|
John
Gouwens’s Piano Lesson Assessment System (Carillon & Organ follow similar guidelines)
Note: The multi-level grading
initiative launched in November 2008 doesn't change
the assessment system below very much. In any private
lessons, the "process" is the practicing,
and without good practice, there is almost never a
good "product." Occasionally, there is some
disparity between a good, diligent effort by a student
and a still-not-very-successful performance; once in
awhile, there might be a student with much innate
ability who can perform well without the usual
requisite effort and discipline. The latter is very
rare! In either of those cases, there would likely be
a differentiation between the grades. Otherwise, Mr.
Gouwens's students can usually expect the same grade
in all three boxes in the Grading Period grade.
John
Gouwens’s Piano Lesson Assessment System
1)
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.
Each
lesson begins with 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.
2)
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. .
3)
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 up to 2 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 2-3 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 2
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, up
to
plus 3 points.
b)
Pedaling:
In pieces involving the damper pedal, this element
should be brought into play as soon as possible,
because it has consequences for fingering and finger
preparation. 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” issue 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 score from the 10-point
scale (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
|