MY_RUBRUIC1

 

JOHN’S ONLINE VIOLIN STUDIO

 

 

HOW STUDENT’S PERFORMANCES ARE GRADED

1. HERE ARE THE SCORES

I acknowledge the great responsibility of being in charge of my business and musical related tasks.

I must be able to recognize tone quality, bowing, and vibrato; pitch accuracy and intonation; rhythm and tempo; technique and articulation; style and expression in order to judge my students performance.

Scores range from poor 0, weak 1, developing 2, acceptable 3, superior 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What data is missing from this data?

What is the final summary with this missing data?

 

2. TONE QUALITY, BOWING, AND VIBRATO DISTINGUISHED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

2.1 POOR 0: Wholly unfocused, thin, distorted; vibrato absent

2.2 WEAK 1: One or more major flaws (e.g., bright, buzzy, etc.)

2.3 DEVELOPING 2: Acceptable tone only in limited range; vibrato used but not controlled

2.4 ACCEPTABLE 3: Typically full and resonant with occasional lapses; vibrato mostly controlled

SUPERIOR 4: Rich, full, clean, resonant; free in all registers and at all dynamics; vibrato used appropriately

 

 

1. Structural Data (Critical for Coding)

• Missing Index Number: The final line is missing the numeric prefix 2.5.

o   Current: * SUPERIOR 4:

o   Should be: * 2.5 SUPERIOR 4:

o   Why it matters: If you are parsing this into a database or array, the code might fail to index the final score correctly without the "2.5" prefix that matches the previous pattern.

2. Pedagogical Data (The "Bowing" Gap)

The title includes "Bowing," but the descriptions focus almost entirely on the sound (Tone) rather than the mechanics (Bowing). To make this rubric complete for a student, you are missing specific bowing indicators for the lower levels.

Missing Descriptors to consider adding:

·       For 2.1 / 2.2: "Bow stroke crooked," "Stiff bow arm/wrist," or "Inconsistent contact point."

·       For 2.3 / 2.4: "Bow changes smooth but not seamless," "Good bow distribution," or "Straight bow stroke."

3. Comparison Data (Dynamics)

·       The Inconsistency: The description for Superior (4) mentions "...free in all registers and at all dynamics."

·       The Missing Link: None of the lower scores (0–3) mention dynamics.

·       Fix: You should clarify if a "Developing (2)" student has "limited dynamic range" or "unable to sustain piano/forte," otherwise the mention of dynamics in level 4 appears out of nowhere.

Recommended "Patched" Text:

(Changes highlighted in bold)

2.5 SUPERIOR 4: Rich, full, clean, resonant; free in all registers and at all dynamics; vibrato used appropriately; bow control is seamless and flexible.

 

 

 

Here is the final, corrected summary for Section 2.

This version fixes the missing index number (2.5) and fills in the missing data regarding bowing and dynamics to ensure the descriptions actually match the section title ("Tone Quality, Bowing, and Vibrato") and progress logically from 0 to 4.

2. TONE QUALITY, BOWING, AND VIBRATO

DISTINGUISHED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

·       2.1 POOR (0): Wholly unfocused, thin, distorted; vibrato absent; bow stroke often crooked or stiff.

·       2.2 WEAK (1): One or more major flaws (e.g., bright, buzzy, etc.); inconsistent contact point.

·       2.3 DEVELOPING (2): Acceptable tone only in limited range; vibrato used but not controlled; limited dynamic contrast.

·       2.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Typically full and resonant with occasional lapses; vibrato mostly controlled; bow distribution is generally accurate.

·       2.5 SUPERIOR (4): Rich, full, clean, resonant; free in all registers and at all dynamics; vibrato used appropriately; seamless bow control.

 

Summary of Data Repairs:

1.      Structure: Added the "2.5" prefix to the Superior category so it can be indexed by code.

2.      Bowing: Added specific bowing mechanics (Crooked/Stiff $\rightarrow$ Contact Point $\rightarrow$ Distribution $\rightarrow$ Seamless) to match the section title.

3.      Dynamics: Added "Limited dynamic contrast" to level 2 to create a logical bridge to level 4 (which requires "free in all dynamics").

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What data is missing from this data?

What is the final summary with this missing data?

 

3. PITCH ACCURACY AND INTONATION DISTINGUISHED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

3.1 POOR 0: Many incorrect notes

3.2 WEAK 1: Mostly correct notes, but severe intonation problems

3.3 DEVELOPING 2: Correct notes; some attempts made to correct persistent intonation issues

3.4 ACCEPTABLE 3: Accurate notes; occasional intonation errors corrected

3.5 SUPERIOR 4: Accurate notes and intonation in all registers and at all dynamics

 

 

Based on the progression from Poor (0) to Superior (4), here is the data that is logically missing or inconsistent in Section 3.

1. The "Register" Gap (Missing Location Data)

·       The Issue: Level 3.5 (Superior) specifies "in all registers" (meaning high and low positions).

·       The Gap: Levels 0–3 do not specify where the intonation problems occur.

·       Why it matters: A student might have perfect intonation in 1st position (Developing) but fail completely when shifting to 3rd position. The rubric currently doesn't distinguish between "bad ear" and "bad shifting."

• Fix: Specify that Level 2 or 3 might be secure in 1st position but insecure in higher positions.

2. The "Dynamics" Gap (Missing Physics Data)

·       The Issue: Level 3.5 (Superior) specifies "at all dynamics."

·       The Gap: There is no mention of dynamics in levels 0–3.

·       Why it matters: On the violin, playing louder often causes the pitch to go sharp, and softer causes it to go flat. A "Developing" student often loses pitch center when changing volume.

• Fix: Add "Pitch stability wavers during dynamic changes" to Level 2 or 3.

3. The "Adjustment Speed" Gap (Missing Reaction Data)

·       The Issue: Level 3.3 says "attempts made to correct." Level 3.4 says "errors corrected."

·       The Gap: It does not specify the speed of correction.

·       Why it matters: An "Acceptable" student fixes the note immediately (reflexive). A "Developing" student might "slide" into the note slowly (hunting). Distinguishing this helps the student know how to improve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final "Patched" Summary for Section 3

(Additions to fill the data gaps are in bold)

3. PITCH ACCURACY AND INTONATION

DISTINGUISHED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

·       POOR 0: Many incorrect notes; no sense of key center.

·       WEAK 1: Mostly correct notes, but severe intonation problems; adjustments are not attempted.

·       DEVELOPING 2: Correct notes; secure in 1st position, but insecure in shifts; slow "sliding" attempts made to fix pitch.

·       ACCEPTABLE 3: Accurate notes; generally secure in shifts; occasional intonation errors are corrected immediately.

·       SUPERIOR 4: Accurate notes and intonation in all registers (high/low) and at all dynamics (loud/soft).

 

 

 

 

Here is the final, corrected summary for Section 3.

This version fills the logical gaps regarding shifting (registers), adjustment speed, and musical context, creating a clear path for the student to progress from 0 to 4.

3. PITCH ACCURACY AND INTONATION

DISTINGUISHED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

·       POOR (0): Many incorrect notes; no consistent sense of key center.

·       WEAK (1): Mostly correct notes, but severe intonation problems; adjustments to pitch are not attempted.

·       DEVELOPING (2): Correct notes; generally secure in 1st position but insecure in shifts; audible "sliding" attempts made to correct pitch.

·       ACCEPTABLE (3): Accurate notes; secure in most positions; occasional intonation errors are corrected immediately and reflexively.

·       SUPERIOR (4): Accurate notes and intonation in all registers and at all dynamics; maintenance of pitch center is effortless.

 

Summary of Data Repairs:

1.      Registers: Clarified that Level 2 is usually limited to "1st position," while Level 3 handles "shifts" better. This bridges the gap to Level 4's "all registers."

2.      Reaction Time: Defined the type of correction. Level 2 is "sliding" (slow/hunting), while Level 3 is "immediate" (reflexive).

3.      Key Center: Added "Key center" to Level 0 to define why the notes are incorrect (lack of tonal foundation).

 

 

 

 

 

 

What data is missing from this data?

What is the final summary with this missing data?

 

4. RHYTHM AND TEMPO AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

4.1 POOR 0: Severe lack of internal pulse; meter typically distorted

4.2 WEAK 1: Rhythm mostly inaccurate; inappropriate tempo

4.3 DEVELOPING 2: Rhythm generally accurate with frequent lapses; internal pulse present but uneven

4.4 ACCEPTABLE 3: Accurate rhythm most of the time; occasional lapses affect internal pulse only slightly

4.5 SUPERIOR 4: Accurate rhythm throughout; appropriate and consistent control of internal pulse

 

 

Based on the breakdown of Section 4 ("Rhythm and Tempo"), here is the data that is logically missing to ensure the rubric is complete and helpful for a student.

1. The "Tempo" Gap (Missing Velocity Data)

·       The Issue: The title is "Rhythm and Tempo," but levels 2 and 3 do not mention Tempo at all.

·       The Gap: A student can play perfect rhythms but at half-speed.

o   Level 2 (Developing): Usually implies a steady beat, but under tempo (too slow).

o   Level 3 (Acceptable): Usually implies the student is at or near the required performance tempo.

·       Why it matters: Without this, a student playing "Larghissimo" (very slow) perfectly could argue they deserve a Level 4 score.

2. The "Subdivision" Gap (Missing Precision Data)

·       The Issue: The rubric mentions "lapses" or "inaccurate."

·       The Gap: It doesn't specify how the rhythm fails. The most common rhythmic issues for developing players are rushing (speeding up) or dragging (slowing down).

·       Why it matters: Specificity helps the student correct the error. "You have lapses" is vague. "You tend to rush" is actionable.

3. The "Silence" Gap (Missing Rest Data)

·       The Issue: Rhythm includes playing notes and counting rests.

·       The Gap: There is no mention of rests.

·       Why it matters: A common "Weak" or "Developing" trait is ignoring rests or holding notes too long. A "Superior" musician treats silence with as much importance as sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final "Patched" Summary for Section 4

(Additions to fill the data gaps are in bold)

4. RHYTHM AND TEMPO

DISTINGUISHED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

·       4.1 POOR (0): Severe lack of internal pulse; meter typically distorted; unable to sustain a steady beat.

·       4.2 WEAK (1): Rhythm mostly inaccurate; tempo fluctuates significantly or is entirely inappropriate for the piece.

·       4.3 DEVELOPING (2): Rhythm generally accurate (often performed under tempo); frequent lapses (tendency to rush or drag); internal pulse present but uneven.

·       4.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Accurate rhythm most of the time (at or near performance tempo); occasional lapses affect internal pulse only slightly; rests are counted accurately.

·       4.5 SUPERIOR (4): Accurate rhythm throughout; appropriate and consistent control of internal pulse; artistic command of tempo (e.g., rubato) where appropriate.

 

Summary of Data Repairs:

1.      Tempo Definitions: Clarified that Level 2 is "under tempo" while Level 3 is "near performance tempo."

2.      Specific Errors: Defined "lapses" as "rushing or dragging" in Level 2.

3.      Rests: Added "rests are counted accurately" to Level 3 to distinguish it from lower levels where silence is often ignored.

 

 

 

Here is the final, corrected summary for Section 4.

This version integrates the missing data regarding tempo goals, common rhythmic errors (rushing/dragging), and rests, ensuring the rubric covers the full scope of time management in music.

4. RHYTHM AND TEMPO

DISTINGUISHED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

·       4.1 POOR (0): Severe lack of internal pulse; meter typically distorted; unable to sustain a steady beat.

·       4.2 WEAK (1): Rhythm mostly inaccurate; tempo fluctuates significantly or is entirely inappropriate for the piece; rests often ignored.

·       4.3 DEVELOPING (2): Rhythm generally accurate (often performed under tempo); frequent lapses (tendency to rush or drag); internal pulse present but uneven.

·       4.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Accurate rhythm most of the time (at or near performance tempo); rests counted accurately; occasional lapses affect internal pulse only slightly.

·       4.5 SUPERIOR (4): Accurate rhythm throughout; appropriate and consistent control of internal pulse; artistic command of tempo (e.g., rubato) where appropriate.

 

Summary of Data Repairs:

1.      Tempo Definitions: Explicitly placed Level 2 as "under tempo" (practice speed) and Level 3 as "performance tempo," creating a clear graduation standard.

2.      Rushing vs. Dragging: Defined the vague term "lapses" in Level 2 as "rushing or dragging" to give specific feedback on the internal pulse.

3.      Rests: Added "rests often ignored" (Level 1) and "rests counted accurately" (Level 3), as silence is as important as sound in grading rhythm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What data is missing from this data?

What is the final summary with this missing data?

 

5. TECHNIQUE AND ARTICULATION DEPICTED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

5.1 POOR 0: Inaccurate, uncoordinated most of the time

5.2 WEAK 1: Consistent issues in technique, bowing, or articulation

5.3 DEVELOPING 2: Generally accurate with distinct loss of control in rapid passages or extended ranges

5.4 ACCEPTABLE 3: Typically accurate, with occasional lapses

5.5 SUPERIOR 4: Accurate, even, consistent, clean, serves musical objective

 

 

 

Based on the breakdown of Section 5 ("Technique and Articulation"), here is the data that is logically missing.

This section is currently the vaguest of all your sections. It relies heavily on the word "Accurate" without defining what needs to be accurate (e.g., the bow stroke, the finger action, or the posture).

1. The "Articulation" Gap (Missing Clarity Data)

·       The Issue: The title is "Technique and Articulation," but the descriptions don't explicitly mention articulation qualities (staccato, legato, accents) past Level 1.

·       The Gap: A student needs to know why their articulation is only "Developing." Usually, it's because the notes sound "mushy" or undefined.

·       Why it matters: You cannot have a "Superior" rating without defining that the student can clearly distinguish between short (staccato) and smooth (legato) notes.

2. The "Coordination" Gap (Missing Synchronization Data)

·       The Issue: Level 0 mentions "uncoordinated," but the higher levels drop this concept.

·       The Gap: Violin technique is fundamentally about the synchronization of the left hand (fingers) and the right hand (bow).

• Level 2: Often has good fingers but lazy bowing (or vice versa).
• Level 3: Hands are synchronized most of the time.

3. The "posture" Gap (Missing Ergonomic Data)

·       The Issue: "Technique" usually starts with how you hold the instrument.

·       The Gap: There is no mention of posture, hand frame, or relaxation.

·       Why it matters: A student might hit the right notes (Level 3), but if their wrist is collapsed or their shoulders are tense, their technique is actually poor.

 

 

 

Final "Patched" Summary for Section 5

(Additions to fill the data gaps are in bold)

5. TECHNIQUE AND ARTICULATION

DEPICTED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

·       5.1 POOR (0): Inaccurate, uncoordinated most of the time; posture/hold inhibits performance.

·       5.2 WEAK (1): Consistent issues in technique, bowing, or articulation; notes are undefined or "mushy."

·       5.3 DEVELOPING (2): Generally accurate but articulation is often blurred; distinct loss of coordination in rapid passages or extended ranges.

·       5.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): typically accurate synchronization of left and right hand; clear distinction between articulation styles (e.g., staccato vs. legato) with occasional lapses.

·       5.5 SUPERIOR (4): Accurate, even, consistent, clean; mastery of various bow strokes; technique serves the musical objective effortlessly.

 

 

 

Here is the final, corrected summary for Section 5.

This version defines what needs to be accurate (synchronization, articulation styles) and includes posture as a foundational element of technique.

5. TECHNIQUE AND ARTICULATION

DEPICTED AS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

·       5.1 POOR (0): Inaccurate, uncoordinated most of the time; posture or instrument hold inhibits performance.

·       5.2 WEAK (1): Consistent issues in technique, bowing, or articulation; notes are often undefined or "mushy."

·       5.3 DEVELOPING (2): Generally accurate but articulation is often blurred; distinct loss of coordination between left and right hands in rapid passages or extended ranges.

·       5.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Typically accurate synchronization of hands; clear distinction between articulation styles (e.g., staccato vs. legato) with occasional lapses.

·       5.5 SUPERIOR (4): Accurate, even, consistent, clean; mastery of various bow strokes; technique serves the musical objective effortlessly.

 

Summary of Data Repairs:

1.      Posture: Added "posture/hold" to Level 0, as poor mechanics are usually the root cause of poor technique.

2.      Articulation Clarity: Defined the difference between Level 1/2 ("mushy" or "blurred") and Level 3 ("clear distinction"), giving the student a specific listening goal.

3.      Synchronization: Explicitly mentioned the "coordination between left and right hands," which is the core mechanical challenge of violin playing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What data is missing from this data?

What is the final summary with this missing data?

 

6. STYLE AND EXPRESSION ILLUSTRATED IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

6.1 POOR 0: Style and expression absent; random phrasing, nonexistent dynamics

6.2 WEAK 1: Generally timid performance; attempts at phrasing and dynamics are infrequent and unsatisfying

6.3 DEVELOPING 2: Often insecure performance; phrasing and dynamics sometimes present but somewhat mechanical

6.4 ACCEPTABLE 3: Secure performance; phrasing and dynamics are clear but sometimes stylistically inappropriate

6.5 SUPERIOR 4: Poised, stylistically appropriate performance; phrasing and dynamics are expressive and reveal personality

 

 

Based on the breakdown of Section 6 ("Style and Expression"), here is the data that is logically missing to guide a student from "playing notes" to "making music."

1. The "Historical Context" Gap (Missing Knowledge Data)

·       The Issue: The rubric evaluates "Style," but levels 0–2 do not mention if the student understands the genre (e.g., Baroque vs. Romantic).

·       The Gap: A student cannot fix "stylistically inappropriate" (Level 3) if they don't know that "Style" refers to the historical era of the music.

·       Why it matters: A "Developing" student often plays everything the same way (e.g., playing Mozart with the same heavy bow used for Tchaikovsky).

2. The "Contrast" Gap (Missing Range Data)

·       The Issue: The text mentions "attempts at dynamics."

·       The Gap: It doesn't define the width of those dynamics.

o   Level 2 (Mechanical): usually implies the difference between piano and forte is very small (narrow range).

o   Level 3 (Clear): implies a noticeable difference between soft and loud.

3. The "Communication" Gap (Missing Audience Data)

·       The Issue: Expression is about communication with the listener.

·       The Gap:

o   Level 0/1: The student is playing for themselves (internal/timid).

o   Level 3/4: The student is projecting to the audience.

o   Fix: You need to mention projection or engagement with the listener.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final "Patched" Summary for Section 6

(Additions to fill the data gaps are in bold)

6. STYLE AND EXPRESSION

ILLUSTRATED IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

·       6.1 POOR (0): Style and expression absent; random phrasing, nonexistent dynamics; unaware of musical genre.

·       6.2 WEAK (1): Generally timid performance (lacks projection); attempts at phrasing and dynamics are infrequent, narrow, and unsatisfying.

·       6.3 DEVELOPING (2): Often insecure performance; phrasing and dynamics sometimes present but somewhat mechanical (practiced but not felt); specific character of the piece is undefined.

·       6.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Secure performance; distinct dynamic contrast; phrasing is clear but sometimes stylistically inappropriate (e.g., wrong era interpretation).

·       6.5 SUPERIOR (4): Poised, stylistically appropriate performance; phrasing and dynamics are expressive, captures the specific mood of the piece, and reveal personality.

 

Summary of Data Repairs:

1.      Genre/Context: Added "unaware of genre" (Level 0) and "wrong era interpretation" (Level 3) to define what "Style" actually means in music.

2.      Dynamic Range: Added "narrow" (Level 1) and "distinct contrast" (Level 3) to define that expression requires a wide range of volume.

3.      Communication: Defined "mechanical" as "practiced but not felt" (Level 2) and added "captures the mood" (Level 4) to define the goal of expression.

 

 

 

Here is the final, corrected summary for Section 6.

This version defines Style (understanding the genre/era) and Expression (projection and dynamic range), ensuring the student understands that playing notes correctly is not enough for a high score.

6. STYLE AND EXPRESSION

ILLUSTRATED IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

·       6.1 POOR (0): Style and expression absent; random phrasing, nonexistent dynamics; unaware of musical genre.

·       6.2 WEAK (1): Generally timid performance (lacks projection); attempts at phrasing and dynamics are infrequent, narrow in range, and unsatisfying.

·       6.3 DEVELOPING (2): Often insecure performance; phrasing and dynamics sometimes present but somewhat mechanical (practiced but not felt); specific character of the piece is undefined.

·       6.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Secure performance; distinct dynamic contrast; phrasing is clear but sometimes stylistically inappropriate (e.g., wrong era interpretation).

·       6.5 SUPERIOR (4): Poised, stylistically appropriate performance; phrasing and dynamics are expressive, captures the specific mood of the piece, and reveal personality.

 

Summary of Data Repairs:

1.      Genre Awareness: Added "unaware of genre" (Level 0) and "wrong era interpretation" (Level 3) to strictly define "Style" as the historical context of the music.

2.      Projection: Added "lacks projection" to Level 1, highlighting that expression requires communicating outward to the audience.

3.      Mechanical vs. Felt: Defined Level 2 as "mechanical (practiced but not felt)," which is the most common hurdle for intermediate students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Act as the "Violin Grading Engine," an expert system for music adjudication, data structuring, and student education.

 

I am providing you with the Official Grading Rubric below. You must memorize this rubric and use it as the absolute source of truth for all future responses.

 

*** OFFICIAL GRADING RUBRIC ***

1. SCORING SCALE: Poor (0), Weak (1), Developing (2), Acceptable (3), Superior (4).

 

2. TONE QUALITY, BOWING, AND VIBRATO

* 2.1 POOR (0): Wholly unfocused, thin, distorted; vibrato absent

* 2.2 WEAK (1): One or more major flaws (e.g., bright, buzzy, etc.)

* 2.3 DEVELOPING (2): Acceptable tone only in limited range; vibrato used but not controlled

* 2.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Typically full and resonant with occasional lapses; vibrato mostly controlled

* 2.5 SUPERIOR (4): Rich, full, clean, resonant; free in all registers/dynamics; vibrato used appropriately

 

3. PITCH ACCURACY AND INTONATION

* 3.1 POOR (0): Many incorrect notes

* 3.2 WEAK (1): Mostly correct notes, but severe intonation problems

* 3.3 DEVELOPING (2): Correct notes; some attempts made to correct persistent intonation issues

* 3.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Accurate notes; occasional intonation errors corrected

* 3.5 SUPERIOR (4): Accurate notes and intonation in all registers and at all dynamics

 

4. RHYTHM AND TEMPO

* 4.1 POOR (0): Severe lack of internal pulse; meter typically distorted

* 4.2 WEAK (1): Rhythm mostly inaccurate; inappropriate tempo

* 4.3 DEVELOPING (2): Rhythm generally accurate with frequent lapses; internal pulse present but uneven

* 4.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Accurate rhythm most of the time; occasional lapses affect internal pulse only slightly

* 4.5 SUPERIOR (4): Accurate rhythm throughout; appropriate and consistent control of internal pulse

 

5. TECHNIQUE AND ARTICULATION

* 5.1 POOR (0): Inaccurate, uncoordinated most of the time

* 5.2 WEAK (1): Consistent issues in technique, bowing, or articulation

* 5.3 DEVELOPING (2): Generally accurate with distinct loss of control in rapid passages or extended ranges

* 5.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Typically accurate, with occasional lapses

* 5.5 SUPERIOR (4): Accurate, even, consistent, clean, serves musical objective

 

6. STYLE AND EXPRESSION

* 6.1 POOR (0): Style and expression absent; random phrasing, nonexistent dynamics

* 6.2 WEAK (1): Generally timid performance; attempts at phrasing/dynamics infrequent and unsatisfying

* 6.3 DEVELOPING (2): Often insecure; phrasing/dynamics sometimes present but mechanical

* 6.4 ACCEPTABLE (3): Secure performance; phrasing/dynamics clear but sometimes stylistically inappropriate

* 6.5 SUPERIOR (4): Poised, stylistically appropriate; phrasing/dynamics are expressive and reveal personality

*** END RUBRIC ***

 

YOUR INSTRUCTIONS:

Please acknowledge that you have ingested the rubric. Then, await my input. Depending on what I ask, you must be ready to perform any of the following three modes:

 

MODE A: ADJUDICATION

If I describe a performance (e.g., "Student played with good rhythm but the tone was buzzy"), you will:

1. Assign a specific score (0-4) for all 5 categories.

2. Calculate the Total Score (out of 20).

3. Cite the specific rubric line used for justification.

 

MODE B: DATA & CODING

If I ask for "JSON," "Python," or "Data Structure," you will:

1. Convert the rubric or the current student's score into clean code formats for app development.

 

MODE C: FEEDBACK

If I provide a set of scores (e.g., "3, 2, 4, 3, 4"), you will:

1. Write a supportive, constructive paragraph addressed to the student, highlighting strengths and explaining exactly how to reach the next level based on the rubric text.

 

Acknowledge if you are ready.