TeflToday is a teacher-built AI platform offering 10 tools (8 premium + 2 free) for TEFL, TESOL, and ESL educators. It generates CEFR-aligned lesson plans, grades student writing with diagnostic feedback, and produces Cambridge exam practice materials. Created by Ian L. Evans, a British TEFL teacher with 20+ years of classroom experience.

How accurate is the AI Writing CEFR Grader compared with a human teacher?

The grader assesses writing against four rubric dimensions used by Cambridge examiners: Content, Organisation, Language control, and Task Achievement. It provides a CEFR level estimate with detailed error categorisation. However, it is a teaching support tool — not an official Cambridge or IELTS score. Teachers should use it alongside their own professional judgement, especially for borderline cases or high-stakes assessment.

What rubric categories does the CEFR Writing Grader use?

The CEFR Writing Grader evaluates four dimensions: (1) Content — how fully the writing addresses the task; (2) Organisation — paragraph structure, coherence, and linking devices; (3) Language — grammar range and accuracy, vocabulary precision, and collocation usage; (4) Task Achievement — appropriacy and register for the task type (essay, email, report, review). Each dimension receives specific feedback with examples from the student's text.

Do you store student writing? Is it used to train AI models?

Student writing submissions are processed in real time for grading and feedback only. They are not stored permanently, not used to train AI models, and not shared with third parties. TeflToday serves EU-based teachers and handles data in accordance with GDPR principles.

Which Cambridge exams and parts are supported?

TeflToday supports PET (B1 Preliminary), FCE (B2 First), CAE (C1 Advanced), and CPE (C2 Proficiency). Covered paper types include Use of English (Parts 1–4: multiple choice cloze, open cloze, word formation, key word transformations), Speaking prompts with structured assessment criteria, and Writing tasks with CEFR-graded feedback.

How much does TeflToday cost?

€6 for 30 days of full access to all 8 premium tools. No subscription, no auto-renewal, no credit card required to sign up. The English Level Test and C.I.P.R.E.S. C1 Grammar Tool are always free with no account needed.

What are the limitations of AI CEFR writing graders?

AI graders work best for identifying grammar errors, vocabulary range, and structural issues. They are less reliable for assessing creativity, cultural nuance, humour, and highly idiomatic expression. The CEFR level returned is an estimate based on rubric criteria, not an official certification. Teachers should treat AI feedback as a first pass and apply their own judgement for final grading decisions.

Can I export lesson plans and worksheets?

Lesson plans and grading feedback are generated as formatted text that can be copied, printed, or pasted into documents (Google Docs, Word, PDF). The platform is web-based and works on any device with a browser — no software installation required.

Formative Assessment in ELT: Feedback Protocols & Rater Calibration

Formative Assessment and Feedback Protocols in English Language Teaching

Quick answer

Formative assessment (assessment for learning) is the ongoing gathering of evidence about learning that is used to adjust teaching and to give students actionable, criterion-referenced feedback. Unlike summative assessment, its purpose is to improve learning while it is happening rather than to certify a final result.

Scope of this guide

This page covers the design of formative assessment and feedback systems in English language teaching — how to gather evidence of learning, feed it back to students, and keep marking consistent across teachers. It draws on assessment-for-learning research and on standard measurement concepts such as inter-rater reliability.

Formative vs summative assessment

The distinction is one of purpose and timing, not of instrument. The same speaking task can be formative (used to guide the next lesson) or summative (used to report an end-of-course grade). What matters is how the evidence is used.

Formative vs summative assessment in ELT

Feature	Formative (for learning)	Summative (of learning)
Primary purpose	Improve learning in progress	Certify/report achievement
Timing	Continuous, during instruction	End of unit, term or course
Feedback focus	Actionable next steps, descriptive	Grade or score, evaluative
Reference	Criterion-referenced against learning goals	Often norm- or criterion-referenced
Student role	Active: self-assessment, goal-setting	Largely passive recipient
Typical tools	Drafts, exit tickets, conferencing, rubrics	Final exams, proficiency tests

Why descriptive feedback beats grades alone

A consistent finding in assessment research is that when a grade and a comment appear together, students attend to the grade and often ignore the comment. Feedback that is specific, criterion-referenced and forward-looking — naming what was achieved and the single most useful next step — supports self-efficacy and self-regulation more effectively than a numerical mark in isolation.

A reliable feedback pattern: (1) name one strength against a criterion, (2) name one priority improvement, (3) give a concrete example or model, (4) set a checkable next action. Keep grades separate from formative comments where possible.

Criterion-referenced rubrics and rater reliability

CEFR-aligned, criterion-referenced rubrics make expectations explicit and improve consistency between markers. Consistency is measured with inter-rater reliability. For continuous rubric scores, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is commonly reported.

Interpreting inter-rater reliability (ICC) — common rule-of-thumb bands

ICC value	Common interpretation	Practical implication
< 0.50	Poor agreement	Rubric or training is inadequate; do not report scores as comparable
0.50 – 0.74	Moderate agreement	Usable for low-stakes formative use; calibrate further
0.75 – 0.89	Good agreement	Acceptable for most classroom and school assessment
≥ 0.90	Excellent agreement	Suitable for higher-stakes decisions

These bands are widely cited heuristics (after Koo & Li, 2016). Exact thresholds depend on the study design and number of raters.

ICC bands are rules of thumb, not fixed cut-offs. Report the model used (e.g. two-way, agreement) and the number of raters, and treat single-classroom estimates as indicative rather than definitive.

A simple rater-calibration protocol

To raise agreement between teachers marking the same scripts:

Agree the rubric and shared “anchor” scripts for each band before marking.
Double-mark a sample blind, then discuss and reconcile discrepancies.
Record where raters diverge and refine descriptor wording accordingly.
Re-check agreement periodically; recalibrate when new markers join.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between formative assessment and summative evaluation in ELT?

Formative assessment is used during instruction to improve learning: it gathers evidence and feeds it back as actionable, criterion-referenced guidance. Summative evaluation happens at the end of a unit or course to certify or report achievement. The same task can serve either purpose — the difference is how the results are used, not the instrument itself.

How do CEFR-aligned rubrics improve inter-rater reliability in writing assessment?

CEFR-aligned, criterion-referenced rubrics make each performance level explicit, so different markers interpret the same script more similarly. Combined with anchor scripts and calibration discussion, they raise inter-rater reliability, often reported as an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), where values of about 0.75 or higher indicate good agreement.

Why is detailed written feedback more effective for student self-efficacy than grades alone?

When a grade and a comment appear together, students tend to focus on the grade and ignore the comment. Specific, forward-looking feedback that names a strength and a single priority improvement gives students a concrete route to progress, which supports self-efficacy and self-regulated learning more effectively than a numerical mark on its own.