Writing Assessment · Years 3–12
Most writing assessment tools tell you where students are. Writeiq tells you what to do about it — for every student, every teacher, and every leader in your school.
Which students are below band? What do I teach this week? Whose work could I use as a model? Which students have moved since last term? And for leadership: where is literacy weakest across the school, and what is the evidence?
Writeiq answers all of these from a single assessment event. No manual marking. No spreadsheet. No separate report. The answer is ready before you leave the room.
Every time a student submits their writing, Writeiq produces three simultaneous outputs: criterion-by-criterion feedback for the student, a class diagnostic with Teach Next lesson plan for the teacher, and a whole-school literacy heatmap for leadership. No other writing assessment tool does all three from one event.
Teachers set the task — genre, year level, prompt, time limit. Students write on any device. Writeiq applies the Integrated Writing Assessment Framework (IWAF v2.3), scoring up to 10 criteria across 26 logic gates in seconds. Results appear immediately.
Criterion-by-criterion feedback written in language the student can act on. Band result, individual scores, and one specific next step. Delivered the moment they submit.
Class grouped by Writeiq band. Teach Next panel names the single highest-leverage criterion to address with a complete GRR lesson plan ready to use. Leverage students identified by name for peer models.
Whole-school band heatmap. At-risk students surfaced automatically. Growth tracked term-on-term per student and per criterion. Evidence of whole-school literacy progress without any additional workload.
Scan handwritten student work with a phone camera. The image feeds directly into the same assessment engine. No typing required. Available as an add-on or included in Growth and Large tiers.
Submissions are checked for content that may indicate a student is at risk. The submission is held for teacher review before feedback is shown to the student.
Victorian Curriculum 2.0, Australian Curriculum v9, IB MYP, IB PYP, VCE, NESA, QCAA, WASCSA, and UK National Curriculum. Nine frameworks run simultaneously from a single assessment event.
Most writing assessment tools produce a score and charge per submission. That is where they stop. Writeiq starts where those tools end — unlimited submissions on a flat school licence, connecting every result to what the teacher does next, what the student improves next, and what leadership prioritises next.
| Capability | Score-only assessment tools | Writeiq |
|---|---|---|
| Student receives a score | ✓ | ✓ |
| Student receives criterion-level feedback in plain language | ✗ | ✓ |
| Student receives one specific, actionable next step | ✗ | ✓ |
| Student can get feedback on a draft before submitting | ✗ | ✓ Draft → Revise cycle |
| Student can practise with instant feedback at any time | ✗ | ✓ Practice Mode |
| Unlimited submissions per student — no per-credit or per-marking charges | ✗ Per submission or credit-based | ✓ Flat annual school licence |
| Transparent, published pricing — no quote required | ✗ Contact for quote | ✓ |
| No student accounts or IT provisioning required | ✗ | ✓ QR code or class code entry |
| Three audiences from one submission — student, teacher, leadership | ✗ | ✓ |
| Teacher sees class grouped by band with named students | Partial | ✓ |
| Teacher is told exactly what to teach next with a full lesson plan | ✗ | ✓ Teach Next + GRR plan |
| Teacher sees which students are near a band boundary | ✗ | ✓ Boundary students flagged |
| Teacher receives leverage students for peer models | ✗ | ✓ |
| Teacher can compare two classes side-by-side | ✗ | ✓ |
| Results mapped to 9 curriculum frameworks simultaneously | ✗ | ✓ VC2, AC9, MYP, VCE, NESA, QCAA, WASCSA, UK NC, PYP |
| Works for both primary and secondary (Years 3–12) | Partial | ✓ |
| Scan and mark handwritten work — individual or full class batch | ✗ | ✓ Writeiq Vision — auto-matches student names from roster |
| Leadership sees whole-school band heatmap | ✗ | ✓ |
| At-risk students surfaced automatically | ✗ | ✓ |
| Growth tracked per student per criterion across multiple tasks | ✗ | ✓ |
| Year-on-year cohort improvement tracked | ✗ | ✓ |
| Parent report sent directly from teacher’s school email | ✗ | ✓ No data leaves Writeiq |
| Safeguarding concern detection | ✗ | ✓ |
| Submission queued and retried if offline | ✗ | ✓ |
| Student data stays in Australia | Varies | ✓ AWS Sydney |
Writeiq does not just produce a score out of 100. Every result is mapped to the curriculum code, the curriculum descriptor, and the achievement standard language of each active framework — simultaneously. A NSW school using NESA sees EN4 and EN5 outcome references against each criterion. A Queensland school using QCAA sees achievement standard terminology in QLD language. A Victorian school using VC2.0 sees VCELY codes and Level 7–10 achievement descriptors. All nine frameworks run in parallel from the same assessment event, with no extra work required from the teacher.
| Framework | Below standard | Approaching | At standard | Exceeding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victorian Curriculum 2.0 | Below | Approaching | At Standard | Exceeding |
| Australian Curriculum v9 | Below | Approaching | At Standard | Exceeding |
| NSW — NESA | Working Towards | Sound | Thorough | Outstanding |
| Queensland — QCAA | Limited | Sound | Strong | Excellent |
| Western Australia — WASCSA | Beginning | Developing | Achieving | Extending |
| IB PYP (Years 3–6) | Phase 2–3 | Phase 3 | Phase 3–4 | Phase 4–5 |
| IB MYP (Years 7–10) | Criterion levels 1–8 mapped to band | |||
| VCE (Years 11–12) | N | S / C | B | A |
| UK National Curriculum (KS2–KS5) | Below Expected | Expected | Above Expected | Greater Depth |
OnDemand used to map student writing results to curriculum standards. It no longer exists. Writeiq does what OnDemand did — and substantially more. It maps to nine frameworks simultaneously, including every Australian state and territory curriculum, the full IB continuum from PYP through MYP to DP, VCE, and the UK National Curriculum. One assessment. Every framework your school reports against. Run in parallel.
Students get full Writeiq feedback — band, criterion scores, and one clear next step — on any piece of writing, any time. Nothing is saved. The teacher never sees it.
A student preparing a VCE essay can paste their draft, select the writing type and year level, and get the same criterion-by-criterion feedback Writeiq produces in a real assessment. No task required. No teacher setup. No submission record.
It removes the stakes from the feedback loop. Students who are anxious about assessment will practise more when the practice is private. By the time the assessed task runs, they already understand what Writeiq looks for.
The teacher clicks a QR icon next to their class in the teacher view. A full-screen QR code appears. Students scan it with their phone camera. They land directly in the Writeiq student view with their class code already filled in.
No URL to read aloud. No code to copy from the board. No student typing the wrong thing. One scan and they are in the task.
Writeiq assesses narrative, persuasive, recount, analytical, primary narrative, and primary persuasive writing. Each mode has a separate calibrated scoring pathway. The IWAF v2.3 applies up to 10 scored criteria across 26 logic gates — 58 framework combinations validated.
The Teach Next panel does not just name a criterion. It generates a complete GRR lesson plan using the Anthropic language model — structured in seven phases: Starter, I Do (Explicit Modelling), We Do Guided, Check for Understanding (hinge question), We Do Collaborative, You Do, Exit Ticket. Every plan includes differentiation, anticipated misconceptions, and a teaching cycle guidance note.
Plans are calibrated to the year level, the writing mode, and the specific criterion identified by the assessment. A Teach Next plan for Sentence Craft in Year 9 Narrative looks different from one for Text Structure in Year 5 Persuasive. The plan is generated from the class’s actual assessment data — not from a template library.
The lesson plan engine is grounded in Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction, Fisher and Frey’s Gradual Release of Responsibility model, and Wiliam’s embedded assessment practices. These are the research frameworks your teachers already know. The plans are practical and immediately usable.
Every plan is different because every class is different. The criterion, year level, writing mode, band distribution, and specific student results all shape what gets generated. No two plans are the same.
The IWAF framework draws on three decades of writing research. Genre theory — the idea that writing is purposeful, social, and taught explicitly — underpins every scoring mode. The Teach Next panel is structured on the Gradual Release of Responsibility model. The band system reflects visible learning research on feedback that is specific, criterial, and actionable.
This is not a rubric dressed up in software. The framework was built to answer the question writing assessment has always struggled with: not just where is this student, but what is the teacher supposed to do next?
Writing is purposeful, audience-aware, and structured by social purpose. The IWAF modes — narrative, persuasive, recount, analytical — are not arbitrary. Each reflects a genre with distinct structural and linguistic features that can be explicitly taught and reliably assessed.
The Teach Next lesson plans are structured around I Do, We Do, You Do. This is not a stylistic choice. GRR is one of the most consistently effective instructional sequences for writing, grounded in decades of classroom research on how students acquire complex skills.
Effective feedback is specific, timely, and tied to a criterion the student can act on. Writeiq’s student output is designed around this: one next step, in student language, tied to the criterion with the most room to move. Not a general comment. A specific lever.
Writeiq was built for Australian schools but is not limited to them. The nine supported frameworks include the full IB continuum (PYP, MYP, DP language arts) and the UK National Curriculum across KS2 to KS5. Any school in the world running IB or using the UK curriculum can use Writeiq without modification.
The writing modes — narrative, persuasive, recount, analytical — are internationally recognised genre categories assessed in New Zealand, the UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, and across the IB world. The IWAF scoring framework is mode-specific, not curriculum-specific. A school in London, Kuala Lumpur, or Singapore can select their framework, run the assessment, and see results in their own standard-level language.
Every tier includes the full assessment engine. No feature gates on the core product — what changes with tier is school size, not what the product does.
Annual licence per school. No per-student, per-teacher, or per-submission charges. Small (≤300 students) $3,600/yr · Standard (301–600) $5,400/yr · Growth (601–1,200) $8,400/yr · Large (1,200+) from $12,000/yr. Pilot is free.
Pilot is free. No financial commitment required. Term 2 2026.