741489

research-article2017
UPDXXX10.1177/8755123317741489Update: Applications of Research in Music EducationDenis

Article
Update

Assessment in Music: A Practitioner

2018, Vol. 36(3) 20­–28
© 2017 National Association for
Music Education
Introduction to Assessing Students Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/8755123317741489
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123317741489
update.sagepub.com

John M. Denis1

Implications
•• Researchers have identified several assessment techniques and approaches that allow for measurement of
varying teaching and learning goals in music education. Practitioner understanding of such differing
approaches may allow for better implementation of assessment in the classroom.
•• Researchers have found difficulties in assessing music in the schools, including the lack of a set curriculum,
lack of transparency in assessment procedures, and the inherent difficulties in assessing creativity. It is rec-
ommended that practitioners understand and implement multiple assessment techniques to address differ-
ing learning objectives at varying times in instruction sequences.

Abstract
There has been an increased interest in documenting the growth and learning outcomes of students in all subjects
in the past 20 years, and music education has not been immune to the accountability movement. Yet, in spite of the
increased sociopolitical pressures put on educators, music has remained a difficult discipline to assess, which in turn
has created tension between music educators and policymakers. This review of literature examines the basic nature
of assessment in music education and discusses possible concepts and methods to improve practitioner understanding
of student growth and learning. Topics include (a) What is assessment? (b) Why does assessment matter? (c) How do
we assess in music? and (d) What challenges occur in music assessment?

Keywords
assessment, evaluation, feedback, formative assessment, rubric, summative assessment

There has been an increased interest in documenting the
growth and learning outcomes of students in all subjects
in the past 20 years, and music education has not been
immune to the accountability movement (Ciorba &
Smith, 2009; Colwell, 1998; Fisher, 2008; McQuarrie &
Sherwin, 2013). As such, assessment in the music class-
room has become a primary area of concern to music edu-
cators (McQuarrie & Sherwin, 2013). Yet, in spite of the
increased sociopolitical pressures put on educators, music
has remained a difficult discipline to assess, which in turn
has created tension between music educators and policy-
makers (Colwell, 2008).
Therefore, it has become increasingly important that
music educators maintain an active awareness of assess-
ment importance and practice in the field. Maintaining
such awareness, however, may prove challenging for
young practitioners, due, in part, to a lack of knowledge
about assessment. Additionally, Asmus (1999) stressed
the importance of teachers knowing the needs and learn-
ing styles of the students in their classes. The variety of
class settings often navigated by music teachers has
been suggested as heightening the necessity for building
assessments around student needs (Asmus, 1999; West,
2012). Classes often vary in size, language spoken, cul-
tures represented, and cognitive development.
Accordingly, Chiodo (2001) recommended that music
educators seek out information about their students
from the students themselves, professional colleagues,
and from data resources to inform decisions about
assessment.
The purpose of this article is to examine the following
questions: (a) What is assessment? (b) Why does assess-
ment matter? (c) How do we assess in music? and (d)
1
Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
John Denis, College of Fine Arts and Communication, School of
Music, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos,
TX 78666, USA.
Email: john.denis@txstate.edu
Denis 21
What challenges occur in music assessment? Topics were
selected a priori by the author and the included studies
were selected through ERIC, JSTOR, and ProQuest data-
base searches.
What Is Assessment?
Idealistically, assessment has been presented as a method
for gathering information relevant to both teachers and
students about teaching and learning, centered on student
knowledge and skills (Parkes, Rohwer, & Davidson,
2015). Goolsby (1999) suggested that four types of assess-
ment are, in his experience, commonly used in instrumen-
tal settings: (a) placement (auditions, chair tests, etc.); (b)
summative (concert, festivals, etc.); (c) diagnostic (identi-
fying performance skills and knowledge difficulties); and
(d) formative (the regular monitoring of students for learn-
ing outcomes). Eisner (1998) also underscored the diag-
nostic, positioning, content evaluative, and reflective roles
of assessment in the arts. Conceptual definitions and
goals, such as those mentioned above, provide the founda-
tion for the creation and implementation of assessments. It
may, therefore, be necessary to have a basic understanding
of what assessments accomplish.
Students have been found to benefit from specific and
reliable feedback gained from both formative and sum-
mative assessments (Colwell, 1998; Salvador, 2011;
Sicherl Kafol, Kordeš, & Holcar Brunauer, 2017; Zerull,
1990). Formative assessments have been defined as
assessments conducted during learning, and have been
one of the primary aspects of designing and differentiat-
ing instruction (Salvador, 2011; Saunders & Holahan,
1997; Sicherl Kafol et al., 2017). Music teachers have
been said to engage in formative assessment whenever
they listen critically to student performance/practice,
make judgments, and provide feedback (Saunders &
Holahan, 1997). While practitioners may often use for-
mative assessment to ensure that students do not simply
skirt the instructor’s acceptance of mistakes (Goolsby,
1999), formative assessment has often been relegated to
error detection, identification, and communication
(Colwell, 1998). True formative assessment, according to
Colwell (2008), only occurs when “some learning action
follows from the testing, otherwise it is merely frequent
summative assessment” (p. 13).
Summative assessment, or the end measurement of
either learning, growth, or achievement (Sicherl Kafol
et al., 2017), can also be thought of as answering the fol-
lowing question: How did the student(s) do? (Mastrorilli,
Harnett, & Zhu, 2014). In music, individual performances
and competitions often serve as summative assessments
and have been found to be the source of many student
grades and teacher evaluations (Ciorba & Smith, 2009;
Latimer, Bergee, & Cohen, 2010). Russell and Austin
(2010) found that the vast majority (95%) of the 352 sec-
ondary music teachers surveyed worked in schools that
used traditional summative grading systems. Comparable
systems have been noted as extremely common; however,
Harrison, Lebler, Carey, Hitchcock, and O’Bryan (2013)
suggested that simple grades lack meaningful feedback.
Due to their perceived and real importance, summative
experiences often influence instructional decisionmaking,
from sequencing to curriculum.
Why Does Assessment Matter?
Researchers have found that students may view assess-
ment, particularly when measured by grades, as important
and a powerful motivating factor (Colwell, 1998;
McClung, 1996; Reimer, 2009). Boud, Cohen, and
Sampson (1999) claimed that “assessment is the single
most powerful influence on learning in formal courses
and, if not designed well, can easily undermine the posi-
tive features of an important strategy in the repertoire of
teaching and learning approaches” (p. 414). Lehman
(2008) also emphasized the interconnectivity of instruc-
tion and assessment. In this view, assessment has been
considered an essential component of quality instruction
and necessary for improvement in teaching and learning
to take place (Eisner, 1998; Lehman, 2008). Formative
assessments, in their role of providing data for reflection
and adjustment of instruction, may improve specific les-
sons, general content delivery, sequencing, and/or curricu-
lar focus. Additionally, the cumulative nature of summative
assessments may be used to evaluate achievement, influ-
ence the development of future goals, serve as a motivat-
ing factor, and provide meaningful data about teaching
and learning in the music classroom. It may be important,
however, to note that these positive factors may be predi-
cated on the proper implementation of assessment.
Increases in accountability, spurred by laws such as
No Child Left Behind and grant programs such as Race to
the Top, have exacerbated the preexisting natural empha-
sis on assessment (Ciorba & Smith, 2009; Wesolowski,
2014). This increased public attention, in turn, has
increasingly affected policy decisions about music assess-
ment (West, 2012; Zerull, 1990). Music teachers have
been asked to teach more than one area of music, in many
cases, to free up resources to support subjects struggling
with high-stakes testing (Lehman, 2008; West, 2012).
The implementation of standardized music tests, while
attempted several times in the past 40 years, has not been
widespread due to the inherent difficulties in uniform
measurement of music skills (Parkes et al., 2015; Zerull,
1990). Researchers have also pointed to the breadth of
music as a field, the expressive nature of the discipline,
and the intrinsic value of all art forms as factors contrib-
uting to music’s unsuitability for assessment (Lehman,
2008; Zerull, 1990).
22 Update 36(3)
Assessment has been found to be of such importance
that evaluating music and music performance is included
in the current national standards (Shuler, Norgaard, &
Blakeslee, 2014). Music has been recognized at both
national and state levels as being a core curricular sub-
ject, which has brought more focus on assessment in the
music classroom (Fisher, 2008). As such, Asmus (1999)
noted that some objections to assessment in music may
stem from a lack of specificity as to students’ expected
knowledge and skills. Fisher (2008) provided several rea-
sons for the adoption of more regular assessments in
music classrooms, including easily understood and con-
sistent accountability, legitimization in the perceptions of
those outside music, and protection of music instruction
time. Wright, Humphrey, Larrick, Gifford, and Wardlaw
(2005), however, countered that there are also viable
arguments that music is not suitable for formal standard-
ized testing, including the inconsistent schedule of music
instruction and the miniscule impact on subject credibil-
ity testing may provide. Likewise, the researchers listed
additional contributing factors, including the breadth of
music as a field, the expressive nature of the discipline,
and the intrinsic value of all art forms. Asmus (1999) sug-
gested that music, possibly more than other subjects,
operates in more unique circumstances and has longer
teacher-to-student interactions. Therefore, formative and
summative assessments may affect long-term learning
outcomes.
The importance of music assessment extends beyond
the need to evaluate for pedagogical purposes. A number
of studies have shown that assessments can be used to
communicate value and advocate for school music to
those outside the discipline (Colwell, 1998; Reimer,
2009; Zerull, 1990). Accordingly, Reimer (2009)
remarked that the use of nonmusic criteria for formative
assessment, or even worse for summative grades, can
lend credence to claims that music is a less serious sub-
ject than other academic disciplines. McClung (1996)
found that only 18% of administrators surveyed per-
ceived choir as having equal educational status as other
core subjects. McQuarrie and Sherwin (2013) found that
many of the most common assessments used in music
classrooms were nonachievement based, which deviated
sharply from the assessment literature in the Music
Educators Journal. In general, music ensemble instruc-
tors have embraced the necessity of assessment in their
classes, but often have no training in developing or
administering assessment (Colwell, 1998).
How Do We Assess in Music?
Within the differing forms and goals of assessment, schol-
ars have noted a multitude of approaches (McQuarrie &
Sherwin, 2013; Rohwer, 1997; Russell & Austin, 2010).
Teachers and researchers have used content-specific
rating scales, checklists, rubrics, report cards, aptitude
testing, observations, and portfolios to assess student
learning and growth (Parkes et al., 2015; Rohwer, 1997;
Salvador, 2011). Many of the common assessments found
in schools, however, have been noted as either nonmusic
or containing no actual measurements (Barkley, 2006;
McClung, 1996; McQuarrie & Sherwin, 2013; Russell &
Austin, 2010; Simanton, 2000). McQuarrie and Sherwin
(2013) found that the top five assessments used in elemen-
tary general music were based on (a) participation, (b)
effort, (c) individual performances using informal obser-
vation, (d) group performances, and (e) behavior. These
results were echoed by Barkley (2006) who reported that
observation was the most commonly used assessment
strategy in elementary music classrooms, followed by
concert performances and written tests. Russell and Austin
(2010) found similar results among secondary music
teachers, with the top five assessment criteria in order of
use being (a) performance/skill, (b) knowledge, (c) atten-
dance, (d) attitude, and (e) practice. Additionally, Simanton
(2000) reported that secondary band directors used (a)
participation/attitude, (b) band music performance, (c)
attendance, and (d) technique/sight-reading as the primary
means of assessing students, and that 56% of assigned
grades in band classes were derived from nonperformance
criteria. McClung (1996) noted that students perceived
individual participation and attitude as the most frequent
predictor of grades in choir.
The proliferation of nonmusic assessments, such as
attendance or attitude, in classrooms has contrasted with
much of the published literature, which has focused on
assessments like individual and group performance, stan-
dardized testing, assessment software, and others
(McQuarrie & Sherwin, 2013). While simple to execute
and often supported by administrators (McClung, 1996;
Russell & Austin, 2010), nonmusic assessments have not
been noted to support music learning and growth to the
same extent as content-based assessments built on dem-
onstrations of music knowledge and skills (Reimer,
2009). Russell and Austin (2010) determined that con-
tent-based assessment, such as evaluation of music per-
formance or music composition, was the most effective
approach to improve teaching and learning.
Assessment Techniques
NAfME (2015) leaders have proposed that assessment in
music “should measure student learning across a range of
standards representative of quality, balanced music cur-
riculum, including not only responding to music but also
creating and performing music.” Wesolowski (2014)
remarked that having a deep understanding of music is
essential for evaluating both student learning and one’s
own instruction. Fortunately, many of our schools of
music have been perceived by recent graduates as
Denis 23
excelling at instruction in performance, music history,
and music theory (Denis, 2017). Subsequently, music
educators may find that their music preparations may
facilitate the acquisition of performance assessment
skills.
Performance has been found to be one of the most
common forms of assessment in music, due to its para-
mount nature with regard to music making and its
power to motivate students (Latimer et al., 2010;
Reimer, 2009). While definitively authentic, perfor-
mance assessment has been cited as a subjective
endeavor (Bergee & McWhirter, 2005; Latimer et al.,
2010; Reimer, 2009; Ryan & Costa-Giomi, 2004).
Researchers have noted that school size classification,
time of day, type of event, and level of expenditure per
average daily attendance were all strong predictors of
festival scores (Bergee & McWhirter, 2005). Bergee
and Westfall (2005) found many of the same strong
relationships between nonmusic predictors like school
size or time of day, as well as the added predictor of
geographical district (metropolitan or nonmetropoli-
tan), and festival ratings. Furthermore, Ryan and Costa-
Giomi (2004) reported that evaluations by judges were
influenced by perceived attractiveness and gender.
Several different approaches have been developed
and researched to offset inconsistencies in evaluation,
including the use of rubrics. Chiodo (2001) suggested
that rubrics can be effective tools to help judges organize
and evaluate music performance, when aligned with
expressed standards or expectations. In general, rubrics
use descriptors of performance domain criteria (e.g.,
tone, balance, rhythm, etc.) to provide an isolated
domain-specific rating or overall total for a holistic per-
formance score (Latimer et al., 2010). Multidimensional
rubrics with specific descriptions of performance dimen-
sions have been found to provide both higher interjudge
reliability (Norris & Borst, 2007) and a more detailed
picture of student achievement (Ciorba & Smith, 2009).
Latimer et al. (2010) used the institution of a new state-
wide rubric to assess both reliability and validity of
rubric use in Kansas for bands, choirs, and orchestras
across a 2-year period. In addition to finding that the
rubric led to high interjudge reliability, they also reported
that both adjudicators and ensemble directors found that
rubric use led to scores that represented performance
quality and provided better feedback than previously
used forms. For practitioner purposes, rubrics may offer
a way to remain consistent between individuals or groups
(Chiodo, 2001) and may increase convergent thinking
and focus among students, as well as serving as a source
of student motivation (Colwell, 2002). Similarly, rubrics
may communicate instructor expectations, highlight
essential concepts or material, and guide student work.
Rhythm, however, has been noted to be the least reli-
able dimension used with rubrics (Latimer et al., 2010;
Norris & Borst, 2007). Latimer et al. (2010) suggested
that the limited reliability of rhythms may be due to a lack
of rubric specificity. As such, practitioners may desire to
strive for specific and clear definitions of rhythm and
rhythmic accuracy in self-designed rubrics to increase
reliability.
Several other ways to assess music performance,
including checklists, rating scales, and recordings, have
been discussed in the literature. Essentially functioning
as a tally system to guide instructor focus, practitioners
have described checklists as allowing for individual
assessment on any number of teacher-determined skills
(Chiodo, 2001; Goolsby, 1999). Therefore, checklists
may be used with judges to arrive at an overall rating, and
have been found to be reliable (Doane, Davidsen, &
Hartman, 1990). Wesolowski (2014), however, expressed
validity concerns for the implementation of checklists in
his own experience, particularly due to the potential dis-
connect between cognitive processes and observable
music behaviors. In music classrooms, checklists may
often appear in the form of pass off charts or objective
sheets. Akin to rubrics, the checklist has been set forth by
music educators as allowing for communication of expec-
tations and content across a variety of topics (Chiodo,
2001; Goolsby, 1999) and may allow for more specific
feedback than rubrics (Colwell, 2002). The feedback
innate to the format, on the other hand, may be limited, as
the metric relies on a pass/fail check of skill acquisition.
Rating scales have been likened to checklists in prac-
titioner literature; however, they have been suggested to
measure performance skills with more gradation in results
(Chiodo, 2001; Wesolowski, 2014). These scales have
been found to be criteria specific and can be continuous,
through the measurement of mastery and a hierarchy of
interdependent skills, or additive, through the measure-
ment and summation of independent skills (Azzara, 1993;
Saunders & Holahan, 1997). Researchers have found rat-
ing scales to lead to high interjudge reliability (Bergee,
2003; Saunders & Holahan, 1997).
Rating scales may offer a quick way to focus on spe-
cific music skills or knowledge and still attach the feed-
back necessary for learning in a large classroom setting.
While Chiodo (2001) suggested that, in her experience,
rating scales offered an efficient way to assess perfor-
mance, a balance must be found between having a scale
large enough to provide meaningful feedback and one
small enough to keep the pacing advantages the format
offers. In practical use, criteria-specific rating scales may
be used for quick placement, diagnostic, or formative
assessments. In small group settings, such as a sectional
rehearsal, a performance assessment on phrasing might
be taken and feedback given through a rating scale with-
out the use of an excessive amount of instruction time.
Apart from purely performance assessment, portfolios
have been implemented with increased frequency over
24 Update 36(3)
the past 25 years in music settings (Lehman, 2008; Parkes
et al., 2015; Zerull, 1990). Often touted in response to the
value-added modeling assessments stressed in the Race
to the Top grant program, portfolios have been defined as
collections of artifacts and student work that serve to
document growth and learning over a period of time
(Asmus, 1999; Hughes & Keith, 2014; Parkes et al.,
2015). Portfolios may contain quantifiable aspects, such
as the number of recordings, amount of written work, and
scores from competitions, qualitative journal entries,
teacher impressions, and/or the performance recordings
of music (Zerull, 1990). Additionally, Wesolowski (2014)
suggested that practitioners may also use portfolios for
both formative and summative assessment, in addition to
authentic or alternative assessment, depending on timing
and material selection approach. Colwell (2002) noted
that portfolios may require many individual tasks for
each assessed objective, and may lead to increased work
for practitioners.
In 2012, the Memphis City Schools (now Shelby
County Schools) and the state of Tennessee pioneered
and developed a portfolio assessment that used student
work in evaluating learning growth. Eventually called the
Portfolio Growth Measure System, the approach used
both teacher selection/scoring of materials and blind
review by trained content-specific reviewers. In 2015,
Parkes et al. piloted a modification of the Portfolio
Growth Measure System in Virginia used for evaluating
music educators and found that stakeholders believed that
documenting teacher effectiveness with portfolios was an
acceptable approach to documentation, and that the
development of measurement instruments and reviews of
the portfolios held reasonable validity and reliability.
Making a diverse selection of artifacts that reflect content
knowledge has been found to be essential for practitio-
ners to receive the benefits of portfolio assessment
(Parkes et al., 2015). This approach could be applied to
student portfolios, and therefore used to document both
specific learning and growth. It may be helpful to decide
on the categories or types of artifacts prior to the begin-
ning of the course, so as to avoid confusion.
In addition to performance assessments, traditional
written assignments can also be used in calculating stu-
dent grades (Russell & Austin, 2010). The most com-
mon written assessments in secondary music classes
have been reported to be quizzes, worksheets, and
exams, all of which may be used to appraise basic con-
tent knowledge, such as vocabulary, notation, or music
theory, and basic music reading and listening skills
(Russell & Austin, 2010; Salvador, 2011). Tests have
been noted to be frequently used as an assessment tool;
yet writing an appropriate, effective test has been found
to be a difficult and time-intensive undertaking, and the
necessary skills must be learned and developed
(Lehman, 2008). Cross-discipline assignments, such as
essays about music experiences, may be viewed favor-
ably by many administrators, but may not be valid
assessments of music content knowledge. In general,
written assignments may allow for assessment of music
knowledge, and careful consideration may alleviate
validity concerns due to assignment construction or
content. Moreover, attentive planning may free written
assignments from the grade-focused summative nature
practitioners may initially call to mind when consider-
ing traditional pen-and-paper assessments.
Assessment is not limited to teacher-centered activi-
ties; however, the development of self-assessment skills
requires that students experience appropriate external
assessment, and be taught to transfer those concepts to
autonomous use (Reimer, 2009). Therefore, the complex-
ities of self-evaluation should be experienced by students
after basic skill acquisition and learning have occurred
(Colwell, 1998; Goolsby, 1999). Any of the previously
mentioned techniques can be used to help facilitate self-
assessment; however, the use of recordings becomes
essential (Silveira & Gavin, 2016). Contest adjudicators
and teachers have been trained in assessment using audio
recordings (Bergee, 2007) and when teaching students to
evaluate themselves, the use of recordings can be advan-
tageous (Silveira & Gavin, 2016). When asking students
to record themselves, Goolsby (1999) suggested that
practitioners both communicate and practice the neces-
sary procedures to alleviate challenges with using
technology.
What Challenges Occur in Music
Assessment
A number of inherent challenges exist when trying to
develop music assessments. From a broad perspective,
the lack of agreement on music curricula or the end goals
of instruction have created divisions in assessment
approaches, which in turn may have erected barriers to
assessment (Lehman, 2008; Reimer, 2009). The subjec-
tive nature of any music value judgments may have fur-
ther hindered the development of any consistency in
assessment; however, the rise of the standards movement
may assuage some of these concerns (Colwell, 2008;
Lehman, 2008). The use of standards may also align with
McClung (1996), who commented that grades should be
linked to specific learning objectives.
Logistical challenges may also influence assessment
decisions and impede improvement in assessment prac-
tice (Ferm Almqvist, Vinge, Väkevä, & Zandén, 2017;
Harrison et al., 2013; Russell & Austin, 2010; Salvador,
2011). In a qualitative study of three purposely selected
elementary music teachers, Salvador (2011) noted that
participants viewed the number of students taught, time
constraints, and the lack of administrator support as being
obstacles to improved assessment. Similarly, Harrison
Denis 25
et al. (2013), Lehman (2008), and Ferm Almqvist et al.
(2017) all echoed the concern over class size issues and
their impact on effective assessment. Russell and Austin
(2010) also found that administrative guidance or assis-
tance with assessment was rare, yet when administrators
provided help, nonmusic assessments were less likely to
be present in the classroom. Additionally, Reimer (2009)
suggested that the complexity of grading individuals in
ensembles may create confusion or disagreement between
music educators and administrators, and that administra-
tors may be concerned that such confusion could lead to
grade inflation.
A lack of transparency in grading procedures used in
ensembles can lead to perceptions of favoritism (Harrison
et al., 2013). Providing written grading policies to students
and parents may alleviate transparency concerns. On the
contrary, Ferm Almqvist et al. (2017) found that assess-
ment often drove instruction and learning goals directly,
stating that “assessment procedures and techniques
[became] so persistent that they completely dominate[d]
the teaching and learning experiences” (p. 6). Ferm
Almqvist et al. (2017) further suggested that transparency
contributed to the dominant role assessment played in par-
ticipant classrooms. Overall, student understanding of
teacher expectations has remained crucial for learning, and
assessments have been suggested as meaningful indicators
of expectations, goals, and objectives (Reimer, 2009).
Including rationales and reasoning in assessments has also
been offered by practitioners as a way for music educators
to document rigor (Wesolowski, 2014).
Even when transparency exists, assessing creativity in
music has often proven especially challenging for music
educators (Hickey, 2001). Scholars have described cre-
ativity as novel, appropriate, and valuable (Barbot &
Lubart, 2012; Stefanic & Randles, 2015) and have noted
its historical importance in music education (Rohwer,
1997). Despite the educational value of creativity, the
inherent subjectivity may prove problematic for educator
assessments (Hickey, 2001; Rohwer, 1997).
Researcher-designed standardized assessments and
product-based assessments have been used to evaluate and
measure creativity in research literature. The most promi-
nent researcher-designed standardized measures of cre-
ativity in music were developed by Guilford and Torrance
during the middle of the 20th century (Rohwer, 1997;
Stefanic & Randles, 2015). The Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT) have been renormed as may serve as an
example of standardized creative measures (Stefanic &
Randles, 2015). Individuals or groups respond to activities
(five activities on the TTCT-Verbal and three activities on
TTCT-Figural) in writing and in drawing, which are then
scored (Kim, Crammond, & Bandalos, 2006). These stan-
dardized tests have been used as a foundation for creativ-
ity research, although concerns about reliability have been
raised (Stefanic & Randles, 2015).
In contrast, product-based assessment has been
favored by researchers in recent years, with many studies
using Amabile’s (1983) Consensual Assessment
Technique (CAT) (Barbot & Lubart, 2012; Eisenberg &
Thompson, 2003; Hickey, 2001). Counter to standardized
tests, CAT measurements involve domain-appropriate
judges using a Likert-type scale to rate artistic products
on multiple criteria. This approach has been found by
researchers to be reliable when used with both improvisa-
tion (Eisenberg & Thompson, 2003) and composition
(Hickey, 2001; Stefanic & Randles, 2015). Stefanic and
Randles (2015) also found that CAT was less reliable
when evaluating group compositions or when there was
only one judge. The need for multiple expert judges may
pose a logistical problem for the implementation of CAT
in some settings (Lu & Luh, 2012).
General tenants from both researcher-designed mea-
surements and general assessment strategies may still be
valuable to practitioners in developing appropriate
assessments for music creativity. The lack of criterion or
standards for evaluating creativity, for instance, may free
music educators to focus on growth in novelty or appro-
priateness of the creative product. To this end, practitio-
ners may use assessment tools such as checklists, rating
scales, peer/teacher responses, or portfolios to evaluate
student creativity (Rohwer, 1997).
Finally, the common use of nonmusic assessments
may point to external factors influencing assessment
choices. Russel and Austin (2010) found that practitioner
practice and district/campus policies were often at odds,
and music teachers were rarely provided assistance in
reconciling any discrepancies. Barkley (2006) found that
elementary music educators believed nonmusic factors,
such as itinerancy, district/campus policies, planning
time, training, and resources, all influenced assessment
practices. Simanton (2000) suggested that the extensive
work load of band directors may contribute to the lack of
specific, individual assessments.
Conclusions
In a climate increasingly focused on accountability, how
do we implement effective assessment without sacrific-
ing effective music making? This process may begin with
the instructor’s deep understanding of music. Colwell
(1998) argued that developing a meaningful assessment,
particularly in a discipline with a high level of subjectiv-
ity, requires a strong foundation of music knowledge.
Difficulty in assessment may increase if one attempts to
keep the flexibility needed for creativity and artistry in
the music classroom alive. The authentic performance
assessments that so often constitute the majority of con-
tent-specific grades in music ensembles may, if devel-
oped and implemented poorly, contribute to the restriction
of creative thought by reinforcing the power dynamics of
26 Update 36(3)
teacher-led decisionmaking. As such, knowing music
from a formalist and expressionist perspective might
allow practitioners to create learning environments tied to
a holistic ideal of music making, instead of simply
continuing the deficiency rote performance assessments
often seen in school.
Assessing specific knowledge may also be important;
however, knowing exactly what and how to assess appro-
priately may remain problematic. Therefore, a significant
understanding of assessment fundamentals and strategies
may help practitioners gather truly meaningful data about
their students (Colwell, 1998). Yet, in spite of this self-
evident fact, many teachers may be unaware of validity
concerns in either teacher-created or externally provided
assessments. Additionally, deficiencies in practitioner
assessment knowledge may lead to misuse of assessment
strategies, and in turn promote incorrect conclusions and
negatively influence instruction. To avoid misuse, research-
ers have suggested that assessments be linked with learn-
ing objectives (McClung, 1996; Parkes et al., 2015) and be
implemented in an instructionally meaningful sequence
(Wesolowski, 2014). While nonmusic assessments may be
common, they may devalue the overall learning goals and
public perceptions of the rigor of school music.
Accordingly, practitioners should understand the
knowledge and skills related to assessment in order to eval-
uate and instruct students effectively. Therefore, intention-
ally varying assessment approaches and material assessed
may provide a more holistic picture of student progress and
the efficacy of teacher instruction. Additionally, disparate
learning objectives may be best assessed by disparate tech-
niques. Consequently, practitioner planning may be an
essential part of meaningful assessment.
Planning may also allow for practitioners to gain a
more holistic view of student learning. For instance, a
student composition may be assessed through both a
teacher checklist to provide feedback about specific areas
of growth and a written peer evaluation to address more
general aesthetic attributes (Rohwer, 1997). Planning
may also mitigate issues common to assessment. Peer
feedback, for example, may require careful introduction
and practice of procedures to develop a safe environment
for the students and facilitate the generation of relevant
and meaningful feedback. Sicherl Kafol et al. (2017)
found that proper establishment of peer feedback proce-
dures led to improved student perceptions of assessment.
Practically, assessment can direct student and teacher
focus. Ferm Almqvist et al. (2017) found that summa-
tive assessments drove student learning, as students
were coached to perform well on assessments. In light
of the power of assessment to shape content, Duke
(2005) advocated for planning instruction with the
assessment clearly in mind. For practitioners, this may
mean deciding on aspects of the material to assess and
approaches prior to developing lesson plans. As an
illustration, when working with a secondary ensemble,
instructors may select the music, decide on the stan-
dards and objectives for musicality/expression/accu-
racy/and so on, develop several approaches for formative
assessment (such as an overall rubric for the selected
music, checklists for each song, or designated moments
of peer feedback), and culminate with the summative
assessment of concert performance. Each specific learn-
ing objective or standard may need multiple assess-
ments. Such frequency may serve to increase the
opportunities to transition content knowledge about
music into procedural knowledge of making music
while lessening the consequences for failure (Duke,
2005). Consequently, practitioners may want to have
frequent, intentional, formative assessments in their
classrooms to facilitate teaching and learning.
As discussed previously, several different approaches to
assessment may be best suited for differing objectives.
Performance remains one of the most common forms of
assessment in music; however, practitioners may wish to
extend their conceptualization of performance beyond the
concert stage. Performances for peers may provide oppor-
tunities for reflection, the development of evaluation skills,
and practice in the procedural demonstration of music
understanding. Furthermore, performances in varying set-
tings may allow for students to exhibit music learning for
the teacher, administration, community, and themselves.
Practitioners may then use the information gathered to
inform future curricula and instruction. For instance, stu-
dents may be assigned solos and ensembles as part of the
class curriculum. During the learning stages, performances
for the instructor and other students may offer frequent,
low-impact opportunities for feedback and assessment.
Building from these performance assessment experiences,
students may then participate in community performances
of their music. At this stage, students have further opportu-
nities to demonstrate their understanding of the music, and
if recordings are made they may again reflect, either indi-
vidually or with others, on their performance. Finally, per-
forming the solo or ensemble as part of a competition may
give a summative assessment of students’ understanding of
the piece and individual instrument. By having multiple
assessments in various settings, teachers may mitigate
some of the noted subjectivity of performance assessments
(Bergee & McWhirter, 2005; Latimer et al., 2010; Reimer,
2009; Ryan & Costa-Giomi, 2004).
Similarly, rubrics may help practitioners clearly com-
municate expectations and increase consistency in certain
assessment areas. Practitioners may use rubrics as a way
to communicate the desired learning outcomes of a par-
ticular unit or topic, and give structure to planned assess-
ment. To illustrate this, practitioners may create a rubric
for a piece of music prior to distribution to students that
describes the intended learning objectives that will be
assessed. This rubric may prime students for engaging
Denis 27
with the music once rehearsals begin. Of particular appli-
cation, the high rate of interjudge reliability found with
the use of rubrics (Latimer et al., 2010; Norris & Borst,
2007) may facilitate assessments where more than one
practitioner might be involved, such as placement audi-
tions. Correspondingly, rating scales and checklists may
also be used to communicate expectations.
Portfolios, while potentially time-consuming for practi-
tioners, may provide a wider picture of student learning by
incorporating various diverse artifacts related to music.
Student music theory work, performance, composition,
and writings may all contribute to a holistic picture of
understanding and growth. Practitioners who implement
portfolios may desire to predetermine a specific approach
to artifact inclusion in the portfolio to avoid student confu-
sion and effective assessment of the learning objectives.
Parkes et al. (2015) noted that blind portfolio reviewers
occasionally struggled to understand teacher artifact selec-
tion. To reduce extraneous time spent evaluating portfo-
lios, practitioners may choose to have a priori categories or
descriptors for artifact inclusion and establish overarching
goals and procedures for the portfolio. Structured planning
may allow practitioners to synthesize artifacts with greater
ease. Conversely, too detailed criteria may limit creativity
by once again focusing students and teachers toward the
assessment instead of the learning objective.
Assessment and accountability are inherent in music
education. As a profession, we strive for improved teach-
ing and learning, leading toward instilling in our students
a lifelong love of music. Consequently, the effectiveness
of our assessments matters, as motivation (Colwell, 1998;
McClung, 1996; Reimer, 2009), external value judgments
(Colwell, 1998; Reimer, 2009; Zerull, 1990), and most
important, student learning (Boud et al., 1999; Eisner,
1998; Lehman, 2008) all can be linked to assessment.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity.
New York, NY: Springer.
Asmus, E. P. (1999). Music assessment concepts. Music
Educators Journal, 86(2), 19–24. doi:10.2307/3399585
Azzara, C. D. (1993). Audiation-based improvisation tech-
niques and elementary instrumental students’ music
achievement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41,
328–342. doi:10.2307/3345508
Barbot, B., & Lubart, T. (2012). Creative thinking in music:
Its nature and assessment through musical exploratory
behaviors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 6, 231–242. doi:10.1037/a0027307
Barkley, M. (2006). Assessment of the National Standards for
Music Education: A study of elementary general music
teacher attitudes and practices (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data-
base. (UMI No. 1439697)
Bergee, M. J. (2003). Faculty interjudge reliability of music
performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 51, 137–150. doi:10.2307/3345847
Bergee, M. J. (2007). Performer, rater, occasion, and sequence
as sources of variability in music performance assessment.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 344–358.
doi:10.1177/0022429408317515
Bergee, M. J., & McWhirter, J. L. (2005). Selected influences
on solo and small-ensemble festival ratings: Replication
and extension. Journal of Research in Music Education,
53, 177–190. doi:10.1177/002242940505300207
Bergee, M. J., & Westfall, C. R. (2005). Stability of a model
explaining selected extramusical influences on solo and
small-ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 53, 358–374. doi:10.1177/002242940505300407
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning
assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
24, 413–426.
Chiodo, P. (2001). Assessing a cast of thousands. Music
Educators Journal, 87(6), 17–23. doi:10.2307/3399687
Ciorba, C. R., & Smith, N. Y. (2009). Measurement of instrumen-
tal and vocal undergraduate performance juries using a multi-
dimensional assessment rubric. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 57, 5–15. doi:10.1177/0022429409333405
Colwell, R. (1998). Preparing student teachers in assessment.
Arts Education Policy Review, 99, 29–36. doi:10.1080/
10632919809600780
Colwell, R. (2002). Assessment’s potential in music education.
In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook
of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 1128–
1158). Reston, VA: MENC.
Colwell, R. (2008). Music assessment in an increasingly politi-
cized, accountability-driven educational environment.
In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), Assessment in music education:
Integrating curriculum, theory, and practice (pp. 3–16).
Chicago, IL: GIA.
Denis, J. M. (2017). Novice Texas band directors’ perceptions of
the skills and knowledge for successful teaching (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from https://digital.library.unt.edu/
ark:/67531/metadc1011801/
Doane, C., Davidson, C., & Hartman, J. (1990). A validation
of music teacher behaviors based on music achievement in
elementary general music students. Research Perspectives
in Music Education, 44(1), 24–41.
Duke, R. A. (2005). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on
the core principles of effective instruction. Austin, TX:
Learning and Behavior Resources.
Eisenberg, J., & Thompson, W. F. (2003). A matter of taste:
Evaluating improvised music. Creativity Research Journal,
15, 287–296. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651421
Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry
and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
28 Update 36(3)
Ferm Almqvist, C., Vinge, J., Väkevä, L., & Zandén, O. (2017).
Assessment as learning in music education: The risk of “cri-
teria compliance” replacing “learning” in the Scandinavian
countries. Research Studies in Music Education, 39, 3–18.
doi:10.1177/1321103X16676649
Fisher, R. (2008). Debating assessment in music education.
Research & Issues in Music Education, 6(1), 4. Retrieved
from http://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol6/iss1/4
Goolsby, T. W. (1999). Assessment in instrumental music. Music
Educators Journal, 86(2), 31–50. doi:10.2307/3399587
Harrison, S. D., Lebler, D., Carey, G., Hitchcock, M., & O’Bryan,
J. (2013). Making music or gaining grades? Assessment prac-
tices in tertiary music ensembles. British Journal of Music
Education, 30, 27–42. doi:10.1017/S0265051712000253
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual
assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s
musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 49, 234–244. doi:10.2307/3345709
Hughes, D., & Keith, S. (2015). Linking assessment practices,
unit-level outcomes and discipline-specific capabilities in
contemporary music studies. In D. Lebler, G. Carey, &
S. Harrison (Eds.), Assessment in music education: From
policy to practice (pp. 171–193). New York: NY, Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10274-0_12
Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & Bandalos, D. L. (2006). The
latent structure and measurement invariance of scores
on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 459–
477. doi:10.1177/0013164405282456
Latimer, M. E., Jr., Bergee, M. J., & Cohen, M. L. (2010). Reliability
and perceived pedagogical utility of a weighted music per-
formance assessment rubric. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 58, 168–183. doi:10.1177/0022429410369836
Lehman, P. R. (2008). Getting down to basics. In T. S. Brophy
(Ed.), Assessment in music education: Integrating curricu-
lum, theory, and practice (pp. 17–28). Chicago, IL: GIA.
Lu, C. C., & Luh, D. B. (2012). A comparison of assessment
methods and raters in product creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 24, 331–337. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.730327
Mastrorilli, T. M., Harnett, S., & Zhu, J. (2014). Arts achieve,
impacting student success in the arts: Preliminary findings
after one year of implementation. Journal for Learning
Through the Arts, 10, 1–24. Retrieved from http://escholar-
ship.org/uc/item/6c81239d
McClung, A. C. (1996). A descriptive study of learning assess-
ment and grading practices in the high school choral music
performance classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 9700217)
McQuarrie, S. H., & Sherwin, R. G. (2013). Assessment in
music education: Relationships between classroom prac-
tice and professional publication topics. Research &
Issues in Music Education, 11(1), 6. Retrieved from http://
ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol11/iss1/6
National Association for Music Education. (2015). Assessment
in music education. Retrieved from http://nafme.org/
about/position-statements/assessment-in-music-education-
position-statement/assessment-in-music-education/
Norris, C. E., & Borst, J. D. (2007). An examination of the
reliabilities of two choral festival adjudication forms.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 5, 237–251.
doi:10.1177/002242940705500305
Parkes, K. A., Rohwer, D., & Davison, D. (2015). Measuring stu-
dent music growth with blind-reviewed portfolios: A pilot
study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
203, 23–44. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.203.0023
Reimer, M. U. (2009). Assessing individual performance in the
college band. Research & Issues in Music Education, 7(1),
7. Retrieved from http://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol7/iss1/3
Rohwer, D. A. (1997). The challenges of teaching and assess-
ing creative activities. Update: Applications of Research in
Music Education, 15(2), 8–12.
Russell, J. A., & Austin, J. R. (2010). Assessment practices of
secondary music teachers. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 58, 37–54. doi:10.177/0022429409360062
Ryan, C., & Costa-Giomi, E. (2004). Attractiveness bias in the eval-
uation of young pianists’ performances. Journal of Research
in Music Education, 52, 141–154. doi:10.2307/3345436
Salvador, K. (2011). Individualizing elementary general music
instruction: Case studies of assessment and differen-
tiation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3482549)
Saunders, T. C., & Holahan, J. M. (1997). Criteria-specific rat-
ing scales in the evaluation of high school instrumental
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45,
259–272. doi:10.2307/3345585
Sicherl Kafol, B., Kordeš, U., & Holcar Brunauer, A. (2017).
Assessment for learning in music education in the
Slovenian context: From punishment or reward to support.
Music Education Research, 19, 17–28. doi:10.1080/14613
808.2015.1077800
Simanton, E. G. (2000). Assessment and grading practices
among high school band teachers in the United States: A
descriptive study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
304630933)
Shuler, S. C., Norgaard, M., & Blakeslee, M. J. (2014). The new
national standards for music educators. Music Educators
Journal, 101(1), 41–49.
Silveira, J. M., & Gavin, R. (2016). The effect of audio record-
ing and playback on self-assessment among middle school
instrumental music students. Psychology of Music, 44,
880–892. doi:10.1177/0305735615596375
Stefanic, N., & Randles, C. (2015). Examining the reliability
of scores from the consensual assessment technique in
the measurement of individual and small group creativity.
Music Education Research, 17, 278–295. doi:10.1080/146
13808.2014.909398
Wesolowski, B. (2014). Documenting student learning in music
performance: A framework. Music Educators Journal,
101(1), 77–85. doi:10.1177/0027432114540475
West, C. (2012). Teaching music in an era of high-stakes testing
and budget reductions. Arts Education Policy Review, 113,
75–79. doi:10.1080/10632913.2012.656503
Wright, J., Humphrey, J., Larrick, G. H., Gifford, R. M.,
& Wardlaw, M. (2005). Don’t count on testing. Music
Educators Journal, 92(2), 6–7. doi:10.2307/3400175
Zerull, D. S. (1990). Evaluation in arts education: Building and
using an effective assessment strategy. Design for Arts in
Education, 92(1), 19–24.