NAPLAN testing is on right now.  Researchers at Charles Darwin University (CDU) critically examined NAPLAN’s narrative marking guide.  We developed an alternative approach – Reading for Emotion – that redefines literacy assessment. Instead of treating reading and writing as mechanical exercises in structural correctness, this model frames reading as an intentional act of guiding the reader through an emotional journey.

The Reading for Emotion (RfE) approach, first developed by Ania Lian, shifts the focus of assessment from surface-level linguistic accuracy to the writer’s ability to shape an affective experience for the reader. Drawing on evidence from affective neuroscience (Panksepp, 1998; Solms, 2013), the model positions emotions as the primary structuring force in text analysis. 

By evaluating how effectively a text orchestrates emotional shifts and engages the audience, the researchers argue that the model offers a more cohesive and internally consistent framework for assessing student writing—one that better reflects the complexities of authentic communication. This post reports on a study conducted by Anneliese Powell as part of her Master of Education coursework at CDU.

The Problem with Formulaic Literacy Assessment

Current NAPLAN’s narrative marking guide assesses writing across a set of predefined categories:

• Audience – Whether the text engages and orients the reader.
• Text Structure – Whether the text follows a logical narrative sequence.
• Ideas – The selection and development of key concepts.
• Cohesion – The use of linking devices and grammatical connections.
• Character & Setting – The portrayal and development of story elements.
• Vocabulary – The variety and precision of language choices.
• And more. 

These categories serve a purpose, but they also fragment writing into a checklist of structural components, without a coherent framework to explain how these elements interact to shape meaning, sustain engagement, or create an impact on the reader. As a result, the assessment guidelines feel arbitrary. They have criteria only loosely connected to how writing actually creates meaning. In some cases, even work against it by reinforcing formulaic responses over authentic storytelling.

NAPLAN shapes classroom instruction

As Thompson and Caldwell & White argue, NAPLAN influences teaching practices, despite being officially a low-stakes test. By prioritising compliance over expression, the system produces writing that is predictable, emotionally hollow, and disconnected from authentic storytelling, failing to engage, inspire, or move the reader. Without clear principles for understanding how writing sustains emotional impact, teachers prioritise technical compliance over fostering creative, purposeful writing. This concern echoes Rosen’s critique that treating literacy as a fixed form rather than a creative act stifles originality, agency, and meaningful engagement.

A Better Approach: Writing with Purpose

If students are to develop as writers, they need more than training in formulaic structures—they need to see writing a way to make sense of their experiences and shape how they engage with the world. Too often, language remains disconnected from individuals and is taught as a reified object, rather than as an integral part of a person’s lived experience—one that allows them to make sense of the world and communicate meaningfully with others. 

How the Reading for Emotion (RfE) Model Re-Theorizes Writing Assessment 

The Reading for Emotion model provides an alternative by evaluating writing based on its ability to sustain emotional engagement, build narrative coherence, and shape the reader’s experience. By integrating Reading for Emotion’s structured emotional framework with Ramachandran and Hirstein’s (1999) aesthetic principles of engagement, researchers have re-theorised NAPLAN’s narrative marking criteria, creating a systematic and internally consistent model for writing assessment. The table below briefly illustrates the difference. 

Category	NAPLAN Approach	RfE Model Approach
Audience	Orient, engage, and affect the reader separately.	Focuses on how the writer intends to affect the reader and what needs to be told to achieve this impact.
Text Structure	Assesses orientation, complication, and resolution.	Examines how smoothly emotional stages (Focus, Disturbance, etc.) progress to create a cohesive emotional journey.
Ideas	Evaluates the presence, selection, and crafting of ideas.	Uses aesthetic principles to assess how ideas contribute to emotional impact and sustain reader engagement.
Cohesion	Focuses on grammatical and lexical connections.	Evaluates the emotional flow and smoothness of transitions between narrative stages.
Character & Setting	Measures descriptive detail and portrayal.	Examines how character emotions and setting reinforce the text’s emotional journey.
Vocabulary	Assesses variety and precision.	Evaluates how effectively vocabulary enhances emotional tone and resonance.

Key Findings: What We Learned from Applying the Reading for Emotion Model 

Analyzing student NAPLAN writing samples through the Reading for Emotion model – enhanced by ChatGPT (which we trained to use RfE) – revealed deeper patterns of engagement, coherence and meaning-making, far beyond what conventional NAPLAN rubrics capture. Instead of merely identifying surface-level errors, this approach uncovered deep structural and conceptual patterns, highlighting areas where student writing lacked intentionality, coherence, and affective impact—key elements of authentic literacy. The table below categorises key conceptual and emotional gaps in student writing.

The limitations of conventional writing assessments

Our findings highlight the limitations of conventional writing assessments and demonstrate the need for a multidimensional, reader-centered approach, showing that no single perspective fully captures its richness.

Category	Findings
Audience	Lack of intentional emotional impact – Many texts listed events without shaping the reader’s emotions, resulting in detached, uninvolving storytelling.
Text Structure	Disconnected narrative structure – Many texts failed to connect their resolutions back to the initial issue, making endings feel rushed or unresolved.
	Abrupt transitions – Stories jumped between events without emotional continuity, reducing their effectiveness.
	Repetition without narrative purpose – Some texts repeated key moments or actions without variation, resulting in redundancy rather than reinforcing meaning or building emotional impact, making the writing feel stagnant.
Ideas	Surface-level concept development – Many texts introduced promising story concepts but failed to develop them fully, reducing them to simple plot devices rather than emotionally resonant elements.
	Weak emotional and conceptual contrasts – Many texts lacked deliberate contrasts between tension and relief, fear and safety, or struggle and resolution, making narratives feel flat and monotonous.
	Missed opportunities for symbolism and thematic depth – Objects, characters, or events were often presented literally, without being used to reinforce a deeper theme.
	Limited use of metaphor to deepen meaning – Many texts stated ideas directly rather than exploring them through imagery or symbolic connections.
Cohesion	Lack of narrative coherence – Many texts listed disconnected events rather than weaving them into a meaningful sequence, creating episodic storytelling that lacked “perceptual grouping”.
	Abrupt transitions between emotional stages, disrupting narrative flow and weakening reader engagement.
Character & Setting	Underdeveloped characters and settings – Many characters lacked emotional depth, and settings were stated rather than used to enhance atmosphere and engagement.
Vocabulary	Limited expressive vocabulary – Many students relied on basic word choices rather than descriptive and affective language.

Bios