Safety First

strategies towards minimizing danger in improvisation

Posts Tagged ‘marking criteria

marking criteria December 2008

with 2 comments

update 26–Nov–08: change “pass (40+ grade)” to “3rd (45-49)”.

Here’s my take on our marking criteria for the forthcoming performance. Please leave comments.

  • 40% continuous assessment
  • 60% exam/performance

Of this, I’ll deal only with the latter in this article. This exam/performance breaks down as follows:

  • 70% tactics and interaction
    • of which 10% (10/70) is specifically dealing with volume/dynamics
  • 30% stage craft

some hypothetical examples

1st (70+ grade)

  • tactics and interaction: the performer…
    • deploys a variety of strategies,
    • imaginatively selected (generally avoids obvious responses),
    • each creating a complex group sound, and
    • dynamically tests/interacts with the group.
  • stage craft: the performer…
    • exudes confidence and
    • there are few, if any, moments of uncertainty.
  • volume/dynamics: the performer…
    • demonstrates the full dynamic spectrum of their instrument, but
    • is mindful of the capabilities of the others (though not hampered by them).

2.1 (60+)

  • tactics and interaction:
    • a few strategies,
    • generally avoids obvious responses,
    • contributing intelligently to a group sound, but
    • often does not drive the group.
  • stage craft:
    • mostly confident, but
    • there are moments of uncertainty.
  • volume/dynamics:
    • mindful of the capabilities of the other, and
    • partially explores the dynamic range.

You get the idea, so I’ll skip down to…

3rd (45-49) pass (40+ grade)

  • tactics and interaction:
    • one consistent strategy, which is
    • obvious, and
    • follows the group rather than driving it.
  • stage craft:
    • appears largely uncertain or apologetic.
  • volume/dynamics: the performer…
    • does not drown anyone out, but
    • plays mp/mf all the time.

fail (40- grade)

  • tactics and interaction:
    • …strategy… er, what am I doing here?
    • where’s the rest of the group?
  • stage craft:
    • really does not belong on stage.
  • volume/dynamics: the performer…
    • drowns people out and/or plays at one dynamic level consistently…

Written by han

November 24, 2008 at 9:59 pm

marking criteria 2006

without comments

For your reference, here is the marking criteria that the Safety First class used in 2006. This is for reference only: we are not using this criteria.

  • 40% continuous assessment
  • 60% exam/performance

this latter divides into

  1. stage presence, presentation, etiquette, theatre
    • whether the student has convincing stage presence
    • is audience aware
    • can manipulate the audience
  2. overall quality of the group improvisation (and demonstration of a sophisticated take on social structures)
    • was it good?
    • was it entertaining?
    • was it interesting?
    • was it crafty?
    • was it weird?
    • was it waaaaaaay out there?
    • can I get a recording of that?
  3. individual musicianship
    • [musical responsibility]
      • [demonstrate an awareness of the consequences of actions]
      • able to adapt to unexpected stimuli
    • listening (stimulus and response)
      • student thinks outside the box (experimental)
      • their responses to stimuli is well judged, but is not-mannered
  4. participation
    • amount of playing vs the quality of the contributions. in other words, you can play very little, as long as that little kicks butt

70-80 1st
60-69 2.1
50-59 2.2
45-49 3rd
40-44 pass
35-39 fail (near)
0-34 fail (abject)

Written by han

November 20, 2008 at 3:15 pm