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.
Setting
Ms. Ortega teaches a grade 3 class studying how people can investigate changes in a model landscape. Students have practiced describing observations but are beginning to connect observations to explanations. They work in groups using shallow trays, soil, small blocks, and carefully controlled amounts of water. The lesson’s goal is to explain a difference between two model trials using recorded observations. The class includes students with varied reading proficiency and several students developing English. Ms. Ortega has taught materials routines and safety expectations. She wants the investigation to support shared reasoning rather than become a contest to finish first.
Document 1: Lesson plan excerpt
The opening activity asks students to recall a place where they have noticed water moving outdoors. Groups will select an arrangement from provided plans, predict what they will observe, and make drawings before and after each trial. The recording sheet contains a long written direction paragraph, a blank area labeled results, and a space for a group conclusion. Ms. Ortega plans to explain the sheet orally, then allow groups to work independently. The proposed final task asks each student to explain which observation supports the group’s conclusion. She has reserved time for a brief discussion but has not planned a model of an evidence-based explanation.
Document 2: Observation notes
During the opening conversation, Amira points to a photograph and describes water collecting near a curb using gestures, short English phrases, and a word from her home language. Ms. Ortega paraphrases the idea accurately, and Amira nods. During group work, Amira carefully draws the trial changes and points out a difference between the drawings. A partner says that only complete written sentences count as results. Amira then stops offering suggestions. Another student, Joel, repeatedly asks whether his conclusion is right before writing anything. He can describe what he saw when the teacher asks specific questions, but he says, “I always get science explanations wrong.” The group recorder writes a conclusion without asking either student to explain the drawings.
Document 3: Student work and conference notes
The group’s sheet contains detailed drawings but little written evidence. Its conclusion states a preference for one arrangement without linking that preference to an observation. In a brief conference, Amira accurately identifies the changed area in both drawings and uses arrows to show the movement she observed. Joel points to the same area but waits for the teacher to supply the explanatory words. A different group has a fluent written conclusion that refers to a feature it never recorded. Ms. Ortega notes that neat writing and fast completion have made it difficult to see who understands the relationship between evidence and explanation. She also notices that the recorder role has become the decision-maker role in several groups.
Planning context
The class will revisit the models during the next lesson. Ms. Ortega can use the existing drawings, photographs, and materials again. The language-development teacher can briefly consult about supports, and the classroom teacher can confer with a small group while other students work on a familiar observation task. She wants every student to contribute meaningful evidence and to become more independent in explaining it.
