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.
Ms. Chen teaches seventh-grade geography at a middle school where students have recently arrived from several elementary schools. The current unit asks students to explain how geographic evidence can inform a community decision. Students are studying a fictional proposal to locate a public recreation center. They have practiced reading map legends and identifying evidence, but this is their first assignment requiring a group recommendation supported by several sources. Ms. Chen wants students to experience productive disagreement and develop confidence speaking with new classmates. The class includes students with different language backgrounds and different levels of experience presenting ideas publicly.
Document 1: Lesson plan excerpt
The objective states that each student will support a location recommendation with relevant geographic evidence and respond to a competing interpretation. Groups receive a transit map, a population map, and short descriptions of possible locations. Ms. Chen has placed students in mixed-readiness groups and assigned a single shared recommendation. The plan tells groups to choose a speaker and work together. It does not define other roles or include an individual response. A slide lists the steps as read, discuss, choose, and present. Ms. Chen plans to circulate and help students who raise their hands. She has prepared a worked example using a different community but plans to display it only if a group requests help.
Document 2: Observation notes
During the group task, several students begin ranking locations before examining the maps. In one group, Darius reads the population map accurately but does not speak while two classmates debate. When he points to a transit connection, a classmate says that he is taking too long. Darius puts down his pencil. In another group, Amira explains a useful geographic relationship to her partner but asks the partner to present it. The partner later repeats the idea without identifying its source. Across the room, a confident speaker prepares the entire recommendation while the other members decorate the title. Ms. Chen praises groups that seem busy, then reminds the class that everyone needs to participate. Students ask what counts as participation, but the class period ends before she answers.
Document 3: Student reflections and teacher notes
Darius writes that he understood the maps but worried that classmates would think his idea was foolish. Amira writes that she wanted time to rehearse the explanation before speaking to the whole group. Another student says that drawing the title seemed like a useful contribution, although the student cannot explain the recommendation. Several reflections describe disagreement as deciding which person wins. Ms. Chen notes that the group posters include strong claims, but she cannot tell which students understand the evidence. She also realizes that moving quickly between groups gave her more information about work completion than about interaction. For the next lesson, she wants to preserve the challenging recommendation task while making participation safer and more intellectually meaningful.
Question 1. Identify TWO strategies Ms. Chen could use to strengthen students’ confidence and sense of belonging during this task. For each strategy, explain how it addresses specific evidence in the case using principles of adolescent development or motivation.
Show the model answer
First, Ms. Chen should teach and enforce a discussion norm that gives each speaker time to finish and requires classmates to respond to the idea rather than judge the person. She should address the comment that silenced Darius and practice a respectful response to a different interpretation. Early adolescents’ concern about peer acceptance makes the quality of these interactions important for participation. A predictable norm would reduce the social risk of contributing.
Second, she should give students private preparation and partner rehearsal before the group discussion. Amira already understands a geographic relationship but explicitly requests rehearsal time. Having her practice a brief explanation with a supportive partner creates an achievable success before a more public contribution. Ms. Chen should then give specific feedback about the evidence in that explanation. This supports task-specific self-efficacy while preserving the expectation that Amira contributes her own reasoning.
A strong response covers
- Teach and enforce respectful discussion norms
- Address the peer response that silenced Darius
- Use preparation and rehearsal to support Amira
- Connect successful contributions with belonging and self-efficacy
Question 2. Identify TWO changes to the design of the group task that would improve each student’s opportunity to learn the target reasoning. For each change, explain how it would address a specific weakness shown in the documents.
Show the model answer
First, Ms. Chen should structure the investigation around contributions that require every member to analyze evidence. For example, students can initially examine different sources, explain their findings, and then jointly compare the possible locations. Roles should rotate and include interpreting evidence rather than reserving reasoning for the speaker. This addresses the group in which one student writes while others decorate, and it gives the shared product a reason to depend on multiple contributions.
Second, she should require an individual written or recorded explanation after the discussion. Each student should justify a recommendation and respond to a competing interpretation using the maps. This directly matches the stated individual objective and reveals understanding hidden by a strong group poster. She can use those responses to plan brief follow-up instruction. The individual explanation adds accountability without eliminating the opportunity to learn through interaction.
A strong response covers
- Build interdependent contributions around evidence
- Keep reasoning accessible across rotating roles
- Collect an individual explanation aligned with the objective
- Use the evidence to plan follow-up support
