comprehensive musicianship through performance
• Or yet another way: “Students will reflect on their own ideas about individual freedoms versus group unity and examine the way these ideas are portrayed musically.”
All three of these outcomes deal with an emotional response to singing or playing a piece like “Ode to Joy,” but they go far beyond, “How does it make you feel?” into areas that involve thinking more deeply about how music works, more deeply about the world and connections to music and finally, more deeply about their own values and opinions.
By expanding our idea of what it means to plan affective outcomes, critical think- ing and self-reflection (key areas in the Danielson model) are organic parts of music instruction. Also worth noting, these outcomes are very transferable to other works of music. By going beyond “How did you feel singing this piece?” the students are arriving at important insights and truths that they will encounter in other music compositions, as well as in other aspects of their life.
Assessing the Affective
Many music educators also avoid real planning of the affective because it can seem difficult to assess. Very few SLO’s are affective in nature. But whether or not you are inspired to write an affective SLO, it is still very possible (and important) to assess your students on their affective learning.
Assessment is knowing whether or not your students are reaching their outcome. It is gathering information, using the information gathered to inform teaching and possibly adjust instruction, and help- ing your students to see their own growth and progress. It means helping them to see that they are evolving, changing creatures, rather than static bodies that are just filled with facts and data. Yes, assessment might mean a score or a grade, but whether or not a grade is assigned, assessment is a key part of the learning and can’t be cut off from the affective outcomes in a classroom.
Wisconsin School Musician
This broader definition of affective actu- ally helps in a more organic assessment process. Think about all the strategies that could be involved in teaching students to “explore the political context that sur- rounds art” (group presentation, sharing examples on a notecard for a quick read, looking at a short article on a piece being studied and share within a peer group, envisioning what a propaganda poster version of the particular piece of music might look like, etc.). Sure, none of these ideas make for quick SLO data, but many excellent outcomes won’t necessarily be your “official” SLO.
At a recent workshop, I asked teachers to ponder what they hope that their students remember and say about their music class in 10 or 20 years. Teachers shared these hopes: “I want them to see and understand the world in a richer way.” “I want them to feel like they are musical beings.” “I hope they feel like they can go to con- certs in their community and understand them in a meaningful way.”
It is worth noting that no one said, “I hope in 20 years they can finally play a low 2, C natural!” or, “I hope that they finally name all the notes of the treble clef.”
Ultimately, people are transformed by a moving concert, choose to continue as a musical performer and take closer notice of the music that surrounds them not because they can identify the lines and spaces of the treble clef staff, but because they know how to emotionally and intel- lectual engage with the musical art form. If we want our music legacy to live up to our strongest affective aspirations, we need to spend more time in conversation, more time thinking and more time exploring the best ways to be an affective educator.
The Wisconsin CMP Project, now in its 40th
year, has been the origin of much of
the most cutting edge thinking about af- fective outcomes and why they matter. If you want to learn more about planning this way, consider attending the annual CMP Summer Workshop, July 10–14, at Con- cordia University north of Milwaukee.
Margaret Jenks is past chair of the Wiscon- sin CMP Project. She teaches at Van Hise Elementary and Hamilton Middle School in Madison, and directs the Madison Boychoir. Email:
mjenks@tds.net
Chris Gleason – National
Finalist for Teacher of the Year! One of four finalists for the National Teacher of the Year program is Chris Gleason, instrumental music teacher and band director at Patrick Marsh Middle School in the Sun Prairie Area School District!
“Chris is a perfect example of how teachers make a lasting
impact on their students when they support their needs in addition to challenging them academically,” said State Superintendent Tony Evers.
Gleason is one of four Wisconsin Teachers of the Year and is the state’s repre- sentative to the National Teacher of the Year Program. Gleason and the other three Wisconsin Teachers of the Year are currently working together on how they can “make the biggest impact” for the teaching profession during 2017.
Evers said he was “positive” that Gleason “will represent Wisconsin and the high caliber of teachers we have across our state well in the next round of the National Teacher of the Year Program.”
Following a rigorous interview process, the selection committee is expected to announce this spring who will be the National Teacher of the Year. For more information, go to
http://www.ccsso.org/ntoy.html.
57
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
