Psychometric tests also can include questions related to music theory or musical response. For example, students might perform melodic or rhythmic dictation, write scales with appropriate fingerings from memory, and insert rhythmic counting, name notes, or chord qualities. Stu- dents also could demonstrate understanding of a specific selection through a listening map by answering embedded questions and inserting numbers that the teacher calls out in various places in the form (see Figure 4). Other test items might involve self or peer evaluation of solo or ensemble performance that directors assess through a holistic rubric included on the exam (see Figure 5). When utilizing listen- ing items in assessment, Play the examples multiple times and keep them relatively short in order to give students an
opportunity for a complete and accurate response. Figure 4. Listening Map – The Thunderer by J. P. Sousa F
major A (1st Strain) # measures? _____ B (2nd Strain)
TRIO SECTION (Bb major) C (trio melody) # measures? _____
INTRO A
# measures.?_____ What instruments are added?
B C
Break Strain C Break Strain C
Figure 5. Peer Evaluation Test Item with Holistic Rubric
You will see a video of a high school orchestra playing the first movement of Mozart’s Eine Kleine Nachtmusik in concert. You will see the video three times and have time to write between each hearing. Complete the evaluation form below indicating positive aspects, areas for improvement, and strategies this group could use in rehearsal and individual practice to make their performance better. [ART.M.III.HS.5; ART.M.III.HS.6]
Comments
Tone characteristic sound, warmth, control, support, percussion instrument adjustment and sound
Intonation correct pitches, matching within ensemble
Balance Parts covered as well as possible, blend, proportion of melody, bass, harmony, etc., overall ensemble sound
Musicianship Dynamics, phrasing, appropriate style, & articulation
Rhythm Correct rhythms, consistent tempo, phasing, precision, appropriate tempo changes executed together
Technique Hand/bow position, tonguing/slurring, fingering ability, ability to play individual parts
Stage Presence Posture, self discipline, neat appearance, attention to conductor, deportment on and off stage
Grading Rubric 5
Evaluation identifies numerous positive aspects and areas for improvement with specific strategies for rehearsal and practice. Comments are specific, accurate, and clear.
What is different?
Recent changes to tenure and evaluation laws create a num- ber of challenges for music educators who likely will have to increase the emphasis and time spent on assessment. In addition, at least some of these measures must demonstrate student growth and might be used to make high-stakes decisions regarding teachers’ employment status. Although this process may be stressful, band and orchestra directors should recognize the opportunity to use assessment to im- prove and shape music education, and demonstrate student learning to administrators, parents, and the community. Perhaps this data will serve as a source of advocacy by con- vincing stakeholders of the curricular vs. extra-curricular nature of music education.
References
Advanced Learning Technologies in Education Consortia (2008). Rubistar. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from
http://rubistar.4teachers.org/ Boyle, J. D., & Radocy, R. E. (1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences. New York: Schirmer Books.
Eimer, T. (2007). Strategic testing. Christian School Teacher, 8(2), 14-17.
4
Evaluation identifies several positive aspects and areas for improvement with general strategies for rehearsal and practice. A few comments are specific. Most comments are general, but mostly accurate, and clear.
3
Evaluation includes some positive comments and areas for improvement. Several comments are accurate w/ some general strategies for rehearsal and practice. More detail and clarity needed.
2
Evaluation includes a few positive comments and areas for improvement. Some comments are accurate w/ some general strategies for rehearsal and practice. Some comments may be inaccurate or incorrectly stated. More detail and clarity needed.
25 1
Evaluation is incomplete with few if any comments.
Hash, P. M. (2013). Large-group festival ratings and teacher evaluation: Issues and recommendations. Arts Education Policy Review, 114, 163-149. MakeMusic, Inc. (2013). Smartmusic. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from
http://www.smartmusic.com/ Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability (2004). MEAP coordi-
Large-Group Assessment
Band and orchestra performance is a major focus of learn- ing in the instrumental classroom and, therefore, a valid basis for assessment. However, there are a number of issues connected with using large group evaluations (e.g., festival ratings) to demonstrate student growth and teacher effectiveness including the interrater reliability of adjudica- tors, the integrity of the process, and circumstances beyond the director’s control (e.g., rehearsal time, scheduling, and budget). The Michigan Music Education Association rec- ognizes both the potential and challenges connected with using large ensemble assessments in teacher evaluation and recommends that these be utilized only if the teacher agrees, and then as just one of several measures (Michigan Society for Music Teacher Education, 2012). In order to ensure maximum reliability and provide sufficient data for analysis, evaluation systems that incorporate contest ratings should consider multiple years and individual judges’ rat- ings rather than category scores or summative final ratings (Hash, 2013).
Conclusion
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