Grade 3
Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response
Scoring Guide
Spring 2023
Copyright © 2023, Texas Education Agency. All rights reserved. Reproduction of
all or portions of this work is prohibited without express written permission from
Texas Education Agency.
s
State
of
Texas Assessments
of
Academic Readiness
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
2
General Information
Beginning with the 2022–2023 school year, reading language arts assessments include an
extended constructed response, or essay, at every grade level. They also include short
constructed-response questions. Students are asked to write the essay in response to a
reading selection and write in one of two modes: informational or argumentative.
This State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR
®
) constructed-response
scoring guide provides student exemplars at all score points for extended constructed-
response and short constructed-response prompts from the STAAR reading language arts
grade 3 operational test. The prompts are presented as they appeared on the test, and
responses were scored based on the rubrics included in this guide, which were developed
with the input of Texas educators. Essays were scored using a five-point rubric. Short
constructed responses in the reading domain were scored using a two-point prompt-specific
rubric. Short constructed responses in the writing domain were scored using a one-point
rubric.
The five-point rubric for extended constructed responses includes two main components:
organization and development of ideas and conventions. A response earns a specific score
point based on the ideas and conventions of that particular response as measured against
the rubric. The annotation that accompanies each response is specific to that response and
was written to illustrate how the language of the rubric is applied to elements of the
response to determine the score the response received. Extended constructed responses are
scored by two different scorers, and the scores are summed to create a student’s final
score, so students may receive up to 10 points for their essay.
The responses in this guide are actual student responses submitted online during the testing
window. To protect the privacy of individual students, all names and other references of a
personal nature have been altered or removed. Otherwise, the responses appear as the
students wrote them and have not been modified.
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
3
Grade 3 Reading Passage
with Extended Constructed
Response
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
4
Read the next two selections and choose the best answer to each question.
Rewards for Recycling
1 Many people try to recycle as much as they can. Still, lots of plastic, glass, and
other recyclable materials end up in the trash. This means they go to a landfill instead
of being used again. City lawmakers need to do more to make sure people recycle. The
best way to do that is to reward people for recycling.
2 Recycling can be confusing. In some places, plastic, paper, glass, and metal can all
go in the same bin. In other places, each material must go in its own bin. Many cities
and neighborhoods have their own ways of collecting recycling. In one poll, most people
who do not recycle said it is too difficult where they live.
3 Rewarding people would give them a reason to make the effort to recycle. Most
people know that recycling is good for the planet. But it can be hard to understand how
recycling is helpful. The bottles and cans just seem to disappear. A reward gives people
a personal benefit.
4 People already get rewarded for recycling in some areas. Some U.S. states let
people return empty containers in exchange for money. People bring in their bottles and
cans for counting. Each item earns them five to fifteen cents. People in these states
tend to recycle more than those in other states.
5 Cities can give rewards like this to get people to recycle more. One city in Brazil lets
citizens trade recyclable items for food. Another idea is to weigh each family’s recycling.
Then the city can lower their trash bill based on the weight.
6 People should recycle because it is the right thing to do. But the truth is, that does
not always happen. Local lawmakers should make recycling more fun for everyone by
offering rewards. That way, they can help their people and the planet at the same time.
Laws for Less Trash
1 We know our city needs to recycle more. A law about recycling can help us do that.
Then, recycling will become a regular part of life.
2 San Francisco, California, has been successful at getting people to recycle. A law
there says that people must sort out recyclables from trash. Each home has a blue
recycling bin and a black trash bin. People can choose to have a smaller black bin so
they will fill it with less trash. San Francisco sends a lot less of its waste to landfills than
most other places in the United States. A law like this could help increase recycling in
our city.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
5
3 Another option is to reward people to improve recycling. This is a bad idea. Already,
about one of every four items put in a recycling bin is trash that cannot be recycled.
Rewards would make this problem worse. People would just want to fill the bin. The
recycling company might be unable to sort out the trash. Then, all the items would
have to go into a landfill. People would get rewards for recycling even though their
items were not truly recycled. This would be like throwing away our city’s money.
4 People need clear messages about how to recycle. This is true based on a study
from 2015. Researchers found that repeated reminders were better than rewards at
getting people to recycle more. Such reminders can share other ways to make less
trash. People should buy sturdy objects to reuse for a long time. That way, fewer
disposable objects will be made in the first place.
5 Our city could make less trash than anywhere in the whole world. But we do not
need rewards to do it. We just need laws and reminders about recycling correctly.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
6
Grade 3 Extended Constructed Response
Prompt
Read the selections “Rewards for Recycling” and “Laws for Less Trash.” Based on the
information in the selections, write a response to the following:
Explain your opinion about why people should or should not be rewarded for recycling.
Write a well-organized argumentative essay that uses specific evidence from the selections
to support your answer.
Remember to —
• clearly state your central idea
• organize your writing
• develop your ideas in detail
• use evidence from the selections in your response
• use correct spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar
Manage your time carefully so that you can —
• review the selections
• plan your response
• write your response
• revise and edit your response
Write your response in the box provided.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
7
Grade 3 Reading Passage with Extended Constructed
Response
Argumentative/Opinion Writing Rubric
Score Point
Development and Organization of Ideas
3
• Argument/opinion is clear and fully developed
The argument/opinion is clearly identifiable. The focus is consistent
throughout, creating a response that is unified and easy to follow.
• Organization is effective
A purposeful structure that includes an effective introduction and
conclusion is evident. The organizational structure is appropriate and
effectively supports the development of the argument/opinion. The
sentences, paragraphs, or ideas are logically connected in purposeful
and highly effective ways.
• Evidence is specific, well chosen, and relevant
The response includes relevant text-based evidence that is clearly
explained and consistently supports and develops the argument/opinion.
For pairs in grades 3–5, evidence is drawn from at least one text. The
response reflects a thorough understanding of the writing purpose.
•
Expression of ideas is clear and effective
The writer’s word choice is specific, purposeful, and enhances the
response. Almost all sentences and phrases are effectively crafted to
convey the writer’s ideas and contribute to the overall quality of the
response and the clarity of the message.
2
• Argument/opinion is present and partially developed
An argument/opinion is presented, but it may not be clearly
identifiable because it is not fully developed. The focus may not always
be consistent and may not always be easy to follow.
Organization is limited
A purposeful structure that includes an introduction and conclusion is
present. An organizational structure may be apparent, but it may not
be consistent and may not always support the logical development of
the argument/opinion. Sentence-to-sentence connections and clarity
may be lacking.
• Evidence is limited and may include some irrelevant
information
The response may include some text-based evidence to support the
argument/opinion, but it may be insufficiently explained, and/or some
evidence may be irrelevant to the argument/opinion. For pairs,
evidence is drawn from at least one of the texts. The response reflects
partial understanding of the writing purpose.
•
Expression of ideas is basic
The writer’s word choice may be general and imprecise and at times
may not convey the writer’s ideas clearly. Sentences and phrases are
at times ineffective and may interfere with the writer’s intended
meaning and weaken the message.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
8
1
• Argument/opinion is evident but not developed
An argument/opinion is present but not developed appropriately in
response to the writing task.
• Organization is minimal and/or weak
An introduction or conclusion may be present. An organizational
structure that supports logical development is not always evident or is
not appropriate to the task.
• Evidence is insufficient and/or mostly irrelevant
Little text-based evidence is presented, or the evidence presented is
mostly extraneous and/or repetitious. Explanation of any evidence
presented is insufficient and may be only vaguely related to the
writing task. The response reflects a limited understanding of the
writing purpose.
• Expression of ideas is ineffective
The writer’s word choice is vague or limited and may impede the
quality and clarity of the essay. Sentences and phrases are often
ineffective, interfere with the writer’s intended meaning, and impact
the strength and clarity of the message.
0
• An argument/opinion may be evident.
• The response lacks an introduction and conclusion. An organizational
structure is not evident.
• Evidence is not provided or is irrelevant.
The response reflects a lack of understanding of the writing purpose.
• The expression of ideas is unclear and/or incoherent.
Please note that if a response receives a score point 0 in the
Development and Organization of Ideas trait, the response will
also earn 0 points in the Conventions trait.
Score Point
Conventions
2
Student writing demonstrates consistent command of grade-level-
appropriate conventions, including correct:
• sentence construction
• punctuation
• capitalization
• grammar
• spelling
The response has few errors, but those errors do not impact the clarity of
the writing.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
9
1
Student writing demonstrates inconsistent command of grade-level-
appropriate conventions, including limited use of correct:
• sentence construction
• punctuation
• capitalization
• grammar
• spelling
The response has several errors, but the reader can understand the
writer’s thoughts.
0
Student writing demonstrates little to no command of grade-level-
appropriate conventions, including infrequent use of or no evidence of
correct:
• sentence construction
• punctuation
• capitalization
• grammar
• spelling
The response has many errors, and these errors impact the clarity of the
writing and the reader’s understanding of the writing.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
10
Sample Student Responses
Score Point 0
Response 1
Organization and Development of Ideas: 0
In this response the writer offers the unclear claim that “they should git it becuase there
doing somthing for you.” No organizational structure is evident, as this response consists of
a single run-on sentence. No evidence from the text is provided. Expression of ideas is
unclear and incoherent (“they eraned it and devzerve it”; “there doing somthing for you . . .
i know that you did somthing”). Overall, this response reflects a lack of understanding of the
writing purpose.
Conventions: 0
Please note that if a response receives a score point 0 in the Organization and Development
trait, the response will also earn 0 points in the Conventions trait.
Response 2
Organization and Development of Ideas: 0
In this response the writer does not present a claim. The writer presents the idea that “I
think we should recycle because . . . it would help the world to be cleaner.” This does not
address the prompt. No organizational structure is evident. Evidence from the text is
unclear and only vaguely related to the writing task (“you get rewards if you recycle,”
“everybody should recycle”). Overall, this response reflects a lack of understanding of the
writing purpose.
Conventions: 0
Please note that if a response receives a score point 0 in the Organization and Development
trait, the response will also earn 0 points in the Conventions trait.
they
J1ould
git
it
becua e here doing omthing for
:o
and the • eraned
i and
dei.-zen-e
i1 i
know
tha J·
ou
id omthing and then did'nt get i
so
the • erane 1 .
I think
\'1/e
ho
ld
rec
de
beca
e tlli to .
taite
·e
_ good reason
like;it
,;
·ou d
help
the world o be c eaner.Another one i
that
Jou
get
reward
if
vou
rec
1
d e .I think evervbod, should reeve e.
..
.,,
.
..
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
11
Score Point 1
Response 1
Organization and Development of Ideas: 1
The writer of this response offers the claim that “people should not be rewarded.” An
argument is evident but not developed appropriately in response to the writing task. The
organization lacks an introduction and conclusion and is limited to connecting ideas with the
word and. The little text-based evidence presented is insufficiently explained (“they might
not look at what there gonna throw away and put it in the worng box”). Word choice is
limited (“if they do they proply will just overfol it”) and impedes the quality and clarity of
the essay. Overall, this response reflects a limited understanding of the writing purpose.
Conventions: 0
The writer demonstrates little to no command of grade-level-appropriate conventions,
including errors in sentence construction (response is a single run-on sentence), grammar
(“what there gonna throw away”) as well as spelling (“becuse,” “there,” “worng,” “proply,”
“overfol”). The response has many errors, and these errors impact the clarity of the writing
and the reader’s understanding of the writing.
Response 2
Organization and Development of Ideas: 1
In this response the writer presents the claim that “i think people shuold not be rewardedis
becuse i think it is not far.” While an argument is evident, it is not developed appropriately
in response to the writing task. Some organization is evident by the presence of transitions
(“the first reson,” “and”), but ideas do not always support logical development of the claim.
Supporting evidence is lacking sufficient explanation (“they can just get things form theyr
home . . .”; “they may not be recyciling form the eath . . .”; “not where some people want
them to recycilling”). Word choice is vague (“can just get things form theyr home”; “not
where some people want them to recycilling”). Overall, this response reflects a limited
understanding of the writing purpose.
people hould not
be
re
raroed becu. e then
the_
· _
_ight
ot
loo_·
at
\ ·hat
there gonna throw a
\a;
and put
it
in
he
~rung bo and i the
1
,
do
they
p :cpl}
;,iill
just o,·erfol
it
he first reson why i hink people sh old not be rewarde<lis
bee.
.se
i
hink it is not far is becuse
tb.ey can j t get
hing.s
form heyr home
and ey may
not
be rncycil:ing form the ea h and no where some
people
wa
n hem to recycilling
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
12
Conventions: 0
The writer demonstrates little to no command of grade-level-appropriate conventions with
several errors in sentence construction (response is a single run-on sentence), no
punctuation, and spelling errors (“reson,” “shuold,” “becuse,” “far [fair],” “form [from],”
“theyr,” “recyciling,” “eath,” “recycilling”). The response has many errors that impact the
clarity of the writing and the reader’s understanding.
Score Point 2
Response 1
Organization and Development of Ideas: 1
The writer of this response offers the claim that “People shoud get rewards for recycling.”
While a brief introduction and conclusion are present, organization is limited and not always
supporting logical development of the claim. Ideas abruptly shift from one to the next (“It
wouldn’t be . . . It would make . . . We could . . .”). Evidence is insufficiently explained and
irrelevant at times (“We could make a law to sort your trash and your stuf”; “To much stuf
gets thone into the sea . . .”). Word choice is vague and repetitive (“It would be pointless to
have no reward.It wouldn’t be as fun with no reward.It would be more fun with a reward”).
Overall, this response reflects a limited understanding of the writing purpose.
Conventions: 1
The writer demonstrates an inconsistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions.
Sentence construction is limited to mainly simple sentences, along with one awkwardly
constructed sentence (“To much stuf gets thone . . . so we should recycle and having a
reward would . . .”). Spelling errors are evident (“shoud,” “somethig,” “stuf,” “To [Too],”
“thone,” “perswade”). This response has several errors, but the reader can understand the
writer’s thoughts.
Peop]e houd get re
1;
rard for recycling.Because wha i the point
ifwe
don
ha
·e ·omethig o
;,.
;ork for.I
:i.
·
,ou
ld
be
pointle • to ha"·e
no
re'I:
·ard.
lt,
·o ldn't b as fun
'II.Vi
th
no
reward.It
\\
'OU d be more fun wi
ha
re·
ward.I
wo ld
make
·
me
wan o rec rde.
;\
e could make a
la
.
:i.
· to "
Ort
_:
our
rash
and J·our
stufyou
can ree_,c e.To much st
get
thone in o
he
ea
o \
·e
hould rec;
de
and har,ing a reward would
pen,
vade people to
do
that.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
13
Response 2
Organization and Development of Ideas: 2
In this response the writer offers the claim that “I think pepel sohd be rewarded for
recikling.” A purposeful structure that includes a brief introduction and conclusion is present.
Text-based evidence lacks sufficient explanation (“‘Pepel get rewarded for resikling in some
areas’.But not a lot of pepel do”; “‘rewarding pepel wood give them a rezen to make a
efrt’”). The expression of ideas is basic at times due to the repetitive word choice (“pepel
sohd be rewarded”; “This maes pepel sode be rewarded”; “Pepel sohd get rewarded”; “this
meanes pepel sohd get rewarded”). Overall, this response reflects partial understanding of
the writing purpose.
Conventions: 0
The writer demonstrates little to no command of grade-level-appropriate conventions.
Multiple errors in sentence construction, capitalization, and spelling (“pepel,” “shod,”
“recikling,” “rcikliling,” “resikling,” “maes,” “sode,” “sohd,” “wod,” "wood [would]," “rezen,”
“efrt,” “meanes,” “reciking,” “conkloshon,” “resiking”) impede understanding. The response
has many errors that impact the clarity of the writing and the reader’s understanding of the
writing.
I think pepel sohd be rewarded for recikling.
pep
el
sohd be rewarded for rcikliling in he t1ext
it
said. "Pepel ge
re,:varded for res:ikling
in some areas" .But not a lot
of
pep el do. This maes
pep el sode be ewarded for reciking.
Pep el sohd get rewarded
i ,vod make them want
to
do
it more. in the text
i said " rewarding pepel wood
gin
them a rezen to make a efrt
".
tbis
meanes pep
el
sohd get rewarded for reciking.
I conklosbon pep
el shod get rewarded for res:iking.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
14
Score Point 3
Response 1
Organization and Development of Ideas: 1
The writer offers the claim that “I think people should be rewarded because they worked
hard to get the plastic,” but the claim is not developed appropriately to the task.
Organization is weak in this two-sentence response, as the writer shifts focus abruptly (“I
think people should not be rewarded because if they got little materials . . .”) and seems to
contradict the original argument. Explanation of evidence presented is insufficient (“they
worked hard to get the plastic and they also helped the earth get cleaner”). Overall, this
response reflects a limited understanding of the writing purpose.
Conventions: 2
The writer demonstrates a consistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions.
Errors in capitalization, grammar, and spelling are not evident. The response has few errors,
and those errors do not impact the clarity of the writing.
Response 2
Organization and Development of Ideas: 2
The writer of this response presents the claim that “I do not think people should be
rewarded because really it is a simple thing . . .,” but it is not developed. The organizational
structure is limited but includes a brief introduction and conclusion. The evidence provided
is insufficiently explained (“if you put trash in the recyling people will have to sort that out”;
“put to much trash then people will just put it in the landfill”) or does not clearly support the
argument (“why would they even think to give rewards . . . then people will just love
reclying”). Expression of ideas consists of general word choice (“I bet you have sorted
candy or something . . .”; “I mean like then people . . . but like just make it . . .”) that does
not always clearly convey the writer’s ideas. Overall, this response reflects a partial
understanding of the writing purpose.
think people hould be rewarded bec:m e they worked hard to get the
pta~
ic and
he
, al
"'
O helped the earth get cleaner. I think people Nhould
not
be re ,
.,
arded
because i
they
go
Ji
e m erial
..
that means
th
the ·
did no e
•
en
try to
get
pla ie.
I do no
think
p op]e
hould
be
re ·arded ca e real y i · i a imple
thing
ike all
1
rou ave to do i
mt
your
trash and
r,ec.~
1
d:i.ng. I bet ro
have orted cand r or
"'
Omething
\
cithou
getting a
reward
.
And
,i
y
woul hey e\·en think to gi\·e rewards I mean like then p opl ,
cill
just
lo\·e
redying o much bu like
ju
make i a reminder beea ,e
if
·ou p ,
tra h in the recyling
people
will a\·e to ort
tha
out
unle s
J·ou
pu
o
much
-a
h then
peep
e •i
ju
t p
1t
it in the landfiJ .
hat
i m · reason
\·
h.J
' people
do
no need
re,
·ard .
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
15
Conventions: 1
The writer demonstrates an inconsistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions.
Sentence construction is not always consistent and includes incorrectly combined sentences
(“I do not think people should be rewarded because really it is a simple thing like all you have
to do is sort your trash and recycling”; “And why would they even think to give rewards . . .
but like just make it a reminder because if you put trash . . . unless you put to much trash
then people . . .”), although command of capitalization and punctuation is mostly correct.
Errors in grammar in the form of extraneous sentence structures are evident (“I mean like
then people will just love reclying so much but like just make it a reminder . . .”) while errors
in spelling (“recyling,” “to [too]”) are few. The response has several errors, but the reader
can understand the writer’s thoughts.
Response 3
Organization and Development of Ideas: 3
In this response the writer offers a clearly identifiable claim: “I think people should not be
rewarded for recycling because being rewarded is gonna make it worse.” Organization
includes introductory and concluding statements. The writer provides an original argument
that “when you reward someone then some else is gonna be jelouse . . .” before connecting
ideas presented in “Laws for Less Trash” that emphasize the general claim (“they do
recycling without pay because its a law and we respect laws . . .”). To support the writer’s
original argument, ideas related to people being paid for each item of recycling are
incorporated from “Rewards for Recycling” (“people are gonna be mad because they got
more money . . . about 30 cents every pound of trash and his best friend got 5 dollars for
every pound of trash”). In addition, relevant text-based evidence from “Laws for Less
Trash” is sufficiently explained and supports the general claim that people should not be
rewarded for recycling (“so like in San Francisco California they do recycling without pay
because its a law”; “recycling with rewards is just confusing so thats why . . . they dont
want people to fight for rewards they made a law . . .”). This response effectively conveys
the writer’s ideas and reflects a thorough understanding of the writing purpose.
I think people should not be rewarded for recycling because being
re\varded is gonna make it ·worse and make people fight
becal!J
se
v;,
hen
~·ou
re\vard omeone then some el e is gonna be
je
1ou
.s
e and some people
are gonna
be
rewarded more then other like friends family members best
friends and all
of
them then other people are gonna
be
mad because
the~
got more money and they only
got
about 30 cents every pound
of
trash
and his best friend got 5 dollars for every pound
of
trash is the merson
got got
5 pounds
of
trash then that v
..
ou
ld be 1 dollar and 50 cent but
if
the
be
t friend got 5 pounds
of
trash then he
\\ou
ld have 25 dollars and
thats a big diffrence
25
dollars to dollar and 50 cents so like in San
Francisco California they do
reC)
cling without pay because its a law and
we
re
~pect
lm
vs
and recycling with rewards is
jus
t confusing so thats
\.Vh~
San Francioo, Califomia
is
a good state because they dont want people to
fight for re,,vards they made a la\v o they can recJ c le
\V
ithout rewards
and that
\11.hy
i think that we hould do recycl:ing
\.V
ithout rewards.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
16
Conventions: 0
The writer demonstrates little to no command of grade-level-appropriate conventions.
Sentence boundaries are lacking. Punctuation consists only of a single period at the end of
the response (one lengthy run-on sentence) and one comma after “San Francico.” Some
errors in spelling (“some else,” “merson,” “diffrence”) and grammar (“gonna be rewarded
more then other like friends family members . . .”) are present. The response has many
errors, and these errors impact the clarity of the writing and the reader’s understanding of
the writing.
Score Point 4
Response 1
Organization and Development of Ideas: 2
In this response the writer offers the claim that “People should not get rewards because it is
bad.” A purposeful structure is organized with transitional words (“First,” “Second,” “Third”)
and includes a brief introduction and conclusion. Text-based evidence lacks sufficient
explanation (“about one of evert four items put in a recycling bin is trash”; “the recycling
company might be unable to sort out the trash”; “all the items would have to go to a
landfill”). Word choice is general at times (“because it is bad”). Overall, this response
reflects a partial understanding of the writing purpose.
Conventions: 2
The writer demonstrates a consistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions,
despite a few spelling errors (“evert,” “compant”). Correctly placed commas are evident
after introductory transitions (“First,” “Second,” “Third,”) and within sentences (“if the
recycling compant can’t sort out all the trash, all the items would have to go to a landfill”).
The response has few errors, and those errors do not impact the clarity of the writing.
People hould 1 o · get
re
.
"afd
beca.u
e i ·
bad
. Here
at1e
o e
xample hat ppo thinki, g.
Fir
1
~
abo rt
one
of
e
·e
:four
-
tern
p rt in a
rec
_ rchng bin i
tra
h
tha
cannot
be
re cled. , . cond, th
r, c ·
chr
;_
o
pan'.;
migh
1-
nabl o ort o t ra h. Third!
ifth
r,
ec
-·clir e co, pant can't ort
ou
all
the tras~ all
th
it m
-yo
-M ha ·
to
o to
a.
landfi L Tl at i
·1
-I
thinR
-a
l 0 1 ld o i" ou
re
·arcl
or
.,
,,
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
17
Response 2
Organization and Development of Ideas: 3
The writer of this response compares and contrasts evidence from the text before
concluding with the claim “I think people do not need rewards to help them recycle mybe
they just need somebody to remind them every once and a while.” The writer begins this
response with an effective introduction (“Imagin a world filled with nothing but trash,and
the airs smells like a 100,000000 year old sneaker”). An effective organizational structure
and transitions effectively support the development of the argument and connect ideas
purposefully (“For example,” “In result,” “Another reson”), and sentences logically flow from
one to another. Supporting text-based evidence provides information from “Rewards for
Recycling” (“some places people get rewards for recycling.This can also be bad some people
. . . put stuff that can not be recycled”) and from “Laws for Less Trash” (“San Francisco
theres a law that says you have to sort out recyclables.In result they send a lot less trash
then other places . . . ”) that is relevant. Expression of ideas is clear, and most sentences
effectively convey the writer’s ideas. Overall, this response reflects a thorough
understanding of the writing purpose.
Conventions: 1
The writer demonstrates an inconsistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions.
Errors in sentence construction include incorrect grammar (“and the airs smells like,” “For
example San Francisco theres a law,” “In result they send”) and run-on sentences (“This
can also be bad some people only try . . .”; “people do not need rewards to help them
recycle mybe they just need . . .”). Spelling errors (“Imagin,” “dont,” “reson,” “its [it’s],”
“there [their],” “mybe”) are also evident throughout the response. This response has
several errors, but the reader can understand the writer’s thoughts.
1 , agin a :vorld filled
:vith
noth · g but tra h,and the air "mell like a
100
,0
00000
yeai·
old neaker.
If
}OU
dont •
ant
a ,:odd
like
tha you better
rec~
cle
.
Re _ · ling h
Ip
no
01
1 , the p opl but he plane .For xample an
Fran.ci co ther a law tha a ,- ou · a
Te
o ort o t rec,.·dable . n re~ult
.;
he · send a lot
le"
tJa h 1 ' en other place in the
:vorld
.
Anotl
er
re
on
i s good
or
people to
is
beca , e i ome place people get
reward for rec cling. Thi
can
al o be bad ome peop e
onl_
ry
o · 1
11
here
rec
rch g
b·n
or
re
:1..·ard
~
o
he_
pu
t
tuff
hat
can
not be e · led.
1 , _ )
co
du
ion I think people do no
,.
eed
reward to help them rec ·cle
m_
·be
they
ju
t need
ome
od :
to
remind the
,.
e\·ery o,
ce
and
a,
·hile.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
18
Score Point 5
Response 1
Organization and Development of Ideas: 3
The writer of this response begins with the claim “I think that people should be rewarded for
recycling because it encourages people to recycle more.” The response then weighs the merits
and problems discussed in both passages from the text before offering a final claim that “I
think that we should use both ways because they both encourage people to recycle.” The
response is organized with sentences and ideas logically connected and building one upon the
other (“I thought about the problem of some trash put in recycling bins . . . I think that when
recycling is taken to a place to reward people . . . But if that doesn’t work . . .”) Sufficient and
relevant supporting evidence discusses the pros and cons of rewards for recycling (“some
trash put in recycling bins just because people want the money”; “reminders were better than
rewards”; “in San Francisco people can recycle without the problem”). Expression of ideas is
clear, and most sentences effectively convey the writer’s ideas, reflecting a thorough
understanding of the writing purpose.
Conventions: 2
The writer demonstrates a consistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions. A
missing comma after the word rewards is evident (“The text already said that often
reminders were better than rewards so it should be good”), which results in a sentence
construction error. The response has few errors, and those errors do not impact the clarity
of the writing.
th
,· k
tha
people hould
be
re
·
ra.rded
or
re
ycling
bee-a
, e
it
courage people·
tor
c~·cl
1nor
.. I
thou._:ht
about the
problen1
of
ome
·
ra h put in
re,e:
r
c:F
g bi · -j -
~t
becau e
peo,pl
- - •ant the mone:·. I hink
ha
·1
n r c
.,
cling i
tak
n to a
pla.c
to re ·ard pe ple or re ·cling.
he
r hou d c , ck all
··
h material~ inside to male ure· trash i not
includ d here and then
nd
it
oar;
.,
ling
compan
.,
_But · 1
ha
do n
·ork, the ·
·e
hould stop gi
·1ng
ou re,
1
ards and
go\
'ith reminding
people repea edl.· o ee · hat help . The ext ahead_· a·d ·
ha
ofte 1
reminders
:\
ere better il an re
:vard
. o i hould be g .
Bu
if
in an
Fra:nci
op
opl
ran
r c_
de
,ithout the pr-oblem= eve _ rone else , ould
be
ab
_e _o
oo.
I _hink
thai
,
1
e J_
ou
_d u_e , oth
:•;a>
becau"e
the_r
both
e cou age eople o e re
e.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
19
Response 2
Organization and Development of Ideas: 3
In this response the writer discusses the importance of recycling and considers evidence
from both passages of the text before presenting the claim that is split between two topic
sentences (“I don’t think that you should get rewarded . . .”; “A better way of making
people recycle is by giving them reminders . . .”). The writer begins this response with a
question that adds to an effective introduction “Have you ever wondered why recycling is so
important?” The response is effectively organized into paragraphs with logically connected
ideas (“Some cities give rewards,” “A better way of making people recycle”). Evidence from
the text is purposeful, with the writer arguing for reminders and against rewards. The writer
includes sufficiently explained paraphrased information from “Rewards for Recycling”
(“Some cities give rewards like money and food if you recycle. . . . you should already be
helping to recycle and making the world less trashy”) and “Laws for Less Trash” (“A better
way . . . is by giving them reminders . . . and by making laws”; “Californa Sanfrancisco
already has a law . . . a blue recycling bin at every house . . . then people don’t just throw
everything into the trash can”). Expression of ideas is clear, and most sentences effectively
convey the writer’s ideas (“Getting rewards doesn’t make people think of helping . . . It just
makes people think of getting money”; “they put some recyclable thing in their recycling bin
without being rewarded”). Overall, this response reflects a thorough understanding of the
writing purpose.
Conventions: 2
The writer demonstrates a consistent command of grade-level-appropriate conventions.
Errors in spelling, punctuation, and capitalization (“Californa Sanfrancisco”) are present. A
missing comma after the word can is evident (“I like that rule because then people don’t
just throw everything into the trash can and they put some recyclable thing in their
recycling bin without being rewarded”), which results in a sentence construction error. The
response has few errors, and those errors do not impact the clarity of the writing.
Hm;e you ever wondered why recycling is so important?
V..
ell,
recycling is important because
if
we don't recycle, then we would be
thrmving away things that we could hm:e reused or made into something
new.
Some cities gi,:e rewards like money and food
if
you recycle. I don't
think that
you
should get rewarded for recycling because you should
already be helping to recycle and making the world less trashy. Getting
re\vards. doesn't make people think
of
helping the world and
reey
cling
more. It
just
makes people think
of
getting money.
A better way
of
making people recycle is
by
gi\·i
ng
them reminders to
rec, ·cle and by making laws to recycle. Califoma Sanfrancisco already
has a l
aw
that you need to ha\·e a blue recycling bin at every house and
that,
ou need a black trash can at
e\
·ery house. I like that mle because
then people don't just throw ewrything into the trash can and they put
some recyclable thing in their recycling bin without being
1-e\varded.
I hope that
you
see how important recycling is!
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
20
Grade 3 Writing Short
Constructed Response
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
21
Grade 3 Writing Short Constructed Response
Passage: “Restaurants Are Not for Dogs”
Original Paragraph:
(1) My family has two dogs. (2) Their names are Lucy and Rocket. (3) We take them
almost everywhere we go. (4) Yet there is one place that we do not take our dogs. (5)
They never to restaurants go with us. (6) We don’t even take them to restaurants that
offer outdoor seating for people and their pets. (7) Dogs do not belong in restaurants.
Prompt
Sentence 5 needs to be revised. In the space provided, rewrite sentence 5 in a clear and
effective way.
Item-Specific Rubric
Score: 1
The response is a complete sentence that expresses the ideas in a clear and effective way.
Score: 0
The response is not a complete sentence or does not express the ideas in a clear and
effective way.
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
22
Sample Student Responses
Score Point 0
Response 1
This response does not express the ideas in a clear and effective way. In an attempt to
rewrite the sentence, the writer includes their opinion (“beacuse if they do there gonna eat
your food”), which changes the meaning of the original sentence.
Response 2
This response does not express the ideas in a clear and effective way. The writer adds “take
us” to the sentence; however, the response remains unclear (“to restaurants go with us”).
Response 3
This response does not express the ideas clearly and effectively. The writer’s revisions and
omission of important information (“with us”) change the meaning of the original sentence.
Response 4
This response does not express the ideas in a clear and effective way. The writer claims in
the response that restaurants cannot allow dogs inside. However, the original sentence
states that Daisy and her family do not bring their dogs to restaurants. Because the
meaning of sentence 5 is changed, the response receives no credit.
Score Point 1
Response 1
This response is a complete sentence that expresses the ideas in a clear and effective way.
By moving the phrase “go with us” between “never” and “to,” the sentence is more
effective, and the meaning is not changed. In addition, the word the is added in front of
“restaurants,” which is acceptable.
dogs c nt
20
to restaurc aunts beac se
if
he.,
do · he
:e
goooa ea
our
food
the ne •,
er
ta
"'e
us
to r s1 aurant go ··ith us
1 at the e
·e
g,o
.....
rest
uran
s ca 't aHo · dog inside
.....
the.,
ne ·er
go
\i\r.ith
u
to
th
re
.
:tauran
-
Grade 3 Reading Language Arts
Constructed Response Scoring Guide
Texas Education Agency
Student Assessment Division
2023
23
Response 2
This response is a complete sentence that expresses the ideas in a clear and effective way.
The writer moves the phrase “go with us” after “They never” and adds “when we go,” which
provides the reader clarity without altering the original meaning of the sentence. This is an
acceptable approach to the revision of the original sentence.
Response 3
This response is a complete sentence that expresses the ideas in a clear and effective way.
By moving the phrase “go with us” from the end of the sentence and placing it after “They
never,” the sentence is more effective, and the meaning is not changed. The grammatical
error “restaurant” instead of “restaurants” is an acceptable error and does not detract from
the response.
Response 4
This response is a complete sentence that expresses the ideas in a clear and effective way.
The writer moves the word “go” from after “restaurants” in sentence 5 to after “They never”
and replaces “to” with “into,” which are acceptable revisions and make the sentence more
effective.
o-o
ith u hen · · go
to
·estat rants
The ne er go itb us to ·
1
est u
·a
.
he · ne
"er
go
ill
o res eron s
hi
h us
