What this rubric measures
The OST Holistic Informative/Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 6–HS is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on Ohio State Test (OST) assessments. It is an Holistic rubric that scores responses across 3 distinct criteria, allowing teachers to give precise, targeted feedback on each area of writing.
All 3 scoring criteria
Click any criterion to expand its score level descriptors. The language below is taken verbatim from the official Ohio Department of Education State Test (OST) scoring guide.
1 Purpose, Focus, and Organization
The response is exemplary and reflects original writing throughout that directly addresses the topic. It has a clearly stated thesis statement and is focused on the audience and purpose of the task. The organizational structure creates clarity and completeness. The response includes most of the following:
- a thesis statement that is strongly maintained throughout,
- little, if any, loosely related material,
- a clearly evident organizational structure that includes a skillfully crafted introduction and conclusion,
- a logical progression of ideas that reflects a skillful use of transitional strategies to move from one idea to another, and
- an appropriate style and an objective tone that are established and maintained.
The response is adequate and reflects original writing that reasonably addresses the topic. It has a thesis statement and is generally focused on the audience and purpose of the task. The organizational structure adequately reflects a sense of completeness. The response includes most of the following:
- a thesis statement that is evident throughout,
- some loosely related material,
- an adequate organizational structure that includes an introduction and conclusion, and
- a progression of ideas that includes basic transitional strategies to move from one idea to another.
The response is limited and reflects some original writing that is related to the topic. It has a thesis statement that is partially focused on the audience and purpose of the task. The organizational structure is inconsistent. The response includes most of the following:
- a limited thesis statement that is unclear or insufficiently sustained throughout,
- some loosely related material,
- an inconsistent organizational structure that has little or no evidence of an introduction or conclusion, and
- an uneven progression of ideas with an inconsistent use of transitions.
The response is minimal and reflects little original writing that may be loosely related to the topic. It reflects little awareness of the audience or purpose of the task. There is a minimally constructed thesis statement with little or no obvious organizational structure. The response may include the following:
- a thesis statement that may be inadequate, confusing, or ambiguous,
- loosely related or unrelated material,
- little or no evidence of an organizational structure, and
- ideas minimally related to the topic with few transitions and little or no progression.
Purpose/Focus/Organization on the Grades 6 to HS Informational rubric names a thesis statement (not a topic) and adds an objective tone descriptor at score 4 that does not appear on the Grades 3 to 5 Informative/Explanatory rubric.
2 Evidence and Elaboration
The response is exemplary and includes thorough and convincing evidence from all sources, that is well integrated throughout and directly related to the purpose of the task. It includes reference to the sources as well as relevant evidence, facts, and details from all sources. Elaboration of evidence is focused, original writing and is clearly connected to the thesis statement. The response includes most of the following:
- a clear relationship between points and evidence,
- effective use of a variety of relevant elaborative techniques (including but not limited to definitions, quotations, and examples), and
- the use of precise academic and domain-specific vocabulary that is clearly appropriate for the task.
The response is adequate and includes evidence from all sources that may not be specific but is generally integrated into the response and is related to the purpose of the task. It includes some reference to the source and is related to the purpose of the task. It includes the use of evidence, facts, and details that are from all sources and generally connected to the thesis statement. Elaboration of evidence is original writing but may be generalized. The response includes most of the following:
- an adequate relationship between points and evidence,
- adequate elaboration on the evidence included, and
- academic and domain-specific vocabulary that is generally appropriate for the audience and purpose.
The response is limited and includes uneven, cursory support and evidence related to a thesis statement and the purpose of the task. There is an ineffective use of sources, facts, and details. Elaboration contains limited original writing. The response includes most of the following:
- weakly integrated evidence from sources that may be erratic and may include some irrelevant references,
- repetitive or ineffective use of elaborative techniques, and
- limited or ineffective academic or domain-specific vocabulary.
The response is minimal and includes little or no support or evidence related to a thesis statement and the purpose of the task. There is little or no use of the sources and minimal inclusion of facts and details. The response may include the following:
- minimal, absent, erroneous, or irrelevant evidence or references from the source material,
- elaboration that has no original text, is vague, lacks clarity, or is confusing, and
- minimal or inappropriate academic or domain-specific vocabulary.
Evidence and Elaboration does not include a score 0 descriptor. A response that fails to develop ideas at all collapses to score 1 (minimal) on this dimension.
3 Conventions
The response demonstrates an adequate command of basic conventions. The response includes most of the following:
- a few minor errors in usage, but no patterns of errors,
- variation of sentence structure, and
- adequate use of punctuation, capitalization, sentence formation, and spelling.
The response demonstrates a partial command of basic conventions. The response may include the following:
- various errors in usage,
- simple sentence structures that do not vary, and
- inconsistent use of correct punctuation, capitalization, sentence formation, and spelling that minimally impacts meaning.
The response demonstrates a lack of command of conventions, with frequent and severe errors often obscuring meaning.
The Conventions descriptor is identical across all four OST writing rubrics.
How to score with the OST Holistic Informative/Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 6–HS.
A practical guide for teachers and norming teams. How to apply each descriptor consistently, the pitfalls that hurt inter-rater reliability, and a workflow for calibrating with colleagues.
Three-dimension holistic, scored independently
- Score Purpose, Focus, and Organization (1 to 4) and Evidence and Elaboration (1 to 4), then Conventions (0 to 2). Sum for the rubric total out of 10.
- Each dimension is scored independently. A response can earn 4 on Purpose/Focus/Organization but only 2 on Evidence/Elaboration, or vice versa.
- Unlike Texas STAAR, OST does NOT zero out other dimensions when one scores 0.
Thesis statement and objective tone at Grades 6 to HS
- At Grades 6 to HS, the controlling-idea language shifts from topic (used at Grades 3 to 5) to thesis statement. A response without an explicit thesis typically caps at 2 on Purpose/Focus/Organization.
- The score 4 descriptor adds an appropriate style and an objective tone that are established and maintained. Informational writing that drifts into argumentation or first-person opinion typically caps at 3.
- Unlike the Grades 6 to HS Argumentation rubric, the Informational rubric does NOT require addressing alternate or opposing claims.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Confusing Informational with Argumentation. Informational presents a thesis to explain or inform; it does NOT take a defensible position. A response with a clear argumentative claim should be scored under Argumentation if the prompt allows.
- Awarding score 4 to a response with strong analysis but a non-objective (persuasive or personal) tone. Objective tone is part of the score 4 descriptor at this grade band.
- Penalizing students for using only one source. The rubric uses the phrase from all sources. If the prompt provides one source, evidence from one source can earn the top score.
Tips for norming with your team
- Anchor with 3 to 5 sample responses scored by your most experienced grader before the session.
- Score the first 5 silently, then compare. Discuss any dimension where graders are more than one point apart.
- Re-norm halfway through a long batch. Drift is real.
Notes for the OST Holistic Informative/Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 6–HS
The OST Informational rubric is the secondary-grade informative/explanatory writing rubric for the Ohio State Test ELA assessment. It runs from Grade 6 through High School. The 3-dimension structure is identical to the other OST writing rubrics.
Two grade-specific shifts distinguish this rubric from its elementary counterpart. First, the controlling-idea language moves from topic to thesis statement. Second, the score 4 descriptor on Purpose/Focus/Organization adds an appropriate style and an objective tone that are established and maintained. Both shifts raise the bar for secondary-grade informational writing.
Unlike the Grades 6 to HS Argumentation rubric, the Informational rubric does NOT include a counterclaim asterisk or any requirement to address alternate views. Informational responses present a thesis to explain or inform, not to argue.
OST applies condition codes (which receive no points) to responses that cannot be scored against the rubric. Examples include blank responses, responses written off-topic, and responses written in a language other than English.
See this rubric in action.
EnlightenAI scores student writing on this exact rubric, with per-criterion feedback that mirrors how you grade by hand. The sample response below shows how the rubric applies to a real piece of student writing, scored against every criterion.
Why paper maps still matter in the GPS era
Paper maps continue to serve specific purposes that digital navigation cannot replace, particularly in situations where reliability, situational awareness, and durability outweigh the convenience of a screen. The two sources, taken together, describe a tool that has narrowed in everyday use but deepened in specialized value.
Reliability without infrastructure
Source 1, a US Geological Survey field-operations report, notes that paper maps require no batteries, no cellular signal, and no satellite coverage. The report cites multi-day search-and-rescue operations in remote terrain where the team carried both GPS devices and paper topographic maps and relied on the paper maps for over 60 percent of route decisions due to intermittent signal coverage. The argument is not nostalgia. It is that the failure mode of paper is gentler than the failure mode of a device.
Situational awareness at a glance
Source 2, an interview with a National Park Service interpretive ranger, observes that paper maps display roughly 200 times more terrain at a glance than a typical smartphone screen. The ranger explains that this matters less for getting from point A to point B than for understanding the relationship between A and B and the surrounding landscape. Hikers who carry paper maps tend to know where they are within a broader region; hikers who rely only on GPS often know only the next turn.
Durability across conditions
Both sources note that paper maps printed on synthetic waterproof stock can survive rain, mud, and being folded thousands of times. A single map can last a decade in field conditions, while smartphones used outdoors typically need replacement every two to three years. The long lifespan, combined with the low per-unit cost, gives paper maps a place in any operation where multiple users need durable, reliable references.
Conclusion
Paper maps have shifted from primary tool to specialized backup, but the shift has not made them obsolete. In environments where infrastructure fails, where situational awareness matters more than turn-by-turn directions, or where durability is required across years of use, paper maps offer reliability that no digital tool currently matches. The two together work better than either alone.
Clear thesis, established objective tone, skillful transitions
Thesis is stated in the intro and maintained across three body sections. Objective tone is established and maintained throughout. Skillful transitional strategies link sections. Skillfully crafted introduction and conclusion.
Thorough evidence from both sources, well-integrated
Strong evidence from both sources (60 percent route-decisions stat from USGS, 200-times terrain claim from NPS ranger) integrated throughout with explicit reference. Effective elaborative techniques. Precise vocabulary (topographic maps, situational awareness, failure mode).
Adequate command of basic conventions
Sentence structure varies, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling are accurate, and minor errors do not pattern. Meets the score 2 descriptor on the OST Conventions dimension.
Score this rubric consistently, with the feedback students actually use
EnlightenAI is trained on your standards and your exemplars, then scores at the speed of your classroom.
Trained on your rubric
Upload this rubric, or any custom one, and the AI learns your exact criteria, descriptor language, and score level boundaries.
Per-criterion feedback
Students receive specific, actionable comments tied to each criterion, exactly the way you'd grade by hand.
Built for K–12 schools
Roster sync, FERPA-aligned data handling, and per-school configuration so every campus uses the same standards.
About the OST Holistic Informative/Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 6–HS
What is the Ohio State Test Informative/Explanatory Writing Rubric for Grades 6 to HS?
How is this different from the Grades 3 to 5 OST Informative/Explanatory rubric?
How is this different from the Grades 6 to HS Argumentation rubric?
Is this rubric the official version from ODE?
Where can I find the source document?
Can EnlightenAI score student writing using this rubric?
Use this rubric in EnlightenAI
Train EnlightenAI on the OST Holistic Informative/Explanatory Writing Rubric, Grades 6–HS and start scoring student writing, with consistent per-dimension feedback, in a single class period.