Submitted Fall, 2006
Department of Music and Performing Arts
Music Assessment Report
2006 Fall
Graduate Music Program
During the past year, data has been collected on two Direct Measures of student assessment at the graduate level—The Music Classroom Teaching Evaluation and the Graduate Comprehensive Examination Evaluation. One graduate student has a full-time position at the elementary music level, the other at the middle school level. Both have now successfully completed all degree requirements.
Music Classroom Teaching Assessment Results
For this assessment, the student must provide a lesson plan that includes the Aims and Objectives of the lesson, Materials and Methods to be used, the Procedure & Classroom Management to be used, and the intended Outcome of the lesson.
| Circle the appropriate number indicating the student’s level of competency: |
5. Excellent,
|
4. Good,
|
3. Adequate,
|
2. Needs Improvement,
|
1. Poor
|
AIMS & OBJECTIVES
Both students received a rating of 5 in all areas: Goals are clearly defined; There is evidence of adequate preparation for teaching; If properly administered, the lesson will result in student learning; and Potential exists for long-term impact knowledge, skills or values.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Both students received a rating of 5 in all areas: All materials to be used are ready and in place; The materials are meaningful for this level of student understanding; Activities are age-appropriate.
PROCEDURE & CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
Both student received a rating of 5 in all areas: The teacher appears comfortable with the students; here is a well-defined method of beginning and ending the class; There is a sense of equality of all students; The teacher exhibits a positive authority; The teacher seems confident and secure with students; Verbal directions are clear and concise; and Disruptions are handled in a positive but firm way.
OUTCOMES
Both students received a rating of 5 in all areas: The teacher is able to accomplish what was presented in the lesson plan; There is evidence that learning occurred; The level of student involvement is beneficial to learning; There is a sense of eager anticipation for the next class meeting; The students benefited from the lesson; and The teacher seemed to enjoy teaching the lesson.
Both students are experienced and gifted teachers. We do not anticipate that all classroom teaching evaluations will be as strong. In the future, we plan to video tape all teaching sessions to provide an archival copy for the department and to allow graduate students the opportunity to view their own teaching with written graduate faculty commentary to guide their self-evaluation of the teaching. The graduate faculty plan to review and revise the Classroom Teaching Evaluation form during the 2006-07 academic year.
Graduate Comprehensive Examinations Evaluation Form
The comprehensive examinations of two students, who recently received the MAEd-Music degree, were reviewed by subject area. The results are as follows:
Rating of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for each:
- The answer is clear and understandable.
- The writing style meets graduate level expectations.
- The information presented is accurate.
- There is evidence of broad understanding in the area of consideration.
- There is evidence that insight and creative thought have been achieved.
Evaluator’s Recommendation: Pass/Rewrite/Fail
Student No. 1 Ratings
- Subject Area: General Music #1—5.0
- Subject Area: General Music #2—4.0
- Subject Area: Music History 4.2
- Subject Area: Education/Music Education #1—5.0
- Subject Area: Education/Music Education #2—5.0
Recommendation: Pass
Student No. 2 Ratings
- Subject Area: Vocal Music—5.0
- Subject Area: Music Theory #1—5.0
- Subject Area: Music Theory #2—5.0
- Subject Area: Music History 4.2
- Subject Area: Education/Music Education #1—2.6
- Subject Area: Education/Music Education #2—5.0
Recommendation: Pass
Current Assessment Improvement Strategies
The department’s Academic Program Review is scheduled for February, 2007. Arrangements have been made to find a review committee chair who also serves as a National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) visitor in anticipation of the next national accreditation review, scheduled for the 2010-11 academic year. The department faculty are keenly interested in maintaining and developing effective assessment strategies and tools that are current with the national standards as outlined by NASM.
During the past year, the department has successfully developed a number of record-keeping forms that will enable more efficient tracking of student progress and assessment: Music Student Records form, a standardized Freshman/Sophomore Evaluation form letter, a list of requirements for the Music Student Portfolio, and an Independent Study form. In addition, the Graduating Senior Survey was revised to include questions for specific degree programs, converted to an electronic format, Opinio, and used for the first time in the spring, 2006. Data results have been easy to read and assess. We were impressed by a 66% return in the new electronic format.
The new sets of Student Evaluations questions (evaluation of instruction by department faculty) developed for academic courses and during 2004, revised in 2005, have been a significant improvement from the previous forms as they provide faculty with more immediate feedback on a number of important criteria including faculty knowledge of the subject matter, class preparation, clarity in presentation, enthusiasm, course objectives, grading, and availability in addition to questions related to the stimulation of critical thinking and responsiveness to students. The new Student Evaluations questions for applied lessons include the above criteria in addition to questions on faculty encouragement of independent thought, creativity and comprehensive musicianship, among others. The revised Student Evaluations provide a much more relevant assessment of our teaching skills and provide a clearer instrument for peer evaluations and annual faculty reviews.
Through the development of this report, it has been determined that assessment items will need to be addressed during the 2006-07 academic year: 1) Revision of the Alumni Survey (including Opinio format); 2) Development of specific Entrance Requirement criteria for Brass, Percussion, Woodwinds, Strings, and Voice; 3) Development of specific repertoire level minimums for Advanced Standing in Brass, Woodwinds, and Percussion; 4) Revision of Voice Advanced Standing forms to reflect specific learning outcomes assessment criteria that is similar in format to the Instrumental and Keyboard divisions; 5) Revision of the Graduating Senior Survey; 6) Continued collection and review of data in established areas of Direct Measures including Music Business Field Experience and Internships, Music Education Student Teaching, and Piano Pedagogy Internship Experiences, and the final assessment of Student Portfolios; 7) Tracking of MUS 098 student success rate in music theory; 8) Continued collection and review of data from General Studies courses; and 9) Review and Revision of Graduate Program curriculum and assessment tools.