評分標準 / Judging Criteria

本賽事評分採用 0-100 分制，評審團將從舞蹈技術、創意表達、作品完整性等多維度綜合考量參賽作品，確保評審專業性與公平性，具體評分細則如下：

一、評分細則

1. 技術精度（40%）

核心考察參賽者對舞蹈基礎技術的掌握與運用能力：

1. 動作與節奏：核心動作的規範性（如芭蕾的腳位、古典舞的手型）、節奏把控的準確性（如與音樂節拍同步、快慢轉換流暢）；

2. 肢體控制：肢體的穩定性（如旋轉不搖晃、跳躍落地輕盈）、力度與幅度的掌控力（如抒情舞蹈的柔軟度、街舞的爆發力）；

3. 技法熟練度：對所選舞蹈形式專屬技法的掌握程度（如民族舞的韻律、現代舞的張力），技術動作的流暢度與完成質量。
    

2. 創意與表達（30%）

聚焦參賽者透過舞蹈傳達主題思想與個人風格的能力：

1. 主題詮釋：對創作主題的理解深度，能否通過肢體語言（如動作設計、情緒張力）清晰表達主題內涵（如「夢想飛翔」「傳統文化」）；

2. 創意獨特性：編排的新穎度（如不同於常規的動作組合、場景化表演），避免千篇一律的範本化呈現；

3. 情感傳達：舞蹈能否傳遞真實情感（如喜悅、溫柔、激昂），通過表情、肢體張力引發觀者共鳴。
    

3. 作品完整性（20%）

衡量參賽作品的整體呈現效果與細節把控：

1. 細節豐滿度：表演細節的充實度（如表情管理、動作銜接的細節），避免動作單一或過於粗糙；

2. 整體協調性：動作、音樂、服裝與主題的匹配度，無明顯邏輯矛盾（如悲傷主題搭配節奏強烈的音樂）；

3. 完成度：舞蹈無未完成痕跡（如動作中斷、忘記動作、結尾倉促），達到「可完整展示」的標準。
    

4. 選材與匹配度（10%）

關注創作主題、難度與參賽者能力的契合度：

1. 難度適配性：能否依據自身技術水準選擇合適難度的作品（如低年齡段避免過於複雜的技巧動作，高年齡段不局限於簡單的動作重複）；

2. 特長發揮：選材能否充分展現個人優勢（如擅長柔軟度者選擇古典舞，擅長節奏感者選擇街舞），達到「以題揚長」的效果。
    

二、評審機制

1. 雙重獨立評分：每件參賽作品將由 2 位專業評審分別獨立打分，取兩者平均分作為作品最終成績，最大限度減少主觀偏差，保障公平性；

2. 權威評審團構成：評審團成員涵蓋青少年舞蹈教育協會資深顧問、專業舞蹈院校教師、知名兒童藝術機構教研負責人及舞蹈領域資深舞者，兼具學術理論與實踐指導經驗，既能以專業標準評判技術，也能尊重青少年創作的童真與個性，挖掘每位參賽者的藝術閃光點。

Judging Criteria
 

This competition employs a 0-100 point scoring system. The judging panel will comprehensively evaluate entries across multiple dimensions, including dance technique, creative expression, and overall coherence, ensuring professional and impartial adjudication. Specific scoring criteria are as follows:

I. Scoring Criteria

1. Technical Precision (40%)

1. Core assessment of contestants' mastery and application of fundamental dance techniques:

2. Movement and Rhythm: Standardization of core movements (e.g., ballet foot positions, classical dance hand shapes), accuracy in rhythm control (e.g., synchronization with musical beats, smooth transitions between tempo changes);

3. Body Control: Stability (e.g., steady spins, light landings after jumps), control of force and amplitude (e.g., flexibility in lyrical dance, explosive power in street dance);

4. Technical Proficiency: Mastery of genre-specific techniques (e.g., rhythmic flow in folk dance, tension in contemporary dance), fluidity and execution quality of technical movements.

2. Creativity and Expression (30%)

Focuses on the contestant's ability to convey thematic ideas and personal style through dance:

1. Thematic Interpretation: Depth of understanding the creative theme and ability to clearly express its essence through body language (e.g., movement design, emotional tension) (e.g., “Dreams Take Flight,” “Traditional Culture”);

2. Creative Originality: Novelty of choreography (e.g., unconventional movement combinations, scene-based performances), avoiding formulaic presentations;

3. Emotional Conveyance: Ability to convey authentic emotions (e.g., joy, tenderness, passion) through facial expressions and physical tension, eliciting audience resonance.

3. Overall Integrity (20%)

Evaluates the piece's holistic presentation and attention to detail:

1. Detail Richness: Fulfillment of performance nuances (e.g., facial expression management, seamless movement transitions), avoiding simplistic or overly rough movements;

2. Overall Coherence: Alignment of movement, music, costumes, and theme, with no glaring logical contradictions (e.g., pairing a sorrowful theme with upbeat music);

3. Completion: No signs of unfinished work (e.g., interrupted movements, forgotten steps, rushed endings), meeting the standard of “fully presentable.”
    

4. Repertoire Selection & Suitability (10%)

Focus on alignment between creative theme, difficulty level, and contestant ability:

1. Difficulty Suitability: Ability to select pieces matching technical proficiency (e.g., younger age groups avoiding overly complex techniques; older age groups not limited to simple repetitive movements);

2. Strength Highlighting: Does the selection fully showcase personal strengths (e.g., classical dance for flexibility specialists, street dance for rhythm specialists), achieving the effect of “leveraging strengths through the theme”?

II. Judging Mechanism

1. Dual Independent Scoring: Each entry receives separate scores from two professional judges. The average of these scores constitutes the final result, minimizing subjective bias and ensuring fairness.

2. Authoritative Panel Composition: Judges include senior advisors from youth dance education associations, faculty from professional dance academies, educational directors from renowned children's arts institutions, and seasoned dancers. This blend of academic theory and practical experience enables them to evaluate technical proficiency while respecting the innocence and individuality inherent in youth creations, uncovering each participant's artistic brilliance.