You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form. 1 Start 2 Complete Thank you for completing this form. It is important for you to complete this form for each adjudicator who you observed at an AACTFest. Your name and contact information is kept confidential, but the rating and comments will be shared with the adjudicators. Please let [email protected] know if you have any questions. All questions are based on the AACT Adjudication training manual and AACT Adjudication Curriculum. Please fill out within two days of returning home. Thank you. Name of Adjudicator you are evaluating * Date of Event * Month MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Day Day12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 Year Year20222023202420252026 Which AACTFest was this adjudicator being evaluated for? * State Festival Regional Festival National Festival City/ State/ Region of Festival * The adjudicator demonstrated the ability to address both technical and artistic elements of performances. The AACT Handbook states, "Adjudicators should be "individuals with a wide range of theatrical training and experience". Always Most of the Time Some of the Time Infrequently Never The adjudicator kept personal likes and dislikes out of the evaluation. The AACT Handbook states, "The adjudicator should address comments to the entire house as well as cast and crew of the performance". Always Most of the Time Some of the Time Infrequently Never The adjudicator addressed cast, crew and house. AACT Handbook states, "Adjudicators' personal likes and dislikes to authors and materials are not to play any part in the adjudication process". Always Most of the Time Some of the Time Infrequently Never The adjudicator provided a balance critique that congratulated performance successes. Critique should be balanced to include both a clear understanding of what aspects of the performance were successful and possibilities for growth in the future. "The adjudicator provided a balanced critique that congratulated performance successes, and gave the company concrete advice for improvement." Always Most of the Time Some of the Time Infrequently Never The adjudicator gave specific advice that could be used in the company's next rehearsal. "When suggestions for improvement are offered, the ideas should provide specific, useful tools." Always Most of the Time Some of the Time Infrequently Never The adjudicator provided specific examples. "Strong critique includes general perceptions made clearer with specific examples to illustrate general observations." Always Most of the Time Some of the Time Infrequently Never I would recommend this adjudicator to others * Without Reservation If small improvements are made Not currently The following are ways of describing adjudicator attributes The adjudicator was respectful of the company's effort. The adjudicator was accessible. The adjudicator was an effective public speaker. The adjudicator was motivational. The adjudicator was an effective member of the panel. What were the unique strengths of the adjudicator, and please provide specific examples if possible. What skills would you recommend the adjudicator work on or consider before the next gig? Your Name Your Email Leave this field blank