2016  Illinois  Music  Educa2on  Conference    

Assessing  Your  Choir  through  Chamber  Music  

#imec2016

David W. Snyder, Illinois State Univ. Ben Luginbuhl, Normal Community HS

Danielson Framework for Teaching

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation �  1a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy �  1b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students �  1c Setting Instructional Outcomes �  1d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources �  1e Designing Coherent Instruction �  1f Designing Student Assessment

#imec2016

Danielson Framework for Teaching

Domain 3: Instruction �  3a Communicating with Students �  3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques �  3c Engaging Students in Learning �  3d Using Assessment in Instruction �  3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

#imec2016

Danielson Framework for Teaching

Designing and using assessments in your choral classes often involves designing a rubric

#imec2016

Writing Rubrics

Advantages to using performance rubrics over other means of assessment. Rubrics can… 1. make scores and grades in performance more

objective 2. make performance evaluations more consistent 3. provide feedback to the student for

improvement 4. allow for tracking student improvement over time (PERA II or III)

#imec2016

Writing Rubrics Creating a rubric involves 3 steps….

1. Define the task 2. Decide on the criteria to be evaluated 3. Create the standards by which the criteria will be compared

#imec2016

Writing Rubrics

Defining the task- a student needs to know WHAT they will be asked to do in a performance test. The most common performing tasks include: ¡  Singing music (excerpts)being worked on in class ¡  Singing scales and arpeggios ¡  Sight singing music that contains concepts/notes/

rhythms that the student has been working on

#imec2016

Writing Rubrics

Defining the task- can also include other standards outside of performance including: ¡  Critical listening/analysis (example given later) ¡  Historical background and context (examples give

later)

#imec2016

Writing Rubrics

Deciding on the Criteria to be evaluated-a student further must know what specific aspects of their performance will be evaluated. Some of the most common criteria are: ¡  Tone/support (can be very subjective) ¡  Intonation ¡  Diction ¡  Rhythm ¡  Note accuracy ¡  Posture/Presence ¡  Phrasing/Musicality (can be very subjective)

#imec2016

Writing Rubrics

Creating the standard to compare- finally, we as the evaluators must know what is considered outstanding, acceptable, unacceptable, average, poor, etc. in each of these criteria areas. This is the difficult part in writing a rubric. o  The idea is to present enough of a descriptor or exemplar to the

person evaluating that their score is likely to be the same as another person who evaluates the same performance.

o  These standards should be arranged in a scale ranging from

outstanding to poor with corresponding numerical values. They should represent a “continuum of quality” throughout each criteria category.

#imec2016

Rubric Samples A very familiar rubric:

NFHS/IHSA rubric

#imec2016

Rubric Samples Let’s look at some examples:

Choral rubric

#imec2016

Rubric Samples Manfredo Vocal rubric:

#imec2016

Tracking individual improvement over time

A. Why is it good to track improvement over time? 1. It is a good way to objectively assess

“improvement/effort” 2. It motivates students to accept more

challenging tasks 3. It helps students move beyond comparing

themselves to others 4. It helps students focus on progress towards

educational goals rather than just a grade. 5. The state’s new teacher evaluation system

includes a student improvement component

#imec2016

EXAMPLE

Normal Community High School Chamber Singing Project

#imec2016

OVERVIEW

�  Divide large concert choir into small ensembles �  Each ensemble chooses a piece to learn and perform �  Rehearsals are student-run with coaching/guidance

from director as needed �  Groups perform for each other AND at IHSA Solo-

Ensemble Contest

#imec2016

RATIONALE

�  Chamber Choir had grown quite large (63 students) �  Tough to perform works intended for smaller

ensembles �  Students didn’t know each other well �  Weaker singers were “hiding” behind

stronger singers

#imec2016

EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

�  Students will grow as independent musicians (Danielson!)

�  Make musical decisions on their learning and performance (Danielson!)

�  Cooperative, student-led learning (Danielson!)

#imec2016

DETAILS

�  Students surveyed on ensemble preference ¡  SATB, SSAA, TTBB, or No Preference (wherever needed)

�  I created the ensembles ¡  No more than 9 in each group ¡  Match voice types ¡  Mix up the ability levels ¡  Mix up the different “friend groups”

#imec2016

DETAILS

�  Ensembles choose music from a variety of pieces (with my guidance) ¡  Note: Make sure you have enough space for each ensemble to

rehearse at the same time! Or, figure out how to stagger rehearsal times if necessary.

�  2015: 8 ensembles: ¡  4 SATB, 2 SSAA, 2 TTBB

�  2016: 10 ensembles in 2 separate classes: ¡  6 SATB, 3 SSA/SSAA, 1 TBB

#imec2016

PIECES CHOSEN - 2016

SATB: O My Love's Like a Red, Red Rose, René Clausen Ubi Caritas, Ola Gjeilo The Cloths of Heaven, Kenneth T. Kosche Fair Phyllis I Saw, John Farmer The Road Not Taken, Douglas E. Wagner Set Me As A Seal, René Clausen SSA / SSAA: Mon Coeur, Orlando diLasso (SSA) You Are the New Day, Peter Knight (SSA) Ave Maria 2, Kathryn Parrotta TBB: Bound For the Promised Land, Emily Crocker

#imec2016

ASSESSMENT

�  In-depth analysis of the piece (similar to CMP) �  Initial sight-reading recording �  Weekly recordings of progress �  Individual and group rehearsal self-assessments �  Performance for peers in class (assessed by students

and teacher) �  Performance at IHSA (final score from judge not

counted) �  Closing survey / evaluation of project and self-

assessment

#imec2016

RUBRIC: IN-DEPTH WORKSHEET

#imec2016

RUBRIC: REHEARSAL SELF-ASSESSMENT

#imec2016

RUBRIC: ADJUDICATION FORM (IHSA)

#imec2016

CLOSING SURVEY RESULTS(2015)

5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

�  My group worked well together: 4.6 �  My group had enough rehearsal time: 4.6 �  My group stayed on task: 4.2 �  I am a better musician from this project: 4.4 �  This was a valuable learning experience: 4.7

#imec2016

OVERALL RESPONSE

#imec2016

EVALUATING (2015)

�  Make sure to have a “spokesperson” from each group �  Consider having a different person lead each rehearsal �  Use weekly recordings as formative assessments

¡  Students need to listen to their recording and evaluate what needs to be worked on, or change their rehearsal plan

¡  Help guide students in rehearsal / staying on task / evaluating where they need to be

�  Create a rubric for scoring performance evaluations ¡  Choose one or two of their evaluations and score their ability to listen

and critique

�  Create a final project checklist / score sheet

#imec2016

PERA POSSIBILITIES

�  Use in conjunction with standard voice tests ¡  Students individually tested on sections of their piece ¡  Rubric-based

�  Create units of study on the “Digging Deeper” worksheet ¡  Example: study of musical forms

÷ Pretest by having them label standard classical or pop forms through listening examples

÷ Teach form through pieces in class & through chamber project ÷ Post-test: identify forms (similar to pretest but not identical)

¡  Can add more levels (harmony, melody, etc) to In-Depth form

#imec2016

STUDENT PERFORMANCES

�  Discussion of their experiences �  Presentations �  Performances

#imec2016

RESOURCES

#imec2016

David W. Snyder dsnyder@ilstu.edu Ben Luginbuhl luginbbr@unit5.org Rubric examples can be found at: www.nchschoirs.org www.ilmea.org www.cfa.ilstu.edu/dsnyder/news