ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Outcome 1 – Computation CWA Measurable Criteria Measurement Tool Time Frame Student will “devise appropriate strategies, employ valid In Music 100 (Fundamentals of Student learning MUSC 100: Consecutive reasoning, and apply correct procedures” (Computation Music) demonstrated on the Key quarters from 2010 Outcome B) when demonstrating the following student 1. Students read the symbols used to Signature Test will be until 2011, contingent learning outcome for MUSC 100: “Combine the raw express the key signatures and name evaluated using outcome upon enrollment. One materials to understand tonality, scales, key signatures, the key represented. B of the college‐wide section of the class is intervals, and triads.” 2. Students write correctly certain computation rubric. offered every quarter, specified key signatures. including summer. Results: McNamara (Winter 2010 & Winter 2011) Students scored an average of 3.11 and 3.14 on the Key Signature Test. Hermann (Spring 2010 & Spring 2011) Most students scored at Level 3 or Level 4. Analysis and Action: McNamara (Winter 2010 & Winter 2011) In this assessment period I gave the test at the end of the winter quarters and did not integrate it into the rest of my testing procedures or evaluation methods, i.e. it was not included in the students’ final grade for the course. Instead, I used my own key signature tests as part of more comprehensive tests that I gave during the quarter. From now on I will make it a feature of my students’ tests. Not only will I make it count toward their final grade, but I will give an incentive of extra credit points for scoring well on this test. Hermann (Spring 2010 & Spring 2011) After evaluating the tests, it appears students are more successful when reading/interpreting written key signatures than when writing the key signatures themselves. They are also more proficient with major keys than minor keys. A lot of class time is spent learning to read key signatures. The instructor demonstrates writing key signatures, and students are required to write key signatures for written assignments and exams. More in‐class practice writing key signatures would be beneficial (working with a partner, correcting a partner’s work, etc.). Analysis: In the 2009‐2010 assessment cycle there were some differences in instructional approaches for teaching signatures, assessing student knowledge/skill, and integrating the assessment activity into the course grade that may have contributed to the different levels of student ability in reading key signatures, etc. Action Plan: To achieve a more accurate assessment of students’ computation ability in multiple sections of Music 100, the department proposes giving common entrance and exit key signature tests and using the scores from the assessment activity as a portion of the students’ final course grade. The instructors may also change some of their teaching/learning activities to provide more practice in this skill.
Outcome 2 – Computation CWA Measurable Criteria Measurement Tool Time Frame Student will “devise appropriate strategies, employ valid Course: Music 143 Student learning MUSC& 143: Spring reasoning, and apply correct procedures” (Computation 1. Students read the symbols and demonstrated by the test quarters of 2010 and Outcome B) when demonstrating a student learning identify harmonic progressions. on melodic structures and 2011. (This class is the outcome that will be added to MUSC& 143 focused on 2. Students write harmonic harmonic progression will third in a three‐quarter Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
melodic phrase structure and harmonic progression, progressions with appropriate be evaluated using sequence.) including cadences. (Note: This is the culmination of what melodic phrase structure and outcome B of the college‐ a music theory student should be able to do after one year cadences. wide computation rubric. of music theory.)
Results: MUSC 143 (S10): Majority of students using effective strategy and correct procedures. No students with faulty strategy. Student Instructor Course Department OutcomeA OutcomeB OutcomeC 1 J Hermann 143 (Spring 2010) MUSC 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 6 3 7 4 8 4 9 3 Average 3.6
MUSC 133 (S11): Majority of students using partially effective strategy. One student displaying invalid reasoning. Student J Hermann 133 (Spring 2011) MUSC 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 6 3 7 4 8 4 9 2 4 Average 3.3
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Analysis and Action: From 2010 to 2011 there was a decline in the overall percentage of students who used fully effective strategies and procedures. In 2010 students did more in‐class activities that mirrored this test, collaborating with their peers and participating in classroom analyses of complete compositions. I believe this contributed to the higher performance scores on the 2010 test. In 2011 I assigned shorter, more varied musical excerpts for the students to analyze in class, in an attempt to expose them to a more diverse repertoire of composers and compositions. The class analyzed fewer complete compositions in preparation for this exam. In the future I will integrate both strategies more equally, as I believe both are essential for music theorists.
Outcome 3 – Communication CWA Measurable Criteria Measurement Tool Time Frame 1. Students respond by section and 1. Written observation by Three quarters in the Student will “receive and respond to messages openly and by whole ensemble to corrections conductor and 2010‐2011 time period. appropriately” (Communication Outcome C) when and modifications given by the accompanist and the demonstrating the student learning outcome (Follows conductor. students themselves (by musical direction well.) in MUSIC 150, 151, 152. The measure of success would be 0 playback of recording. stops in rehearsal related to the 2. Random examination of More specifically, students’ ability to follow musical specific skill in question. Anything student scores will show if direction reveals their ability to understand the nature of above 50% would be an changes have been the change they are asked to make and remember the improvement. All student scores written into the score as change for performance purposes. should have the changes marked. directed. Once the change is made, it must stay for the remainder of the rehearsals and the performance.
Results: The six choir performances analyzed ranged between 3.0 and 3.7 on a scale of 4.
Choir & Communication Instructor Course Department OutcomeA OutcomeB OutcomeC OutcomeD McNamara 150‐252 Music Averages Fall 2009 3.0 Spring 2010 3.6 Fall 2010 3.7 Spring 2011 Concert Choir 3.6 Spring 2011 Chamber Choir 3.5 Spring 2011 Combined Choirs 3.7
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Analysis and Action: The seven parameters used for evaluation were 1) clarity of consonants, 2) observance of dynamics, 3) phrasing/breathing, 4) rhythmic precision, 5) vowel uniformity, 6) intonation, and 7) vocal quality. See the attachment that shows how these parameters are divided into four levels of understanding. See the data sheet for how the scoring is broken down.
The action to be taken is to continue to work with the students who enroll in the Music 150 and 250 series on whatever level they enter with a view towards improving their choral skills and understanding. I accomplish this by rehearsal‐by‐rehearsal evaluation plus professional assistance from ACDA workshops with master teachers, readings, and observations of other choir directors.
Outcome Critical Thinking CWA Measurable Criteria Measurement Tool Time Frame
Students will think critically by “demonstrating music Students will recognize by hearing Data will be collected by Consecutive quarters in listening skills”—a student learning outcome for MUSC 105 important characteristics of musical using the critical thinking the 2009 ‐ 2011 time Music Appreciation. examples from all style periods rubric to assess student period. covered in Music 105. responses to the listening Success will be measured by 80% of portions of the tests. the students scoring in the top two levels. Results: The data were collected using the critical thinking rubric and analyzed.
Fall 2009 1 2 3 4 # students # points Average test 1 1 16 9 48 74 252 3.41 test 2 5 11 13 41 70 230 3.29 test 3 4 8 36 20 68 208 3.06 test 4 4 18 25 25 72 215 2.99 Winter 2010 1 2 3 4 # students # points Average test 1 3 7 8 49 67 237 3.54 test 2 1 4 14 43 62 223 3.60 test 3 3 4 45 14 66 202 3.06 test 4 7 7 34 19 67 199 2.97 Winter 2011 1 2 3 4 # students # points Average test 1 0 7 6 43 56 204 3.64 test 2 0 5 11 38 54 195 3.61 test 3 1 0 38 9 48 151 3.15 test 4 5 13 22 14 54 153 2.83
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Spring 2011 1 2 3 4 # students # points Average test 1 0 4 5 53 62 235 3.79 test 2 0 3 18 43 64 232 3.63 test 3 0 2 45 17 64 207 3.23 test 4 0 14 27 19 60 185 3.08
The results were similar to the results of the 2007‐2009 assessment. Therefore I am drawing the same conclusions. The extremely labor‐intensive analytical tool is badly flawed and gives contradictory results because of incorrect assumptions that don’t account for the increasing complexity of the material studied in the course. Analysis and Action: Devise a new analytical tool.
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Choir Assessment 2009-2011
Parameters: Clarity of consonants: initial, middle, and final: 1. Sloppy 2. Some articulation 3. Mostly clear 4. Crisp, clean, and clear
Observance of dynamics: 1. Not apparent 2. Some observance 3. Generally good 4. Accurate and wide contrast
Phrasing/Breathing: 1. No attempt at phrasing 2. Some breathing in inappropriate places 3. Generally good 4. Uniformity in breathing and phrasing
Rhythmic precision: 1. Sloppy 2. Needs some improvement 3. Reasonably precise 4. Excellent
Vowel uniformity: 1. Poor 2. Somewhat uniform 3. Mostly uniform 4. Perfectly matching vowels
Intonation:
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
1. Poor 2. Somewhat in tune 3. Generally good 4. Excellent
Vocal quality: 1. Harsh, weak, or breathy 2. Marginally good 3. Generally good 4. Substantive, pleasant, and musical
Evaluation of selected pieces in performance on recordings: Fall 2009: Deck the Hall Spring 2010: Seal Lullaby Fall 2010: Gaudete Spring 2011: Concert Choir: Niska Banja? Chamber Choir: ? Combined Choirs: If Music Be the Food of Love
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Notes on Choral Analysis Assessment 2009-2010
Fall 2009 Deck the Hall, arr. John Rutter Notes: Consonants were basically crisp and clear, except for “la.” The letter “l” is a hard initial consonant to articulate because you have to start it before the beat to get the vowel right on the beat. The dynamic contrast was not as substantial as the score would indicate it should be. The piece is so complex – divided parts, key changes, a wide variety of rhythms –that I think the singers were more intent upon meeting the technical challenges and did not attend to the dynamics as much as they should have. Some phrases were clipped in order to get a quick breath, which shouldn’t have been necessary with short phrases. Rhythmic precision was uneven – in some places very good, in others not. Vowels were generally uniform, but need improvement. Specifically, the “ah” vowel was formed too far back in the throat, which hindered the lightness necessary for this whimsical piece. The opening was weak, and the tonality wasn’t established until several measures into the piece. Aside from that, most of the intonation problems occurred in the abrupt modulations. The men seemed to have a particularly difficult time adjusting around the key changes. The general vocal quality of the men was more mature than that of the women. Narrowing their vowels would have helped the women. In spite of the problems enumerated above, the overall effect was positive. The students sang with lots of energy, and I remember that the audience was more enthusiastic about this piece than any other. Some of the above problems could have been mitigated if they had had a chance to listen to themselves sing and critique their own performance. At that time, however, we didn’t have the digital recorder that we now have. For this kind of critique a faithful reproduction of the sound is absolutely necessary.
Spring 2010 The Seal Lullaby by Eric Whitacre Notes: The many soft sibilant consonants were handled very well. Dynamic contrast was excellent when the choir imitated the waves of the “slow swinging sea,” but there were a few spots where the women’s melody was too loud according to Mr. Whitacre’s dynamic markings. In general the phrasing was very good, but one spot we had worked on numerous times to get the sopranos to take the whole phrase in one breath was broken by some unthinking individuals. In other words, it was a spot where communication failed, even after repeated cautions. Rhythmic precision was quite good considering that it is hard to maintain in a slow, soft piece. There were a few spots where some people in the section hesitated until they heard others come in. Vowel uniformity was very good, probably because most of the time the majority were singing on “oo,’ which is an easy vowel to blend.
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Intonation was generally very good, except for one spot where the tenors stuck out from the fabric and colored the sound with flat intonation. Vocal quality was lovely in general, and appropriate to the song. The performance was convincing as a mother’s tender lullaby to her “weary wee flipperling.”
Fall 2010 Gaudete by Robert J. Batastini (sung mostly in Latin) Notes: Consonants were well articulated, even though the refrain was in Latin. Dynamics were wide ranging. The phrasing was generally very good, because the phrases were short. However, the phrase “ex Maria Virgine” was sometimes clipped, putting too much stress on the last syllable. Rhythmic precision was excellent. Vowel uniformity was generally good, except for two problems: the second “i” in virgine. The women correctly sang “veer-gee-neh,” but the men sang “veer-gih-neh,” thereby corrupting the Latin with English. Also, again the men tended to sing the Latin “e” as “ay” instead of “eh” in the word “gaudete.” We drilled this constantly, but in the end they reverted to their English language ways. The women were better at remembering to sing “eh.” The intonation was good, except for the beginning when the choir had to get the starting pitch from the recorder’s playing of the refrain. As with so many a cappella beginnings, it took a few seconds for the tonality to stabilize. For both the men and the women the vocal quality was about the best we’ve had in an SPSCC Choir. Both genders sounded mature and confident separately and together.
Spring 2011- Concert Choir Niška Banja arranged by Nick Page (sung in Romanian and in 9/8 meter) Notes: What a wonderful surprise! The Concert Choir was replete with students who had never sung before. The auditioned Chamber Choir had swept away the best and most experienced singers. The consonants were wonderfully articulated. Not much dynamic contrast was called for by the arranger, and yet they effectively made the verses (which were supposed to be sung by a smaller ensemble) softer than the chorus. The phrasing was good, with just a couple of clipped phrases. The rhythms were precise, especially considering that the singers were negotiating an asymmetrical meter. Vowel uniformity was likewise good, even though they were singing in Romanian, which none of the students spoke. Intonation was generally good. The vocal quality, which wouldn’t have suited many songs, was precisely appropriate to Eastern European singing. We listened to some recordings of real Romanian singing and made the aesthetic decision together that we would not try to imitate that vocal style (even though we heard the American Boy Choir do exactly that). The quality they used in this performance was very forward placed in the mask of the face, almost nasal. That’s bending toward Eastern European-style singing without going too far. They had wonderful support in the 9/8 meter from Jennifer Hermann and student Kyle Hanks at the piano.
Revised 19 October 2011
ASSESSMENT REPORT: 2009‐2011 DEPARTMENT: MUSIC INSTRUCTOR: McNamara, Hermann, Barnett DATE: October 2011
Spring 2011 – Chamber Choir Tambur arranged by Lajos Bárdos Notes: Articulation of consonants was great until the piece accelerated at the end. Dynamics were generally good. In a couple of places an echo effect was pleasantly surprising. At the loudest dynamic level the tenors were too aggressive. The fast tempo of the piece made the phrases shorter and therefore less challenging. Most of the time the Hungarian dance rhythms were precise and accurate, but one or two sloppy spots were audible. Vowels were uniform except that the tenors couldn’t agree on “me-lo-dy” or “ me-luh-dy” There were blend issues arising from intonation, a problem that plagued this choir all quarter. There were 20 excellent voices that never quite melded into a single choral voice. The vocal quality was substantial and energetic but occasionally harsh (although altos were at times weak). On the whole this was a respectable performance, but given the level of talent of the auditioned members, I would have expected more. All of the pieces this choir sang were extremely challenging and could not have been done well by the other choirs. Yet if these students had worked seriously during the whole quarter, instead of just in the last couple of weeks, the musical result would have been truly memorable.
Spring 2011 – Combined Choirs (Concert, Chamber, and Community Choir) If Music Be the Food of Love by David Dickau Notes: About 75 people sang this. Consonants were generally good, with a couple of entrances marred by poor initial consonants. Ending consonants and cut-offs were especially good. Dynamics were too loud in some places (it’s hard to restrain a big group), but in other places the contrast was excellent, and on the whole I felt that they responded well to my direction. The phrasing that I most wanted to be smooth didn’t happen. The opening phrase, which is repeated again at the end, needed to move in a flexible way so as not to sound “notey.” Even though we had practiced the elastic flow and listened to some good examples from other choirs, it didn’t quite happen in this performance. In most other places the phrasing was excellent. Rhythmic precision was good, as was the vowel uniformity. Intonation was great. The vocal quality was lovely and full for both men and women, perhaps due to the confidence accumulated from having just finished an excellent concert.
Revised 19 October 2011