Music Department Assessment: Semester Juries
Jane Riegel Ferencz
University of Wisconsin – Whitewater, Department of Music
Introduction
In summer 2014 I began working to establish a method for
aggregating and assessing results from student semester
performance juries. This embedded assessment is a High
Impact Practice ubiquitous to college music departments and
includes students from all of our degree programs and levels.
As such, it is an important source of direct assessment of
student learning for our program. Because juries assess
musical performances and technical skill, evaluations are
qualitative, rather than quantitative.
Overview
•  Semester performance juries require music students to perform a
variety of compositions that they have studied and prepared with
their faculty instructor over the course of the semester. !
•  Length of performance and difficulty of repertoire are determined by
major and level (i.e. a senior performance major will perform a
longer and more difficult program than a sophomore music minor,
even if performing on the same instrument/voice).!
•  Most BM music majors study in each level twice; students at 300
and 400 levels have passed an upper-division jury at the end of the
200 level, permitting them to register for more advanced
coursework. !
•  In most college music programs, BM students enroll in this series of
courses for 7-8 semesters.!
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Juries assess the following Music Department SLOs:!
! !
Performance and Pedagogy:!
!
1. Students will have the technical ability necessary to work
independently as a musician and fully express themselves in
performance on their primary instrument/voice!
! !
2. Students will have a broad knowledge of the solo repertoire
of their primary instrument/voice and be able to perform
competently in multiple styles/genres, alone and in
collaboration with other musicians!
!
5. Students will have the technical command necessary to
teach students to perform on their primary instrument/voice!
Accreditation Guidelines Rubrics and Assessment Method
We are fully-accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music performance juries assess a student’s technical and musical
Music (NASM). NASM provides the following guidelines for development over a semester and, collectively, throughout their
assessing student achievement and competencies:! undergraduate career. Each performance area has developed assessment
rubrics which are used at each jury. In addition, written and verbal
!
comments are provided to students at the time of the jury. This
e. Music units have available a broad range of evaluation techniques
assessment, using these procedures, is the most ubiquitous type of
such as juries, critiques, course-specific and comprehensive
assessment in a Music department.!
examinations, institutional reviews, peer reviews, and the performance
of graduates in various settings. Information gained is used as an
integral part of planning and projection efforts. However, the
institution and the music unit should ensure and make clear that
evaluation, planning, and projections exist to serve the music unit’s
programs, rather than the reverse. Periodic cost/benefit analyses, in
Voice Jury
terms of improvements to student learning in music, are strongly Rubric
encouraged for all music units and externally imposed evaluation
systems. !
 !
g. Overreliance on quantitative measures is inconsistent with the
pursuit of quality in the arts. The higher the level of achievement, the
more strongly this pertains.!
 !
Source: NASM Handbook, 2013-2014, p. 73!
! Voice Jury Repertoire List
!
Method, Results, & Lessons Learned
Collection:!
•  Collect and record data from BM jury forms (SLOs and ranking
only; BA and Minors were not collected)!
!
•  Involves collecting and collating results from several hundred jury
rubric forms (each student is assessed by 2-10 faculty, depending Conclusions
on Area). Eventually, we will sample these results.!
•  This project is a work-in-progress, intended to continue during
subsequent semesters. !
Results TBA:!
•  Create a report of the outcomes of these assessments, focusing on •  Because all music students participate in this assessment, it provides
the overall results though noting the individual SLOs as well. This a snapshot of student learning throughout the entire department.!
report is in progress.! •  Over a period of several years, Area Coordinators will be able to plot
trends and discuss needed alterations in the rubrics themselves or in
our curriculum (Are these assessments useful or do we need to
Lessons learned from initial assessment of FA2014 data:! assess other things? Are most students achieving the outcomes we
are assessing?). Results can be shared collectively or by level.!
•  Faculty jurors are fairly consistent in their assessment of the same
student (there are no widely diverging results)!
•  These reports will also be useful to include in campus reports as
•  Although rubrics are on a 3- or 4-point scale, departmental evidence of direct assessment of student work. Future refinements by
culture is to include a number of “in between” points (2.5, 1.5). I degree emphasis may be helpful, as well.!
will adjusted the reporting mechanism to reflect these gradations.!