Building Better Feedback in Eisteddfod Adjudication

Eisteddfodau thrive on the quality of conversation between performers and adjudicators. When feedback is clear, fair, and timely, competitions feel less like a verdict and more like a workshop where Welsh language arts, folk singing, and cerdd dant can grow. When feedback is rushed, vague, or inconsistent, the experience can leave participants disillusioned, and the careful work of organising committees across Wales is undermined.

This guide gathers practical guidance for adjudicators, chairs of judging panels, and event organisers. It draws on long-standing Cymdeithas Eisteddfodau Cymru resources, as well as lessons shared by Welsh cultural societies operating in places as far away as Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane, where diaspora communities have built their own eisteddfod traditions alongside local arts funding frameworks.

Setting the Stage Before Performers Step Onto the Stage

Thorough preparation is the foundation of fair adjudication. Adjudicators should arrive at the venue with the syllabus read in full, an understanding of the age and ability categories, and a clear sense of the marking criteria. Where competitions include multiple rounds, panels should agree in advance how scores from preliminary rounds will be reconciled with finals. A short pre-event briefing with the chair and the organising secretary helps prevent the most common complaints: inconsistent criteria application, missed entries, and unclear time limits.

Adjudicators also need to familiarise themselves with the venue's acoustics and the order of competitors. In Australia, many community halls are shared with other users, so adjudicators working with diaspora groups in places like the Welsh Society of Melbourne should expect last-minute changes to room layout. A brief walk-through of the space, even ten minutes before the first competitor, allows adjudicators to adjust their listening position and confirm sightlines.

Cultural preparation matters just as much as logistical preparation. Cerdd dant, for instance, requires adjudicators to understand the relationship between the voice and the harp accompaniment, the strict syllable counts of certain cynghanedd forms, and the regional variations in pronunciation. Reading recent publications from Cymdeithas Eisteddfodau Cymru and listening to recordings of past winners can sharpen an adjudicator's ear far more than a quick skim of the syllabus.

Delivering Verbal Feedback That Actually Helps

Verbal feedback is the part of adjudication that competitors remember longest. A confident, well-prepared adjudicator speaks calmly, names the strengths first, then identifies one or two specific areas for development. Avoiding sweeping statements such as "your performance was poor" or "the choice of song was wrong" is essential. Instead, adjudicators should describe what they heard, the effect it created, and what a different choice might have produced.

Timing is critical. Many eisteddfodau now allow between three and five minutes per competitor for verbal comments, and adjudicators should rehearse their feedback delivery before the day. Speaking too quickly, particularly when offering criticism, can make performers feel ambushed. Speaking too slowly can hold up a packed schedule. A steady pace, eye contact where culturally appropriate, and a warm tone all help.

When adjudicators come from outside the immediate community, sensitivity to local idiom and dialect becomes important. Welsh diaspora audiences in Sydney and across New South Wales often include second- and third-generation learners who may not catch every regional nuance. Adjudicators should explain technical terms briefly when speaking to mixed audiences, without ever speaking down to competitors. A short glossary card kept on the judging table is a useful prompt.

Writing Constructive Written Comments

Written feedback serves a different purpose from the spoken word. It travels home with the competitor, is read by parents and teachers, and may be revisited for years. Each comment should therefore be specific, observable, and actionable. "Lovely tone" or "great effort" are kind, but they do not help a young singer know what to practise next. "Your phrasing in the second verse mirrored the harp line beautifully, and breathing at the bar line would let the consonants speak more clearly" gives the performer somewhere to begin.

The structure of written feedback often follows a simple pattern: one observation about what worked, one observation about what could be strengthened, and one encouraging note about potential. Adjudicators who find this discipline difficult should remember that competitors value honesty over flattery. A competitor who has just lost by half a mark is more likely to return next year if the feedback was honest than if it was padded with vague praise.

Adjudicators should also keep written feedback free of personal remarks about appearance, accent, or background. Australia's broad anti-discrimination framework, including the Australian Human Rights Commission Act and state-level equal opportunity legislation, applies to any judging panel operating within Australian territory, and similar principles of fairness are embedded in Welsh eisteddfodau's own codes. Treating every competitor with the same standard of respect is not merely a legal expectation but a cultural one.

Managing Disagreements and Appeals

Even well-prepared adjudicators face disputes. A performer may disagree with their placing, a parent may question the score, or two adjudicators may have given widely different marks. Each of these situations requires a calm, documented response. The organising committee should publish its appeals process before the event begins, including deadlines for submitting a concern and the route it will take.

Chairs of judging panels play a central role here. They should keep contemporaneous notes during deliberations, hold short debriefing sessions after each round, and be available to speak privately with concerned competitors or guardians after results are announced. Where an adjudicator is new to the panel, the chair should mentor them through their first dispute, modelling how to listen without conceding and how to explain criteria without becoming defensive.

Documentation also protects adjudicators themselves. Recording the basis for placings, the criteria applied, and any unusual circumstances helps if a complaint is later escalated to the society's national body. Many Australian eisteddfodau now keep digital records of adjudication sheets, partly because state funding bodies such as Create NSW and the Queensland Government require evidence of fair process before releasing grants. Cymdeithas Eisteddfodau Cymru encourages similar practices for its member eisteddfodau.

Training the Next Generation of Adjudicators

Few roles in the cultural life of an eisteddfod are more demanding than that of the adjudicator, and yet the role is often filled by retired performers or enthusiastic amateurs without formal training. Cymdeithas Eisteddfodau Cymru has long advocated for structured training, and recent years have seen a growth in regional workshops. These workshops typically cover the marking schedule, feedback language, conflict management, and the specific demands of different disciplines.

Mentoring is equally important. Pairing a new adjudicator with an experienced colleague for a full season allows the newcomer to observe how feedback is delivered, how scores are calibrated, and how the chair manages the panel. Diaspora communities in Brisbane, Perth, and Hobart have adapted this approach to suit smaller fields, often running combined adjudicators' workshops with neighbouring folk festivals to share expertise across traditions.

Performance licensing is another area where new adjudicators benefit from guidance. In Australia, public performance of copyright music usually requires licensing through APRA AMCOS, and adjudicators who use recordings or play musical examples during their feedback should ensure the eisteddfod holds the appropriate licences. The same care applies in Wales, where the Performing Right Society handles most arrangements. A trained adjudicator understands these obligations and raises them with the organising committee before the event.

Funding, Sponsorships, and the Ethics of Adjudication

The question of who pays an adjudicator's fee, and from what source, has ethical implications that committees cannot ignore. Public funding bodies in both Wales and Australia expect adjudicators to be selected on merit, not on personal connections to sponsors. Eisteddfodau that rely on gaming or hospitality revenue should publish their sponsorship policy, and adjudicators should declare any conflict of interest, including prior teaching relationships with competitors.

Funding arrangements also shape adjudication indirectly. Where casino revenue supports community arts grants, for example, the level of detail required in reporting can influence how much time adjudicators spend on written feedback. Some Australian eisteddfodau have used casino revenue statistics available through community foundations to benchmark their own grant applications, comparing audience reach, competitor numbers, and adjudicator training hours against similar regional events. The principle is simple: transparent funding underwrites transparent judging.

Ethical adjudication also extends to the language of feedback. Adjudicators should avoid jargon that excludes parents or teachers unfamiliar with competition terminology, and they should resist the temptation to favour competitors from their own tuition studio. The strongest eisteddfodau build a culture where adjudicators rotate regularly, where feedback is reviewed by the chair for tone as well as accuracy, and where competitors leave the hall feeling they have been heard.

Aspect	Verbal Feedback	Written Feedback
Best use	Immediate, post-performance guidance	Take-home reference for further practice
Time required per competitor	3–5 minutes on average	1–3 paragraphs, often 100–200 words
Tone	Warm, conversational, encouraging	Precise, structured, slightly more formal
Strengths	Builds rapport, allows clarification	Travels with the competitor, can be revisited
Risks	Inconsistency between competitors, time pressure	Vague praise, easy to misread without tone
Documentation value	Limited unless recorded with consent	High, becomes part of competitor record
Cultural sensitivity	Requires care with regional dialect and idiom	Requires care with written Welsh standards
Typical audience	Competitor, teacher, accompanist	Competitor, parent, extended family

Eisteddfodau are at their best when adjudication is treated as a craft rather than a formality. Cymdeithas Eisteddfodau Cymru continues to develop training resources, sample marking sheets, and feedback templates that member societies can adapt to their own circumstances, whether they run a one-day folk singing competition in a Cardiff chapel hall or a weekend festival drawing Welsh-speaking families from across Sydney and the Illawarra.

Organisers who invest in adjudicator preparation, clear documentation, and open appeals processes tend to see competitor numbers rise over time. Performers return because they trust that their work will be taken seriously, that feedback will help them improve, and that the eisteddfod is a place where Welsh culture is celebrated with warmth and rigour.

For adjudicators seeking further guidance, the society's training materials are available through the Cymdeithas Eisteddfodau Cymru website, where members can access sample feedback forms, code of conduct documents, and a growing library of recorded workshops. Bringing these resources into local eisteddfodau, from the smallest village hall to the largest regional festival, is how the tradition stays alive for the next generation of singers, dancers, and cerdd dant performers.