The “resolution” column will show the outcome of the committee’s deliberations, once added by the chair/Speech Advisor.
Number of records to review: 13
Serial | 04 |
---|---|
Date Updated | 05/05/2023 |
Category | Prose Reading |
Contestant Name(s) | Sophia Adsit Garcia |
Nature of Concern |
|
Describe concern | The adjudicator wrote in two different sections that student did not convey sensory and intellectual meaning through the use of gestures. In one spot he deducted 1 point in the other he deducted two. The adjudicator also seemed to take off points for the student rarely using her script. It does not say in the criterion area that the student needs to rely on the script. I feel these points were taken away erroneously as the student received perfect scores in previous performances. |
What adjudicator specifically wrote or did | Criterion 2: “The sensory and intellectual experience could have been improved through more gestures.” |
Evaluation Sheet(s) | |
Round/Time | 11:30 am |
Committee Review | |
Initial Advisor Comments | I think we could restore one point under physical delivery. The adjudicator did address the lack of gestures that would have helped convey meaning and so that was already deducted. The use of the script is up to interpretation and the category is “prose reading” for a reason. I think the adjudicator can critique the lack of reading. |
Resolution: | Denied |
Disposition | The referee committee discussed this evaluation thoroughly and believes that points deducted were warranted and not considered double jeopardy concerning gestures and facial expression under “Conveying Meaning” and “Physical Delivery.” The adjudicator wrote quite a bit of feedback in terms of conveying meaning and the importance of the speaker using facial expression and gestures to convey the overall meaning of the piece. The adjudicator linked those two comments to the emotional and intellectual meaning of the piece. |
Result Number | 0 |