Six contributions to the same class discussion, from band 5 down to an empty submission, then two more discussion prompts with reference posts annotated requirement by requirement.
Test Ninjas Research · Updated October 1, 2026
These are Test Ninjas’ original practice rubrics, not official ETS scoring. They are written to match the published TOEFL task descriptions, and they use a 0–5 practice band so you can judge one response at a time. The real TOEFL reports each section on a 1–6 band scale (see TOEFL score range), and there is no conversion from a practice band to an official score.
In the Academic Discussion task you join an online class thread: a professor asks a question, two classmates reply, and you add your own view. What separates the levels is rarely vocabulary. Strong posts take a clear position, back it with one well-explained reason or example, and connect to what the others said. Weaker posts state an opinion and stop, or bury it under errors.
The six band examples all answer one prompt. After them come two separate discussion prompts, each with a table showing how the reference post meets every requirement, followed by notes on why it works. More prompts to attempt yourself are on the practice page.
All six posts respond to the same thread about displaying unfinished prototypes. Notice that the top two take the same side; what lifts band 5 is how fully the example is explained and tied back to the classmates’ concerns.
About these examples. Original worked illustrations of the six response-level practice bands. These are editorial teaching judgments, not ETS ratings or human-calibrated samples.
Prompt behind every example: Discuss whether a learning-center exhibition should show unfinished prototypes beside completed work. One classmate emphasizes learning from mistakes; another worries visitors will misinterpret unfinished work.
Practice band 5
I would include a few prototypes, but each should answer a clear question about how the final design improved. A rough object alone offers little explanation. Imagine placing an early bridge model beside its finished version and labeling the joint that failed during testing. Visitors could see both the weakness and the change that solved it, rather than assuming the center accepts unfinished work as its standard. This also gives the students' revisions visible value. The center should therefore select examples for the learning they reveal, not simply display every abandoned draft. A carefully explained comparison would address the concern about appearances while showing why disciplined testing belongs in an exhibition of achievement.
Why this band: The response gives a clear position, develops it through a specific bridge example, and explains how that example addresses the classmates' underlying concerns. The contribution is coherent and uses precise, varied language.
Boundary note: A well-supported argument against displaying prototypes could perform equally well.
Practice band 4
I think the center should show some prototypes next to the final projects. They would help visitors understand how the students improved their work. For example, a bridge model could be shown before and after the students made its supports stronger. A short explanation would tell visitors what went wrong and what the students changed. This would reduce the risk of people thinking that the unfinished version was the final goal. The center should choose a small number of useful examples so the display does not become confusing. Then visitors can appreciate the finished projects and learn about the work behind them too.
Why this band: The position is relevant and adequately supported by a clear example. Language is controlled and easy to follow. The explanation is effective but less fully developed and precise than the stronger anchor.
Boundary note: Simple vocabulary is not itself a weakness. The distinction concerns the overall development and expression; this is an illustrative boundary judgment.
Practice band 3
I agree to show the prototypes because students can learn from mistake. The visitor should see how the work change. For example, a bridge is weak first and later students make it strong. This is useful because nobody do a good project at the beginning. But it need a label or people will thinks the work is not finish. I think the center can explain this and then visitors understand why it is there.
Why this band: A relevant view and example are present, but the explanation is brief and relies on broad claims. Repeated agreement and word-form errors make the contribution less controlled while leaving most of the meaning understandable.
Boundary note: Its length is not the reason for this band. The judgment rests on the limited development and the language actually used.
Practice band 2
Prototype is good for mistake and final is good also. The people seeing both because learning center have learn things. Bridge no good then good is students showing. Visitors not understand but teacher tell. I choose show because important for all.
Why this band: The writer attempts a relevant position and a bridge example, but the relationships between ideas are poorly expressed. The support remains thin, and repeated structural problems make parts difficult to follow.
Boundary note: Do not repair the response in your head and then grade the repaired version.
Practice band 1
My idea show. Old bridge bad. New bridge good. Visitors learning. Important center.
Why this band: The response contains topic-related words and a rudimentary view but almost no connected development. It provides too little controlled language to communicate a meaningful contribution.
Boundary note: A brief but coherent explanation would deserve a different judgment; fragments are the issue here.
Practice band 0
No response — a deliberately empty submission.
Why this band: A functioning attempt was deliberately submitted without a contribution.
Boundary note: Do not use this score when a saved response is unavailable because of a system failure.
Score your own discussion post
Use the level-by-level Writing rubric and its self-scoring steps.
These threads come from the Test Ninjas TOEFL course. Each reference post is one strong answer. Taking the other side, or a middle position, can score equally well if it is relevant and well supported.
1. Keeping an imperfect prototype visible
The prompt
Professor Ellis: When a learning center plans an exhibition, should it place unfinished prototypes beside polished projects, or should it reserve the space for completed achievements only? Showing prototypes can reveal how people test ideas and recover from errors, but it might also leave visitors thinking half-built work is what the center values. How should the center decide?
Ana: I'm with the first view, because visitors who see a rough prototype can understand that error is part of the process. If a student notices a failed bridge model before the final version, she may feel less ashamed of her own mistakes and more willing to revise.
Ben: I lean the other way. Many visitors will not know the context, so a broken-looking prototype could seem careless rather than instructive. If a parent tours the center and sees several incomplete projects, he may leave thinking the program rewards half-finished work instead of disciplined achievement.
Write a contribution to the discussion. Express and support your view in your own words, building on the discussion with a reason or example. Aim for at least 100 words. You have 10 minutes.
What the post must do
Requirement
How the reference response meets it
Respond to the professor's dilemma about unfinished prototypes versus finished achievements.
This sentence answers the professor's dilemma by proposing a specific way to display prototypes instead of choosing visibility or secrecy in general. “If the center organizes the display around one design question”
Explain and support your own position with a developed reason or relevant example.
This directly engages the value of showing unfinished work while acknowledging the risk that it could be mistaken for the norm. “a prototype can remain visible without pretending to be a finished standard.”
Add an original contribution that engages at least one existing idea in the discussion.
This develops the model's criterion: the display should be organized so visitors can tell exploration from completion. “the display should depend on whether context makes exploration obvious.”
Reference response · illustrative practice band 4–5
I would not treat this as a simple choice between exposing drafts and hiding them. If the center organizes the display around one design question, a prototype can remain visible without pretending to be a finished standard. For example, a section labeled "How can a chair stay light but support weight?" could show an early wobbling model, a revised version, and the final piece. That helps visitors read the objects as steps in inquiry, not as the center's expectations. Still, if the learning center cannot give that framing, the second concern matters: a loose prototype may look like an unfinished promise rather than productive learning. So the display should depend on whether context makes exploration obvious.
Why it works: The response addresses the professor's display dilemma, links itself to the idea that prototypes can reveal inquiry, and also recognizes the risk that visitors may misread unfinished work. It adds an original criterion—whether the display context makes exploration obvious—and supports it with a specific hypothetical chair exhibit. The answer stays balanced rather than declaring one side universally correct.
The response directly addresses the display dilemma instead of drifting into a general discussion of exhibits.
It develops the learning-value idea with a concrete chair example and a visible progression from draft to final piece.
It also preserves the misunderstanding concern by saying framing matters when context is weak.
The ending gives a clear decision rule based on whether the exhibition makes exploration obvious.
These are features of this model response; other defensible positions and examples can also meet the task requirements.
This model is one defensible contribution. Credit other relevant, well-supported positions and examples; do not require its viewpoint, decision rule, compromise, or explicit agreement with both students. The 100-word recommendation is guidance, not an automatic score cutoff.
2. Free bus rides for everyone
The prompt
Dr. Rosales: This week we've been looking at how cities pay for public transportation. In most cities, fares cover only part of what the buses cost to run, and taxes pay for the rest. A few cities have gone further: they have stopped charging fares altogether and pay for the whole service through taxes. Do you think cities should make their buses free to ride? Why or why not?
Maya: I think free buses are a great idea. When a ride costs nothing, people who usually drive short distances might try the bus instead, and that would mean less traffic and cleaner air downtown. Also, drivers wouldn't have to deal with payments, so passengers could board through every door and buses would move faster.
Kwame: I'm not convinced. I suspect many of the new riders wouldn't be drivers at all but people who now walk or cycle short trips. Then the buses would get more crowded while the number of cars downtown hardly changed. If the city wants less traffic, making downtown parking more expensive would probably work better than giving rides away.
Write a contribution to the discussion. Express and support your view in your own words, building on the discussion with a reason or example. Aim for at least 100 words. You have 10 minutes.
What the post must do
Requirement
How the reference response meets it
Take a position on whether cities should make their buses free to ride.
Takes a clear position in favor of free buses. “They make the city easier to move around for the people with the least money”
Support the position with a reason or example that goes beyond Maya's points about traffic and boarding speed and Kwame's point about who the new riders would be.
Adds a new, separately developed reason. “Collecting fares is not free, since a city needs ticket machines, card systems, and staff to check tickets”
Engage with at least one student's idea while adding a new contribution to the discussion.
Engages Kwame by conceding his prediction and reinterpreting it. “Kwame's prediction may well be correct, but I don't think it is an argument against free buses”
Reference response · illustrative practice band 4–5
Kwame's prediction may well be correct, but I don't think it is an argument against free buses. If many new riders are people who used to walk or cycle, the bus is finally reaching people who were getting around with difficulty: an older man walking twenty minutes to the pharmacy, or a parent crossing town with two children because a family's fares add up quickly. Moving those people is exactly what public transportation is for, even if it does little for traffic. There is also a cost argument. Collecting fares is not free, since a city needs ticket machines, card systems, and staff to check tickets, and in a small system those costs can swallow a large share of what the fares bring in. So the question isn't only whether free buses remove cars. They make the city easier to move around for the people with the least money, often at a smaller net cost than it seems.
Why it works: The response accepts Kwame's prediction about who the new riders would be and then argues that serving those riders is a reason to make buses free. It adds a separate point that neither student made, the cost of collecting fares, and ends with a clear answer to the professor's question.
The question is two-sided: Maya argues from traffic, air quality and faster boarding, Kwame that new riders would come mostly from walking and cycling, so crowding rises without fewer cars. Access for people with little money, the cost of collecting fares, the stability of funding and the fairness of paying through taxes remain open for a new contribution.
This model accepts Kwame's prediction but turns it into a reason for free fares: moving people who walk or cycle out of necessity is itself a purpose of public transportation.
It adds a second, separate argument about what fare collection costs, and it supports both points with general reasoning and short illustrations rather than a personal story.
These are features of this model response; other defensible positions and examples can also meet the task requirements.
This model is one defensible contribution. Credit other relevant, well-supported positions and examples; do not require its viewpoint, decision rule, compromise, or explicit agreement with both students. The 100-word recommendation is guidance, not an automatic score cutoff.
Try more prompts yourself
4 more prompts, each with a timer, a short checklist and a model to compare against once you have written your own, are on the Academic Discussion practice questions page:
No. The bands are Test Ninjas’ editorial teaching judgments on an original 0–5 practice scale, not ETS ratings. The official TOEFL reports Writing on a 1–6 band scale, and there is no conversion from our practice bands.
Our practice prompts ask you to aim for at least 100 words, and the reference posts here run from about 115 to 160. Length helps only when it carries development; extra sentences that restate the same point add nothing.
No. You can agree, disagree or propose a middle path. What matters is that your contribution is relevant to the professor’s question and that you explain why you hold it.
It helps when you are building on or answering a specific point, because it shows you engaged with the discussion. Naming them without engaging their idea does not add anything.