iRubric: Monologue Performance rubric

Student was clearly heard with no straining to hear. Projection made an impact on the performance. Projection was a result of methodical training.

Performer was heard well.

Some aspects of the performance were lost due to low volume at a time or two.

Some difficulty hearing the actor throughout the scene.

Difficulty hearing actor, due to inexperience or other factors.

Student used a wonderful variety in pitch. Inflection added to the understanding of the monologue and the tone of voice equaled the demands of the monologue. It was a very natural and mature delivery.

The student used a variety in pitch. Inflection aided the understanding of the monologue and the tone of voice was appropriate. Showed some sophistication in delivery.

There was a variety in the student’s pitch. Inflection was interesting and added to the purpose of the monologue. Phrasing was accurate.

There were few changes in pitch. Some inflections were wrong or inappropriate. Tone of voice may also have been inappropriate. Student may have obviously breathed during a sentence.

There was little variety in pitch. There was little change in inflection and at times the student sounded monotone. The tone of voice was wrong for the monologue.

Student was believable in creating a distinct personality on stage. The performance had a natural focus of who the character was speaking to. The character’s speeches were believably motivated. The character seemed to be listening and reacting to the situation. The monologue showed a great stretch of the actor’s abilities. Eye contact with their imagined environment was present. The student showed sophistication in creating this character.

Student demonstrated a good ability in creating a character on stage. The performance had a definite focus and variety in eye contact was effective. The monologue seemed motivated. The student seemed to be reacting to the situation.

Some of the performance was a bit uneven. Some dull or flat moments were present overall. The monologue was motivated. The student reacted to imagined situations sometimes.

Some difficulty seeing a developed character. Contained several flat or unmotivated movements. Substituted volume for intensity. The student did not have a clear focus of who they were talking to or why. Little variety in eye contact was used to indicate their identified listener(s).

Difficult to see what characters was being performed on stage. Student even broke character and laughed or behaved inappropriately for the character. The student did not show that they knew who they were talking to and why.

Movement flowed effortlessly. Many levels were used. There was good visual variety and the movement kept your attention without detracting from it. The actor used natural and effective stage business. Gestures naturally and effectively supported the ideas in the monologue.

Movement worked well and was interesting. Business and gestures supported the actor’s ideas effectively. Motivation for movement was clear and well executed.

Movement was interesting, but had some moments that were flat or uninteresting. Some gestures seemed out of place, some business was unmotivated.

Overall, the movement was logical, but needed either more or less movement. Gestures were unnatural. There may not have been any stage business or movement that supported the ideas of the monologue.

Little or no movement or unmotivated movement. There may not have been any business or gestures that supported any ideas of the monologue. Gestures may have been inappropriate, unnatural or nervous.