Enrichment · Arts and Creativity

Read blind, score fair,
name the winners.

A good student writing contest is fair in ways writers can trust: judges do not know whose story they are reading, the word limit means the same for everyone and more than one person reads each entry. This organizer keeps one record per entry with its code, word count, dates and eligibility checks, collects each judge’s scores on four criteria and ranks eligible entries within each division.

Add an entryWhat you get
$12one-time · every device you sign in on
Buy · $12

Included with Caveat Classroom and Whole-school licenses. Or get it in the Arts & Creativity collection, $69 for 38 items.

Entries

The worked example is made up: four entries on the theme “The Door”. Keep the code-to-author list somewhere separate. Saved on this device only.

Loading the entry form. If nothing appears, turn on JavaScript.

What you get

Enrichment · Arts & Creativity$12

What you finish with
A record per entry: code, title, division, word count and limit, received date and deadline, five eligibility checks, a row of scores per judge on craft, voice, originality and theme (out of 20) and feedback for the writer. Averages the judges and ranks eligible entries by division; flags entries over the word limit, late entries, a name left in the file, fewer than two judges and judges 5 or more points apart.
Who it is for
English and creative writing teachers, librarians, writing club advisers and community arts organizers running a contest for students.
Format
Browser organizer with a saved record per entry. Prints one entry with its scores, all entries in a table or a blank judging sheet; downloads a spreadsheet (.csv); exports and imports a file.
Access
$12 one-time, yours on every device you sign in on; the tool opens once you are signed in with it. Included with Caveat Classroom and Whole-school licenses. Also in the Arts & Creativity collection ($69) and the Enrichment Suite pass ($119), and 1 more bundle. Everything you type stays in this browser; nothing is sent to Caveat.
Where it lives
The Arts & Creativity space in Caveat Enrichment.
Support
Questions about access, an order or a correction: team@caveatacademic.com.

How to use it

  1. Give each entry a code and keep the list of authors separate.
  2. Enter the word count, limit and dates, and run the eligibility checks.
  3. Hand judges the blank judging sheet or let them add their own rows.
  4. Clear every flag: late, over the limit, too few judges, judges far apart.
  5. Read the ranking per division, and send each writer their feedback.

Add an entry

Judging student writing fairly

Four criteria, scored 1 to 5 by each judgeCriterionA 5 looks likeA 2 looks likeCraftScenes build to a turnEvents listed, no shapeVoiceSounds like one personFlat or borrowedOriginalitySurprising, specificPredictable plotThemeTheme drives the storyTheme only mentionedTotalOut of 20 per judgeAverage the judgesFour criteria, scored 1 to 5 by each judgeCraftA 5 looks like: Scenes build to a turnA 2 looks like: Events listed, no shapeVoiceA 5 looks like: Sounds like one personA 2 looks like: Flat or borrowedOriginalityA 5 looks like: Surprising, specificA 2 looks like: Predictable plotThemeA 5 looks like: Theme drives the storyA 2 looks like: Theme only mentionedTotalA 5 looks like: Out of 20 per judgeA 2 looks like: Average the judges
Blind reading and at least two judges are the two simplest ways to make a student contest fair.

Blind judging

Removing names from entries before judging is standard in student writing competitions, including the Scholastic Art & Writing Awards. It keeps judges from scoring the writer they know instead of the story in front of them.

Two readers or more

Writing assessment research has long found that single raters disagree more than people expect. Averaging two or three judges, and talking through big gaps, gives steadier results than one reader’s score.

Feedback is the prize for most

Most entrants will not place. A sentence about their strongest moment and one thing to try next is often what students remember. Collect it while judges score.

Sources

  1. Alliance for Young Artists & Writers: Scholastic Art & Writing Awards, judging and eligibility guidelines (artandwriting.org).
  2. Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 237 to 263.
  3. National Council of Teachers of English: Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing (ncte.org).
  4. National Writing Project: Analytic writing continuum and scoring practice (nwp.org).

The worked example is made up. Follow your own contest rules on eligibility, permissions and prizes. Nothing you type is sent to Caveat. Support: team@caveatacademic.com.