|
John
Gouwens’s Piano Lesson Assessment System (Carillon & Organ follow similar guidelines)
Step 1: The baseline – In the first lesson, a “test piece” is
used, normally giving a student about 10 minutes to
learn a line or two. The success level of that
exercise helps to determine the difficulty of music
the student may study successfully. From there, an
assignment is made. If the student brings in a “work
in progress,” the performance of that piece in the
first lesson is also part of the baseline. In the
first lesson, literature is assigned. Students who
have little or no musical knowledge (especially complete
beginners) are put in the beginning book. Those
playing on what I would label as “first 1½
years’ level” are put in the next book in
the sequence, “From Bach to Bartók, Volume A,”
and given assignments commensurate with their
demonstrated skills. Those who are a little farther
along are allowed some input into the choice of music
they do, with the general guideline of having one
piece each from the 18th, 19th,
and 20th (or beyond) centuries.
I think of each lesson as a
“starting score” of 10, the top score for each
lesson. Good improvement and progress are taken as an
expectation. Numbers go lower when those expectations
are not met. Points deducted in one area can be
counteracted by “plus” points in other areas.
Step 2 (Second lesson): The student’s progress is measured based
on an assessment of time spent practicing and material
actually covered. In most cases, it is expected that a
student will learn at least half a page (often more)
of each assigned piece in a week’s time. If a
student has problems learning notes or rhythms
accurately, time is spent in the lesson
“practicing” for a practice session, basically
guided practice. In this case an assessment may be
made of what the student can do with disciplined
effort, and the student is shown how to practice
productively.
If a student clearly has done
less than the expected three hours of work, this
results in a lower score, based on a percentage
of the three hours’ work actually done, unless the
student has done exceptionally efficient practice and
accomplished a great deal anyway. .
Step 3 (subsequent lessons): For each piece now in progress,
accomplishments and setbacks are tracked. Improvement
is expected on all problems and issues covered in
prior lessons. (This is all logged.) The following is
a list of the main areas to be covered. Assessment is
based on improvement made week to week. The amount of
actual practice is a factor, for sure, but what is
actually accomplished is the main issue. Some
students, especially the more advanced ones, may not
need particular improvement in one of these areas.
From the list below, areas needing work are enumerated
and those become goals for each piece.
a)
Rhythm/Tempo: Is the student playing the rhythm of the music
correctly? (Some special concerns are in the next
heading.) Is the tempo consistent? Once the student
has been shown how to count and work out a given
rhythm issue, the following lesson carries the
expectation that this will have been carried out. If
the problem areas covered previously have improved but
other areas are still problems, this is a “wash,”
that is, the total score is neither lowered nor raised
by the result, which has simply met expectation.
Failure to improve the problem area can result in a
deduction of up to 4 points. Successfully applying
counting and rhythm correction beyond the area covered
previously results in a boost (which can offset
deficiencies elsewhere) of 3 points.
b)
Special rhythm/tempo problems: Trills, note groups (triplets,
quintuplets, etc.) are special problems requiring
special practice techniques. When problems arise in
these areas, the student is walked through the process
of improving them. This can require more patience. It
is normal for trills in particular to take several
weeks to learn to control the first time the student
has encountered them. Complex note groupings are not
usually as slow to fix, but also may not be
“cured” in just one week. Trills can be slowish or
notey at first, so long as they conform to the
surrounding rhythm. Bringing trills up to a finished
state may take another week or two. Assessment: Some
improvement over first two weeks, plus 1 point; slow
progress on it – no point effect; no progress at all
– deduct a point each week; problem solved in a week
or two, plus 4 points!
c)
Note accuracy: While it is expected that students will mostly
learn the notes of a piece accurately the first time,
it is also normal that students will make some
mistakes. Most common errors are key signature errors
and “carry-over” accidentals from earlier in the
measure. The student is guided toward identifying the
mistakes in lessons. Thereafter, it is expected that
these mistakes will be corrected for future lessons.
Success in this area is good for a boost of up to 2
points; many mistakes persisting results in a
deduction of 2 points, and if the problems persist,
the effect escalates. Four lessons of the same note
errors results in a deduction of up 5 points if there
is no improvement at all.
4)
Later refinements: As a piece is brought to or near a finished
state, it is expected that the following issues will
be addressed by the student, guided as needed by the
instructor.
a)
Articulation: Is the student controlling legato, staccato, and all
the shadings in between? The items in #3 above must be
addressed before this item is covered in any detail.
Once they have been, the expectation is that
articulation will be addressed next. If the student is
making progress with the basic articulations called
for in a piece, once the student has brought a piece
to that point, there is no point effect so long as
that expectation is met. Failure to hold out longer
note values across pedal changes is also assessed in
this step. Problems in this area result in a deduction
of 1 point for each lesson in which there is no
improvement. Exceptionally thorough or rapid progress,
or creative application of additional articulations as
an interpretive choice are good for plus 2
points.
b)
Dynamics: While dynamics are important, making changes to dynamics
late in the learning process can be done without
upsetting work done earlier. Therefore, in the
interest of making the challenges manageable, the
student is not required to work much with dynamics
until the other issues above have been addressed. When
this expectation is met at the appropriate time, no
point effect. When little or no progress is made on
the dynamics in an otherwise finished piece, deduct
1 point. Particularly elegant or refined dynamics
are good for up to plus 2 points.
c)
Large, rhythmic, interpretive gestures: No negative element here.
If a student has done something particularly refined
or elegant, this is good for up to 3 points.
This is pretty rare!
5)
Other Details: These are issues that can turn up early or late in
learning a piece. When problems are encountered,
improvement becomes an expectation.
a)
Fingering: This most often turns up early in learning a piece, but
can surface later as well. If a student can play the
notes at hand with a logical choice of fingerings, no
special expectation is attached. In cases where the
student is using awkward or random fingering, which
indeed impede playing, the student is shown how to
work on those fingerings, and progress is then
required. In a passage where fingering is an
identified problem, if the student has written in and
followed some fingerings but needs help completing
that process, no point effect. If the student has not
written in fingerings and the playing still shows the
same difficulties, deduct 2 points. If the student has
written in the needed fingerings, and is applying them
effectively, this shows particularly good initiative
and effort, plus 3 points.
b)
Pedaling: In pieces involving pedal, this element should be brought
into play as soon as possible. Pedaling may need to be
refined at a later stage. Identifying a problem, and
the pedaling thereafter improving, would be neutral
for points. Exceptional improvement and refinement is
good for 1 plus point. Persistent problems (failure to
address pedal problems at all) may result in deduction
of 1-2 points.
c) Touch issues (“wrist touch,” legato touch, etc.) Not usually a
points issue, except in egregious cases. Progress is
expected after problems have been noted.
6)
Scales: Technical concerns are addressed periodically, as needed.
Gradual progress is expected in hand position,
fingering, and relaxation. Usually no point effect,
but lack of any progress can be minus 2 points (more
in extreme cases), and significant improvement up to 3
plus points.
7)
Peripheral studies – I do not automatically include music theory
or improvisation in lessons. This is a “customer
service” thing with me. If a student wants to work
on playing only, I am very agreeable to that. If
students want to work on theory or improvisation, I
include it. The only effects this would have on an
assessment system are – if this is being included
– slightly slower progress would be expected on the
playing of the pieces involved, and once this is
decided upon as part of the study, progress is
expected between the lessons in which this is covered.
(Theory, when included, is not a weekly element in my
lessons.)
Bottom line: Roughly, I
average the 10-point score (which can include points
above 10 for some lessons). Usually, if there is one
low-scoring lesson (typically during CAR or an exam
period), I delete the lowest score. The remaining
average yields:
9 or above=A
7.5
to just under 9 =A-
7
to just under 7.5 =B+
6.5
to just under 7 =B
6 to just under 6.5=B-
5.5 to just under 6= C+
4.5 to under 5.5 = C
4 to under 4.5 = C-
3 to just under 4 = D+
1 to just under 3 = D
Below 1=F
|