The PLT ends with two case histories, each followed by two constructed-response questions (25% of the test). Read this case, write your answers, then compare them with the model answers. ETS scorers rate each response from 0 to 2.
Mr. Alvarez teaches eighth-grade science and is leading a unit on explaining patterns in experimental observations. Students have investigated how conditions affect the movement of water through different materials. The learning objective is to construct a claim supported by observations and explain why the evidence is relevant. Students are familiar with the equipment and can describe what happened during the investigation. Their experience with formal scientific explanations varies. Several students are developing academic English while using other languages at home. One student has an IEP that includes support for organizing written responses. Mr. Alvarez wants to maintain the same science reasoning goal while making the assessment evidence more informative.
Document 1: Planned assessment and scoring notes
The planned assessment asks students to write a formal explanation immediately after a short teacher demonstration. Directions are delivered orally, and a dense paragraph on the worksheet contains several new connecting phrases. The scoring sheet combines scientific reasoning, spelling, handwriting, and sentence complexity into one overall impression score. Mr. Alvarez intends to compare that score with an earlier laboratory report. He plans to use the comparison to identify students who need more instruction in the science concept. The lesson plan lists an explanation organizer as an available support, but the organizer is not distributed because the teacher wants to see what students can do independently.
Document 2: Student work descriptions
Sana, who is developing English proficiency, draws a labeled diagram that accurately connects the changed condition with the observed movement of water. During a conversation with a partner, she points to the relevant observations and explains their relationship using familiar words. Her formal paragraph is short and omits several required connecting phrases. Owen writes a long paragraph with the expected vocabulary but cites an observation that does not support his claim. Jordan, whose IEP specifies the explanation organizer, records relevant observations in a list but does not connect them to a claim. Mr. Alvarez assigns similar overall scores to these responses because none resembles the model paragraph closely. He records that all three students need the science concept taught again.
Document 3: Conference and reflection notes
During a later conference, Sana accurately answers a question about why one observation supports her claim. She asks what the connecting phrases mean. Owen repeats his original paragraph when asked to explain the relevance of his evidence. Jordan says that the organizer usually helps show which part comes next and asks why it was missing. The special education teacher reminds Mr. Alvarez that the organizer is a specified support, not an optional reward for effort. Mr. Alvarez notices that his single score did not distinguish a conceptual error from difficulty expressing or organizing an explanation. He wants to revise the next lesson so students continue developing scientific reasoning and academic language. He also wants an assessment process that allows him to make different instructional decisions for these students rather than automatically reteaching the same material to everyone.
Question 1. Identify TWO instructional supports Mr. Alvarez should provide to address the learner differences shown in the case while preserving the scientific reasoning objective. For each support, explain why it is appropriate for the identified student or students.
Show the model answer
First, Mr. Alvarez should build a bridge between Sana’s diagram and the formal explanation by explicitly teaching the connecting phrases and allowing oral rehearsal. Sana’s drawing and conference response already show the relationship between her claim and observations. Modeling how those ideas become sentences develops academic English without treating limited formal wording as proof of weak scientific understanding. The science reasoning criteria should remain intact.
Second, he should provide Jordan’s specified explanation organizer and teach its use within the task. Jordan has relevant observations but reports difficulty connecting the parts without the familiar support. The organizer should prompt a claim, supporting observations, and an explanation of their relevance while leaving the actual reasoning to Jordan. Providing an agreed support maintains access to the objective; withholding it does not produce a fairer measure of independent conceptual understanding.
A strong response covers
- Use Sana’s existing conceptual evidence
- Teach academic language through supported explanation
- Provide Jordan’s specified organizer
- Preserve scientific reasoning rather than lower the goal
Question 2. Identify TWO changes to the assessment process that would produce more defensible information about scientific understanding. For each change, explain how the resulting evidence would support a specific instructional decision.
Show the model answer
First, Mr. Alvarez should replace the single impression score with separate criteria for the scientific claim, evidence, and explanation of relevance. Language features can be documented separately when they are instructional goals. This would expose Owen’s unsupported claim despite his fluent vocabulary and would avoid obscuring Sana’s scientific understanding with spelling or sentence-complexity judgments. The teacher could then provide Owen with targeted instruction on selecting relevant evidence.
Second, he should combine the written response with a short conference or another accessible explanation task. Sana’s conference already provides evidence that her brief paragraph underrepresents her conceptual understanding. Similar probing can determine whether Jordan can explain the relationship when his specified organizer is available. Using these sources together would help distinguish a science misconception from an expression or organization barrier and guide different next lessons instead of assigning identical remediation.
A strong response covers
- Separate reasoning criteria from unrelated presentation features
- Identify Owen’s evidence-selection need
- Use conferences or accessible demonstrations to clarify understanding
- Base differentiated next steps on multiple sources
