🚀 go-pugleaf

At Portland Public Schools we are using a Writing Assessment guide to
examine certain writing assignments. Normally, writing experts are used
to evaluate the text. This is a slow and laborious process. The idea
of computerizing some or all of the assessment was brought up at a recent
meeting. A visiting Artificial Intelligence expert thought the assessment
presented many interesting problems, and suggested presenting it to a
wider audience.

Writer's Work Bench and similar programs are useful for checking sentence
structure, but what we are interested in is something that can examine a
paper for organization, presentation, word usage, and content.

The assessment is divided up into five areas. Each area has a possible
score of 1, 3, or 5. A perfect paper would receive a score of 25.

The five scored areas for Writing Assessment are : Ideas and Content,
Organization, Voice, Effective Word Choice, and Sentence Structure.

An example of one of the areas is as follows:

                           Analytical Rating Guide

                             IDEAS AND CONTENT

5.  This paper is clear in purpose and conveys ideas in an interesting,
original manner that holds the reader's attention.  Clear, relevant examples,
anecdotes or details develop and enrich the central idea or ideas.

    o   The writer seems to be writing what he or she knows, often from
        experience.
    o   The writer shows insight--a good sense of the world, people, 
        situations.
    o   The writer selects supportive, relevant details that keep the main
        idea(s) in focus.
    o   Primary and secondary ideas are developed in proportion to their
        significance; the writing has a sense of balance.
    o   The writer seems in control of the topic and its development
        throughout.

3.  The writer's purpose is reasonably clear; however, the overall result
may not be especially captivating.  Support is less than adequate to fully
develop the main idea(s).

    o   The reader may not be convinced of the writer's knowledge of the
        topic.
    o   The writer seems to have considered ideas, but not thought things
        through all the way.
    o   Ideas, though reasonably clear and comprehensible, may tend toward the
        mundane; the reader is not sorry to see the paper end.
    o   Supporting details tend to be skimpy, general, predictable, or
        repetitive.  Some details seem included by chance, not selected
        through careful discrimination.
    o   Writing sometimes lacks balance: e.g., too much attention to minor
        details, insufficient development of main ideas, information gaps.
    o   The writer's control of the topic seems inconsistent or uncertain.

1.  This paper lacks a central idea or purpose--or the central idea can be
inferred by the reader only because he or she know the topic (question asked).

    o   Information is very limited (e.g.,  restatement of the prompt, heavy
        reliance on repetition) or simply unclear altogether.
    o   Insight is limited or lacking (e.g., details that do not ring true;
        dependence on platitudes or stereotypes).
    o   Paper lacks balance; development of ideas is minimal, or there may be
        a list of random thoughts from which no central theme emerges.
    o   Writing tends to read like a rote response--merely an effort to get
        something down on paper.
    o   The writer does not seem in control of the topic; shorter papers tend
        to go nowhere, longer papers to wander aimlessly.

I would be very interested in hearing from anyone in netlandia who is working/
has worked/will be working on similar projects. Please follow-up, send email,
or call via landline. Comments are more than welcome. Thank you for your
consideration.

-- 
Steven C. Neighorn                tektronix!{psu-cs,reed}!qiclab!neighorn
Portland Public Schools      "Where we train young Star Fighters to defend the
(503) 249-2000 ext 337           frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada"
QUOTE OF THE DAY ->                'Dr. Ruth is no stranger to friction.'