PROCEEDINGS The 73rd Annual Meeting 1997 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF MUSIC NUMBER 86 JUNE 1998 PROCEEDINGS The 73rd Annual Meeting 1997 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF MUSIC © 1998 by the National Association of Schools of Music All rights reserved including the right to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISSN 0190-6615 National Association of Schools of Music 11250 Roger Bacon Drive, Suite 21 Reston, Virginia 20190 Tel. (703) 437-0700 CONTENTS Preface v Faculty Issu^ Evaluating Teaching in Higher Education Departments and Schools of Music Catherine Jarjisian 1 Tenure and Post-Tenure in a Unionized Enviromnent Jerry D. Luedders 13 Tenure and Post-Tenure Review: A National Perspective Cathy A. Trower 17 American Music Amaican Music and World Music: Curricular Issues in Higher Education Lester P. Moras 27 Weak Boundaries and Strong Values Thomas L.Riis 33 The Future of American Music: Observations and Reflection Mark Wait 40 American Music in American Schools: Resources and Curriculum Building Arme Dhu McLucas 44 Teaching American Indian Music: A Case Study Tara Browner 51 American Music in the Curriculum of a Small Music Department Larry Worster 56 Doctoral Education What Irrstitutions Hiring Doctorates Are Seeking Mellasenah Y. Morris 65 What Irrstitutions Hiring Doctorates Are Seeking AlanE.Stanek 71 Implementing the National K-12 Music Standards hnplementing the National K-12 Mrtsic Standards June Hinckley 77 Implementing the National K-12 Mitsic Standards: Florida John J. Deal 82 Implementing the National K-12 Mrtsic Standards: California Patricia Taylor Lee 86 Open Forum: Evaluation, Planning and Projections in Smalier Music Units Introduction Daniel Taddie 89 Planning Catherine Hendel 93 Projections Alan Wingard 97 Meeting of Region Three The Peer Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Tayloe Harding 101 Meeting of Region Six A Survey of NASM Region 6 Members Regarding Selected Recruitment and Admission Practices Ronald Lee 115 Successful Recruiting at Fredonia Peter Schoenbach 121 The Plenary S^ons Minutes of the Plenary Sessions Dorothy Payne 125 Report of the President Harold M. Best 129 Report of the Executive Director Samuel Hope 136 Reports of the Regions 141 Report of the Committee on Ethics C. B. Wilson 149 Actions of the Accrediting Commissions 151 NASM Officers, Board, Commissions, Committees and Staff for 1998 ... 155 PREFACE The Seventy-Third Annual Meeting of the National Association of Schools of Music was held November 22-25, 1997, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in San Diego, California. This volume is a partial record of various papers delivered at that meet- ing, as well as the official record of reports given and business transacted at the three plenary sessions. Papers published herein have been Ughtly edited for certain styUstic consistencies but otherwise appear largely as the authors presented them at the meeting. FACULTY ISSUES EVALUATING TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS AND SCHOOLS OF MUSIC CATHERINE JARJISIAN Oberlin College Conservatory of Music I was pleased to be invited to explore with you the evaluation of teaching in higher education departments and schools of music. As someone who purports to teach students how to teach, this assignment has held special interest for me. Obvi- ously, if my colleagues and I xmdertake to teach teaching to others, we must believe that such an enterprise is possible. It certainly follows that if we can teach teaching, we must be able to tell if teaching has been learned—that is, we must be able to evaluate the quality of teaching. So, I have undertaken this project in part to confirm my own professional practice but also to find out what current research says on the matter. Understandably, we faculty view the evaluation of teaching quality from perspec- tives grounded variously in previous experience and "common imderstanding." Rarely do we seek to validate our assumptions in a scientific manner, nor are we, or others involved in our evaluation, pressed to do so. Consequently, faculty, students, and administrators alike seem to xmdertake the evaluation task with some combina- tion of delicacy, mistrust, and fatalism: It must be done; we are not sure it can be done or how to do it; and we already know that not much of value will be gained from having done it. Perhaps it would be useful to examine some commonly held assumptions and to learn what, if anything, has been discovered by those who have submitted them to more rigorous scrutiny. Now here I must insert a caveat: I will attempt to report what I have found in the literature in fairly broad terms, not citing chapter and verse, nor delving into aspects of research design or data collection. I say this with almost no guilt, however, as unless your faculties are unlike my own, they are sure that such findings may apply very well to the schools downstate or even to most schools in the coimtiy but certainly not to their own unique situations. After all, are we not special, and are our students not really unusual? And is our school not totally unlike all others? WHAT IS GOOD TEACHING? Probably the question most basic to the entire evaluation enterprise is whether we even know what good teaching is; is it an art or a science? Aren't we more or less bom with the right instincts, rather like perfect pitch, and the best that environment can do is to support and nurture the appropriate attributes, whatever they are? We all might agree that the reason so many evaluation tools focus on seemingly trivial aspects of our work with students is that we do not even know how to express the more meaningful ones. We can therefore end up counting only what does not really count However, a great deal is known about what constitutes good teaching, and certainly we all seem to be able to recognize a student who has been well taught. Here is some of what is known or thought about teaching and learning, with inter- polations on my part to bridge the gap from research in nonmusic settings to what we are concerned about specifically. First, from the research: 1. Teaching itself includes several activities: instructing in the classroom, studio, or rehearsal hall; conducting laboratories or coaching; mentoring interns and advanced graduate students; tutoring students individually; and advising students on such topics as appropriate educational or professional programs and career opportunities.' We might already ask, are we evaluating all of these aspects when we evaluate teaching? 2. L. S. Shulman argues that there is an important interdependence between the act of teaching and the content or subject matter being taught; in other words, one is not just a good teacher, one is a good piano teacher, or rehearsal conductor, or methods instructor, or career counselor. Teaching methods are embedded in the content of the discipline.'' We might further ask what this implies about generic student evaluation forms. 3. Students leam more effectively through social interactions than in isolation.' Some studies indicate that students working in small groups leam signifi- cantly more than students working individually. 4. Although lecturing is by far the dominant method of instruction in class- rooms, research has shown its limitations, particularly when higher levels of learning are called for. Chet Meyers and Thomas B. Jones report that while teachers are lecturing, students are not attending to what is being said 40 percent of the time; that in the first ten minutes of a lecture, students retain 70 percent of the information and in the last ten minutes, 20 percent; and that four months after taking an introductory psychology course taught through lecture, students knew only 8 percent more than a control group who had never taken the course." Donald L. Finkel and G. Stephen Monk suggest that any class in which the teacher is the central figure isolates the teacher from the students—from what they know and what they are confused about. These authors recommend the dissolution of what they term the Atlas complex.' And of course, higher levels of learning do require active student involvement in the learning process.' 5. According to M. Scriven, good teaching attends to the quality of what is taught (accxuacy and relevance); the quantity of what is learned (student outcomes); and the propriety, meaning the ethics and norms, of the process.' Examination of many student evaluation fonns suggests that propriety— such as "begins and ends on time," "uses class time effectively and effi- ciently," "is well organized and prepared," and so on—is more than well represented. Are we most interested in propriety, or is it just easier to assess? From this brief research summary, we might conclude that effective teachers perform well in a variety of roles and settings, interact meaningfully with students about content, understand their content thoroughly enough to infer sound and appro- priate pedagogical approaches for involving students with that content, undertake systematic means to be certain that students have learned the content, and do all of this in an ethical manner. In the category of "for what it's worth," I would add the following: First, aU effective teachers of music find ways for students to engage actively with music and musical understandings and to act upon information so that it becomes knowledge. Effective classroom teachers foster student doing rather than just hearing about. Effective applied teachers foster student independent thinking, critiquing, and problem solving toward improved performance, deeper musical think- ing, and artistry. A challenge for classroom teachers is being certain that individual students understand and can do; we teach groups of students, but individuals leam. Challenges for applied teachers include devising sequential approaches for individ- ual students' needs; planning for instmction and evaluating it; providing appropriate, objective, and regular feedback; and moving students toward independence from the teacher or coach.