評分標準 / Judging Criteria

本賽事評分採用 0-100 分制，評審團將從語言技術、創意表達、作品完整性等多維度綜合考量參賽作品，確保評審專業性與公平性，具體評分細則如下：

一、評分細則

1. 語言技術（40%）

核心考察參賽者對雙語寫作基礎技術的掌握與運用能力：

1. 規範性：語法 / 詞法的準確性（如中文無錯別字、英文時態正確）、格式的標準性（如標點使用規範、段落劃分合理）；

2. 表達力：詞彙的豐富度（避免重複用詞、使用精准詞語）、句式的多樣性（如長短句搭配、複合句靈活運用）；

3. 熟練度：對所選文體專屬表達的掌握程度（如議論文的論證用語、詩歌的節奏韻腳），語言表達的流暢度與精煉度。
    

2. 創意與思想（30%）

聚焦參賽者透過文字傳達主題思想與個人風格的能力：

1. 主題深度：對創作主題的理解與闡述深度（如議論文觀點明確、敘事文主旨深刻），能否透過內容引發思考（如對文化、生活的獨特見解）；

2. 創意獨特性：構思的新穎度（如不同於常規的敘事角度、獨特的比喻與象徵），避免千篇一律的範本化寫作；

3. 情感與共鳴：文字能否傳遞真實情感（如敘事文的人物情感、散文的個人感悟），通過細節描寫引發讀者情感共鳴。
    

3. 作品完整性（20%）

衡量參賽作品的整體邏輯與細節把控：

1. 細節豐滿度：內容細節的充實度（如敘事文的場景描寫、議論文的案例支撐），避免內容空洞或框架粗糙；

2. 邏輯協調性：結構、內容與主題的匹配度（如開頭點題、中間層層遞進、結尾呼應），無明顯邏輯矛盾（如論據與觀點脫節）；

3. 完成度：作品無未完成痕跡（如結尾倉促、內容中斷、主旨模糊），達到「可完整閱讀與傳達」的標準。
    

4. 選材與匹配度（10%）

關注文本選材、難度與參賽者能力的契合度：

1. 難度適配性：能否依據自身語言水準選擇合適難度的內容（如低年齡段避免複雜議題，高年齡段不局限於簡單敘事）；

2. 特長發揮：選材能否充分展現個人優勢（如擅長抒情者選擇散文、邏輯強者選擇議論文），達到「以題揚長」的效果。
    

二、評審機制

1. 雙重獨立評分：每件參賽作品將由 2 位專業評審分別獨立打分，取兩者平均分作為作品最終成績，最大限度減少主觀偏差，保障公平性；

2. 權威評審團構成：評審團成員涵蓋青少年語文教育協會資深顧問、雙語教學院校教師、兒童文學作家及寫作領域資深導師，兼具學術理論與實踐指導經驗，既能以專業標準評判文字質量，也能尊重青少年創作的童真與個性，挖掘每位參賽者的思想閃光點。

Judging Criteria
 

This competition employs a 0-100 point scoring system. The judging panel will comprehensively evaluate entries across multiple dimensions, including linguistic proficiency, creative expression, and overall coherence, to ensure professional and impartial adjudication. Specific scoring criteria are outlined below:

 

I. Scoring Criteria

1. Language Proficiency (40%)

Core assessment of contestants' mastery and application of fundamental bilingual writing techniques:

1. Standardization: Accuracy in grammar/syntax (e.g., no typos in Chinese, correct verb tenses in English), adherence to formatting standards (e.g., proper punctuation usage, logical paragraph division);

2. Expressiveness: Vocabulary richness (avoiding repetition, using precise terms), sentence variety (e.g., balanced long/short sentences, flexible compound sentence structure);

3. Proficiency: Mastery of genre-specific expressions (e.g., argumentative language in essays, rhythm/rhyme in poetry), fluency and conciseness of linguistic expression.

 

2. Creativity and Thought (30%)

Focuses on the contestant's ability to convey thematic ideas and personal style through writing:

1. Thematic Depth: Understanding and depth of interpretation regarding the creative theme (e.g., clear arguments in essays, profound themes in narratives), and whether the content provokes thought (e.g., unique perspectives on culture or life);

2. Originality and Creativity: Novelty of conception (e.g., unconventional narrative perspectives, unique metaphors and symbols), avoiding formulaic writing;

3. Emotional Resonance: Authenticity of conveyed emotions (e.g., character sentiments in narratives, personal reflections in essays), evoking reader empathy through detailed descriptions.

 

3. Work Integrity (20%)

Evaluates the overall logic and attention to detail in the entry:

1. Detail Richness: The depth of content specifics (e.g., scene descriptions in narratives, case studies supporting arguments in essays), avoiding hollow content or rough frameworks;

2. Logical Coherence: Alignment between structure, content, and theme (e.g., opening establishing the topic, progressive development in the body, concluding with a callback), free from obvious logical contradictions (e.g., arguments disconnected from the viewpoint);

3. Completion: Absence of unfinished elements (e.g., rushed conclusion, interrupted content, ambiguous main idea), meeting the standard of being “fully readable and communicable.”

 

4. Text Selection and Alignment (10%)

Focus on the suitability of text selection and difficulty level relative to the participant's abilities:

1. Difficulty Alignment: Whether content matches the participant's language proficiency (e.g., avoiding complex topics for younger age groups, not limiting older age groups to simple narratives);

2. Strength Utilization: Whether the chosen material fully showcases personal strengths (e.g., selecting prose for lyrical writers, argumentative essays for logical thinkers), achieving the effect of “leveraging strengths through the topic.”

​

II. Judging Mechanism

1. Dual Independent Scoring: Each entry receives separate scores from two professional judges. The final score is the average of both, minimizing subjective bias and ensuring fairness.

2. Authoritative Panel Composition: The judging panel comprises senior advisors from the Youth Language Education Association, educators from bilingual institutions, children's literature authors, and seasoned writing mentors. Their expertise spans both academic theory and practical guidance, enabling them to evaluate textual quality with professional rigor while respecting the innocence and individuality inherent in youth creativity. This approach uncovers the unique intellectual spark within each participant.