smiller scholarly research paper edtc615 fall 2010[1]-1

7/30/2019 SMiller Scholarly Research Paper EDTC615 Fall 2010[1]-1

1/13

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

1

Technology in Music Assessment

Stephanie L. Miller

UMUC EDTC615


2/13


2

Abstract

Information was gathered from scholarly articles and empirical studies that looked at the use of

technology in core curriculum and music classrooms. This information was then utilized to

determine ways in which technology can be used to enhance the gathering and organization of

data, and make assessment smoother, more informative and less time-consuming in the music

classroom.

Key terms: music, assessment, technology, electronic grade books


3/13


3

Meredith Napolitano, a music teacher in Connecticut says, These days, it seems like

everything in the classroom needs to be data driven and data supported (2010). If that is the

case, then there need to be consistent ways to collect data in order to determine what needs to

occur. The most popular way to do this is through assessment; however, the face of assessment

has changed some. No longer do students learn a unit, then take a unit test upon unit completion,

and then move on. Data-driven education relies on educators assessing throughout the learning

process to see which direction they need to go. InData Wise, there is an eight-step process for

utilizing data to determine what needs to occur in the classroom, school and district levels

(Boudett, City, & Murnane, 2010). In looking at assessment and what it will look like for

Meredith Napolitano and other music educators across the country, three things need to be

considered. First, what are methods with which music has been assessed in the k-12 level?

Secondly, how is technology utilized in the music classroom to assess student learning? Finally,

what can be done with the data collected from assessments?

Before the type assessment can be chosen, it needs to be determined that assessment in

the music classroom is equally as important as assessing students in subjects such as math and

reading. In 2001No Child Left Behind named the arts courses as part of the core curriculum in

education, and with that in mind there are music educators who are in favor of a national music

assessment to gauge what and how students are learning in music. In his article, Fisher quotes

Sims as saying about a national music assessment, The fact that the arts are valued enough to be

included in the NAEP undertaking is a positive sign that they are viewed as a curricular

discipline worthy of this considerable effort and expense. (2008). The argument for a national

level assessment is made by the author for many reasons, one of which includes the ability for


4/13


4

educators to use the assessment data to support the importance of music education in schools

(Fisher, 2010). Regardless of which direction the argument to assess music nationally goes,

educators need to be assessing in their own classrooms. Fisher says, Music education literature

is abundant in promoting assessment within the music classroom. In todays data-driven

educational climate, there is a great need to demonstrate that learning is, in fact, taking place

(2008). The only way to ensure that learning is taking place is to do some form of assessment

and analyze the data that is collected. Utilizing Boudett, et als plan inData Wise, data needs to

be collected and examined, and then instruction needs to be studied according to the student data

results (2010). Beyond just utilizing data to alter instruction, it is also important to later go back

and assess whether the changes are having a positive effect on student learning (Boudett, City &

Murnane, 2010). Collecting data through assessment helps music educators defend the

importance of music education to administrators and district-level employees. It also allows the

teacher to have written evidence as to why students receive a particular grade on a report card.

Finally, it can allow the educator to adjust their teaching as needed in order to help students

master the objectives from the music curriculum.

The next issue faced by music educators is the sheer number of assessments that need to

be given in order to know where each student stands. In her 2001 articleAssessing a Cast of

Thousands, Chiodo points out that music educators teach and assess more students than regular

classroom teachers. In the elementary level, music educators teach the entire school. In middle

and high school chorus classes, there can be sixty students or more in one class that require

assessment during a class period. This makes assessment for the music educator a different task

than it is for many other educators. In order to get a good idea of what students are

accomplishing and mastering in the music class, music teachers need to find a wide array of


5/13


5

assessment types. In assessing something which is a talent, music teachers need to be

conscientious of the actual objective skills they are assessing, and make sure their students are

also aware of what those skills are and what is expected (Randall, 2010). It is important to have a

well-designed rubric or set of criteria, and a manageable way to collect information in real time

as students are engaged musically (Randall, 2010). Randall suggests checklists and rubrics that

allow for assessing students on how they perform a task rather than how they recall information

(2010). He also is a proponent of student self-evaluation (Randall, 2010). Many music

assessments are derived from educator observation of an activity, such as singing, playing an

instrument, or performing movement. It is because of this observation method that the

predetermined rubrics and checklists are often mentioned in articles regarding assessment in the

music classroom. Chiodo suggests teaming up with coworkers and having students do a cross-

curricular activity, which allows them more time to work on music standards while not directly

in the music classroom (2001). This helps with the previously mentioned time constraints due to

a high number of students with a limited amount of time to work with and assess each (Chiodo,

2001). There are many forms of assessment that can be given to students in the music classroom

in conjunction with written paper-pencil tasks. This is beneficial in getting an accurate

assessment because there are many more activities, besides those that are written, occurring in

the music classroom. The data collected from a wider variety of assessment techniques will

provide better feedback for the educator to determine student mastery.

Napolitano says her goal is to collect an appropriate amount of meaningful data

without interrupting my teaching or causing me to cut out activities. [] I usually try to get three

to five pieces of evidence on anything I will be grading (2010). The types of assessment listed

above are very useful, but can be enhanced and made more efficient by utilizing technology, thus


6/13


6

making the three to five pieces of evidence easier to collect for each of 500 students or more.

There are many uses for technology in the realm of assessing music students. Some of the

technologies include computer software; others include devices such as clickers or the use of the

SMART board. Basic technologies that can be combined with the aforementioned rubrics

include recording devices such as Flip video cameras, audio recorders, and digital cameras. The

Flip video camera can be used to record playing tests, movement activities, and beat and rhythm

activities, where the visual is equally as important as the aural aspect of the assessment

(Napolitano, 2010). Educators can then go back and review a students playing after the fact

(Chiodo, 2008). This frees up educator time in class while also giving a substantial piece of

evidence if there is ever a question regarding the students grade. The audio recorder can be

utilized when there is a singing test, held directly in front of the student being assessed even

while that student sings with others (Napolitano, 2010). The digital camera can take a quick

snapshot of a students singing or playing posture. Music software such as Music Ace, Music

Ace 2 or Midisaurus provide the ability for students to do skill and drill practice and save their

scores (Chiodo, 2008). Software such as EduTest@school, ClearLearning.coms Test Pilot,

ParSYSTEM3.0 and ParSCORE help create and grade written assessments for any subject

(Schneider, 2000). There is music composition software that can allow students to compose short

melodies. Hewitt did a study published in 2009 of one such software program, with an

experimental group of 760 students, ranging from ages 8-12. The participants included students

with formal music training as well as those without formal music training. The variables were the

ages and music training, while the constant in this experimental research was the software that

was utilized and the method of teaching students to use it. While the study was done to determine

the process of student composition rather the product that was composed, the software program


7/13


7

provided a method of assessing student ability to compose. The use of the program allowed the

studys author to see what functions within the software program students used, from listening to

the composition to deleting or changing note inputs. This information would be useful to a

teacher in assessing whether or not the student understands concepts surrounding composition, or

if they need to have the information presented in a different way. Another use of technology in

music assessment includes using the interactive response or clicker system. Randall describes

utilizing the clicker system in conjunction with a PowerPoint presentation of a written quiz

(Randall, 2010). This provides an immediate assessment of student knowledge that the teacher

can look at without having to grade papers. Another method of assessment utilized by music

educators is the Leadsinger program (Randall, 2010). The computer is able to rate a students

singing ability based on pitch and rhythmic accuracy. Other programs that work similarly include

Carry-a-Tune, Singing Coach, and new software titled TUNEin. to Reading (Nardo, 2009). Use

of the SMART board can help students show examples of what they have learned while still

furthering class instruction. This is especially useful with music theory and composition (Nolin,

2009). In the upper grades another use of technology is a portfolio evaluation assessment

(Hagen, 1999). With this, students could develop different projects utilizing technology to

showcase their understanding of the objectives for the class. Examples of projects that they could

incorporate in said portfolio would include a music history project, playing tests that were

digitally recorded, and a music theory composition project. Finally, Keast created a collegiate

level online music history course with assessments that could be easily modified to work at the

high school level, and with a little more work could be used in part at the elementary and middle

school levels (2009). The listening assessments are done online, which allows students to be

assessed at their own pace rather than having to participate in a listening assessment at the speed


8/13


8

the teacher chooses. Keast created the course and its assessments using the server at the

University of Texas, and the article describes the time and effort it took to complete this process.

The course design could be modified at the high school classroom level by utilizing a secure link

on voicethread.com to show the score of a musical composition while listening to the recording.

All of these technologies have the potential to enhance the assessments given in the music

classroom. They help the educator to collect data that can be used to help students achieve.

Once the information has been collected from the assessments, the next question is what

should be done with it? If educators are assessing throughout the marking period, they will have

plenty of data with which to work. There are quite a few technology tools that can be used by

educators to make the organization and analyzing of the collected data more useful and

worthwhile. One such technology is electronic grading software. This software provides

educators with a place to create weighted categories that organize student work and student

scores to provide a more accurate view of how the student is doing. That information can then

be given to the student, the parents, or utilized by the teacher to determine where the student

needs help. Migliorino and Maiden did a study in 2004 where they looked at the attitudes of

educators regarding the use of electronic grading software. The research methodology utilized in

this study was designed to determine educator attitudes about the software. The variables that

were used were chosen because they may possibly be related to the success or failure of the use

of electronic grading software (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). They utilized the variables of age,

years of teaching experience, gender, years of computer experience, and educator and

administrator attitudes. The implications of this study could possibly affect how school districts

introduce the use of electronic grading software (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). By utilizing

structured interviews and questionnaires, the study focuses on subjective data. Interestingly


9/13


9

enough, according to the statistical analyses they found that there was no correlation between age

or gender and the actual utilization of the electronic grading programs. The teachers used them

across the board. They did find that there was more resistance to changing over to electronic

grading software as the age increased. Also, the longer an educator had been teaching, the more

resistant they were to the new technology (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). According to the study,

a majority of educators who made comments did state that electronic grading programs were

very helpful (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). This shows that the technology available in these

programs is useful to educators, even if it is a forced change. Some of the software programs that

can be used once there is data from assessments include Excelsiors Gradebook 2, AbleSofts

Teachers Toolbox 3.0, and eClass Grades (Schneider, 2000). Having these tools to aid in

managing student assessment data can help educators view exactly where individual students are

succeeding and failing. Not only can they look at the progress of individual students, a particular

assessment or a group of assessments surrounding a particular objective can be viewed to see

how the classs performance breaks down. That information is very important when it comes to

lesson planning for future classes. With that knowledge the teacher can alter the classroom and

the activities to enable every student to be successful.

Once the data is charted or scores are analyzed and reviewed, the teachers work is not

completed. There needs to be an effort to utilize that information for more than simply a grade on

a report card. Assessment data can be used to support said grades at the end of the marking

period, but educators should be willing to do more with that information. Altering lesson plans,

finding multiple methods of teaching information, and working to get every student up to

mastery on each objective is the goal. Technology can come into play there as well. If there is a

topic that has been taught in class and students have still not mastered the objective at hand, it is


10/13


11/13


11

After the No Child Left Behind legislature was enacted in 2001, data-driven discussions

have become extremely prevalent in schools throughout the country. The area of music education

is no different. Simultaneously, collecting data and using it to determine grades is not enough

anymore. Data has been realized as a method of driving instruction to make it more meaningful

and pertinent to students. Technology has opened up new possibilities in the world of

assessment. Utilizing technology in the classroom can enable educators to assess students in a

more streamlined way. It takes some of the work out of it for the teacher, some software and

other technologies record scores for the teacher so there is no active grading involved. Other

technology aids in organizing and analyzing data to ensure that the class time is spent well. In the

music classroom, educators can use this technology to assess the entire school and offer a grade

at the end of the marking period that reflects a students ability in music rather than simply a

participation grade with no concrete data to back it up. In a world where NCLB has

determined music to be a core curriculum subject, music educators need to spend time looking at

the tools for assessment that are available to them to ensure that they are prepared to assess all of

their students.


12/13


12

References

Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2010). Data Wise. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard

Education Press

Casey, A. (2005). A learning center solution for using technology in elementary music. Teaching Music,

12(4), 50-53. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier.

Chiodo, P. (2001). Assessing a cast of thousands. Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 17-23. Retrieved from

ERIC.

Fisher, R. (2008). Debating assessment in music education. Research and issues in music education, 6, 1.

Retrieved from Education Research Complete.

Hagen, S.L. (1999). Technology diffusion and innovations in music education in a notebook computer

environment. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from ERIC.

Hewitt, A. (2009). Some features of childrens composing in a computer-based environment: the

influence of age, task familiarity and formal instrumental music instruction.Journal of Music,

Technology, and Education, 2(1), 5-24. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.

Kearsley, G., Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: a framework for technology-based teaching

and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.

Keast, D.A. (2009). A constructivist application for online learning in music. Research and issues in music

education, 7(1), 4. Retrieved from Education Research Complete.

Migliorino, N.J., Maiden, J. (2004). Educator attitudes toward electronic grading software.Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 193-212. Retrieved from ERIC.


13/13


13

Napolitano, M. (2010). The key to effective assessment. Kodaly Envoy, 36(2), 21. Retrieved from

Academic Search Complete

Nardo, R. (2009). A new role for music technology: enhancing literacy. General Music Today, 22(3), 32-

34. Retrieved from ERIC.

Nolan, K.K. (2009). SMARTer music teaching. General Music Today, 22(2), 3-11. Retrieved from Academic

Search Complete.

Randall, M. (2010). Beyond the grade. Teaching music, 17(6), 36-39. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier.

Schneider, J. (2000). Focus on administration and assessment. T.H.E. Journal, 27(8), 68-73. Retrieved

from Technology Tools for Educators.

Tejada, J., Laucirica, A. & Ordonana, J. (2005/2006). Development of rhythm abilities and aural training

software. International Journal of Learning, 12(5), 345-353. Retrieved from Education Research

Complete.

*Vega, L. (2001). Increasing student music achievement through the use of motivational strategies

(Masters thesis). Retrieved from ERIC.

smiller scholarly research paper edtc615 fall 2010[1]-1

Documents