ACertCM Mark Scheme
Component 1: Previous Experience
No marks are awarded for this Component. To pass, a candidate must satisfy the examiners by submitting either
- one of the pieces of evidence listed in the syllabus for Component 1 (under the heading ‘You must if possible submit…’), or
- a testimonial, as described in the syllabus for Component 1.
Examiners must be satisfied that the evidence provided is genuine, and that it fulfils the requirements of the syllabus. If they consider it necessary they may, at their discretion, seek additional information from the candidate and/or the writer of a testimonial.
When satisfied, the examiners must indicate their approval briefly on the ACertCM Mark Sheet.
If, after careful consideration, the examiners are of the opinion that the evidence provided is not genuine, or that it does not fulfil the requirements of the syllabus, the candidate will not gain a pass in Component 1. The examiners must indicate reason(s) for their dissatisfaction on the ACertCM Mark Sheet.
A candidate who fails to make a satisfactory submission for Component 1 may re-submit evidence for this Component not more than two years after the unsuccessful attempt.
Component 2: Courses and Training
Again, no marks are awarded for this Component. Note, however, that some marks in Component 4 are allocated to discussion of issues arising from the candidate’s involvement in approved courses and events.
To pass in Component 2 a candidate must satisfy the examiners by providing evidence (of the kinds required by the syllabus) that they have attended two appropriate courses provided by the Guild and/or by other body or bodies as approved by the Examinations Secretary.
Part of the required evidence is the writing of an account of each course or event. The examiners will expect each account to be of the prescribed length, to be well written in the candidate’s own words (with few if any errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar), and to provide a clear impression of the nature of the course or event chosen, and its outcomes and opportunities.
Examiners must be satisfied that the evidence provided is genuine and that it fulfils the requirements of the syllabus. If they consider it necessary they may, at their discretion, seek additional information from the candidate and/or other party or parties.
When satisfied, the examiners must indicate their approval briefly on the ACertCM Mark Sheet.
If, after careful consideration, the examiners are of the opinion that the evidence provided is not genuine, or that it does not fulfil the requirements of the syllabus, the candidate will not gain a pass in Component 2. The examiners must indicate reason(s) for their dissatisfaction on the ACertCM Mark Sheet.
A candidate who fails to make a satisfactory submission for Component 2 may re-submit evidence for this Component not more than two years after the unsuccessful attempt. A re-submission will involve participation in new courses – not simply revised accounts of any previously attended.
Component 3: Practical and Written Work (60%)
30 marks are available for each section. Candidates offer EITHER Section A and Section C OR Section B and Section C.
Section A: Music-making. Each candidate offers one activity – Composition or Arrangement, Performance, or Leadership.
Composition or Arrangement
Examiners will use the following criteria as a guide, but will exercise discretion where elements from more than one band are present. A mark must be awarded from each of the four areas shown below. These four marks added together form the total mark out of 30 for the section. Marks in the Outstanding category are to be awarded in exceptional circumstances, where no more could reasonably be expected of the candidate at this level.
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Suitability for use before, during and/or after worship (maximum 5 marks). The mark here may well be modified in the light of information provided during the Viva (Component 4). | |
| 1 | Poor The pieces appear to be completely unsuitable for use before, during or after worship, and discussion in the course of the Viva does nothing to change this judgement. |
| 2 | Limited One or more pieces appear to be unsuitable for purpose, though one or more other pieces may be suitable. The Viva may clarify areas of uncertainty. |
| 3 | Good All/both pieces are suitable for purpose, but in the Viva the candidate is unable to explain their usefulness in any detail. |
| 4 | Excellent All/both pieces are suitable for purpose, and the candidate is aware of, and in the Viva able to explain, the precise function of at least one of them in some detail. |
| 5 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Presentation (maximum 5 marks). NB If the score for a piece does not give a complete indication of what is to be performed, a recording must be submitted as well. | |
| 1 | Poor Materials submitted are incomplete and/or lack much vital information about the composer’s intentions. |
| 2 | Limited Materials submitted are incomplete and/or in places lack important information about the composer’s intentions. |
| 3 | Good Materials submitted are complete (or almost complete). The composer’s intentions are broadly clear, but there is a need for more indications of dynamics, tempo and/or other necessary directions for the performer(s). |
| 4 | Excellent Materials submitted are complete. The composer’s intentions are clear, providing clear instructions throughout regarding tempo, though a few matters of detail may be missing (e.g. some dynamics or other directions for the performer(s)). |
| 5 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Presentation (maximum 5 marks). NB If the score for a piece does not give a complete indication of what is to be performed, a recording must be submitted as well.Creation or choice of ideas and/or their development (maximum 10 marks) | |
| 1-3 | Poor The submission probably falls short of the 4-minute minimum Composition: original ideas are inept or unworkable, and development is mismanaged and/or insufficient Arrangement: source material is probably unduly brief or lacking in potential for development, and/or is treated ineptly. |
| 4-5 | Limited Composition: original ideas are limited or lacking in interest, and their development lacks skill and appeal Arrangement: source material may lack potential for development, and its treatment distinctly lacks enterprise. |
| 6-7 | Good Composition: original ideas are satisfactory, and they are developed with some skill. Arrangement: source material is fit for purpose, and is developed with some success. |
| 8-9 | Excellent Composition: original ideas have some strength and character, and they are developed effectively Arrangement: source material is fit for purpose, and is developed with skill and enterprise. |
| 10 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Structure and coherence (maximum 10 marks) | |
| 1-3 | Poor The submission probably falls short of the 4-minute minimum, and lacks any clear sense of structure or coherence. |
| 4-5 | Limited In each piece a basic form is attempted, but is mismanaged, and there may be passages that lack coherence. |
| 6-7 | Good In each piece a basic form is handled successfully but without obvious enterprise (for example the second A section in a ternary form may be a literal repeat of the first A section), or there may be attempts at originality which misfire. |
| 8-9 | Excellent In each piece a basic form is treated with some enterprise (for example the second A section in a ternary form may be successfully extended, compressed, or otherwise adapted), or there may be some successful demonstrations of originality. |
| 10 | Outstanding |
Performance
Examiners will use the following criteria as a guide, but will exercise discretion where elements from more than one band are present. A mark must be awarded from each of the four areas shown below. These four marks added together form the total mark out of 30 for the section. Marks in the Outstanding category are to be awarded in exceptional circumstances, where no more could reasonably be expected of the candidate at this level.
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Choice of repertoire (maximum 5 marks) | |
| 1 | Poor The recital lasts for less than 8 minutes and/or consists of only one piece (or it may be unduly long) The programme note is either non-existent or contains little or no relevant information The programme is seriously lacking in variety and/or structure. |
| 2 | Limited The recital lasts for less than 8 minutes and/or consists of only one piece (or it may be unduly long) The programme note contains some relevant information The programme has limited variety and/or little sense of structure. |
| 3 | Good The recital lasts for 8–12 minutes and consists of two or more pieces The programme note provides valuable background information and explains satisfactorily why the choice of pieces is appropriate to the chosen place of worship The pieces together make up a varied and well-structured programme. |
| 4 | Excellent The recital lasts for 8–12 minutes and consists of two or more pieces The programme note is clearly focused, containing much valuable background information and a full explanation of why the choice of pieces is appropriate to the chosen place of worship The pieces together make up a varied and well-structured programme. |
| 5 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of notes, rhythm, tempo (maximum 10 marks) | |
| 1-3 | Very poor Inadequate awareness of inaccuracies in pitch and/or rhythm Failure to observe accidentals Searching for notes; undue hesitation Variable pulse. |
| 4-5 | Cautious/occasionally hesitant approach though adequate continuity Occasional fluctuations in tempo Occasional labouring under technical challenge Occasional inaccuracies. |
| 6-7 | Generally confident playing/singing Occasional small slips do not detract from the overall continuity Assured fluency and control of instrument/voice. |
| 8-9 | Almost completely accurate – one or two small slips Technical fluency Expressive and committed performance. |
| 10 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Handling of instrument/voice (maximum 5 marks). NB Alternatives below take account of the fact that (for example) intonation and diction do not apply to keyboard players. | |
| 1 | Poor control of instrument / voice Poor use of tonal resources (e.g. organ registration) / very unreliable intonation / consistently weak tone quality / very unclear diction (with words inaudible or incomprehensible) |
| 2 | Limited control of instrument / voice Limited use of tonal resources / intonation often unreliable / frequently weak tone quality / some unclear diction (with words sometimes inaudible or incomprehensible) |
| 3 | Good control of instrument / voice Good use of tonal resources / pleasing tone quality / diction mainly or almost entirely clear |
| 4 | Excellent control of instrument / voice – very sound technique Excellent use of tonal resources / consistently pleasing tone quality / consistently correct and clear diction |
| 5 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| General musicianship and style (maximum 10 marks) | |
| 1-3 | Poor Lack of sufficient musical awareness / attention to dynamics and/or phrasing Cautious/hesitant |
| 4-5 | Limited Little stylistic awareness, with partial attention to detail |
| 6-7 | Good Generally assured and fluent Generally well-judged tempi / phrasing / articulation Confident |
| 8-9 | Excellent Stylistic flair Assured and confident |
| 10 | Outstanding |
Leadership
Examiners will use the following criteria as a guide, but will exercise discretion where elements from more than one band are present. A mark must be awarded from each of the three areas shown below. These three marks added together form the total mark out of 30 for the section. Marks in the Outstanding category are to be awarded in exceptional circumstances, where no more could reasonably be expected of the candidate at this level.
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Communication skills (maximum 10 marks) | |
| 1-3 | Poor Faltering; it is often/almost always hard to hear what is being said Very little or no engagement with the people being taught. |
| 4-5 | Limited Often hesitant; hard to hear at times. Limited engagement with the people being taught. |
| 6-7 | Good Generally clear and easy to hear – perhaps inclined to speak too rapidly or too slowly Generally good engagement with the people being taught, with awareness of the needs of individuals as well as of the whole group |
| 8-9 | Excellent Clear and easy to hear throughout Very good engagement with the people being taught. Able to anticipate the needs of individuals as well as of the whole group. |
| 10 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Effectiveness of teaching (maximum 15 marks) | |
| 1-5 | Poor Apparently unfamiliar with the material to be taught. Little or no progress made during the session. |
| 6-8 | Limited Insufficiently familiar with one or both of the pieces to be taught and/or is unable to go beyond broad outlines Limited progress made during the session, because errors are missed and little attention is paid to matters of expression and interpretation. |
| 9-11 | Good Sound knowledge of the pieces to be taught. Good progress made during the session, with few if any errors missed and some attention paid to matters of expression and interpretation. |
| 12-14 | Excellent Thorough knowledge of the pieces to be taught. Considerable progress made during the session, with, at most, one or two insignificant errors missed Considerable attention paid to matters of expression and interpretation. |
| 15 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Time management (maximum 5 marks) | |
| 1 | Poor The presentation is significantly more or less than the required time limit of 20–30 minutes Much time is wasted with inessential matters and/or is allocated without apparent regard to the relative demands of the two pieces to be taught. |
| 2 | Limited The presentation is more or less than the required time limit Some time is wasted with inessential matters and/or is allocated with insufficient regard to the relative demands of the two pieces to be taught. |
| 3 | Good The presentation may be slightly over or under the required time limit. Little or no time is wasted with inessential matters Time is allocated with some clear regard to the relative demands of the two pieces to be taught, although time management generally could probably be more efficient. |
| 4 | Excellent No time is wasted with inessential matters The time allocation is used to very good advantage, with an appropriate division of time between the two pieces to be taught (taking into account their relative demands) Time is allocated with a clear regard throughout to the relative demands of the two pieces to be taught. |
| 5 | Outstanding |
Section B: Section B: Knowledge and Experience of Music, Liturgy and Worship (30%)
Portfolio
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Number of services described, their variety, and description (maximum 15 marks). There is no penalty if a candidate writes about more than 20–25 services, but this will not necessarily mean that the final total mark for the portfolio is high. | |
| 1-5 | Poor Fewer than 10 services described, with (very) little detail and/or (very) limited variety. |
| 6-8 | Limited More than 10, but fewer than 20 services described, probably with (very) little detail and/or (very) limited variety. |
| 9-11 | Good 20–25 services described, with some detail in most cases, but perhaps with little variety. |
| 12-14 | Excellent 20–25 services described, with considerable detail in most if not all cases, and with some variety. |
| 15 | Outstanding 20–25 services described, with considerable detail in all cases. A strong effort has been made to cover a variety of types of worship. |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| To what extent music enhances the liturgy/worship (maximum 10 marks) | |
| 1-3 | Poor There are few (or very few) comments on the relationship between music and liturgy/worship |
| 4-5 | Limited There are some comments on the relationship between music and liturgy/worship, but considerable parts of the submission do not go beyond straight description. |
| 6-7 | Good There is a clear attempt in the case of most services to comment perceptively on how music enhances the liturgy/worship. |
| 8-9 | Excellent There are numerous perceptive comments on how music enhances the liturgy/worship, with some awareness of its limitations (the syllabus uses the expression ‘to what extent’). |
| 10 | Outstanding |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| General conclusions/general impression (maximum 5 marks) | |
| 1 | Poor There is no real attempt to draw any general conclusions from the evidence presented. The submission seems haphazard, badly organised and poorly presented. |
| 2 | Limited There are few attempts to draw general conclusions from the evidence presented. The submission has some basic structure, but presentation leaves much to be desired. |
| 3 | Good There are useful attempts to draw general conclusions from the evidence presented. The submission shows evidence of considerable care in terms of structure and presentation. |
| 4 | Excellent There are some effective general conclusions based on the evidence presented. The submission has been very carefully, clearly and accurately presented. |
| 5 | Outstanding |
Written examination
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Two short answers (maximum 5 marks each) | |
| 1 | One correct and relevant piece of information. |
| 2 | Two correct and relevant pieces of information. |
| 3 | Three correct and relevant pieces of information. |
| 4 | Four correct and relevant pieces of information. |
| 5 | Five or more correct and relevant pieces of information. |
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Essay question (maximum 20 marks) | |
| 1-7 | Poor Sketchy and/or incomplete, and lacks structured presentation, and/or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. Information is largely or wholly irrelevant and/or incorrect. The writing is seriously defective (e.g. much is hard to understand and/or full of errors of punctuation, grammar and/or spelling). |
| 8-11 | Limited Addresses some aspects of the question, without any real sense of structure or argument. A considerable amount of information may be irrelevant and/or incorrect. The writing is at times defective (e.g. some sentences are hard to understand and/or have serious errors of punctuation, grammar and/or spelling). |
| 12-15 | Good Addresses most or all aspects of the question competently and fairly systematically. Most information is relevant and correct. The writing is generally clear and has few if any lapses of punctuation, grammar and spelling. Some ability to make judgements and draw conclusions, but there may well be little or no real independence of thought. |
| 16-19 | Excellent The essay addresses all aspects of the question in detail, in a systematic way. All (or almost all) points are correct and relevant. Some considerable ability to make judgements and draw conclusions, but real independence of thought may still not be plentiful. |
| 20 | Outstanding Some considerable independence of thought; the work may even be suitable for publication. |
Section C: Reflecting on Music, Liturgy and Worship (30%)
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| Essay (maximum 30 marks) | |
| 1-11 | Poor Sketchy and/or incomplete, and lacks structured presentation, and/or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the chosen topic. Information is largely or wholly irrelevant and/or incorrect. The writing is seriously defective (e.g. much is hard to understand and/or full of errors of punctuation, grammar and/or spelling). |
| 12-17 | Limited Addresses some aspects of the chosen topic, without any real sense of structure or argument. A considerable amount of information may be irrelevant and/or incorrect. The writing is at times defective (e.g. some sentences are hard to understand and/or have serious errors of punctuation, grammar and/or spelling). |
| 18-23 | Good Addresses most or all aspects of the chosen topic competently and fairly systematically. Most information is relevant and correct. The writing is generally clear and has few if any lapses of punctuation, grammar and spelling. There is some ability to make judgements and draw conclusions, but there may well be little or no real independence of thought. |
| 24-29 | Excellent Addresses all aspects of the chosen topic in detail, in a systematic way. All (or almost all) points are correct and relevant. Some considerable ability to make judgements and draw conclusions, but real independence of thought may still not be plentiful. |
| 30 | Outstanding Some considerable independence of thought; the work may even be suitable for publication. |
Component 4: Extended Viva (40%)
40 marks may be awarded for the component – consisting of five groups of 8 marks as shown below.
The two examiners will mark independently, and then confer in order to agree on a final mark.
Discussion of Component 2 (8 marks)
Candidates will have the opportunity to discuss the courses and/or training attended for Component 2, including the reasons for their choices. They may be asked to clarify, or to enlarge on, information that they have provided in their written accounts.
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| 1-2 | Poor Answers are generally too short and/or uninformative Answers show little clarity or relevance. |
| 3-4 | Limited Some answers show some sound knowledge, but may not be well expressed Others answers are inappropriately brief, lacking detail, and/or have dubious relevance. |
| 5-6 | Good Most answers go beyond short undeveloped remarks, and show sound knowledge, clarity and relevance Some genuine sense of personal involvement. |
| 7-8 | Excellent All or almost all answers are clearly focused and effectively expressed, showing extensive first-hand knowledge Some ability to argue persuasively, with a genuine sense of personal involvement and ownership. |
Discussion of Component 3 (8 + 8 marks)
Candidates will have the opportunity to discuss the two sections submitted for Component 3. They may be asked to clarify, or to enlarge on, written information (such as the programme note for Performance in Section A).
The 8-mark grid provided above must be used twice – to provide for both of the two sections from Component 3.
Broader Discussion (8 + 8 marks)
The syllabus refers to discussion of the ‘structure and content of the services in which you participate, and the role of music in them’.
Although marking may take separate account of these two elements, it may be more convenient to consider them together: in this case the following 16-mark grid is to be used. Otherwise the 8-mark grid above should be used twice – once for each of the two elements.
| Marks | Results |
|---|---|
| 1-4 | Poor Answers are generally too short and/or uninformative Answers show little clarity or relevance. |
| 5-8 | Limited Some answers show some sound knowledge, but may not be well expressed Others answers are inappropriately brief, lacking detail, and/or have dubious relevance. |
| 9-12 | Good Most answers go beyond short undeveloped remarks, and show sound knowledge, clarity and relevance Some genuine sense of personal involvement. |
| 13-15 | Excellent All or almost all answers are clearly focused and effectively expressed, showing extensive first-hand knowledge Some ability to argue persuasively, with a genuine sense of personal involvement and ownership. |
| 16 | Outstanding |