Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Survey of MMEA/MSVMA Members [see handout]
• QUESTION: What would you like your administrator to know and understand about evaluating music teachers in the state of Michigan?
• N = 86 Responses
• Theme I – Knowledge/Understanding of Music as an Academic Discipline• Theme II – Uniqueness of Music Learning• Theme III – Uniqueness of Music Teaching• Theme IV – Need for Music Teacher-Specific Evaluation Process• Theme V – Need for Communication b/w Music Teachers & Admins.• Theme VI – General Comments about Evaluation System.
Theme I – Knowledge/Understanding of Music as an Academic Discipline• Music Standards & Content [see handout]
• 5 VPAA Music Standards w/ Benchmarks (K-8, HS)1. Perform (sing, play instruments)2. Create (compose, arrange, improvise)3. Analyze, Describe, Evaluate (listening - moving, discussing, writing)4. Analyze in Context (historical, cultural, social)5. Analyze and Make Connections (other arts and disciplines outside the arts)
• Admin. Expectations: • What are students learning? (“It isn't all for fun. Fun is the bonus!”)• How does the lesson connect to curriculum & standards?
• Authentic, Performance-Based Assessments (vs. pencil/paper)• Need for Professional Development• Examples [see handout]
Checklists (Elem Music, MS Inst./Vocal)1. Define activity or task (e.g.,
students will sing “Brother John” on pitch)
2. Define criterion (student sings on pitch)
3. Conduct the Assessment: • Scale =
• Yes (+ or 2)• Sometimes (1 or *)• No (0 or -)
• Embedded into instruction
• Meaningful when several assessments are combined
Student’s Name Singing on Pitch “Brother John”
Maintaining Steady Beat w/ Orff
Accompaniment
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2
John
Bill
Susan
Sherri
Damon
Etc.
Holistic Rubric
Recorder Karate Rubric Pennsbury School District
Fallsington, Pennsylvania 19058
Students earn a belt if they can perform the
given song at a level 4 or above. 5 – Student plays with good tone and very few mistakes in pitches and rhythm 4 – Student plays with good tone and a few mistakes in pitches or rhythm 3 – Student plays with acceptable tone and several mistakes in pitches or rhythm 2 – Student plays with acceptable tone and many mistakes in pitches, rhythm or fingering a particular note 1 – Student plays with poor tone, many mistakes in pitches and rhythm, many stops and starts, and/or seems very unsure of fingerings
Holistic Rubric
Elementary General Music – Grade 3 Pre- & Post Test Sample• [See handout]• Paper/pencil, but relies on musical response• Pretest
• Abbreviated version• Different Prompts
• Posttest Requires 2-3 class periods• Teachers determine musical examples & prompts close to test date to
avoid teaching to the test• Other Model Assessments
• http://nationalartsstandards.org/mca/music
Progressive Curricula for Ensembles – Levels of Achievement• Jason Lowe – Beal City Public Schools (MS & HS
examples)• Fundamental (MS)/Comprehensive (HS) Musicianship
Battery• http://bealcitybands.weebly.com/curricular-items.html • or http://pmhmusic.weebly.com/mi-teacher-evaluation.html
• ASBDA Curriculum Guide (pub. by Alfred)• Royal Conservatory Music Development Program
• http://www.musicdevelopmentprogram.org/
Theme II: Uniqueness of Music Learning• Format – Build from one class to the next vs. self
contained• Observation might occur in the middle of the lesson• Build on reoccurring music concepts & knowledge
• Composer of the Month – Listen/Move• Learn a song by rote and dictate rhythm w/ ta, ti ti, tikitiki• Compose ostinato for the song using Orff instruments
• Active, performance based nature of music• What are students doing? Who is the source of the
music?
• Group vs. individual focus (esp. performing ensembles)
Theme III: Uniqueness of Music Teaching• Number of Students (700+ per week)
• Measure student growth only 1-2 grades per year
• Lack of Instruction Time• Unlikely to see all instructional elements in Danielson or Marzano in one lesson• Less material covered, slower student growth, need for review
• Lack of Prep Time• Planning time should not be broken up• Consider scheduling all sections of a particular grade on same day (e.g., Tuesday AM –
2nd; Pm – 3rd)
• Performance Requirements• Reconsider performance expectations in light of new requirements?• Informances vs. performances
Theme IV: Need for Music Teacher Specific Evaluation Format• Based on actual music teaching and learning
vs. (standardized test scores in math & reading, management, etc.)
• Danielson and other standardized measures not intended for music educators
• …students have lives beyond school—lives that include athletic and musical pursuits, activities in their neighborhoods, and family and cultural traditions.” (Danielson, 2013, p. 11)
• Increase Relevance for Music?• Delete or adjust a few categories & scale for HE,
E, ME, I?; Forms A & B Art, Music, PE, etc.?• Use translated versions of current forms?
• (e.g., Danielson 3a, 3b, 3c [see handout])
NAfME Evaluation Workbooks [see handout]• Philosophical Premise
• “Good music teacher evaluation is not only about valid & reliable summative evaluation, but it is also about quality formative professional development.”
• “[Intended] to provide a helpful tool to music educators, principals and/or supervisors engaged in the entire process of professional development. It should be used as a guide to personal reflection and improvement.”
• Part 1: Instruction Manual• Part 2: Ensemble Teacher
Evaluation Summary Form: Criteria for Evaluation & Examples (based on Danielson)
• Part 3: Evaluation Worksheets
• Appendix – Resources• $35.00 from Rowman &
Littlefield Education
Festival Ratings: Advantages/Disadvantages
Advantages• Third party assessment -
Credibility• Focuses on a major aspect of
ensemble curr.• Final ratings are likely reliable
over time• Meaningful as one of multiple
measures
Disadvantages• Narrow: 3 pieces & sight reading
at one point in time vs. broader musical concepts & skills
• Group vs. individual measure• Pre- post-test?• Ceiling effect• Subject to outside influences• Role of MSBOA/MSVMA?
Ratings Growth Example Hypothetical Contest Ratings for One Ensemble over a Three-year Period
Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3Sight-
Reading AverageAnnual
Increasea Final
Year 1 II III II II 2.25 - 2
Year 2 II II I II 1.75 22% 2
Year 3 I II I I 1.25 29% 1aTotal increase from year 1 to year 3 = 44.4%. (assuming 2.25 = 100%)
Assessment PracticesMSBOA Informal Survey (2012)
• N = 76 MI School Band & Orchestra Teachers
• Number of Growth Assessments Administered to Students
• Unspecified (n = 3)• 1 (n = 41)• 2 (n = 21)• 3 (n = 10)
• Types of Assessments by Teacher
• Individual Performance (n = 40)• Group Performance (n = 31)• Psychometric Test (n = 31)• Building Measures (n = 5)• Composition (n = 1)• Student Reflection (n = 5)
• Some districts require psychometric tests (vs. performance based assessments)
Theme V: Need for Communication
• “We are not just here to put on ‘shows’. There is material we are teaching and benchmarks we are trying to hit just like every other teacher. If you don't understand what we are doing, please ask us. Don't just assume all we do is play games. Those ‘games’ have a purpose.”
Topics for Principal/Music Educator Discussion:• Goals of the music program• What students learn & gain• Music assessment validity & reliability• Connection b/w state standards and
assessments• Process for creating, administering, &
grading• Review recordings & other student work• Evaluation process
• Which categories/descriptors are unclear or problematic?
• What are the solutions?
Music Educator Evaluation Strategies• Always have lesson plans connecting to standards
• See MI GLCE• Incorporate as many standards as make sense for your class – but not just perform and read
notation
• Study the evaluation form
• Plan lessons using evaluation rubric as a guide
• Be prepared to provide evidence of instructional & professional practices• Student work, rubrics, lesson plans, parent call log, etc.
• Use a variety of instructional practices.
• Focus on student engagement.
• Don’t try to put on a show for evaluator
• [Is it time to reconsider the number of performances per year??]
