Essay writing, story writing, poetry writing, quiz prelims, handwriting — every arts fest runs a written half alongside the stage programme, and most of the planning effort goes to the stage side. Written items have their own logistics: a room instead of a stage, silence instead of applause, and an anonymity problem the stage items never face — a judge reading a script can recognise handwriting or a name far more easily than a judge watching a performer can “recognise” a voice. This guide is for the organiser setting up that off-stage half.
Room allotment and seating
Pick rooms by expected entry count and age group, not by whatever is free. Younger candidates (LP/UP) need more supervision per head and shorter writing stretches; separate them from HS/HSS entries so a chatty younger room doesn’t disturb a longer senior exam. Seat candidates with gaps between desks or in alternating rows — not for exam-hall formality, but because two candidates from the same unit sitting side by side on a story-writing topic is the easiest way to get near-identical openings. Post the room-and-session list at the entry point and at each room door, by chest number range, so candidates don’t need to ask a volunteer where they belong.
Invigilation
One invigilator per room is the minimum, two for anything over 25–30 candidates — one to walk the rows, one to handle latecomers and queries without leaving the room unsupervised. Brief invigilators on exactly three things before the session starts: what counts as identifying information on a script (name, school/unit name, logo doodles — all disqualifying, covered below), what time warnings to call out (usually at the halfway mark and with 10 minutes left), and what to do if a candidate finishes early (stay seated and quiet until called, not free to leave and disturb others). Invigilators should not be from the candidates’ own unit — the same conflict-of-interest rule that applies to judges applies here, since an invigilator who recognises handwriting mid-session can’t un-know it.
Sealed topics
For essay, story and poetry writing, the topic (or topic choices) should stay sealed until the session actually starts — opened in front of the room, not pre-announced “informally” by a coordinator the night before. A leaked topic doesn’t just advantage one candidate; it invalidates the whole room’s result if discovered later, which is a far more expensive problem than the ten minutes it takes to seal an envelope. Where the rules allow a choice of topics (e.g. three essay titles, pick one), print all choices on the same sheet so nobody can claim a different candidate “got an easier topic.”
Stamped answer sheets and the anonymity problem
This is the one step that’s genuinely unique to written items. A judge scoring a stage performance never sees a name; a judge reading a script sees handwriting, and handwriting is as identifying as a face. The fix is the same one used for exams: issue only pre-stamped, numbered answer sheets (never blank paper a candidate brings), collect them at the end, and have a separate person — not the judge — assign a code number to each script before it ever reaches the judging panel. The candidate’s actual chest number and the script’s code are logged separately and only matched back together after scoring is complete. eTalenter’s essay and story writing judging criteria guide covers this coding step from the judge’s side, including why handwriting is deliberately capped at a low weight in the rubric so penmanship alone can’t tip a result.
Practical rule for collecting scripts: count sheets issued against sheets returned per room, every time, before anyone leaves. A missing sheet discovered the next day is nearly impossible to resolve fairly; discovered in the room, it’s a two-minute fix.
Off-stage judging turnaround
Written items don’t get judged in real time the way a stage item does, so they need their own slot in the schedule — typically scripts collected by late morning, judged through the afternoon, results ready alongside (not necessarily before) the stage results for the day. Give judges a quiet room away from the stage noise; reading and scoring 30–40 scripts carefully takes real concentration time, more than the five minutes a single stage performance gets. Record scores against the code number only — the decode step (matching code back to chest number) happens last, after every script in that room is scored, so no judge’s later scores can drift because they’ve started recognising a candidate’s writing.
Re-evaluation requests
Written results draw more re-evaluation requests than stage results, simply because a script is a physical object a parent can ask to see again, where a performance is gone the moment it ends. Decide and publish the re-evaluation window (how many hours after results, who can request it, whether there’s a fee to discourage frivolous requests) before the event, not when the first request arrives. Keep original scripts until the published window closes — they’re the only record a re-evaluation can be checked against.
Where eTalenter fits
None of this needs to live on paper lists and whiteboards. Set written items up in Assign Competitions to Groups like any other item (time limit, age group, individual participation), print room-and-chest-number call sheets from the candidate list instead of retyping them, and let judges enter scores straight into the scoring panel by code/chest number once the decode step is done — the same tabulation and results pipeline used for stage items, so a championship points table doesn’t need separate handling for its written entries. Walk through how scoring and results come together in the judge scoring and tabulation guide, or open the live demo and log in as a demo coordinator or judge — no sign-up needed — to see the written-item workflow end to end.
FAQ
Can the same room run multiple written items back to back?
Yes, as long as the gap between sessions is enough to fully collect and count one item’s scripts before the next item’s candidates sit down — rushing this is exactly how sheets go missing.
Do younger age groups need a shorter time limit?
Generally yes — age-group time limits for writing items are usually shorter for LP/UP and longer for HS/HSS, set when the item is assigned to its age group, and worth publishing alongside the topic rules so nobody argues about it on the day.
Who should decode the scripts — the judge or the organiser?
The organiser (or a coordinator), never the judge, and only after all scoring for that room/item is complete. Decoding earlier defeats the whole point of coding in the first place.
Need help setting up written items, room-wise call sheets or the scoring panel in eTalenter? Message us on WhatsApp or email support@etalenter.com — we’re happy to help with the eTalenter software itself.
