ead | CHAPTER 2: PHILOSOPHIES IN CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT 35 Music Assessment Philosophies According to Shuler (2011) there are four primary purposes for assessment: (a) improving student learning, (b) improving teaching, (c) improving programs, and/or (d) informing stakeholders (students, parents, and policy makers). This portion of the chapter addresses some of the current philosophical issues associated with each form. Formative Assessment Formative assessment is something that teachers engage in every day; sometimes consciously, and other times subconsciously. Formative assessment is taking place when students perform a task and the music teacher determines how well it was performed. Then the teacher can provide the student feedback as well as determine where to go next in the teaching process. For instance, a band director might give the downbeat in a school rehearsal. Several measures in she notices that the clarinets are playing a rhythm incorrectly and decides to stop and teach the correct rhythm. These types of assessments are constant throughout our teaching day, so much so that they simply become woven into the fabric of teaching. Formative assessments are the moment-to-moment judgments, based on student performance, about what to teach next; Schén (1983) refers to this as thinking in action. Examples of this can be seen in nearly all of our everyday activities. Consider the act of driving a car. We ease down on the gas pedal, assess our speed in rela- tion to the speed limit, and then readjust. If a car pulls in front of us and slows down we reassess our situation in the moment and again read- just our speed. Certainly, we do not conceive of these actions as assess- ments; they are simply actions that make up the process of safe driving. Similarly, we often do not conceive of our in-the-moment formative decisions about student understanding as assessments; they are simply actions that make up the process of good teaching. Summative Assessment Whereas the purpose of formative assessment is to guide teaching and learning, the purpose of summative assessment is to measure andMUSICIANSHIP FOCUSED CURRICULUM AND ASSESS a4 Ny report student achievement. Tests and grades are examples of summa. p teachers today are well aware of summatiy, tive assessments. Music * assessments. Summative assessment is used not only by parents to deter. well their children are doing in their classes, but also by poli cy mine how and/or teachers are performing makers to determine how well schools When we consider summative grading practices in traditiona classroom subjects such as math, English, and science, we often think of pencil and paper tests, worksheets, portfolios, experiments, etc., all aimed at getting students to demonstrate their knowledge of the content. Certainly on a math test, one would expect to see math prob. lems for students to solve to demonstrate their knowledge of the math concepts previously taught. However, it is not uncommon for music classes to grade students on content other than music. Many times students’ ensemble grades are based, in part, on extra-musical criteria such as attendance, behavior, whether they have a pencil on their stand, and how much they say they practiced the previous week. Imagine if the same grading practices were implemented in a math class; students could get an “A” for simply showing up with a good attitude and pencil and saying they did their homework. It seems absurd to grade math students in such a way, yet many band, orchestra, and choir students receive grades based on such criteria. Paul Lehman (1998) explains, ‘The problem with these criteria is that they have nothing to do with music itself, Anyone reading a transcript has a right to assume that a good grade indicated knowledge and skill in the subject matter. A grade is not just misleading, it's dishonest if it means merely that the student has come to class, or tried hard—or, more accurately, given the appearance of trying hard. No student who does poorly in algebra or biology can expect a good grade solely because she tried hard or came to class. Why should music be any different? (p. 23) Part of the problem with grading music students on musical criteria is that it is time consuming, especially considering the largeCHAPTER 2 PHELOSOPEIES OS CURRICULUM AND ASSESSSENT x number of students in one ensemble dass 2s compared to, say, 2 math dass. Another problem is that ensemble directors want students to enjoy music and many believe that if music becomes a stringently graded subject similar to their academic classes, students will decide not to continue in music or take a different elective in which they can get an easy “A” Many music teachers would rather use grading 2s 2 means to encourage behavior that they want students to demonstrate than to assess students’ musical achievement. However, if we are to be taken seriously as a curricular subject by administrators, parents, and students, we need to make sure that we are basing students’ grades stadent perform in tune, with steady time, and with proper technique? perform in an ensemble? Authentic Assessment Many definitions exist for the term authentic assessment but what is generally meant by the term is assessment that flows naturally from the curriculum. Duke (2005) stated, “The distinction between the assess- ments and the substance of the instruction day to day should be dimin- ished to the point that the day to day activities of instruction dosely resemble the assessments themselves” (p. 71). For imstance. if we spend time teaching our students to perform with good intonation, rhythm, and sound, then an authentic assessment would measure how weil = student performed those tasks. This seems obvious in theory, but many times we teach students to perform with good intonation, rhythm, and sound and then assess students using a pencil and paper test. In essence, we ask students to talk about the things we have taught them rather than to perform those things, which is not 2 natural outflow of the curriculum. Elliott (1995) describes this as the difference between formal knowledge and procedural knowledge. Formal knowledge be describes as cognitive knowledge about music, whereas procedural knowledge is musical actions:MUSICIANSHIP- FOCUSED CURRICULUM AND. Asses; SMe A performer's musical understanding is exhibited not in ‘whet a performer says about what she does; a performer's musical understanding is exhibited in the quality of what she gets done in and through her actions of performing... If I tell you that I know how to ski, and if I explain the why-what-and-how of down-hill skiing, will this convince you that I really know how to ski? No—the proof of my “skiership” lies in the effectiveness of my skiing actions (p. 56). While formal knowledge about music and music making is necessary to become a music teacher, critic, or musicologist, it is neither a necessary prereq- uisite, nor a sufficient corequisite for achieving competent, proficient, or expert levels of musicianship. (p. 62) Certainly, we want our students to know about music in a theo- retical sense, but many of us would agree that this is secondary to knowing music in a procedural sense. If we are teaching for procedural knowledge then our assessment should assess musical actions. To do this, we have to hear students individually as well as in an ensemble context. Too often we assess the ensemble as a whole, which provides only general feedback to students and does little to inform future plans for teaching individuals. However, while hearing students individually is crucial to assessing and improving students’ procedural knowledge, it is insufficient in assessing what Elliott (1995) calls informal knowledge: Informal music knowledge involves the ability to reflect criti- cally in action. Reflecting critically depends, in turn, on knowing when and how to make musical judgments. And knowing how to make musical judgments depends on an understanding of the musical situation or context: the standards and traditions of practice that ground and surround a particular kind of music making and music listening (p. 63).... The process resembles the way a chess player learns; not by repeating moves over and over in isolation but by solving real chess problems in the context of playing real chess games. (p. 63)CHAPTER 2: PHILOSOPHIES IN CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT 39 If we apply the chess analogy to music, then the ability to perform musically in isolation is only Part of what is required to be musical in an ensemble; performing musically in an ensemble requires critical adjust- ments in relation to what is unfolding in the moment. Thus, if individual assessment is taken too far out of the ensemble context, it can actually become an inauthentic assessment. Feldman & Contzius (2011) explain: Though we want students to perform musically on their own, the goal of the ensemble experience is not solely to develop high-achieving individuals. Indeed good ensembles embody a brand of music making that is more than the sum of their parts. Among other things, playing successfully in an ensemble involves listening for blend, balance, and intonation; the ability to interface one’s individual playing into a small group (section) and then into a larger group (full ensemble); an understanding of how one’ individual part fits into the whole, etc. If we indeed value the “task” of performing musically in a group, then authentic assessment of the group’s performance is a legitimate goal. (p. 110) Aligning Curriculum and Assessment Educational curriculum theorist, Ralph Tyler (1949) argued that four fundamental questions must be answered in developing any curriculum and plan of instruction: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? 3. Howcan these educational experiences be effectively organized? How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? Many in the post-Sputnik education mindset embraced this seem- ingly efficient and mechanical approach to designing curriculum and aligning assessment. On some level, this approach does make sense;MUSICIANSHIP FOCUSED CURRICUL UM AN) x ; — $$ Aisin, — we should have an idea about what we want to accomplish, bine wil accomplish it, and how we will know if we have accompi While this approach can be helpful when considering our phos ical values regarding curriculum and assessment, it is not as helps . determining our practical day-to-day interactions with students, Wi using this approach to plan lessons, music teachers can find the designing behavioral objectives in a mechanical way that does $e actually reflect the interdependent, contextual, and multi-dimensiona} ways people learn and interact with music. Experienced teachers know that it is not in the writing of objectives, but in the Moment-by. moment interactions with the students, and what Schén (1983) calls thinking in action, that the curriculum is realized. Conceiving of the curriculum as a series of objectives and subsequent assessments cay give those outside the profession the illusion of scientific process and efficiency, but really do little to Teflect the actual process of teaching and learning. In fact, Elliott (1995) points out that research has shown that (a) expert teachers tend to not use objectives-based models of curriculum planning, (b) teachers’ informal mental preparations tend to be far more complex and important to their professional practices than written plans, and (c) teaching expertise is fundamentally proce- dural and situational rather than mechanical and predetermined. Philosophical Issues of Assessment There are some who question whether music can or should be assessed. Critics of summative assessment in music argue that many elements of music such as creativity, personal aesthetics, and self- expression are subjective and do not lend themselves to the objective nature of summative assessment. If a student creates a composition that she is happy with, why would we then subject that composition to an assessment? And if it is to be assessed, by what standards would we do so? Assessing the student's composition according to its nature and intent (likely self-expression and creativity) has its own set of Problems; why would we want to measure and evaluate someone else musical aesthetic? Even if we did, how is it possible to put an objectiveCHAPTER 2 PHILOSOPHIES in CURBECULUM AND ASSESSMENT “a label on a subjective piece of art? Fautley (2010) argues that this type of experience positions teaching in a top down and sterile experience that does not account for the personal curiosities or natural develop- mental paths of the students and suggests that we instead shift our focus from teacher assessment to student self-assessment. Such an approach would require a shift from attainment and toward prog- ress and development, not to mention a significant shift in the way summative assessment is measured and reported. Due to the educational climate in which we are forced to survive, we often find ourselves assessing things that have little to do with what we value, or even with what we teach! Most of us value life- long and life-wide music making, yet we do not assess this. We value self-expression and creativity, but we do not assess these. We value aesthetic experiences and happiness in making music, but we do not assess these. As the old saying goes, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” When it comes to summative assessment in music, it is less prob- lematic to assess things such as correct notes, balance, blend, into- nation, and other performance skills than it is to assess creativity or self-expression. Although somewhat subjective and unreliable, professional music educators can still make evaluations regarding how well students perform these skills. Festival evaluations are exam- ples of summative evaluations. However, the subjective and unreliable nature of these types of assessments do not fit well within an educa- tional climate that values objective right and wrong answers such as with multiple choice standardized tests. Thus, music teachers, in an attempt to simply survive in this climate, often resort to distilling their music assessments to music vocabulary, note-naming, theory, aural skills, and history rather than music performance, musical enjoyment, life-long participation, creativity, self-knowledge, self- growth, flow, or self-expression. ‘The problem is that the nature and value of music is not well suited for summative assessments. Sure, we can assess musical skills and musical knowledge, but we have not yet found a way to assessMUsICLANSHIP-FOCUSED O that which most of us value, and many would argue that that why. even if it could be. As Wiliam (299), put it, : rhe and end up only making the measurable important” (P. 58) Auditing. Some in education feel that we should stop summs tive assessments altogether (see books and articles by Alfie Kona) Proponents argue that grades tend to diminish students interest ig what they are learning, create preference for the easiest Possible voute, and reduce the quality of students’ thinking, They argue tha grades are one ofthe biggest barriers between students and learning If we begin with a desire to assess more often, or to produce more data, or to improve the consistency of our grading, then certain prescriptions will follow. If, however, our point of departure isn't mostly about the grading, but about our desire for students to understand ideas from the inside out, or to get a kick out of playing with words and numbers, or to be in charge of their own learning, then we will likely end up elsewhere. We may come to see grading as a huge, noisy, fuel-guzzling, smoke-belching machine that constantly requires repairs and new parts, when what we should be doing is pulling the plug. (Kohn, 2011, p. 32) So why are we trying to assess music in a summative fashion in the 21* century? It is because school music education lives within the general education world and the general education world values summative and objective evaluation. One must then ask why the general education world values objective and summative evaluation. I would argue it is that we have come to conceive of assessment not in terms of formative assessment for the purposes of guiding instruction and learning, but for the purposes of holding schools, teachers, and students accountable to predetermined and extemporaneous measures of achievement. Assessment is used as a means to punish schools and reaches whose students do not meet these measures. Funding is with- to schools that do not show improvement indicated through—— — CHAPTER 2: PHILOSOPHIES IN CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT 43 rigorous testing requirements, We have come to value assessment not as a means of improving teaching and learning for student success and self-actualization, but as a means of measuring our teachers and insti- tutions for punishment and reward. Fautley (2010) eloquently sums it up: “...there has been a shift away from learning, towards auditing. ‘This shift becomes problematic when auditing replaces teaching and learning. As the old country saying goes, the pig doesn’t get fatter by being weighed frequently!” (p. 62). Music Standardized Tests. Many music teachers are familiar with standardized music tests such as Gordon's music aptitude, audia- tion, and achivement tests (see Gordon, 1986), the Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale (Watkins & Farnum, 1962), and other various tests that have been used as reliable, valid, and norm-referenced music assessments aimed at helping teachers identify strengths, weaknesses, and potential in their students. Typically these tests have been used as formative assessments aimed at improving teaching and learning rather than for high-stakes auditing purposes as seen delivered in the subjects for which schools are held accountable. While many music teachers, for myriad reasons, do not want to see music subjected to the same rigorous high-stakes standardized testing requirements as other subjects, there are some who argue that music should be held to the same testing requirements and standards as other core academic subjects: In essence, music educators want the benefits of being seen as equals to the other core subjects, but do not want to abide by the same rules. Music educators cannot have it both ways. Either music education should relinquish their status as a core curricular subject and focus solely on the artistic, subjective offerings of the arts, or be held accountable through stan- dards and assessment just as other basic subjects. (Fisher, 2008, p. 5) Proponents of this stance contend that accountability through standardized testing is required for music to be taken seriously as a core44 MUSICIANSHIP-FOCUSED CURRICULUM AND ASSESS, lceeteeserheerich nial ee nee eee te academic subject. And perhaps there is a grain of truth in that; Schools tend to focus more on subjects for which they are held accountable The tacit, and sometimes not so tacit, motivation behind many Propo. nents of this stance is one of advocacy and perceived legitimacy rather than the improvement of teaching and learning. While this may seem to be the answer to music gaining a stronger foothold in public educa. tion, the consequences might far outweigh the benefits. Many People would argue that high-stakes testing is precisely the problem with American education. We must keep in mind that assessment serves its primary purpose when it informs teaching and learning. To use it as a tool for holding schools and teachers accountable, I would argue, is a misappropriation of educational time, effort, and resources. To use it as a tool with which to more firmly situate music within schools is simply academic fraud and abuse.