The Carillonneur Examination Committee has recommended changes to the exam scoring system, effective beginning with the 2022 exam cycle. The proposed revision is that the current 1-5 numerical scoring system be replaced by a simplified pass/not pass scoring system. This revision will not change the required level of competence. It will permit both jurors and candidates to focus on the written comments. The proposal is under active consideration by the Board. If you wish to provide comments, please contact Roy Lee (president@gcna.org) or any other Board member (link) by January 6.
Proposal:
The GCNA Carillonneur Examination committee recommends that the current 1-5 numerical scoring system be replaced by a simplified pass/not pass scoring system.
The current 1-5 numerical scoring system is as follows:
5 A SUPERIOR performance
4 A VERY GOOD performance
3 PASSING: overall performance demonstrates an acceptable level of competence
2 NOT PASSING: poor performance, unacceptable for a GCNA examination recital
1 FAILING: Unsatisfactory performance
Under the simplified pass/not pass scoring system, the current passing scores of 3, 4 or 5 will become “pass” in the new system, and the current non-passing scores of 1 or 2 will become “not pass”.
Rationale:
1. The differentiation among the current passing scores of 3, 4 or 5, and the differentiation among the current non-passing scores of 1 or 2, have no functional role in the exam process. Whether a candidate passes is decided by a) whether the required pieces pass, and b) whether the overall level across all pieces performed is passing: the numbers per se don't come into the ultimate decision of whether the candidate passes.
2. In practice, any extra information provided by the numerical scoring is at best uneven and at worst confusing rather than helpful.
Because scores of 1 occur very rarely in practice, the current numerical system lumps all "not pass" performances together (score of 2) and differentiates only among "pass" performances (scores of 3, 4, 5).
For failing performances, where extra information could be especially helpful to candidates, it is difficult for jurors to convey nuances of their assessments within the single score number "2". This in turn makes interpretation of failing scores confusing for candidates. We feel it would be more productive for candidates and teachers to focus on the written juror comments, rather than trying to decipher a numerical score whose precise value has little functional role in the exam.
For passing performances, we likewise find the "levels" implied by the 3, 4, 5 scores broadly unhelpful. The focus of our adjudication is whether an individual performance meets a given proficiency standard. We do not aim to rank exam candidates or otherwise provide "official" comparisons among those who pass. In that framework it makes little sense to assign numerical scores to different levels of passing performances. Information about excellent and less proficient aspects of a performance is more flexibly, specifically, and effectively conveyed through the written juror comments than through numerical scores.
3. Moving away from numerical scoring would focus candidates’ attention away from the score and towards the jurors' specific comments. These comments are the most important part of the adjudication sheets -- they contain all the musical content, the information that is useful to candidates in advancing their playing and musicianship -- and we feel this change in focus would improve the exam's educational effectiveness.
We acknowledge that this increased emphasis on the juror comments makes it even more important that those comments be specific, substantive, and constructive, especially when a piece does not pass. We as a committee are on board with this, and we feel that removing the numerical scores would not change our commitment to ensuring a thorough and equitable exam process.
