Writeiq → Research & accuracy
The work behind the marker

The research behind the score.

Writeiq's marking framework, IWAF, is built on decades of writing-assessment research. This page sets out the methodology, the theoretical underpinnings, the trial programme, and the work in progress to publish the framework formally.

The methodology

IWAF: Integrated Writing Assessment Framework

IWAF is a seven-dimension rubric for assessing extended writing across Years 3 to 12, developed by trained assessors and leading educators across Australia's government and independent school sectors. The dimensions are Voice, Structure, Cohesion, Vocabulary, Sentence Craft, Text Structure, and Conventions. Each is scored on a four-band scale - Emerging, Developing, Consolidating, Extending - against year-level-appropriate descriptors. Across nine years of schooling, the framework is the same; the descriptors that bind it to a year level change. That's how a single methodology can answer "is this a strong piece for a Year 4 writer" and "is this a strong piece for a Year 11 writer" in the same vocabulary.

IWAF 3.0 (the current version, calibrated April 2026) sets band thresholds at 0.31 / 0.56 / 0.80 against the maximum criterion score - the boundaries where mastery research and standard-setting procedure converge.

✔ Shipped: framework live in product ✔ Shipped: 13 criteria across 9 frameworks (VC2, AC9, MYP, VCE, NESA, QCAA, WACSA, UK, PYP) In progress: published methodology paper (target: Q3 2026)
Theoretical underpinnings

The five bodies of work IWAF builds on.

IWAF is not an opinion about writing. It is a synthesis of established assessment and instructional research, made operable for everyday classroom use.

01

Mastery learning

The 0.80 threshold for Extending follows mastery-learning research from Bloom (1968) onward, refined through Guskey's school-implementation work and the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) mastery framing. 80% is where consistent, transferable competence begins.

02

Genre and SFL pedagogy

The Text Structure dimension draws on the Sydney School genre tradition (Martin, Rothery, Christie) and Systemic Functional Linguistics. Different writing purposes have different shapes; the rubric reflects this rather than treating "structure" as a single skill.

03

Formative feedback

Hattie & Timberley's "Where am I going / How am I going / Where to next" framing shapes the per-piece feedback structure: each marked piece returns a band, evidence, and one explicit next-step focus. Feedback is forward-looking by design.

04

Gradual release of responsibility

Pearson & Gallagher's GRR model (1983, refined since) underpins the auto-generated lesson plans: I do, We do, You do. Every marked submission produces a lesson plan ready to teach against the patterns the cohort actually showed.

05

Direct instruction principles

Rosenshine's Principles of Instruction shape the way the marker writes growth feedback: small, specific next steps the student can practise and the teacher can model. No generic "develop your ideas further" advice.

Selected references

A full bibliography accompanies the IWAF methodology paper (in preparation). The references below are the load-bearing ones.

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's "Learning for Mastery". Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8-31.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Pearson, P. D. & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12-19.
Rothery, J. & Stenglin, M. (1997). Entertaining and instructing: Exploring experience through story. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 231-263.
Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) (2023). Mastery learning: An evidence-informed approach.
The trial programme

How we test accuracy in the wild.

A marker is only as good as its agreement with informed human judgement. The trial programme runs in two complementary tracks - school-based field trials and a formal standard-setting study - that together establish how Writeiq performs across the writing schools actually do.

Track 1: School field trials

Schools running Writeiq through a complete assessment cycle, with their teachers double-marking a representative sample. The headline metric is exact-band agreement: how often the Writeiq band matches the teacher band, criterion by criterion. Trial sites are confirmed in the Ballarat High School pilot (target start: Term 2 2026, end of Term 2). A design validation partner runs continuous validation across both primary and secondary year levels.

data pending
Ballarat exact-band agreement
Pilot end-of-Term-2 2026
~50+
Pieces double-marked weekly
Design partner — continuous validation
9 yrs
Year-level coverage (Y3-Y12)
Single framework, banded by year level

Track 2: Formal standard-setting study

A standard-setting study using the ACER Body of Work method - an established procedure in which expert markers review anchor pieces and agree on the band boundaries before any Writeiq scores are consulted. Run in Term 3 2026, the study produces a defensible empirical basis for the IWAF band thresholds at every year level.

In progress: Ballarat pilot (Term 2 2026) Planned: ACER Body of Work standard-setting (Term 3 2026) Planned: Methodology paper publication (Q3 2026)
Quality and limitations

What Writeiq does and does not claim.

An honest research page sets out what an instrument can do and what it cannot. The list below applies to Writeiq as it ships in 2026.

What we claim

What we do not claim

Talk to us

For school leaders and researchers

If you'd like to read the methodology in full, see anonymised trial data, or explore a research collaboration, we're happy to share. The IWAF whitepaper is in preparation; an early-access PDF is available on request to school leaders evaluating the platform.

hello@edsthetic.com.au · reference "IWAF research enquiry" in the subject line and we'll get back to you within two business days.