Outcome 3 – Communication CWA Measurable Criteria Measurement Tool Time Frame 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.