in 

relation to the intended meaning and to the meaning taking shape; 

reviewing what has accumulated, and anticipating and rehearsing 

what comes next; tinkering and reformulating; stopping; contemplating the finished piece and perhaps, finally, revising. 

Good instruction helps students learn that while one or another 

phase of the writing process might be emphasized at a given time, 

other phases may come into play as well. For example, good writers 

revise at all stages, not just at the completion of their work. 

The NAEP Writing Assessment supports the process approach to 

writing in several ways. It provides substantial time for writing—not 

just the opportunity to create a rough draft. It offers suggestions for 

prewriting and revising, and includes a special prewriting page for 

each topic. 

The Development Process for the Writing 

Framework 

The Writing Framework in this booklet was developed through a 

national consensus process conducted by the Governing Board. The 

Governing Board convened a 14-member panel composed of writers, 

writing teachers, other educators, and representatives of business and 

8
professional organizations. The writing framework panel met three 

times between December 1989 and March 1990. 

To gather a wide range of input, the Board also sent letters soliciting recommendations to a broadly representative group of educators, 

administrators, state and local government representatives, and members of the business community, the press, and the general public. The 

writing framework panel used information from the nearly 100 responses received to inform its deliberations. Although the final 

Framework does not reflect the views of everyone who participated, it 

does represent, as nearly as possible, the consensus of the various 

groups. 

As a result of this process, the writing framework panel developed 

positions—subsequently endorsed by the Governing Board—that 

highlight elements of continuity as well as important changes in the 

1992 assessment. The main principles are as follows: 

All Students Should Write 

Learning to write well is important for all American students. Even 

though students have varied backgrounds and experiences, the expectation for high performance in writing applies to all. 

Overarching Objectives 

Writers exhibit varying degrees of competency, and the writing 

framework panel recognized that no single assessment can fully 

evaluate performance across the entire domain. The overarching objectives presented in chapter 2 define the boundaries or focus of the 

writing assessment and ensure that it measures a variety of important 

writing skills. 

Instructional Practices 

For many years, NAEP writing assessments have interpreted 

achievement data in the context of instructional practices to which 

students have been exposed. Such information will be gathered from 

both students and their teachers on methods, materials, and opportunities for writing instruction. Clearly, not all students receive the same 

9
instruction in writing or have equal opportunities to practice or to receive feedback on the quality of their efforts. By relating writing instructional practices to student achievement, NAEP can provide a 

richer information base by which to interpret results. 

Instructional Relevance and Validity 

NAEP has long struggled with the difficulties of writing assessment. Many educators feel that the constraints of the testing situation 

seriously limit the usefulness of the test results. Recent NAEP writing 

assessments have tried to deal with these issues in two important 

ways. First, the amount of time for writing tasks has been extended. 

Second, portfolio assessment has been introduced on a trial basis to 

collect samples of students’ writing in response to regular classroom 

assignments of varied complexity and duration. 

10
Chapter 2: Designing the NAEP 

Writing Assessment 

Rationale and Objectives for the Assessment 

The Writing Assessment Framework is organized according to 

three primary purposes for writing—narrative, informative, 

and persuasive. The Framework incorporates the findings of 

past NAEP writing assessments, as well as ideas from exemplary state 

frameworks and recent research on composition. 

The assessment is designed around the following six overarching 

objectives: 

• Students should write for a variety of purposes (narrative, informative, and persuasive). 

• Students should write on a variety of tasks and for many different 

audiences. 

• Students should write from a variety of stimulus materials and 

within various time constraints. 

• Students should generate, draft, revise, and edit ideas and forms 

of expression in their writing. 

• Students should display effective choices in the organization of 

their writing. They should include detail to illustrate and elaborate 

their ideas and use appropriate conventions of written English. 

• Students should value writing as a communicative activity. 

The following section contains specific information on each objective, including definitions, rationales, and methods of assessment. 

Objective 1: Students should write for a variety of purposes: 

narrative, informative, and persuasive. 

The NAEP Writing Assessment examines student responses to 

these three major types of writing. The purposes for writing are de11
rived from the interaction among the reader, the writer, and the subject. Although other types of writing also might be defined, the writing panel and responses from the canvassing letter concurred with 

these three broad writing types. Because NAEP serves as a national 

monitor of student achievement—not as an individual diagnostic 

test—assessment of these broad writing types is appropriate and consistent with NAEP’s role. 

Each type of writing is characterized by distinguishing features and 

requires different strategies on the part of the writer. For example, a 

personal narrative requires decisions about the chronology of events 

and what details to include; a persuasive letter requires that the student focus on an issue and choose what type of appeals (e.g., emotional or logical) to direct at the reader. Although a particular piece of 

writing may have one major purpose, there may be secondary purposes as well. Purposes may blend in various ways depending on the 

specific context for writing. 

As Cooper and Odell (1977) note, “The effectiveness of a particular sample of writing require[s] the blending of the pure colors of the 

theoretical system into the earthier shades of actual performances.” 

Narrative Writing 

Narrative writing involves the production of stories or personal essays. Practice with these forms helps writers to develop an ear for 

language. Also, informative and persuasive writing can benefit from 

many of the strategies used in narrative writing. For example, there 

must be an effective ordering of events when relating an incident as 

part of a report. 

Sometimes narrative writing contributes to an awareness of the 

world as the writer creates, manipulates, and interprets reality. Such 

writing—whether fact or fiction, poem, play, or personal essay— 

requires close observation of people, objects, and places. Further, this 

type of writing fosters creativity, imagination, and speculation by allowing the writer to express thoughts and then stand back, as a more 

detached observer might, and grasp more fully what is being felt and 

12
why. Thus, narrative writing offers a special opportunity to analyze 

and understand emotions and actions. 

Informative Writing 

Informative writing focuses primarily on the subject-matter element in communication. This type of writing is used to share knowledge and to convey messages, instructions, and ideas. Like all writing, informative writing may be filtered through the writer’s impressions, understanding, and feelings. Used as a means of exploration, 

informative writing helps both the writer and the reader to learn new 

ideas and to reexamine old conclusions. Informative writing may also 

involve reporting on events or experiences, or analyzing concepts and 

relationships, including developing hypotheses and generalizations. 

Any of these types of informative writing can be based on the writer’s 

personal knowledge and experience or on information newly presented to the writer that must be understood in order to complete a 

task. Usually, informative writing involves a mix of the familiar and 

the new, and both are clarified in the process of writing. Depending 

on the task, writing based on either personal experience or secondary 

information may span the range of thinking skills from recall to 

analysis to evaluation. 

Persuasive Writing 

Persuasive writing emphasizes the reader. Its primary aim is to influence others to take some action or bring about change. Persuasive 

writing may contain great amounts of information—facts, details, examples, comparisons, statistics, or anecdotes—but its main purpose is 

not simply to inform but to persuade. This type of writing involves a 

clear awareness of what arguments might most affect the audience 

being addressed. Writing persuasively also requires use of critical 

thinking skills such as analysis, inference, synthesis, and evaluation. 

Persuasive writing is called for in a variety of situations. It may involve responding to a request for advice by giving an opinion and 

providing sound reasons to support it. It may also involve presenting 

an argument in such a way that a particular audience will find con13
vincing. When there is opposition, persuasive writing may entail refuting arguments that are contrary to the writer’s point of view. 

In all persuasive writing, authors must choose the approach they 

will use. They may, for instance, use emotional or logical appeals or 

an accommodating or demanding tone. Regardless of the situation or 

approach, persuasive writers must be concerned with having a particular desired effect upon their readers, beyond merely adding to 

knowledge of the topic presented. 

Objective 2: Students should write on a variety of tasks and 

for many different audiences. 

Students gain power and flexibility as writers when they are given 

frequent opportunities to write for varied purposes, topics, and audiences. Awareness of the intended audience and purpose of a specific 

writing task affects the ideas that are included, the way in which they 

are organized, and the manner in which they are expressed. 

Writing tasks may ask students to draw exclusively on their own 

experience or may require use of subject matter presented in school. 

In NAEP, some writing prompts require students to base their responses on their own ideas, knowledge, or experience; others require 

use of information provided in the prompt itself. The entire pool of 

writing topics represents a wide array of forms of writing, including 

essays, letters, stories, and reports. 

Writing to different audiences requires attention to appropriate content and tone, depending on whether the audience is adult or the students’ peer, known or unknown, knowledgeable or uninformed about 

the topic, or known to be friendly or hostile. Although any formal 

writing assessment has the teacher or grader as the implied major audience, students may be asked to write for a variety of audiences including friends, local government officials, relatives, or business representatives. In NAEP, some topics ask students to write for a particular audience (e.g., a peer, school principal, or committee). For other 

topics the audience is not specified. 

14
Objective 3: Students should write from a variety of stimulus materials, and within different time constraints. 

In actual writing situations, the writer may be responding to a written stimulus, illustration, or other material. In the assessment, students 

are asked to respond to a variety of stimulus materials, in addition to 

brief written directions. For example, stimulus materials in the assessment include letters, poems, brief reports or descriptions, and 

other extended texts. The NAEP assessment also includes illustrations 

such as pictures and graphics as stimulus material for writing. 

The assessment provides students at all three grade levels with 25 

minutes to write on each of two specific tasks. Although real-world 

writing constraints may range from several minutes to many months, 

the assessment conditions are designed to allow students a reasonable 

time to respond in a thoughtful, organized manner. Enough time is 

given to develop, evaluate, and revise the written responses. The time 

limit of 15 minutes per task used in previous NAEP assessments was 

deemed insufficient to produce valid responses to the extended writing prompts that are included. 

The NAEP writing special study allows students to submit samples 

of writing produced in the regular classroom setting. A special study 

of classroom-based writing was conducted in grades 4 and 8 in 1990 

and repeated at these grades in 1992 and 1998. 

Objective 4: Students should generate, draft, evaluate, revise, and edit ideas and forms of expression in their writing. 

Good writers develop their own writing processes based on personal experience. The process varies among individual writers. Even 

the same writer does not always approach a writing task the same 

way. When students start to understand and control a writing task, 

they are beginning to manage their writing. The typical steps in the 

writing processes are planning, drafting, evaluating, and revising, but 

a neat linear progression is not implied. To meet high standards students may engage in various steps in the writing process again and 

again until they are satisfied with their work. 

15
With NAEP’s increased response time, students have more opportunity to engage in writing processes. Within the limits of a 25-minute 

time period, they should be able to generate ideas and provide information to support them. Students may express their ideas and organize their response in an outline, list, word web, or other means. With 

the time constraints in mind, students should then move to the stage 

of composition during which they draft the material in sentence and 

paragraph form. Then changes are developed through revisions, in 

which students demonstrate their ability to evaluate, revise, or edit as 

the final form evolves. The revision stage shows students’ understanding of the technical aspects needed to shape their work toward a 

particular form. Finally, as time becomes an increasingly important 

factor, students should reach a decision regarding the combination of 

content and form and move toward a more finished product. At this 

stage, the writers should once again evaluate their work, as they put 

the finishing touches on what comprises the most effective response 

to the writing task. 

NAEP provides several opportunities for students to demonstrate 

their writing and report on the writing processes they use. Background questions ask how frequently they engage in steps such as 

planning and editing when they write in school. Other questions ask 

about the use of computers and word processors. In the assessment 

itself, students are encouraged to use a special page for planning, or 

prewriting. The directions accompanying the prompts give suggestions on how to approach the writing task and improve responses 

(e.g., by planning and revising). 

Of course, a formal assessment can only go so far in mirroring 

classroom or real-life writing situations. The writing samples produced by students in 25 minutes cannot be viewed as final or polished 

drafts. Also, it is not possible to incorporate into a timed, secure assessment such as NAEP certain writing process strategies, such as 

using outside resources and peer or teacher conferences. Changes in 

the administration should make the NAEP writing assessment more 

closely resemble process approaches to writing. 

16
As noted earlier, NAEP also is experimenting with collecting classroom-based writing samples. These samples will enable students to 

demonstrate writing processes in which they engage over extended 

periods of time, their choice of writing topics, and their use of additional resources. 

Objective 5: Students should display effective choices in the 

organization of their writing. They should include detail to 

illustrate and elaborate their ideas, and should use appropriate conventions of written English. 

To write effectively, students must organize ideas coherently, 

elaborate their points with appropriate detail, and employ the conventions of English grammar and usage. Organization often depends on 

the task. A shopping list organized in order of importance or location 

involves specific organizational skills, but these skills are different 

from those required to develop a research paper. Regardless of the 

writing task, however, a student who writes effectively will select a 

suitable organizational form and adapt it to the task. Having a repertoire of organizational strategies helps students better manage the 

various stages of writing. 

Elaboration involves the ability to select specific points or details 

and effectively incorporate them into written work. By using appropriate details, a piece of writing conveys concretely the writer’s intentions. Understanding the need for elaboration and the extent to which 

it must be carried out indicates a writer’s ability to recognize the writing content and to work within constraints—either those prescribed 

by the task or the intended audience, or those imposed by the writer. 

One important aspect of the writing process is the student’s ability 

to incorporate effective supportive material into a given piece of writing. The selection of quotations, examples, anecdotes, and other 

forms of detail show the writer’s expertise in choosing material that 

enriches a given writing task. The choices a writer makes and the explanations attached to those choices, provide insight into the writer’s 

ability to synthesize ideas. Such decisions are, in part, determined by 

considerations of audience and purpose. For example, illustrative ma17
terial used in a timed, analytical essay exam will differ from that in a 

reflective piece of personal writing. The choices made show the 

writer’s ability to integrate content-based decisions within a technical 

framework that is appropriate for the task at hand. 

Objective 5 is assessed in the evaluation of student responses. All 

student papers are scored using the NAEP enhanced primary trait 

method, which focuses on how well students accomplish the writing 

task. Scoring guides provide raters with specific criteria for each 

score point in terms of the appropriate content, organization, and 

elaboration for each particular writing task. The scale also incorporates features related to use of the conventions of standard written 

English. 

Objective 6: Students value writing as a communicative 

activity. 

Both common sense and empirical data support the belief that people who value particular endeavors tend to invest more time and energy in them. Writing should be a valued activity. Students should be 

engaged in their writing tasks, understand the importance of writing, 

write often, value their own efforts, and recognize good writing by 

others. Past assessments have included objectives emphasizing the 

value that students place on writing. Yet, values are always difficult 

to measure. In NAEP, students are asked directly about their opinions 

of various writing tasks and to describe their own, nonassigned writing outside of school. Because the writing framework panel believed 

in the importance of student perceptions about writing, it encouraged 

NAEP to continue to refine its approaches to assessing such constructs. 

18
Chapter 3: Constructing and 

Scoring the Assessment 

Designing Topics 

The design of NAEP writing tasks or prompts considers the factors that affect student writing performance. The chart in figure 1 illustrates how the pool of prompts should represent important, appropriate, and feasible characteristics. Given financial constraints, the assessment cannot include all prompts, nor are all equally 

desirable or feasible. The features in figure 1 should be used as a 

guide for item writers in the development of prompts that contain a 

reasonable distribution of the above characteristics. A brief description of each feature follows. 

Discourse Aim 

As mentioned in chapter 2, in NAEP writing assessments three 

general types of writing are assessed: narrative, informative, and persuasive. To accomplish writing to these different purposes, writers 

must use different strategies and content; however, each general category of purpose permits a variety of types of writing within it. For 

example, narrative writing may include story writing or narrating a 

personal experience. Informative writing may require students to explain the meaning of an important quotation or excerpt from a speech. 

Persuasive writing may involve defending an argument or position, or 

exploring a problem and its solution. A major characteristic of any 

writing prompt is the purpose for writing and its accompanying 

dominant structure and content. 

Topic 

The subject of any writing is also one of its major features. Writing 

prompts may ask students to rely exclusively on their own background and experiences or may ask them to use subject-matter 

knowledge learned in school or presented in the prompt itself. Many 

19
writing tasks ask students to draw on school-related experiences. All 

topics are carefully screened for gender, racial, cultural, and regional 

biases. Finally, writing topics must be within the realm of experience 

for students at each particular grade level assessed by NAEP. 

Cognitive Complexity 

Each writing assignment may also be categorized according to the 

major form of reasoning required. Summaries require students to distill important information about a subject. Analyses require sorting 

information into categories and explaining each one. Interpretations 

require drawing inferences or conclusions from evidence. Evaluations 

require applying criteria of significance or worth to support a judgment or argument. Describing the major type of reasoning required by 

a writing prompt allows educators to judge whether it covers important types of higher order thinking. 

Figure 1⎯Features To Consider in the Design of Writing 

Tasks 

Discourse Aim Audience 

Major aim—narrative, Known/unknown 

informative, persuasive Adult/child 

Subgenre—for example, Novice/expert 

position paper, story, letter Friendly/unfriendly 

Topic Presentation Format 

Information source— Written 

personal experience, Pictorial 

school, new information Evaluation Criteria 

Familiarity Administration Conditions Interest 

Writing Procedures Measured Cognitive Complexity 

Prewriting/planning Recall/summarize Drafting Analyze Revising Infer/interpret Editing Evaluate 

20
Audience 

Any formal writing assessment has the teacher or scorer as the implied major audience. However, through the design of the writing 

tasks, an assessment can vary the intended audience to have the student address others such as peers, relatives, newspaper editors, or 

politicians. Writing to different audiences requires attention to appropriate content and tone, depending on whether the audience is an 

adult or peer, known or unknown, knowledgeable or uninformed 

about the topic, and friendly or unfriendly. 

Presentation Format 

The prompt may be presented in written form only or it may be accompanied by an illustration, such as a picture or graphic. NAEP includes more prompts that ask students to write from relatively long 

passages about school subjects. Certain prompts also use illustrations 

and charts as stimulus material. 

Evaluation Criteria 

The prompt may contain directions to the students that indicate 

how their writing will be evaluated. It may present features or standards by which the composition will be judged. Although some topics 

provide only a brief description of the writing task, more prompts 

were developed in which evaluation criteria are included. 

Administration Conditions 

The NAEP assessment includes prompts at all grade levels that allow 25 minutes to respond to a particular writing task. During the assessment, students are not permitted to use books or other resources 

or to obtain advice from teachers or peers. 

Writing Procedures Measured 

The extent to which students engage in prewriting, organizing, and 

drafting will be analyzed and reported as part of the writing results. 

21
Scoring the Assessment 

NAEP uses scoring criteria that include primary trait, holistic, and 

mechanics elements, and incorporate features related to task accomplishment, overall fluency, and the conventions of standard written 

English. The separate NAEP trend reports will continue to provide 

results using separate holistic and mechanics scoring criteria as well. 

22
References 

Applebee, A.N., J.A. Langer, I.V.S. Mullis, and L.B. Jenkins. Learning to Write in Our Nation’s Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1990. 

Applebee, A.N, J.A. Langer, I.V.S. Mullis, and L.B. Jenkins. The 

Writing Report Card, 1984–88. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education, 1990. 

Calkins, L.M. Lessons From a Child. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman 

Educational Books, 1983. 

Commission on Composition. Teaching Composition: A Position 

Statement. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 

1979. 

Cooper, C.R. and B. Brenneman. Writing Achievement of California 

Eighth Graders, A First Look. California State Department of Education, 1989. 

Cooper, C.R. and L. Odell. Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Buffalo, NY: National Council of Teachers of English, 1977. 

Educational Testing Service. Writing Objectives for the 1984 Assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1983. 

Educational Testing Service. Writing Objectives for the 1988 Assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1987. 

Educational Testing Service. Assessing Actual Student Performance. 

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1991. 

Gentile, C. Exploring New Methods for Collecting Students’ SchoolBased Writing: NAEP’s 1990 Portfolio Study. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, 1992. 

Hillocks, G. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for 

Teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Research on Reading and Composition Skills, 1986. 

23
Kean, J.M. The Teaching of Writing in Our Schools. Bloomington, 

IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1983. 

Kinneavy, J.L., W. McCleary, and N. Nakadate. Writing in the Liberal Arts Tradition. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985. 

Myers, M. and J. Gray, eds. Theory and Practice in the Teaching of 

Composition: Processing, Distancing, and Modeling. Urbana, IL: 

National Council of Teachers of English, 1983. 

Purves, A.C. “Reflections on Research and Assessment in Written 

Composition” in Research in the Teaching of English, 26, no. 1 

(1992): 108–122. 

Ruth, L. and S. Murphy. Designing Writing Tasks for the Assessment 

of Writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1988. 

24
Appendix 

Writing Framework Panel 
Writing Framework Panel 

Eva L. Baker (Panel Chair) 

Director 

UCLA Center for the Study of 

Evaluation 

Arthur Applebee 

Director 

SUNY Center for the Learning 

and Teaching of Literature 

Albany, New York 

Beth Brenneman 

Consultant 

California Department of 

Education 

Nancy Cascella 

Resource Teacher 

Bridgeport Public Schools 

Bridgeport, Connecticut 

Chuck Cascio 

Teacher, Writer 

South Lakes High School 

Reston, Virginia 

Carmen Woods Chapman 

Assessment Specialist 

Illinois Department of 

Education 

James Davis 

Professor of English 

Ohio University 

Vice President 

National Council of Teachers 

of English 

Douglas Estell 

Chair, English Department 

Carmel High School 

Carmel, Indiana 

Sarah Freedman 

Director 

University of California, 

Berkeley 

Center for the Study of Writing 

James T. Guiness 

Former Associate Superintendent 

for Curriculum 

District of Columbia Public 

Schools 

Velma Heller 

Director of Curriculum 

Westport Public Schools 

Westport, Connecticut 

Deborah Magid 

Consultant 

Computer Sciences Corporation 

Edys Quellmalz 

Senior Research Associate 

RMC Corporation 

Guadalupe Valdez 

Professor of Education 

University of California, 

Berkeley 

27
Writing Assessment and 

Exercise Specifications 
Introduction 

The Nation’s Report Card,TM which reports data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is the 

only nationally representative and continuing assessment of 

what America’s students know and can do in various academic subjects. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in 

reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography, and other 

fields. By making objective information on student performance 

available to policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, 

NAEP is an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition 

and progress of education. 

NAEP is a congressionally mandated project of the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S. Department of Education. 

NCES is responsible, by law, for carrying out the NAEP project. In 

1988, Congress established the National Assessment Governing 

Board to set policy for NAEP. The Board is responsible for selecting 

subject areas to be assessed, for developing assessment objectives and 

specifications through a national consensus approach, for setting appropriate student performance levels, and for performing other duties 

as required under the law. 

NAEP has conducted periodic assessments of students’ writing 

achievement over the past 30 years. The Writing Framework for the 

1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress was developed 

under the direction of the Governing Board and involved writing educators, policymakers, scholars, teachers, and professionals in the field 

of writing. This framework, drawing on NAEP’s three decades of experience in direct writing assessment, recommended increased time 

for writing, a wider variety of stimulus materials, suggestions and 

space to encourage prewriting, and a special writing portfolio study. 

Item development, scoring, analysis, and reporting for the 1992 assessment were conducted by Educational Testing Service, under contract to NCES. Results of the main 1992 assessment were reported in 

31
the NAEP 1992 Writing Report Card, which was released in June 

1994. 

In preparation for the NAEP Writing Assessment, the Governing 

Board issued a request for proposals for the development of writing 

assessment and exercise specifications, which would augment the 

1992 Framework. The Board awarded the contract to ACT in September 1995. During the project, ACT technical and writing staff 

drew on the expertise of two committees: a Planning Committee of 

teachers, writers, scholars, researchers, and curriculum coordinators; 

and a Technical Committee of psychometricians and state testing directors. The resulting specifications for the NAEP Writing Assessment are intended to guide item development and test construction, 

and to produce an assessment on which NAEP achievement levels 

can be set. Hundreds of individuals and organizations participated in 

reviewing drafts of the specifications document. The Governing 

Board unanimously adopted the specifications at its May 1996 

meeting. 

32
Overview of the NAEP Writing 

Assessment 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Writing Assessment will evaluate students’ abilities to use their 

individual writing processes and appropriate writing strategies 

to compose with clarity, ease, and precision. Assessment exercises 

will provide the opportunity to engage in a variety of writing processes. Important aspects of writing include the act of invention 

through different prewriting strategies, the ability to write for varied 

purposes and audiences, the knowledge and use of various revision 

strategies, and attention to correctness through editing and proofreading skills. 

The assessment was designed to be consistent with the overarching 

objectives identified in the Writing Framework for the 1992 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress. These five major assessment 

objectives are: 

• Students should write for a variety of purposes: narrative, informative, and persuasive. 

• Students should write on a variety of tasks and for many different 

audiences. 

• Students should write from a variety of stimulus materials and 

within various time constraints. 

• Students should generate, draft, revise, and edit ideas and forms 

of expression in their writing. 

• Students should display effective choices in the organization of 

their writing. They should include detail to illustrate and elaborate 

their ideas, and use appropriate conventions of written English. 

The assessment calls for a variety of written responses to tasks 

within the confines of a large-scale writing assessment. The written 

responses will be viewed and evaluated as first draft, not polished, 

writing. The limitations of any large-scale writing assessment do not 

33
allow for a complete revision and refinement process. The NAEP 

Writing Assessment is offered as a single assessment that cannot fully 

evaluate performance across the entire domain of writing. However, 

the results do provide valuable information about student ability to 

generate first-draft writing in response to a variety of purposes, tasks, 

and audiences. The following pages present detailed specifications for 

the overall assessment and for the tasks. 

A Prompt Writer’s Guide setting forth basic rules for good construction is to be provided by the assessment development contractor. 

The Guide will include criteria for developing tasks using a combination of stimulus materials and prompts and must conform to the specifications set forth in this document and the “National Assessment 

Governing Board Policy on Cognitive Item Development and Review,” as well as any formatting requirements of NAEP. 

The following specifications for the assessment are divided into 

two sections: Assessment Specifications and Task Specifications. The 

Assessment Specifications section provides an overall description of 

the construction, review, and scoring of the assessment and defines 

how the assessment should be built. The Task Specifications section 

describes the construction of the assessment in terms of content and 

format. 

As indicated in the Writing Framework for the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Writing Assessment will 

measure three purposes, or modes, of writing: narrative, informative, 

and persuasive (see table 1). The Framework document proposed 

these three broad types of writing to assist in the organization of the 

domain of writing, although it is recognized that other modes of writing are possible and an overlap of modes is probable. 

The Purposes of Writing 

The purposes of writing are offered as one way of describing the 

domain and are not intended to place constraints on the students’ writing. The selection of these three modes of writing was based on the 

importance of the modes as commonly found in instruction. This distinction of mode, although recognized as artificial, is often a helpful 

34
distinction for novice writers. In addition, the modes are offered as a 

means to ensure that the NAEP Writing Assessment covers a wide 

range of tasks. Because NAEP serves as a national monitor of student 

achievement, assessment of these broad writing types was seen as 

appropriate and consistent with NAEP’s role. These three broad writing types are defined in the Framework as: 

Narrative 

Narrative writing involves the production of stories or personal essays. Practice with these forms helps writers to develop an ear for 

language. Also, informative and persuasive writing can benefit from 

many of the strategies used in narrative writing. For example, there 

must be an effective ordering of events when relating an incident as 

part of a report. Sometimes narrative writing contributes to an awareness of the world as the writer creates, manipulates, and interprets 

reality. Such writing—whether fact or fiction, poem, play, or personal 

essay—requires close observation of people, objects, and places. Further, this type of writing fosters creativity, imagination, and speculation by allowing the writer to express thoughts and then stand back, as 

a more detached observer might, and grasp more fully what is being 

felt and why. Thus, narrative writing offers a special opportunity to 

analyze and understand emotions and actions. 

Informative 

Informative writing focuses primarily on the subject-matter element in communication. This type of writing is used to share knowledge and to convey messages, instructions, and ideas. Like all writing, informative writing may be filtered through the writer’s impressions, understanding, and feelings. Used as a means of exploration, 

informative writing helps both the writer and the reader to learn new 

ideas and to reexamine old conclusions. Informative writing involves 

reporting on events or experiences, or analyzing concepts and relationships, including developing hypotheses and generalizations. Any 

of these types of informative writing can be based on the writer’s personal knowledge and experience or on information newly presented to 

the writer that must be understood in order to complete a task. Usu35
ally, informative writing involves a mix of the familiar and the new, 

and both are clarified in the process of writing. Depending on the 

task, writing based on either personal experience or secondary information may span the range of thinking skills from recall to analysis to 

evaluation. 

Persuasive 

Persuasive writing emphasizes the reader. Its primary aim is to influence others to take some action or to bring about change. Persuasive writing may contain great amounts of information—facts, details, 

examples, comparisons, statistics, or anecdotes—but its main purpose 

is not simply to inform but to persuade. This type of writing involves 

a clear awareness of what arguments might most affect the audience 

being addressed. Writing persuasively also requires use of critical 

thinking skills such as analysis, inference, synthesis, and evaluation. 

Persuasive writing is called for in a variety of situations. It may involve responding to a request for advice by giving an opinion and 

providing sound reasons to support it. It may also involve presenting 

an argument in such a way that a particular audience will find convincing. When there is opposition, persuasive writing may entail refuting arguments that are contrary to the writer’s point of view. 

In all persuasive writing, authors must choose the approach they 

will use. They may, for instance, use emotional or logical appeals or 

an accommodating or demanding tone. Regardless of the situation or 

approach, persuasive writers must be concerned with having a particular desired effect upon their readers, beyond merely adding to 

knowledge of the topic presented. 

The NAEP Writing Assessment will be developed in these three 

modes at each grade level but will not be equally divided at each 

grade level (see table 2). Although students are capable of writing in 

all three modes at all grade levels, the modes receive different emphases in instruction at each grade level. The assessment will support the 

process approach to writing without requiring a specific approach of 

students, as some students may be unfamiliar with any particular approach. The assessment will provide substantial time for writing, will 

36
offer suggestions for prewriting and drafting when appropriate, and 

will provide an opportunity for prewriting exercises within the test 

booklet. 

Developmental Changes in Students’ Understanding of Writing Processes 

Developing student writers are expected to achieve an increasingly 

broad and deep knowledge and understanding of the value of writing 

in their lives, of their own individual writing processes, of the range 

of writing strategies available to them, and of the benefits of sharing 

and publishing their writing for a wider audience. The following discussion seeks to show how these developmental changes manifest 

themselves at grade levels 4, 8, and 12 with the assumption that students have participated in a well-developed instructional writing program. The assessment development committee should draw upon this 

discussion to ensure that the exercises they are constructing are ageappropriate. 

Grade 4 

By the fourth grade, students should have the critical skills, vocabulary, and concepts that allow them to use school and leisure time 

to write. Personal choices for writing, fluency of ideas, and freedom 

of expression are emphasized. They are developing an understanding 

that there are many stages to the writing process, including prewriting/brainstorming, composing/drafting, revising, editing/ 

proofreading, and sharing/publishing. They understand that each writing task does not necessarily entail all stages of the writing process. 

Fourth-grade students have a growing awareness of their own individual writing processes and the personal choices open to them. 

Fourth-grade students write for public and private purposes in a variety of literary forms, including poems, stories, reports, and personal 

narratives. They write to persuade, using order of importance and 

classifying differences and likenesses (or advantages and disadvantages). They use writing according to purpose and intended audience. 

They compose individually and collaboratively. Their developing 

37
awareness of revision strategies involves a move from the deliberate, 

systematic, and concrete to a tentative, flexible, risk-taking, largescale revision process. Fourth-grade students are becoming aware of 

many alternatives, of new possibilities, through the writing process. 

Fourth-grade students gather information and ideas from a variety of 

sources, including personal experiences and literature. They add information and ideas to early drafts in developing writing projects. 

They write across the curriculum for formal and informal purposes, in 

various modes of discourse, and for a variety of audiences, including 

themselves. 

Fourth-grade students respond to the writing of peers in pairs and 

small groups. They demonstrate a sense of authorship by sharing and 

publishing writing. They are learning to critically view their own and 

others’ work. They revise for specific and precise language and for 

sequencing of paragraphs. They develop editing and proofreading 

skills, which include editing for word choice and expanding basic 

sentence patterns. They proofread—individually and collaboratively—for conventional usage, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. They apply appropriate conventions for dialogue and quotation. 

They demonstrate the use of conventions for different documents, 

such as letters and reports. 

Grade 8 

In addition to the knowledge and skills developed at the fourthgrade level, eighth-grade students recognize and use author techniques, such as appeals to reason and emotion, figurative language, 

and satire, which demonstrate a sense of audience when composing 

their own texts. Eighth-grade students have a deeper understanding of 

the stages of the writing process and are developing a wider range of 

writing strategies. 

Eighth-grade students have a growing awareness of their own individual writing processes and the range of personal choices they may 

make. 

Eighth-grade students write in an expanding repertoire of forms, 

which includes letters to the editor, directions, and summaries. 

38
Eighth-grade students are able to explain and demonstrate how written communication is affected by choices writers make in language, 

tone, and voice, and why some choices are considered more appropriate than others. These students have a developing sense of personal 

voice that varies with purpose and audience. 

Eighth-grade students will reflect on their own developing literacy, 

set goals, and evaluate their progress. Eighth-grade students respond 

to various written, visual, and electronic texts, and make personal 

connections between these texts and their own lives. Eighth-grade 

students use writing mechanics that clarify meaning. 

Grade 12 

At the 12th-grade level, students have extended capabilities in the 

use of written forms that include satire, drama, interview, précis, 

evaluation, and analysis. Twelfth-grade students have an enhanced 

understanding of the stages in the writing process and a recognition 

that all writing tasks need not go through each stage in the process. 

Twelfth-grade students have deep insight into their own writing processes and the varied writing choices open to them. 

Twelfth-grade students recognize and use innovative techniques 

such as stream of consciousness and multiple viewpoints to convey 

meaning and engage an audience. These students recognize and demonstrate ways in which communication can be manipulated through 

word usage as in propaganda, sarcasm, and humor. Twelfth-grade 

students have an enhanced sense of personal voice that is demonstrated for different audiences and purposes. Twelfth-grade students 

will use various strategies when constructing meaning in writing and 

will develop strategies to deal with new communication needs. 

Twelfth-grade students write analytical responses to various 

texts—written, visual, and electronic—making personal connections 

with their own lives. Twelfth-grade students reflect on their understanding of literacy, set personal learning goals, create strategies for 

attaining those goals, and take responsibility for their literacy development. Twelfth-grade students will identify and manipulate writing 

mechanics that enhance and facilitate understanding. 

39
Section I: Assessment 

Specifications 

Content Specifications 

The Planning Committee recommended the development and 

inclusion a variety of tasks within the three modes of writing. 

A task is defined as the combination of stimulus materials and 

accompanying prompts. A prompt, which usually presents a rhetorical 

situation, topic, purpose, and audience, is that part of the task that requests a student’s response. The details of the content specifications 

are provided below. 

• Increase the size of the task pool. The number of tasks developed 

as part of the 1992 assessment was far too low. The size of the 

task pool should be increased in an effort to increase the degree of 

freedom in selection and administration at the operational stage. 

A minimum of 20 tasks will be included in the Writing Assessment for each grade level. 

• Develop a variety of stimulus materials. The developed task pool 

will provide a variety of stimulus materials and accompanying 

prompts to reflect the large number of tasks that are typically 

asked of students. The newly developed pool will be large enough 

to cut across a wide range of real-life experiences. Although the 

writing prompts will draw from real-life experiences, caution 

should be exercised in the interpretation of the resulting writing 

samples. It must be clear that a large-scale writing assessment can 

go only so far to mirror real-life writing experiences. The writing 

samples produced will not be viewed or evaluated as final or polished drafts. 

• Provide extensive prewriting and revising guidelines. Students 

use varied approaches to the prewriting process, such as brainstorming, mapping, and free writing; however, not all students 

employ a formal process approach to writing. The Planning 

Committee recommended that some structure be provided within 

41
the testing experience. Students will be provided directions for 

scaffolding exercises such as thinking, planning, or drafting. They 

also will be provided with a checklist of questions that helps them 

to focus on a particular task. The administration of each task will 

be separately timed and will allow the students an opportunity to 

work through topic generation, selection, and development. The 

opportunity for student engagement in these activities will not require separately timed activities within the testing block. Rather, 

students will be able to structure their time within the block to accommodate their own writing strategies. Although the Planning 

Committee recognized the importance that collaborative work 

plays in the writing classroom, it is not logistically possible to incorporate such strategies as peer or teacher collaboration in a 

timed, secure assessment such as NAEP. 

• Design the scoring rubrics to be grade specific. The scoring rubrics will be designed to be grade specific. These within-grade 

rubrics will be customized for each task that is developed. The final scoring rubrics will be determined after the field test papers 

have been evaluated. As presented in the Task Specifications section to follow, scoring rubrics will include criteria on content, organization, form, language, and control of mechanics (spelling, 

punctuation, grammar, and capitalization). 

Technical Specifications 

The Technical Committee recognized the importance of the content 

specifications and strongly recommended that the content specifications be the first priority of the test developers. However, in addition 

to content specifications, an iterative development process is being 

recommended where the test developers and psychometricians will 

work collaboratively with content specialists to develop a test that is 

both content valid and technically sound. 

Precise recommendations for distributions, intercorrelations, and 

levels of difficulty are not contained in this document; however, appropriate ranges are provided as guides for the test developers. Based 

on results of the last field test administration, these values seem 

42
achievable given that the size of the task pool is being increased to 

150 tasks. Decisions about distributions of task responses, task difficulty and discrimination, and intertask correlations will be made as a 

collaborative effort between the test development contractor’s technical and content staff after the field test results have been scored and 

analyzed. 

Recommendations for the technical specifications are: 

• Adhere strictly to the content specifications. 

• Consider content specifications as your primary responsibility. 

However, assuming adherence to the content specifications, field 

test an adequate sample of tasks (75) to allow for the identification and selection of the best possible tasks. 

• Given the design of the writing field test, select tasks within the 

pool of field-tested tasks that demonstrate a reasonable level of 

intertask correlation. Selected tasks should not be so unique that 

generalizability is limited. 

• Encourage appropriate analyses and data explorations following 

the field test administration. Given that the size of the field test 

administration will not support some types of analyses, use observable statistics such as means, variances, and frequency distributions to help select operational prompts. 

• Seek a spread of difficulty (i.e., the average score for a particular 

prompt) within a moderate range (with averages or means ranging 

from 2.0 to 4.0, assuming a 6-point scale). The means should be 

uniformly distributed within that range. This is not to infer that all 

tasks should be similar in format or approach. Rather, given a variety of tasks, the overall performance on the tasks selected for 

inclusion in the operational test should be in the moderate range 

of difficulty. 

• Assuming a 6-point scale, seek a task standard deviation of .90 or 

greater to help ensure a spread of responses. Seeking a standard 

deviation of at least .90 and mean difficulties in the range of 2.0 

to 4.0 will help to ensure that student responses will be spread 

across all possible score points. 

43
• Consider the balance between task variety and the generalizability 

of the tasks. For example, consistent with the Planning Committee’s recommendations, the tasks will offer a wide variety of reallife experiences. However, the tasks will not be so unique from 

one another that they limit the ability to generalize beyond the 

particular prompt. 

• Consider the impact of the interaction between score-point distributions and interrater agreement (the percent of time that one 

reader’s assigned scores agree with a second reader’s assigned 

scores). High agreement statistics between readers may indicate 

the use of few score points. High agreement statistics should be 

examined in addition to interrater correlations to ensure both variability across the scoring rubric and consistency of assigned 

scores. 

• Seek tasks that broadly discriminate over the entire scoring rubric. Tasks shall elicit responses at all possible score points. Assuming a 6-point scale, at least two percent of the respondents 

shall be found in each of the extreme values (1 and 6). Based on 

the field test results, revise or eliminate tasks that do not elicit responses at all score points, assuming adherence to the content 

specifications. 

• Counterbalance the administration of the tasks to control for context and position effects. 

Review Specifications 

Writing Expert Review 

To ensure the development of tasks that adequately represent the 

content domain and exhibit proper psychometric characteristics, as 

well as to construct a task pool that will adequately measure the processes, skills, and knowledge described in the three achievement levels, it is important that review by writing educators and practicing 

writers be incorporated at several points during the assessment development process. Therefore, the development, field testing, and selection of tasks will be monitored by an assessment development panel. 

44
A minimum of 20 percent of the membership of the Planning Committee will serve on this panel as specified by National Assessment 

Governing Board policy. 

After the tasks have been developed, the panel will review the pool 

at each grade level and judge the tasks for congruence with the specifications document. The tasks will be judged on criteria such as 

grade-level appropriateness, technical accuracy, content validity, variety of formats, and the mode of writing that references the tasks to 

the assessment dimensions they purport to measure. In addition, reviewers will ensure that the available pool is balanced, that it is representative of the content described in the achievement level definitions, and that it incorporates sufficient tasks in each writing mode at 

the various achievement levels for each grade. 

Tasks will be reviewed again after field test administration, as part 

of the process of selecting those that will appear in the operational 

assessment. Any tasks that statistical evaluation reveals to be technically flawed will be eliminated. 

Bias Review 

All tasks will be screened for evidence of cultural bias and for lack 

of ethnic and gender sensitivity, and will be subjected to postfield test 

analyses. The field test administration samples will be selected to be 

as representative of the NAEP operational sample as possible. 

Given the lack of evidence supporting the use of Differential Item 

Functioning statistics for tasks of this type, the Technical Committee 

recommended the examination of frequency distributions for consistency of response patterns for the various groups of interest. If, after 

close scrutiny, an exercise appears to be a valid measure of writing, 

and if no plausible explanation for a differential performance is apparent, the task will be retained. As mandated by law, the National 

Assessment Governing Board has final review authority of all cognitive items prior to field testing and, subsequently, prior to the operational assessment. 

45
Administration Specifications 

Preparation 

The Planning Committee recommended that the students be told 

what is expected of them prior to the testing experience. In an effort 

to give students every opportunity to write as well as they can, an abbreviated version of the scoring rubric will be distributed prior to the 

testing experience. This version may be a checklist of the criteria that 

will be ultimately used in scoring. Facilitators will use the abbreviated 

scoring rubrics to enhance students’ understanding of how their writing samples are scored. 

After the test, students will be provided questions that would help 

to evaluate their opportunity to learn particular types of writing. 

Training of Facilitators 

Extensive training will be provided to ensure that facilitators are 

appropriately prepared to administer the writing assessment. The 

training materials should cover topics such as room arrangements for 

students, preparation for testing, administration procedures, and 

guidelines for the amount and type of interaction that can be allowed 

between examinees and facilitators. 

Ethical Considerations 

The writing assessment tasks will need to be sensitive to the privacy of students and not ask them to reveal sensitive personal experiences. Further, the tasks will not ask students about privileged home 

information or psychological information. 

Scoring and Reporting Specifications 

The Planning Committee recommended that within-grade scoring 

rubrics be developed. These within-grade rubrics will be customized 

for each task that is developed. The papers selected as anchor papers 

will be specific to the grade level and to the task. The final scoring 

rubrics will be determined after the field test papers have been evaluated. However, the general characteristics of writing to include in the 

46
scoring rubrics for each of the three different modes of writing are 

contained in appendix A. For all three modes, the student’s demonstration of control of mechanics (spelling, punctuation, capitalization, 

grammar) is one characteristic of writing that will be included in the 

overall rubric. 

Previous experience with the NAEP Writing Assessment has 

shown that a 6-point score range was often reduced to 4 or 5 points, 

since very few papers received the highest scores. To help avoid this 

problem, the development of grade-appropriate scoring rubrics is recommended. The scoring contractor will work with the test development contractor to select papers at each point on the score scale for 

each task. It will be critical to obtain multiple and varied examples of 

student writing at each possible score point for each task. If such examples cannot be located, the task will be considered for revision or 

elimination from the pool of available tasks. These selected examples 

will serve to further define and elaborate on the language of the rubric 

and will be used to train the readers. 

The Planning Committee drafted preliminary descriptions of the 

three NAEP achievement levels for writing. The committee defined 

what constitutes Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels of achievement in writing at each grade level in terms of student writing. These 

preliminary descriptions encompass the characteristics of writing as 

defined by the modes of writing and as described in the guidelines for 

scoring rubrics. These descriptions will be used as input into the 

achievement level-setting process and will be refined at that time. 

Detailed descriptions of the preliminary achievement levels can be 

found in appendix B. 

In general, the following recommendations for scoring were made: 

• Finalize the characteristics of writing as a function of the responses obtained during the field test administration. 

• If technically feasible, provide an overall or composite writing 

score that aggregates across modes of writing and different types 

of tasks. 

47
• Develop within-grade scoring rubrics that are specific to a particular task. These rubrics will include mechanics (spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar) as one component of the overall 

rubric. 

• Assemble training materials specific to each task. 

• Develop scoring rubrics to prevent restriction of student performance as much as possible. For example, at the “6” level, define a 6 

paper not as perfection, but as one that could contain minor flaws; 

communicate clearly to readers that 6 contains a wide range of 

papers from “true 6s” to exemplary papers. Make sure rubrics are 

grade appropriate—that is, 4th-graders should be able to receive a 

6. Ensure that anchor papers are selected to illustrate the range of 

all score points, especially the lowest range of the 6s. 

The results of the NAEP Writing Assessment will specify the type 

of writing tasks that were asked of participating students. Reported 

results should emphasize that the NAEP Writing Assessment is a 

measure of students’ ability to draft a response to a provided task 

completed under a timed administration. Given the limitations of the 

test administration and sampling design, reported results should caution against overinterpretation. Important differences between classroom writing and the NAEP Writing Assessment should be considered as the results are released. For example, the availability of time 

and opportunity for writing about a chosen topic, peer or teacher response, self-assessment, and revision are opportunities available to 

the classroom teacher that are not afforded to a national writing assessment being administered under standardized conditions. Classroom-based writing assessments involve a process that begins with 

time for prewriting and first-draft writing on a student’s topic of 

choice, multiple audiences for feedback, self-assessment of strengths 

and areas needing improvement, and thoughtful revision on content 

and mechanics. A national standardized writing assessment such as 

NAEP works within the constraints of large-scale writing assessment, 

topic choice and peer or teacher response are not possible, and the 

time for self-assessment and revision is shortened. The reported results should reflect these realities and recognize that the NAEP Writ48
ing Assessment does not measure students’ abilities to produce a polished piece of writing. 

Scaling Issues 

The Technical Committee concurred with the Planning Committee’s recommendation to combine the scales across modes of writing, 

if feasible. The Technical Committee recommended that the dimensionality of the data be investigated and used to empirically establish 

whether scaling can be done across modes of writing. 

Given the difficulty in predicting statistical characteristics of tasks 

(difficulty, discrimination, intertask correlations), the task pool will 

be increased in an effort to provide more degrees of freedom in selection and administration at the operational stage. The committees acknowledged that the number of tasks that were developed as part of 

the 1992 assessment were far too few. 

All results reported about the NAEP Writing Assessment will emphasize that the NAEP Writing Assessment is representative of students’ ability to write within the constraints of a large-scale writing 

assessment administration. Participants in the achievement-levels setting process will be instructed to treat the responses as examples of 

first-draft writing. The committees made the following recommendations: 

• The spread of student scores across the entire scoring rubric shall 

be maximized to help ensure the setting of achievement levels. 

• The tasks will be developed to elicit a range of performance. 

Reporting by Subgroup Performance 

When reporting results for each grade level and for demographic 

subgroups, procedures should be used that are consistent with current 

NAEP practice. 

49
Section II: Task Specifications 

The NAEP tasks will be developed in conjunction with panels 

of task writers who are actively engaged in language arts instruction as well as professional writers. Task writers will be 

instructed to draft tasks that maintain a broad focus to allow for 

choice of response for a given task, variations in classroom style, and 

other concerns specific to a student or teacher within the context of a 

given task. 

Specific to the persuasive task development, the Planning Committee recommended that students be provided the opportunity to persuade within the realm of their experiences. The text of the task 

should not be too prescriptive. Including persuasive writing at grade 4 

will provide a baseline for persuasion that could be compared across 

years. 

Writing tasks in each of the three modes will be administered to 

small, local samples prior to the field test administration. The format 

of the task, the time allocation, the spread of the responses, and the 

accessibility of the tasks will be evaluated and used to refine the tasks 

in preparation for the field test administration. All tasks will then be 

administered to nationally representative samples of students to help 

determine the appropriateness of each task for operational use. The 

test administration sessions will be carefully monitored to determine 

the types of problems that students encounter with each task. Responses to the testing activities will be elicited from both administrators and students and used to refine the testing process. 

Student responses from the field test administration will be scored 

by readers trained by the scoring contractor. These readers have completed an undergraduate degree in writing, education, or a related 

field. The readers will be asked to describe the success of each task in 

terms of how well it elicits a range of student writing and in terms of 

their reaction to reading the papers. Readers’ responses will be carefully considered and the prompts that are reviewed unfavorably will 

be eliminated. Given the difficulty with imposing “mode” into the test 

51
specifications, readers will be aware of the possibility of students responding to particular prompts using a variety of modes. Readers 

will be trained how to deal with situations such as this in the scoring 

process. 

Based on information from the field test (e.g., frequency distributions of students at each of the score levels and means and standard 

deviations of scores for each prompt), 25-minute tasks will be 

grouped into test blocks for the operational administration. The appropriateness of the tasks within a particular block will be based on 

both content and technical considerations. The final versions of the 

test forms will be subjected to several reviews to ensure that the 

forms conform to good test construction practice. As in the development stages, these reviews will include both content and sensitivity 

consultants from across the nation. 

Format Specifications 

The Planning Committee recognized the importance of motivation 

and its interaction with student performance. The committee recommended providing a variety of stimulus materials, varying the presentation of the test, providing manipulative materials, and providing 

visual presentations of the prompt. The tasks will be made as interesting and user-friendly as possible. Table 1 reflects the types of tasks 

that will be developed. 

The test booklet will invite planning and revision, but not require it. 

However, some structure within the testing experience will be provided for the students to assist with the prewriting and planning processes. Recognizing that there are a variety of ways in which to approach the process of writing, no specific approach to prewriting will 

be imposed on students. Rather, students will be provided directions 

for scaffolding activities such as thinking, planning, and drafting for 

the appropriate tasks. They may also be provided with a checklist of 

questions that help them to focus on a particular task. Examples of 

such scaffolding activities are provided in appendix C. 

Given the different approaches to writing by grade level, the Planning Committee recommended that the prompts be developed to be 

52
grade specific. For example, fourth-grade persuasive prompts would 

be specifically developed as opposed to general persuasive prompts. 

Key to developing successful prompts within each grade level will be 

identifying the appropriate context for students. All prompts need to 

invite the desired type of writing as determined by one of the three 

modes. However, they also need to invite writing that is appropriate 

to the grade level of the students. Providing the student with stimulus 

materials similar to those typically found in classroom assignments at 

grades 4, 8, and 12 is one way to select appropriate prompts. The 

prompts also must allow for a range of responses, be clear and explicit in their instructions to the student, and be stated in language 

appropriate to the grade level of the student. 

Table 1—Illustrative Examples of Writing Tasks 

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 

Narrative Provide visual 

stimuli of a season 

of the year. Ask 

students to write a 

letter to a grandparent telling the 

story of an interesting personal experience related to 

the season. 

Provide visual 

stimuli. Ask students to write an 

article for a sports 

magazine telling 

the story of a time 

when they participated in a 

hobby or skill 

they enjoyed. 

Provide an appropriate quotation. 

Ask students to 

write a letter to a 

friend telling the 

story of a time in 

their lives when 

they had to make 

an important decision. 

Informative Provide an appropriate quotation. 

Ask students to 

explain in an essay 

to their English 

teacher how a person (parent, 

teacher, friend) has 

influenced them in 

an important way. 

Provide a series 

of brief journal 

entries from another historical 

time. Ask students to explain 

what is revealed 

about the person 

who wrote the 

entries. 

Provide quotations from a political campaign. 

Ask students to 

choose one and in 

an essay inform 

their social studies teacher what it 

means in the context of the campaign. 

53
Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 

Persuasive Provide visual 

stimuli of an animal. Ask students 

to convince their 

parents/guardians 

of an animal that 

would make the 

best pet. 

Provide brief reviews, as models, 

of a film, TV program, or book. 

Ask students to 

write a review for 

the school newspaper that will 

convince other 

students to watch 

a favorite film or 

TV program or 

read a favorite 

book. 

Provide a quotation on education 

in the United 

States. Ask students to write a 

letter to the editor 

of their local 

newspaper taking 

a position on 

some aspect of 

education and 

support it from 

their own experiences. 

The size of the task pool was increased in an effort to increase the 

degrees of freedom in selection and administration at the operational 

stage. The Planning Committee acknowledged that the number of 

tasks that were developed as part of the 1992 assessment were far too 

few. A minimum of 20 tasks will be included in the Writing Assessment for each grade level. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the percentage of time students in each grade shall spend on tasks that reflect 

the various modes of writing. 

Table 2—Percentage of Time To Be Spent on Tasks for 

Each Writing Purpose (Mode) 

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 

Narrative 40% 33% 25% 

Informative 35% 33% 35% 

Persuasive 25% 33% 40% 

Scoring Rubric Specifications 

Refinement of the scoring criteria will be an integral and ongoing 

part of the test development process. Advice from Planning Committee members involved in the project was solicited in order to develop 

54 
criteria consistent with good writing assessment. Preliminary guidelines for drafting rubrics and the general characteristics of the scoring 

rubrics are included in appendix B of this document. 

The scoring guides shall be supported by samples illustrating the 

range of variation within each score level. The writing samples included in the scoring guides will illustrate the range of responses that 

are selected by experienced readers who apply the scoring guide to a 

random selection of the papers for a particular task. It is critical that 

the samples selected for illustration demonstrate low-, moderate-, and 

high-performance levels at each possible score point. For example, on 

a 6-point scale, examples of low 5s, middle 5s, and high 5s will be 

contained in the training materials. This is particularly critical for 

score points at the extreme ends of the scale (1 and 6). These samples 

will then become the basis of the training materials that are used during the scoring process. 

Reader Training Specifications 

Readers will be trained to read and score a piece of writing by 

evaluating it against the following factors: 

• A score point description specifically designed for a particular 

writing assessment. 

• Anchor papers chosen through a consensus process. 

Readers will be provided with extensive training before beginning 

to score student writing samples. Training staff will explain to readers 

the goals of the assessment and its relationship to the scoring process. 

These goals will be reiterated throughout the training, keeping an emphasis on the students whose writing is being evaluated. 

Training will provide readers with the opportunity to read a selected sample of student papers and understand the broad range of 

writing performance demonstrated by the students. After discussing 

the sample papers, readers will have the opportunity to practice scoring additional samples of papers. 

Prior to scoring writing samples for a particular form or mode, each 

reader will be required to qualify by scoring at least two sets of papers 

55
that have been previously scored by expert readers. The scores assigned by each reader to the qualifying sets will be compared to those 

assigned by the expert readers. 

Reader performance will be monitored throughout the scoring 

process, both statistically and by random second reading by an expert 

reader. Readers will be provided with statistics showing how their 

scores compare to fellow readers with whom they have been paired, 

allowing them and their supervisors to check for any tendency toward 

inaccurate or inconsistent scoring. Reader reliability will be determined from first- and second-reader correlations and agreement statistics, not from adjudicated scores. 

Procedures will be established to monitor the amount of reader drift 

that occurs during the scoring process. This is typically done through 

the use of validity papers that are randomly assigned to readers 

throughout the scoring process. The relationship between reader performance and the “master” score assigned to the validity papers will 

be carefully monitored. 

To facilitate the achievement-levels setting process, all papers used 

for the achievement-levels setting process will be double scored. The 

performance of readers on validity papers will be checked, and any 

necessary recalibration of readers will be done prior to the scoring of 

papers to be used in the achievement-levels setting process. 

56
Appendix A 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 4 

Writing 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 8 

Writing 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 12 

Writing 
Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 4 

Writing 

These achievements levels are proposed for first drafts, not final or 

polished student writing, that are generated within limited time constraints in large-scale assessment environment. 

Basic 

Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to 

produce a somewhat organized response within the time allowed that 

shows a general grasp of the writing task they have been assigned. Their 

writing should include some supporting details. Its grammar, spelling, and 

capitalization should be accurate enough to communicate to a reader, although there may be mistakes that get in the way of meaning. 

Proficient 

Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to 

produce an organized response within the time allowed that shows an understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their writing 

should include details that support and develop the main idea of the 

piece, and its form, content, and language should show that these students are aware of the audience they are expected to address. The 

grammar, spelling, and capitalization in the work should be accurate 

enough to communicate to a reader; there may be some mistakes, but 

these should not get in the way of meaning. 

Advanced 

Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able 

to produce an effective, well-developed response within the time allowed that shows a clear understanding of the writing task they have 

been assigned. Their writing should be clearly organized, making use 

of techniques such as consistency in topic or theme, sequencing, and a 

clearly marked beginning and ending. It should make use of precise and 

varied language to speak to the audience the students are expected to 

address, and it should include details and elaboration that support and 

develop the main idea of the piece. Their writing may also show signs of 

59
analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. The grammar, spelling, and 

capitalization in the work should be accurate enough to communicate 

clearly; mistakes should be so few and so minor that a reader can easily skim over them. 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 8 

Writing 

These achievement levels are proposed for first drafts, not final or 

polished student writing, that are generated within limited time constraints in a large-scale assessment environment. 

Basic 

Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able 

to produce an effective response within the time allowed that shows a 

general understanding of the writing task they have been assigned. Their 

writing should show that these students are aware of the audience they are 

expected to address, and it should include supporting details in an organized way. The grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in the 

work should be accurate enough to communicate to a reader, although 

there may be mistakes that get in the way of meaning. 

Proficient 

Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be 

able to produce an effective response within the time allowed that 

shows an understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned and the audience they are expected to address. Their writing 

should be organized, making use of techniques such as sequencing or a 

clearly marked beginning and ending, and it should make use of details 

and some elaboration to support and develop the main idea of the piece. 

Their writing should include precise language and some variety in sentence structure, and it may show analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. The grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in the work 

should be accurate enough to communicate to a reader; there may be 

some errors, but these should not get in the way of meaning. 

60
Advanced 

Eighth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be 

able to produce an effective and fully developed response within the 

time allowed that shows a clear understanding of both the writing task 

they have been assigned and the audience they are expected to 

address. Their writing should show some analytical, evaluative, or 

creative thinking, and should demonstrate precise word choice and 

varied sentence structure. Their work should include details and 

elaboration that support and develop the main idea of the piece, and it 

may make use of strategies such as analogies, illustrations, examples, 

anecdotes, or figurative language to clarify a point. At the same time, 

the writing should show that these students can keep their work 

clearly and consistently organized. Writing by eighth-grade students 

performing at the Advanced level should contain few errors in 

grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure. 

These writers should demonstrate good control of these elements and 

may use them for stylistic effect in their work. 

Achievement Level Descriptions for Grade 12 

Writing 

These achievement levels are proposed for first drafts, not final or 

polished student writing, that are generated within limited time constraints in a large-scale assessment environment. 

Basic 

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able 

to produce an effective response within the time allowed that shows 

an understanding of both the writing task they have been assigned 

and the audience they are expected to address. Their writing should 

show some analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. It should include 

details that support and develop the central idea of the piece, and it 

should be clearly organized, making use of techniques such as a consistency in topic or theme, sequencing, and a clear introduction and conclusion. The grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in these students’ work should be accurate enough to communicate to a reader; 

61
there may be some errors, but these should not get in the way of 

meaning. 

Proficient 

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be 

able to produce an effective and fully developed response within the 

time allowed that uses analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. 

Their writing should be organized effectively, and it should show that 

these students have a clear understanding of the writing task they 

have been assigned. It should be coherent, making use of techniques 

such as a consistent theme, sequencing, and a clear introduction and 

conclusion, and it should include details and elaboration that support 

and develop the main idea of the piece. The writing should show that 

these students are able to use precise language and variety in sentence 

structure to engage the audience they are expected to address. Writing 

by 12th-grade students performing at the Proficient level should contain 

few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure. These writers should demonstrate a command of these 

elements and may use them for stylistic effect in their work. 

Advanced 

Twelfth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be 

able to produce a mature and sophisticated response within the time 

allowed that uses analytical, evaluative, or creative thinking. Their 

writing should be fully developed, incorporating details and elaboration that support and extend the main idea of the piece. It should show 

that these students can use literary strategies—anecdotes and repetition, for example—to develop their ideas. At the same time, the writing should be well crafted, organized, and coherent, and it should incorporate techniques such as consistency in topic or theme, sequencing, and a clear introduction and conclusion. It should show that these 

writers can engage the audience they are expected to address through 

rich and compelling language, precise word choice, and variety in 

sentence structure. Writing by 12th-grade students performing at the 

Advanced level should contain few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure. These writers should 

62
demonstrate a sophisticated command of these elements and may use 

them for stylistic effect in their work. 

63
Appendix B 

A Suggested Process for Rubric Construction 

General Characteristics of Writing by Mode 
A Suggested Process for Rubric Construction 

1.Convene a group of writing experts and classroom teachers to 

discuss the nature of the assessment (e.g., number and nature of 

tasks, time allowed). 

2.Read a wide sampling of field-test papers, looking for special 

characteristics of the students contained in the sample as these 

characteristics will influence the level of complexity in the information specified by the rubric. Also, look through the student responses to get an idea of the diversity of responses and levels of 

achievement to identify the characteristics and content that should 

be included in the rubric. 

3.Consider the level of discriminations necessary for the purpose of 

the test. Consider the length of time the student has had available 

to respond to the task. 

4.Read all the papers and divide them into piles that demonstrate 

the characteristics of writing that are described in the rubric for 

each score point. 

5.Write descriptors for each pile of papers. Consider what characteristics distinguish the top papers from the lowest levels. Then, 

assess what categories these characteristics fall into. In assessing 

writing, for example, the categories of most rubrics fall into purpose, audience, idea development/support, organization/structure, 

sentence structure, and word choice, voice, and mechanics. 

6.Write rough drafts of descriptors for each score point. 

7.Consider the rubric to be a “draft in process” until after the field 

test results have been evaluated. 

General Characteristics of Writing by Mode 

Narrative 

• Understands the narrative purpose. 

• Develops character. 

67
• Maintains focus. 

• Has satisfying resolution. 

• Has appropriate ordering of events. 

• Gives attention to audience when appropriate to the prompt. 

• Uses elaboration and details. 

• Handles direct and indirect discourse. 

• Demonstrates control of mechanics. 

Informative 

• Understands the informative purpose. 

• Has clear and complete information. 

• Conveys messages, instructions, and/or ideas. 

• Uses sufficient detail. 

• Uses coherent and logical organization. 

• Shows efficient relationships between and among ideas. 

• Gives attention to audience. 

• Fulfills the demands of the task. 

• Uses language level appropriate to the topic and voice desired by 

the writing. 

• Demonstrates control of mechanics. 

Persuasive 

• Understands the persuasive purpose. 

• Takes and retains a position. 

• Supports and develops a position through examples, details, statistics, and supporting evidence. 

• Has coherent and logical organization. 

• Gives attention to audience. 

68
• Uses language level appropriate to the topic and voice desired by 

the writing. 

• Demonstrates control of mechanics. 

69
Appendix C 

Planning Committee Members 

Technical Committee Members 

Project Staff 
Planning Committee Members 

Arthur Applebee 

Director, Center for the Learning 

and Teaching of Literature 

School of Education 

University of Albany 

Albany, New York 

Joseph Bellino 

Teacher of Limited English 

Proficient Students 

Specialist in Basic Writing 

Montgomery Blair High School 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

Linda Bendorf 

Visiting Assistant Professor 

Education Department 

Coe College 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

Michael Curtis 

Senior Editor 

Atlantic Monthly 

Boston, Massachusetts 

Ruth Z. Dennis 

Assistant Director, Educational 

Issues 

American Federation of Teachers 

Washington, D.C. 

Elyse Ediman-Aadahl 

Co-Director 

National Writing Project 

Berkeley, California 

Sylvia Flores 

Fourth-Grade Teacher 

Artesia Public Schools 

Artesia, New Mexico 

John Funari 

Editor 

American Oxonian 

Hidden Valley, Pennsylvania 

Barry Gelsinger 

Supervisor of English 

Carroll County Public Schools 

Westminster, Maryland 

Charlotte Higuchi 

Project Director, Language Arts 

National Center for Research 

on Evaluation, Standards, and 

Student Testing 

Teacher, Los Angeles Unified 

School District 

Los Angeles, California 

Gertrude Karabas 

Assistant Principal 

Bayard Rustin School of the 

Humanities 

New York, New York 

Charles Macarthur 

Associate Professor 

Department of Educational 

Studies 

University of Delaware 

Newark, Delaware 

Sharon O’Neal 

Director, English, Language Arts 

and Reading 

Texas Education Agency 

Austin, Texas 

73
Alan Purves 

Director 

SUNY Center for the Learning 

and Teaching of Literature 

Former Chairman of the 

International Association for 

the Evaluation of Achievement 

Albany, New York 

Michelle Sims 

Teacher 

University of Alabama at 

Birmingham 

Birmingham, Alabama 

Eleanora Tate 

Author 

Morehead City, North Carolina 

Technical Committee Members 

Steve Dunbar 

Professor of Educational 

Measurement and Statistics 

University of Iowa 

Iowa City, Iowa 

Steve Ferrara 

Director of Assessment 

Maryland Department of 

Education 

Baltimore, Maryland 

Michael Kane 

Professor in Department of 

Kinesiology 

University of WisconsinMadison 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Brenda Loyd 

Professor of Educational 

Measurement and Research 

University of Virginia 

Charlottesville, Virginia 

William Mehrens 

Professor 

Michigan State University 

East Lansing, Michigan 

Edward Roeber 

Director, Student Assessment 

Programs 

Council of Chief State School 

Officers 

Washington, D.C. 

Diane Smolen 

Supervisor of Michigan 

Educational Assessment 

Program 

Michigan Department of 

Education 

Lansing, Michigan 

74
Project Staff 

ACT, Inc. 

Catherine Welch 

Project Director 

Sandra Bolton 

Writing Test Specialist 

Tim Miller 

Psychometrician 

75