Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs) are embedded in curriculum frameworks internationally to describe the quality of student achievement (Cizek & Bunch, 2007; Sadler, 1987). These frameworks respond to legitimate concerns about the limitations of numerical scores and provide a common language for describing achievement. However, existing approaches to PLDs face a persistent dilemma: they tend to be either too generic to guide classroom assessment or too holistic to provide diagnostic information (Sadler, 2009; Wyatt-Smith, Klenowski, & Colbert, 2014).
In Australia's New South Wales curriculum, for example, the Common Grade Scale describes achievement from A to E using broad descriptors such as "the student has an extensive knowledge and understanding of the content and can readily apply this knowledge" (Level A) or "a sound knowledge and understanding of the main areas of content" (Level C). While these descriptors provide consistent language for reporting, they do not specify what "extensive knowledge" or "sound understanding" looks like for particular subjects or curriculum outcomes. Subject-specific Course Performance Descriptors exist for some stages, but these describe holistic profiles of achievement - what an A student in English looks like overall - rather than differentiating components of performance or connecting to specific curriculum outcomes. Teachers are required to make holistic judgements without explicit inferential warrants (Wyatt-Smith, Klenowski, & Colbert, 2014). This challenge is common across standards-referenced systems internationally; the translation from generic descriptors to specific assessment judgements remains under-theorised (Dolin & Evans, 2017; Harlen, 2005). The tension between system-level consistency and classroom-level specificity is a global problem.
This paper addresses the question: How can Performance Level Descriptors be operationalised to support warranted teacher inference at the classroom level?
We propose a framework that addresses this gap by synthesising three research traditions. First, research on disciplinary competency dimensions identifies what constitutes competent performance across domains - factual knowledge, core concepts, disciplinary skills and practices, and metacognition (e.g., Liu, Rogat, & Bertling, 2013). Second, research on transfer and assessment of learning outcomes distinguishes levels of cognitive demand - from recall of presented material through application in new situations to solving novel problems (e.g., Mayer, 2011; Barnett & Ceci, 2002). Third, research on expressions of quality articulates intellectual standards that characterise quality thinking - clarity, precision, logic, accuracy, relevance, and depth (e.g., Paul & Elder, 2019). From this synthesis, we derive six components of performance level descriptions - knowledge integration and use, conceptual understanding, reasoning and metacognition, disciplinary practice, skill fluency, and communication - that apply across subjects while manifesting differently for different content.
We argue that valid inference from student performance to achievement level requires operationalisation at the intersection of these components and specific curriculum outcomes. Drawing on argument-based validity frameworks (Kane, 2013; Toulmin, 2003), we present a specification structure that makes explicit: (a) which curriculum outcomes are being assessed, (b) what each component means for those specific outcomes, (c) what observable evidence warrants each level of placement, and (d) the limits of generalisability from any single task. The specification documents the inferential argument, making visible the warrants that are typically implicit in teacher judgement.
The framework is demonstrated through an assessment task developed for Stage 2 (Years 3–4) students in NSW. The task integrates English outcomes (persuasive writing) with social studies curriculum outcomes (comparing conservation and sustainability; Aboriginal sustainable land management practices). The design process articulates what each PLD component looks like for these particular outcomes, and reveals how task conditions must be engineered to elicit evidence for specific component-outcome intersections and how readily a task can fail to create these conditions if designed generically.

This paper reports the theoretical and design phases of a design-based research program (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). It does not report an empirical study of student performance or teacher judgement; rather, it develops a theoretical framework, and demonstrates its application through iterative task design. Problem identification emerged through professional engagement with PLDs in the NSW context, where teachers are expected to assess and report against PLD levels but receive limited guidance on operationalising generic descriptors for specific tasks. While argument-based validity frameworks (Kane, 2013) provide robust tools for evaluating large-scale assessments, and while PLD development literature addresses system-level design, little work addresses how teachers might construct warranted inferences from classroom tasks to PLD placements. This gap exists wherever standards-referenced assessment is implemented. Framework development proceeded through design-based research (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), combining the theoretical synthesis described above with iterative refinement through teacher focus groups across Key Learning Areas (n=52 primary and secondary teachers). Teacher professional knowledge was positioned not as implementation feedback but as a theoretical contribution, with disciplinary expertise revealing where universal cognitive frameworks required translation to respect epistemological differences (Kesidou, 2025). This synthesis produced six components describing lenses through which to view quality in student performance - knowledge integration and use, conceptual understanding, reasoning and metacognition, disciplinary practice, skill fluency, and communication - each grounded in specific research traditions. Critically, we then asked: what would it mean for a PLD placement to be warranted? Drawing on Toulmin's (2003) argument structure, we recognised that generic components alone cannot warrant inference. Components must combine with specific curriculum outcomes to produce an intersection - where a component like 'reasoning and metacognition' meets an outcome like 'compare conservation and sustainability' - that is the actual target of assessment. It is at this intersection that warrants must be articulated. Demonstration involved developing assessment tasks and specifications documenting target inferences. This was iterative: initial designs failed to create conditions for the intended inferences, requiring reconceptualisation of tasks and stimulus materials - evidence of the framework's capacity to reveal problems invisible in generic task design. Next steps involve empirical validation: testing whether teachers can use the specification structure reliably and whether intersection-level descriptors differentiate student performance as predicted. This work is currently underway.

This paper addresses a problem common across standards-referenced systems: the gap between generic level PLDs and the specific inferences teachers must make in classroom practice. The analysis yields two primary results: first, theoretically-grounded PLD components as lenses for observing quality in student performance; second, a specification structure for documenting warranted inference at the PLD component - curriculum outcome intersection. Three implications follow. For assessment theory: The component-outcome intersection resolves the generic/holistic dilemma by providing a unit of assessment that is both specific (tied to particular curriculum outcomes) and differentiated (distinguishing components of performance). The framework extends argument-based validity approaches (Kane, 2013) to teacher judgement - not to burden teachers with documentation - but to clarify the inferential structure underlying assessment. This contributes to international dialogue on assessment quality, where tensions between standardisation and professional judgement remain contested (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 1998; Dolin & Evans, 2017; Harlen, 2005). For practice: Teachers need more than generic scales or holistic profiles. This framework offers theoretically grounded PLD components that provide lenses for observing student performance and a specification structure for documenting how these components manifest for particular curriculum outcomes. This creates artefacts that can be shared, critiqued, and refined through collegial moderation - making explicit the reasoning that expert teachers often hold tacitly (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2014). For policy: If valid application requires outcome-specific operationalisation, curriculum & assessment authorities in standards-referenced systems should demonstrate this process through case studies supporting teacher professional learning. The conference theme calls for dialogue between researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers, and for recognition of diverse knowledge forms. This framework enacts that dialogue: making research-informed assessment reasoning accessible to teachers while drawing on their disciplinary expertise as a theoretical resource. A PLD placement is an inference, made in context, requiring the kind of situated professional knowledge the theme foregrounds.

Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage. Dolin, J., & Evans, R. (Eds.). (2017). Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy. Springer. Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative practices and assessment for learning: Tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207–223. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. Kesidou, S. (2025, December). Designing for quality across the curriculum: A tiered performance standards framework. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Annual Conference, Newcastle, Australia. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2014). Assessment for education: Standards, judgement and moderation. Sage. Liu, O. L., Rogat, A., & Bertling, J. P. (2013). A CBAL science model of cognition. ETS Research Report Series. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools (8th ed.). Foundation for Critical Thinking. Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 191–209. Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. Wyatt-Smith, Klenowski, V., & Colbert, P. (Eds.), (2014). Designing assessment for quality learning. Springer.