if it yields the same score regardless of the teacher grading or the number of times the performance is evaluated (Boyle & Radocy, 1987). Standardized tests used by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) have undergone substantial analysis in order to establish validity and reli- ability (Michigan Department of Education Office of Edu- cational Assessment and Accountability, 2004). Likewise, district level measurements should demonstrate validity and reliability as much as possible. Assessment systems that meet these criteria will be meaningful to teachers, help shape instruction, and improve student learning.
Performance
The majority of assessments in instrumental music likely will focus on demonstrating performance skills and con- cepts. Directors can facilitate this process by defining what students should know and be able to do in relation to reading notation (e.g., keys, meters, rhythms), instrumental technique (e.g., range, articulation), and musicality (e.g., phrasing, styles) at various points in their development. Teachers can design these proficiency levels for each year of instruction, or allow students to move from one level to the next at their own pace. A director, for example, could create 12 proficiency levels that correlate with pages in each of the three books in the Essential Elements 2000 series. Each level could include a brief performance and written assessment of the requisite skills and concepts that requires a predetermined minimum score to advance. A teacher’s growth data could include the percentage of students that advanced and the average number of levels students attained within an academic year. Assuming com- parable students, resources, and instruction time, adminis- trators could compare this data among instrumental faculty in the district to determine which directors were most effec- tive in teaching the stated goals.
Performance can be measured using rubrics that describe each level of achievement within a particular category. Figure 1 provides an example of a wind instrument rubric that includes five dimensions (categories) of performance and descriptors for four levels of achievement within each dimension. Rubrics serve as a formative assessment by providing information that teachers and students can use to plan future learning. They also can function as a summa- tive assessment by combining the score from each category into a final total. Effective rubrics facilitate lesson plan- ning by identifying which skills and concepts need the most attention among students in the ensemble. These measures also help learners understand the criteria used to assess progress and the specific aspects they should address in order to improve. Therefore, students should have access to the rubric as they prepare for an assessment.
23 Articulation
Figure 1. Wind Performance Rubric CATEGORY
4 Tone Quality
Tone is consistently focused, clear, and supported w/ air throughout the range of the instrument.
Intonation
0-1 note errors. Intonation is consistent and interval relationships are accurate.
3
Tone is somewhat focused, clear, and supported w/ air. Outer limits of range are not yet consistent.
2-3 note errors. Intonation is usually consistent and interval relationships mostly accurate w/ occasional pitches out of tune.
Rhythm
The beat is secure and the rhythms are accurate with 0-1 error(s).
Secure attacks with correct use of tongue and air. Markings (staccato, legato, slur, accents, etc.) are executed accurately with 0-1 error(s).
Musicianship
Dynamic levels are obvious, consistent, and accurate. Phrasing, style, and tempo are appropriate for the style of music.
TOTAL _____/20
The beat is mostly secure and/or 2-3 incorrect rhythm(s) or duration errors.
Attacks are usually secure. Use of tongue and air are developing and/or 2- 3 errors in markings.
2
Tone is developing but often not focused, clear, and supported. Outer limits of range are usually not secure.
4-5 note errors. Intonation often inconsistent and interval relationships inaccurate w/ many notes out of tune.
The beat is somewhat erratic. and/or 4-5 incorrect rhythms or duration errors.
Attacks are not yet secure due to improper use or coordination of tongue and air and/or 4-5 errors in markings.
Dynamic levels are evident but perhaps not consistent or obvious. Phrasing, style, and/or tempo are somewhat appropriate for the style of music. (2/3)
Dynamic levels are barely discernable. Phrasing, style, and/or tempo are often not appropriate for the style of music. (1/3)
1
The tone is not focused, clear, or supported w/ air regardless of range.
6+ note errors. Intonation always inconsistent and interval relationships inaccurate w/ many or all notes out of tune.
The beat is usually erratic and rhythms are seldom accurate. and/or 6+ incorrect rhythms or duration errors.
Few secure attacks due to improper use of tongue and air and/or 6+ errors in markings.
No attention to dynamic levels is apparent. Phrasing, style, and/or tempo are not appropriate for the style of music. (0/3)
Rubistar4teachers.org is a free online resource for con- structing rubrics in all subjects including music. This site provides examples that other teachers have constructed and templates with prewritten criteria that can be edited to meet specific needs (Advanced Learning Technologies in Edu- cation Consortia, 2008). Teachers can increase the valid- ity of rubrics they create by using language from similar measures (e.g., solo festival forms), revising the tool based on input from other instrumental music educators, and con- necting the assessment to specific national and state stan- dards and benchmarks.
Individual directors can test the reliability of a performance rubric by comparing scores given one or two weeks apart for the same recordings of student performances. Reliabil- ity among multiple teachers will improve through training that includes definition of terms used in the assessment, practice using the instrument, and discussion of scoring dis- crepancies in order to reach consensus. A rubric is reliable if each category score and the total score is equal or near equal on two or more measures of the same performance and among multiple evaluators.
Grading with a rubric can be a subjective task, even when the descriptors are well written and precise. Other mea- sures of performance, however, may lead to increased objectivity and can be used in combination with rubrics. SmartMusic® software provides an interactive practice
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48