Digital music portfolios are assessed to four criteria with the following weightings:
• Creativity: 40%
• Craft: 30%
• Application: 20%
• Presentation: 10%
The following guide provides a reference with regards marking expectations. However, it should be noted that staff may interpret the criteria as deemed appropriate to the creative form and media
of the portfolio:

Creativity (40%)
Exceptional (34-40): An original contribution to musical thinking. Convincing, confident, imaginative, personal, bold, risk-taking, engaging.
Superior (30-33): Convincing musical logic and direction. Engagement with repertory goes beyond imitation.
Competent (26-29): Influences of other composers are evident, and display steps towards taking such influences into a new, personal direction.
Acceptable (20-25): Engaged with contemporary music culture and ideas but may parrot rather than seek to extend the ideas of other composers.
Unacceptable (19 or less): Generic, hackneyed, pastiche.

Craft (30%)
Exceptional (26-30): Obvious and unequivocal command of resources. Technique is matched to creative intentions.
Superior (23-25): Musical structure is fluent and lucid throughout. Displays sophisticated ability to develop and manipulate material. Advanced use of colour.
Competent (20-22): Displays coherent structure and convincing clarity in orchestration and standard of production.
Acceptable (15-19): Capacity to express musical ideas with appropriate instrumental and/or digital media.
Unacceptable (14 or less): Fundamental technical errors evident in notation, digital production, understanding of instruments, musical form, etc.

Application (20%)
Exceptional (17-20): Is consumed by his or her artform and actively contributes to the music community at large.
Superior (15-16): Is highly committed to composition as evidenced via engagement with the repertory, attendance at concerts, etc. Generally seizes opportunities to extend learning as they arise.
Competent (13-14): Demonstrates independent motivation and works consistently throughout the semester. Engaged in generating opportunities for public dissemination of work.
Acceptable (10-12): Attends lessons, seminars, workshop opportunities and demonstrates some openness to learn from tutors although somewhat inconsistently. Only somewhat engaged with the composition community / cohort.
Unacceptable (9 or less): Unmotivated, fails to work in a consistent fashion.

Presentation (10%)
Exceptional (9-10): The standard of a professional commercial publication or recording with coherent visual identity.
Superior (8): Presentation of work demonstrates awareness of user-friendliness and attention to consistent and individual visual style.
Competent (7): Attractive scores presented with clarity and supported with recordings. Non score-based work informed by concise and compelling supporting documentation.
Acceptable (5-6): Notation legible but may still include unnecessary ambiguity. Electroacoustic and non score-based work supported with appropriate documentation.
Unacceptable (4 or less): Illegible scores. Audio format errors.

Oral presentations will be assessed against the following criteria:

Content
Shows evidence of broad research, taking into account a variety of sources
Clear argument, supported by relevant reasons and evidence
Shows evidence of critical thinking about the topic, including:
§ Considers alternative views
§ Where appropriate, questions assumptions implicit in the literature
§ Draws meaningful connections between facts and / or concepts
Uses terminology accurately and appropriately
 

Presentation
Is clearly expressed
Is interesting and engages other students
Makes appropriate use of examples and presentation methods relevant to the material presented (e.g. presentation software, handouts, recordings where relevant)
Covers the topic effectively in the available time