My hazy recollection of music exams includes local reps talking in hushed tones, everyone fearing a voice behind the closed door. But who are these examiners, often travelling from afar and identified by numbers?
ABRSM says it uses ‘a panel of highly qualified and skilled generalist music examiners. Drawn from a range of backgrounds, they're all experienced musicians such as teachers, performers or conductors. As generalists, they use ABRSM's universal marking criteria to assess musical outcomes’. This means they mark all instruments plus singing.
The use of ‘generalist’ examiners applies to Trinity too. But with the Music Teachers' Board (MTB), ‘exams are only ever marked by instrument specialist examiners; a violin exam is marked by a violin player/teacher, trombone exams by a trombonist/trombone teacher.’ For MTB, this is an important distinction.
According to Trinity, once in post, their ‘examiners are required to engage in regular standardisation activities, ensuring comparability across the panel. This, alongside an ongoing programme of monitoring and training, guarantees that every candidate – wherever they are in the world – receives a fair and consistent assessment experience.’
MTB also carries out ‘additional training and standardisation exercises’, the findings of which are moderated by an independent Academic Board and then fed back. ABRSM, meanwhile, reviews ‘an examiner's marking and mark form commentaries every two years. For Practical Grades, we also review their exam method and manner.’
The syllabuses and marking criteria for all three exam boards are publicly available from their respective websites.
Exam marksheets
The first point to make here is that comments are rarely about ‘the teaching’. In ABRSM's case, ‘examiners concentrate on what happened on the day or in the recording’. They write these comments ‘in live time’, and the ‘performance as a whole’ comment – for Performance Grades – at the end. Comments are intended as ‘helpful pointers for future development’.
In a similar vein, MTB aims to ‘provide marksheets that focus on the positives while indicating where improvements could be made’. Their marksheets are checked by a reviewer ‘to ensure they are suitably written’ before being sent out. With MTB, though, marksheets aren't necessarily the final word, and exam results are provisional: certificates are sent out following approval from a panel of senior members of MTB looking at that month's results, checking these and the marking ‘to ensure standardisation and maintenance of our high standards.’ In theory, results can be adjusted up or down.
Another question among teachers is: do candidates have to pass every section to pass overall? According to ABRSM, ‘for all components, examiners mark up or down from the pass mark, assessing how well the candidate demonstrates the qualities and skills in the marking criteria. They assess each section independently and candidates don't have to pass every section’.
In Trinity's exams, there's also no minimum mark per section, and the exam format is designed to be ‘as flexible as possible’, which allows ‘candidates to play to their strengths and focus on the aspects of the exam where they feel most confident’.
Digital versus face-to-face
Teachers sometimes ask if adjustments are made between digital and face-to-face exams when it comes to marking. For these three exam boards, the answer is clearly ‘no’.
‘One of our core principles,’ explains Trinity, ‘is that the standard of assessment remains the same: face-to-face and digital are alternative delivery modes of the same qualification… Every candidate is assessed using the same criteria, ensuring that performances are marked with the same level of care’. Trinity also uses the same panel of examiners.
ABRSM uses the same examiner panel too (for both formats), and the same marking criteria for their face-to-face Practical Grades as their video-recorded Performance Grades. But in the case of the latter, ‘the examiner awards an additional mark out of 30 for the “performance as a whole”.’ This mark reflects the complete performance of all four items, from first note to last, and focuses on skills in communication, interpretation and delivery, including, for example, if there are gaps between pieces.
With MTB, all exams are online. A major benefit with this, they say, is that ‘all exam recordings are available to be listened to’, i.e. captured. This means a sample of exams can be ‘secondary moderated’ by a senior team, who ‘monitor the accuracy and consistency of marking… on a rolling basis’.
How long do results take?
Generally speaking, this information isn't always forthcoming. But MTB states that ‘within 2–3 weeks of submission, the marksheet will be sent by email to the centre that conducted the exam’. Trinity didn't comment.
Top marks, though, go to ABRSM in this instance for transparency: ‘We aim to release results for Practical and Performance Grades within one week of the exam or video submission date. However, this can take up to 28 days and, in busy periods, Performance Grade results can sometimes take longer.’ It's always nicer knowing.
