+ Welcome to the project page for SimpleAES, a comprehensive system designed to evaluate English
+ essays based on the IELTS rubrics. The primary goal of this project is to develop an automated tool that
+ can accurately score essays on four critical criteria: Task Response, Coherence and Cohesion,
+ Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy. This project aims to provide a reliable
+ and objective means of essay assessment, helping both learning and evaluation processes in educational
+ settings.
+
+
+
+ The IELTS (International English Language Testing System) is a widely recognized standard for
+ assessing English language proficiency. It is used by educational institutions, employers,
+ and immigration authorities worldwide. To meet the specified standards set by IELTS, this project
+ leverages advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques and neural network to evaluate essays
+ with a high degree of precision and consistency.
+
+
+
+ The project focuses on the following four criteria:
+
+
+
+ Task Response: This criterion evaluates how well the essay addresses the prompt.
+ It checks if the writer has answered all parts of the question, developed a clear position,
+ and supported their arguments with relevant examples. An effective task response ensures that the
+ essay stays on topic and thoroughly covers all aspects of the task.
+
+
+
+ Coherence and Cohesion: This criterion assesses the logical flow and organization
+ of the essay. It examines how ideas are connected and how effectively the essay uses cohesive
+ devices (such as conjunctions and transitions) to link sentences and paragraphs. Good coherence
+ and cohesion make an essay easy to follow and understand.
+
+
+
+ Lexical Resource: This criterion evaluates the range and accuracy of vocabulary
+ used in the essay. It looks at the writer’s ability to use a wide variety of words and phrases
+ accurately and appropriately. This includes the use of idiomatic expressions, collocations, and less
+ common lexical items that enhance the essay's overall quality.
+
+
+
+ Grammatical Range and Accuracy: This criterion assesses the writer's command of
+ grammatical structures. It evaluates the variety and correctness of sentence structures, verb tenses,
+ punctuation, and syntax. An essay that demonstrates a high level of grammatical proficiency is easier to
+ read and more effective in communicating its message.
+
+
+
+
+ By implementing this automated essay scoring system, the project aims to provide students
+ and educators with a powerful tool for improving writing skills and ensuring fair and consistent
+ evaluation. The system can be used for practice, feedback, and formal assessment, helping learners to
+ identify areas for improvement and track their progress over time. Ultimately, the project seeks to
+ enhance the teaching and learning of English writing by leveraging technology to provide high-quality,
+ accessible, and efficient essay evaluations.
+
+ The message can be followed effortlessly. Cohesion is used in such a way that it very rarely attracts attention. Any lapses in coherence or cohesion are minimal. Paragraphing is skilfully managed.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 8
+
+
+ The message can be followed with ease. Information and ideas are logically sequenced, and cohesion is well managed. Occasional lapses in coherence and cohesion may occur. Paragraphing is used sufficiently and appropriately.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 7
+
+
+ Information and ideas are logically organised, and there is a clear progression throughout the response.
+ A range of cohesive devices including reference and substitution is used flexibly but with some inaccuracies or some over/under use.
+ Paragraphing is generally used effectively to support overall coherence, and the sequencing of ideas within a paragraph is generally logical.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 6
+
+
+ Information and ideas are generally arranged coherently and there is a clear overall progression. Cohesive devices are used to some good effect but cohesion within and/or between sentences may be faulty or mechanical due to misuse, overuse or omission. The use of reference and substitution may lack flexibility or clarity and result in some repetition or error. Paragraphing may not always be logical and/or the central topic may not always be clear.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 5
+
+
+ Organisation is evident but is not wholly logical and there may be a lack of overall progression. Nevertheless, there is a sense of underlying coherence to the response. The relationship of ideas can be followed but the sentences are not fluently linked to each other. There may be limited/overuse of cohesive devices with some inaccuracy. The writing may be repetitive due to inadequate and/or inaccurate use of reference and substitution. Paragraphing may be inadequate or missing.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 4
+
+
+ Information and ideas are evident but not arranged coherently and there is no clear progression within the response. Relationships between ideas can be unclear and/or inadequately marked. There is some use of basic cohesive devices, which may be inaccurate or repetitive. There is inaccurate use or a lack of substitution or referencing. There may be no paragraphing and/or no clear main topic within paragraphs.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 3
+
+
+ There is no apparent logical organisation. Ideas are discernible but difficult to relate to each other. There is minimal use of sequencers or cohesive devices. Those used do not necessarily indicate a logical relationship between ideas. There is difficulty in identifying referencing. Any attempts at paragraphing are unhelpful.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 2
+
+
+ There is little evidence of control of organisational features.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 1
+
+
+ Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. There is no apparent control of organisational features.
+
+ A wide range of structures is used with full flexibility and control. Punctuation and grammar are used appropriately throughout. Minor errors are extremely rare and have minimal impact on communication.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 8
+
+
+ A wide range of structures is flexibly and accurately used. The majority of sentences are error-free, and punctuation is well managed. Occasional, non-systematic errors and inappropriacies occur, but have minimal impact on communication.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 7
+
+
+ A variety of complex structures is used with some flexibility and accuracy. Grammar and punctuation are generally well controlled, and error-free sentences are frequent. A few errors in grammar may persist, but these do not impede communication.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 6
+
+
+ A mix of simple and complex sentence forms is used but flexibility is limited. Examples of more complex structures are not marked by the same level of accuracy as in simple structures. Errors in grammar and punctuation occur, but rarely impede communication.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 5
+
+
+ The range of structures is limited and rather repetitive. Although complex sentences are attempted, they tend to be faulty, and the greatest accuracy is achieved on simple sentences. Grammatical errors may be frequent and cause some difficulty for the reader. Punctuation may be faulty.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 4
+
+
+ A very limited range of structures is used. Subordinate clauses are rare and simple sentences predominate. Some structures are produced accurately but grammatical errors are frequent and may impede meaning. Punctuation is often faulty or inadequate.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 3
+
+
+ Sentence forms are attempted, but errors in grammar and punctuation predominate (except in memorised phrases or those taken from the input material). This prevents most meaning from coming through.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 2
+
+
+ There is little or no evidence of sentence forms (except in memorised phrases).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 1
+
+
+ Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. No rateable language is evident.
+
+{% endblock %}
+
+{% block extra_scripts %}
+
+
+
+{% endblock %}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/my_app/templates/lexical_resource.html b/my_app/templates/lexical_resource.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc322542607eeb9dc22719189f4a243808afdd5e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/my_app/templates/lexical_resource.html
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+{% extends 'base.html' %}
+
+{% block content %}
+
+
Lexical Resource
+
+
+
+
+ Band 9
+
+
+ Full flexibility and precise use are widely evident. A wide range of vocabulary is used accurately and appropriately with very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features. Minor errors in spelling and word formation are extremely rare and have minimal impact on communication.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 8
+
+
+ A wide resource is fluently and flexibly used to convey precise meanings. There is skilful use of uncommon and/or idiomatic items when appropriate, despite occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation. Occasional errors in spelling and/or word formation may occur, but have minimal impact on communication.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 7
+
+
+ The resource is sufficient to allow some flexibility and precision. There is some ability to use less common and/or idiomatic items. An awareness of style and collocation is evident, though inappropriacies occur. There are only a few errors in spelling and/or word formation and they do not detract from overall clarity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 6
+
+
+ The resource is generally adequate and appropriate for the task. The meaning is generally clear in spite of a rather restricted range or a lack of precision in word choice. If the writer is a risk-taker, there will be a wider range of vocabulary used but higher degrees of inaccuracy or inappropriacy. There are some errors in spelling and/or word formation, but these do not impede communication.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 5
+
+
+ The resource is limited but minimally adequate for the task. Simple vocabulary may be used accurately but the range does not permit much variation in expression. There may be frequent lapses in the appropriacy of word choice and a lack of flexibility is apparent in frequent simplifications and/or repetitions. Errors in spelling and/or word formation may be noticeable and may cause some difficulty for the reader.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 4
+
+
+ The resource is limited and inadequate for or unrelated to the task. Vocabulary is basic and may be used repetitively. There may be inappropriate use of lexical chunks (e.g. memorised phrases, formulaic language and/or language from the input material). Inappropriate word choice and/or errors in word formation and/or in spelling may impede meaning.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 3
+
+
+ The resource is inadequate (which may be due to the response being significantly underlength). Possible over-dependence on input material or memorised language. Control of word choice and/or spelling is very limited, and errors predominate. These errors may severely impede meaning.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 2
+
+
+ The resource is extremely limited with few recognisable strings, apart from memorised phrases. There is no apparent control of word formation and/or spelling.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 1
+
+
+ Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. No resource is apparent, except for a few isolated words.
+
+ The prompt is appropriately addressed and explored in depth. A clear and fully developed position is presented which directly answers the question/s. Ideas are relevant, fully extended and well supported. Any lapses in content or support are extremely rare.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 8
+
+
+ The prompt is appropriately and sufficiently addressed. A clear and well-developed position is presented in response to the question/s. Ideas are relevant, well extended and supported. There may be occasional omissions or lapses in content.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 7
+
+
+ The main parts of the prompt are appropriately addressed. A clear and developed position is presented. Main ideas are extended and supported but there may be a tendency to over-generalise or there may be a lack of focus and precision in supporting ideas/material.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 6
+
+
+ The main parts of the prompt are addressed (though some may be more fully covered than others). An appropriate format is used. A position is presented that is directly relevant to the prompt, although the conclusions drawn may be unclear, unjustified or repetitive.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 5
+
+
+ The main parts of the prompt are incompletely addressed. The format may be inappropriate in places. The writer expresses a position, but the development is not always clear. Some main ideas are put forward, but they are limited and are not sufficiently developed and/or there may be irrelevant detail.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 4
+
+
+ The prompt is tackled in a minimal way, or the answer is tangential, possibly due to some misunderstanding of the prompt. The format may be inappropriate. A position is discernible, but the reader has to read carefully to find it. Main ideas are difficult to identify and such ideas that are identifiable may lack relevance, clarity and/or support.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 3
+
+
+ No part of the prompt is adequately addressed, or the prompt has been misunderstood. No relevant position can be identified, and/or there is little direct response to the question/s. There are few ideas, and these may be irrelevant or insufficiently developed.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 2
+
+
+ The content is barely related to the prompt. No position can be identified. There may be glimpses of one or two ideas without development. There is little relevant message, or the entire response may be off-topic.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Band 1
+
+
+ Responses of 20 words or fewer are rated at Band 1. The content is wholly unrelated to the prompt. Any copied rubric must be discounted.
+