Understanding and Using the Analytical Writing Assessment Score

The Analytical Writing Assessment (AWA) score can be useful to you in two ways: to help you select applicants for admission to your school, and for your use as a diagnostic tool in recommending or requiring additional instruction in writing.

The following guidelines should be kept in mind when using the AWA:

Use multiple criteria when evaluating an applicant, recognizing that the AWA is only one indicator of academic readiness.
Use the AWA scoring guide (detailed below) as your basis for score interpretation.
Consider that the scores are based on two 30-minute, first-draft writing samples. They are not comparable to prepared essays that may be submitted with a school application.
Do not make distinctions among applicants on the basis of a small scoring distinction—one point or less apart.
Conduct a validity study to ensure that the AWA scores you require are appropriate. The free Validity Study Service (VSS) is available to help you conduct your study.

How AWA Is Scored

Each essay in the AWA section will be given two independent ratings, one of which may be performed by an automated essay-scoring engine. The automated essay-scoring engine is an electronic system that evaluates more than 50 structural and linguistic features, including organization of ideas, syntactic variety, and topical analysis.

If the two ratings differ by more than one point, another evaluation by an expert reader is required to resolve the discrepancy and determine the final score.

College and university faculty members trained as readers for the AWA will consider the following:

overall quality of ideas about the issue and argument presented
overall ability to organize, develop, and express those ideas
the relevant supporting reasons and examples used
ability to control the elements of standard written English

In considering the elements of standard written English, readers are trained to be sensitive and fair in evaluating the responses of examinees whose first language is not English.

AWA Scoring Guide

Analysis of an Issue scoring guide

A score of 6 is Outstanding—A cogent, well-articulated analysis of the complexities of the issue, demonstrating mastery of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

explores ideas and develops a position on the issue with insightful reasons and/or persuasive examples
is clearly well organized
demonstrates superior control of language, including diction and syntactic variety
demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor flaws

A score of 5 is Strong—A well-developed analysis of the complexities of the issue, demonstrating strong control of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

explores ideas and develops a position on the issue with well-chosen reasons and/or examples
is generally well organized
demonstrates clear control of language, including diction and syntactic variety
demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor flaws

A score of 4 is Adequate—A competent analysis of the issue, demonstrating adequate control of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

develops a position on the issue with relevant reasons and/or examples
is adequately organized
demonstrates adequate control of language, including diction and syntactic variety, but may lack syntactic variety
displays control of the conventions of standard written English, but may have some flaws

A score of 3 is Limited—A competent analysis of the issue, demonstrating adequate control of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

is vague or limited in developing a position on the issue
is poorly organized
is weak in the use of relevant reasons or examples
uses language imprecisely and/or lacks sentence variety
contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics

A score of 2 is Seriously Flawed—A paper demonstrating serious weakness in analytical writing skills, and displaying the following characteristics:

is unclear or seriously limited in presenting or developing a position on the issue
is disorganized
provides few, if any, relevant reasons or examples
has serious, frequent problems in the use of language and sentence structure
contains numerous errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics that interfere with meaning

A score of 1 is Fundamentally Deficient—A paper demonstrating fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing skills, and displaying the following characteristics:

provides little evidence of the ability to develop or organize a coherent response to the topic
has severe and persistent errors in language and sentence structure
contains a pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that severely interferes with meaning

A score of 0 is Unscorable—A paper that is totally illegible or obviously not written on the assigned topic.

Analysis of an Argument scoring guide

A score of 6 is Outstanding—A cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument, demonstrating mastery of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

clearly identifies and insightfully analyzes important features of the argument
develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them smoothly with clear transitions
effectively supports the main points of the critique
demonstrates superior control of language, including diction and syntactic variety and the conventions of standard written English. There may be minor flaws

A score of 5 is Strong—A well-developed critique of the argument, demonstrating good control of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them in a generally thoughtful way
develops ideas clearly, organizes them logically, and connects them with appropriate transitions
sensibly supports the main points of the critique
demonstrates clear control of language, including diction and syntactic variety
demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor flaws

A score of 4 is Adequate—A competent critique of the argument, demonstrating adequate control of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

identifies and capably analyzes important features of the argument
develops and organizes ideas satisfactorily, but may not always connect them with transitions
supports the main points of the critique
demonstrates adequate control of language, including diction and syntactic variety, but may lack syntactic variety
displays control of the conventions of standard written English, but may have some flaws

A score of 3 is Limited—A competent but clearly flawed critique of the argument, demonstrating some control of the elements of effective writing, and displaying the following characteristics:

does not identify or analyze most of the important features of the argument, although some analysis is present
is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas
offers support of little relevance and value for points of the critique
uses language imprecisely and/or lacks sentence variety
contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics