Running Head: SONGBIRDS

Hitting Many Songbirds With One Stone: Audio-Visual Performance Assessment in Music
Classrooms

By Benjamin Sajo
University of Ottawa
February 21, 2016

SONGBIRDS

Description of Audio-Visual Assessment

Music is an aural art form and students success in applying music is most often evaluated through
their musical performances. The majority of time spent for the music student in North America is being
part of an ensemble, such as a wind band or choir, discovering repertoire, which is then rehearsed and
honed under the music teacherotherwise known by the etic terms band director or conductorwhich
ultimately produces for a summative concert put on before friends and family. How successful the
students perform their music with their voices or instruments, both as part of an ensemble and as soloists,
weighs heavily on their final grade. Learning music through this process, known as the Rehearsal Model
or Paradigm (Holsberg, 2009), is an authentic learning experience: real-world based, publicly expressed,
enabling, and intellectually challenging (Farrell, 1997, p. 3), demanding rigorous and motivated work
from students to succeed, and adjudicators cannot accurately diagnose and formulate solutions through a
single listening alone. Recording technology, both audio and visual, allows for both a more reliable and
valid means for detailed assessment.
Audio-visual assessment is the use of recording technology to capture a students performance for
feedback. This technology ranges from free computer programs such as Audacity or a smartphone app to
more expensive setups with high-end cameras, microphones and cloud storage. Once captured, the
recorded performance may be analyzed using standards-based tools such as a rubric with criteria
representing all learning domains: the cognitive, such as a student playing the correct notes and rhythms;
the affective, such as a students personal evaluation of the performance; and psychomotor domains, such
as maintaining proper posture (Airasian et al., 2012). The ability to review, multiple times, the salient
features of a musical performance allows for teachers to more reliably assess different criteria upon each
review.
Historical context of Audio-Visual Assessment
Ever since the invention of the cylinder phonograph and radio a century ago, it cannot be
underestimated how audio recording technology has contributed to the experience of music education
(Rudolph, 2004). The invention of the economical cassette tape in the 1960s allowed for not only greater
portability but also the capacity for consumers, including teachers and students, to record themselves with
ease. Alongside parallel developments in portable video recording technology culminating today as
personal computers, the world is ubiquitously recorded for posterity (The Economist, 2013).
In the professional theatre and music industry,, the rehearsal process from auditions to dry runs
are recorded for review by producers and actors (Robair, 2015). In the sports world, coaches record
training sessions and games to improve their plays (Pedecini, 2014). In call centres, customers are often
greeted by a prerecorded message that their calls will be recorded for quality and training purposes
(www.marketingresearch.org, 2015) . Today, in many professions, assessment of its members includes

SONGBIRDS

both overt and covert audio-visual collection. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation sums up the boons
for consistent professional assessment and evaluation: testing innovation, making improvements, and
understanding what works and why to learn quickly from failure and replicate
success (www.gatesfoundation.org, 2015).
Educational Context:
The general acceptance of technology in the classroom.
The attitudes and contexts of furthering the use of recording technology in the classroom is
similar across Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. International comparisons are
appropriate for this purpose because of similar educational cultures. In Ontario, the Arts Curriculum
states how communications technologies significantly extend and enrich teachers instructional strategies
and support student learning [] Whenever appropriate, students should be encouraged to use ICT
[information communication technology] to support and communicate their learning. (Ontario
Curriculum, 42). Teachers nevertheless continue to struggle with technological integration, concerning
budgets, student culture, and professional attitudes (Kitchenham, 2009).
In the United Kingdom, the Office for Standards in Education, (OFSTED), published two reviews
of the current state of music education in that country, concluding music teachers did not exploit the use
of audio and video recordings in the classroom to listen to assess student's work more
accurately. (OFSTED, 2012, p. 6). Further, it is as if art or English could be taught without looking at
the pupil's artwork or reading what they had written" (OFSTED, 2009, 41). In the United States, the use
of audio-visual technology is linked to the Common Core expectations as an important twenty-firstcentury skill (NCASS, p.15) for children to command. Many schools around the world are integrating
recording technology better in the classroom, including Smartphone apps and computer programs exist
which serve as personalizing music tutors like SmartMusic.com, and some schools have their own
YouTube channel which presents streaming school concerts (personal communication, February 16,
2016).
The Achievement Chart for audio-visual assessment.
In Ontario public school, the most common tool used for interpreting an audio-visual recording is
a qualitative rubric based on the Achievement Chart (Ontario Curriculum, p. 24). The Achievement
Chart in the arts curriculum defines four categories of achievement for assessment: knowledge and
understanding, thinking, communication, and application, with the rubrics four levels stating whether
students having demonstrated in those categories limited effectiveness, some effectiveness,
considerable effectiveness, and a high degree effectiveness. The general format of the Achievement
Chart can be applied to any given learning task from pen-and-paper tests, musicological essays to a
musical performance, and the charts may be customized further with additional checklists, numerical

SONGBIRDS

scales, qualitative scales, and numerical-qualitative scales by teachers to best represent the schools
unique music education ethos (Farrell, pp. 15-17).
The process of rehearsal to performance is, in the Ontario Arts Curriculum, built around the
Creative Process, a cyclic journey from the challenging and inspiring initiation, preliminary drafting
and practicing of the artwork, culminating with performing and reflecting; all stages are to be assessed by
both the teacher and peers (The Ontario Curriculum, 15). Audio-visual recordings can capture every
stage along this journey and be organized as a portfolio; students can be assessed as much on how they
utilize the creative process as on the final product. Martin Fautley, a researcher based in the United
Kingdom, wrote how We know that for many pupils music is perceived as a lateral event unfolding over
time and tends not to be amenable to ready dissection. Recorded materials do not have this
inhibition" (Fautley, 2013, p. 38). Further, teachers can record their own teaching practice using the same
technology, discovering correlations and causations for their own professional development; Teaching, as
a vocation devoted to crafting engaging lessons, perpetually engages in the Creative Process.
Part II: Identification and Review of Existing Literature Regarding Reliability and Validity
The two most prevalent controversies in both audio-visual and music assessment are the legal and
ethical questions that arise from recording minors, and whether assessment positively contributes to the
students enjoyment of music and therefore their motivation to succeed. Both controversies engage in
debates of reliability and validity.
The ethics of recording minors.
As mentioned earlier, professionals regularly experience their own assessment and evaluation
through a cycle of recording and reviewing. Students are not yet professionals, and the recording of
minors for assessment purposes, particularly in an era of ubiquitous recording in the public and private
spheres already, may be considered to be a slippery slope regarding the privacy and safety of children. A
confusion between zero-tolerance school policy regarding the students and teachers use of mobile phones
and their potential usefulness as effective self- and peer-assessment tools encourages many educators to
veer on the side of legal safety, appeasing parental cultures wary of technological abuse, misuse, and
overuse (Drehle, 2013).
Cultural attitudesconciliations between parents, educators, and researchersremain volatile
regarding the appropriateness of audio-visual technology in any context. In New York City, the ten-year
ban of mobile technology from classrooms was repealed by the current mayor in 2015, replaced by a bill
that encourages their use for instructional purposes (www1.nyc.gov). In the United Kingdom, where
more teenagers own their own mobile device than their American counterparts, 98% of schools did not
allow their use on premises (Doward, 2015). Such blanket bans are counterproductive to the inclusion of
more personalized recording opportunities for students.

SONGBIRDS

In Canada, the acceptance of mobile devices for pedagogic purposes is progressing. Toronto
overturned a four-year ban in 2011 (Hammer, 2011), and the Ottawa-Carleton School board requires
students, parents, and employees to complete forms regarding the appropriate use of technology in the
classroom, upholding both legal liability and responsible learning of digital literacy (PR Appropriate Use
of Technology, Ottawa-Carleton School Board, 2013). In 2012, Albertas Ministry of Education published
a Bring Your Own Devices policy, shifting students towards more student-centred learning, where
inquiry and authentic learning are emphasized (Bring Your Own Device: A Guide For Schools, 2012, p.
4). Nevertheless, this brings up a new controversy over those who can afford personal devices and those
who cannot, a hindrance to universal design (Ontario Curriculum, p. 30)
Aside from monitoring student academic progress, it is tempting to utilize recording technology
as an eyes-at-the-back-of-the-head strategy. Aside from blatant vandalism of expensive devices, audiovisual recording technology faces the crucible when implemented in classrooms with entrenched
behavioural concerns. Students quick to argument and anti-social behaviour may take offence to being
recorded, being put under surveillance, in the classroom, and their concerns regarding an invasion of
perceived privacy in the classroom may catalyze into parental complaints, in turn leading to school
administrators shutting down any audio-visual assessments. As effective as it may be to discover and
record a students artistic potential, for it to be effective in inspiring success the teacher-student
relationship must be positively established.
Related to the degree of trust between assessor and student, recording devices may not always be
suitable for diagnostic and early formative assessment. It is an unfortunate irony that many of the most
behaviourally challenging students are the shyest to perform music before their peers, and the perceived
threat of being recorded may exacerbate this. Students who regularly act out negatively in turn fear
embarrassment and failure, and a generation raised on YouTube and Instagram are fully aware of the
dangers candid recordings face to their reputation. A classroom culture that encourages positive risk
taking as learning, trying new things, and taking chances without fear of ridicule are essential before
audio-visual recording may be considered.
The Necessity of Assessing in the Arts
It may be initially believed that, A schooling system that is driven by literacy, numeracy, and
attainment in examinations may not be the most welcoming place for maverick, creative, imaginative
thinkers," (Sheridan, 2002, p. 136) but music can and should be assessed with the same rigour as core
subjects while maintaining an exploratory, creative environment. However, how formal or informal the
assessment should is at issue. On the one hand, Victor Lowenfield, a distinguished arts educator on
creative education, writes, "There should be one place in the school system where the marks do not count.
The art room should be a sanctuary against school regulations, where youngsters are free to be themselves
and to put down their ideas and feelings and emotions without censorship, where they can evaluate their

SONGBIRDS

own progress toward their own goals without the imposition of an arbitrary grading system (Lowenfield
& Brittain, 176). From the other perspective for assessment reform, one instance of an assessmentdriven music classroom demonstrated how Assessment can reinforce learning [] They [the students]
set about working with increased determination because they knew exactly what they had to do [] The
assessment did not spoil their enjoyment. It magnified it (Chiodo, 2001, p. 17).
Ken Robinson, a researcher on creativity theory, wrote, "creativity is about 'doing' something,
creativity is original, and produces something of value" (Geinsbrecht, 2015, 6). Although it is a popular
belief that musicians are always engaging in creativity, a performance assessment is not assessing a
students creativity, but their capacity to perform preexisting music. If assessing their improvisational or
compositional skills, then their creativity is being analyzed. A performance assessment involving the
interpretation of a technical study or a snippet of their learned repertoire, though at best a fount for
expression and passion, is really a replicative affair: there are correct and incorrect pitches, rhythms, and
dynamics. The reliable and fair testing of criteria for performance assessmentstypically including
melodic and rhythmic accuracy as well as defined artistic qualities such as expression and phrasing
requires a keen ear and understanding of the many factors facing the student, such as the mechanics of
their instrument and health concerns. Since each student often performs one after the other during a
performance assessment, the teachers mental fatigue may further influence the accuracy of an evaluation
and, in an assessment-driven school culture that nevertheless maintains the value of authentic, problembased learning, this is a serious factor in determining the pedagogic and financial value of a music
program for all concerned parties (Chiodo, 2001). A school band or choir where all the students are fairly
and thoroughly assessed delineates the difference between an award-winning ensemble and the
alternative.
Unlike private music teachers who have the time to continuously focus on individual student
problems, there can be from ten to seventy students partaking in a rehearsal-model music classroom such
as an orchestra or choir, so individualized assessment of students can become extraordinarily daunting for
one-per-school music teachers (Chiodo, 2001; Farrell, 1997). Audio-visual technology allows for the
teacher to record the student during their test and conduct further listenings of those performances at their
own pace. Solo assessments of students by lone teachers is a time-consuming procedure because only
one student can be assessed at a time. Especially but by no means limited to the elementary and
intermediate grades, students can only be quite and patient for a finite amount of minutes and the time,
such as at the beginning and end of the class; when each student is evaluated during the class time may be
advantageous or disadvantageous to their success. Such assessments tends to be short affairs of no more
than two minutes, where at most they must perform a short excerpt from the repertoire, and/or a solo
work, and/or a technical drill such as a musical scale. In fact, the assessor could comically be considered
a performer themselves since they must accurately assess in a very short period of time several qualities
and levels of a performance.

SONGBIRDS

Finally, what if students recorded themselves and submitted from home? The time-consuming
nature could be made more efficient is students themselves recorded and submitted there own
performances, but this brings up questions regarding the reliability and authenticity of such home-made
recordings because even the most basic audio-recording software can be edited and or falsified by digital
natives (Waters, 2013).
Critical Analysis: Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the instrument
As a music teacher myself with experience working within both the Ontario curriculum and the
intermediate English curriculum in the United Kingdom, Ive recorded my students for assessment
purposes. Through trial and error Ive conceptualized a method for effective audio-visual assessment for,
as, and of learning, that satisfies both the Ontario curriculum and my own personal and professional
philosophy for musical excellence. This method maintains the musical performance assessments status
as an authentic learning experience, has the potential for constructivist adaptations, and is collaborative
between the teacher, the student, and their peers.
In the Ontario secondary Arts Curriculums, the performance expectations can be found in the
strand of Creating and Presenting (The Ontario Curriculum, p. 99). Each grade, from nine to twelve,
essentially carries the same three pertinent expectations: students are to apply the elements of music and
related concepts appropriately when interpreting and performing notated music [], manipulate the
elements of music and related concepts appropriately when improvising melodies and rhythms, and
demonstrate technical skill when performing notated and/or improvised music (The Ontario
Curriculum, p. 103). Each of these expectations can easily be covered in a performance assessment.
As referred to earlier in this paper, the most common tool used for assessing students success
with these expectations in the Ontario Curriculum is the achievement chart with the four categories of
knowledge and understanding, thinking, communication, and application. A students musical
performance may encompass all four categories and it is tempting to include all four on a rubric, though
this will likely lead to unnecessary overlapping semantics. The student should know the required
knowledge prior to a performance assessment, they are not overtly using critical thinking skills at this
stage, and communication is irrelevantthe stylish idea that music communicates is often
misunderstood beyond as a metaphor. Music may be expressive, but it is not a language (Adorno, 1956;
Dobrian, 1992). Since a musical performance is an applied test, it makes sense to just use the
application row as an all-encompassing category. My specific criteria is based on those set by Susan R.
Farrell in Tools for Powerful Student Evaluation: A Practical Source of Authentic Assessment Strategies
for Music Teachers, the spirit of which is expressed as follows:
Too often testing is treated as separate and distinct from learning and instruction ... The priorities in an
authentic assessment environment focus on the importance of complex processes and understandings,
rather than multiple products and basic knowledge (Farrell, p. 9).

SONGBIRDS

The criteria for assessment are as follows:

Cognitive Domain: Pitch Production, rhythm/tempo production, articulation, dynamics
Psychomotor Domain: Physical presence, including posture and physical technique.
The affective domain is not included in this performance assessment, but may be conducted by a separate
written or oral personal reflection on how the student feels (see Appendix C).
If recording and assessing an ensemble instead of an individual, its reasonable to accept the
impossibility of isolating individual students from the mass of sound. At present, no technology exists to
do such a thing save for hooking up a microphone to every single students music stand. Instead, how
students are evaluated as an ensemble should focus less on the specifics of what theyre capable of doing
alone and instead on how they work as a team, a critical twenty-first century skill (Framework for 21st
Century Learning, 2015). This is when video assessment may become more significant than solely audio
assessment: From the conductors perspective, are the students all coordinating their entries together?
Are the brass players fidgeting and talking to one another? Is each instrumental grouping, such as the
flutes or the clarinets or guitarists, keeping time together, consistent volume? Are they in tune? A band or
choir should not be judged on the merits of star performers or those who lag behind, but on how they
unify. A students work as a soloist and as part of ensemble should be given equal weight towards their
final evaluation.
Students should be trained to assess their own and their peers performances because each
performance test should be considered an actual musical performance before an audience of constructive
critics (Hewitt, 2002). Because a teacher cannot reliably trust the students to listen to their peers
recordings at home, they must somehow peer-assess during class time. For this, I recommend two peer
review strategies: one a simple two-stars-and-a-wish , where students comment on two things they liked
and one thing they wish there was (not dislike). Secondly, students can each be assigned to look for one
specific element of music, such as one group of students assessing everybodys tone quality, another
assessing their rhythm: a jigsaw-style assessment (Bennett, 2001). Either option may then be submitted
to the teacher and then posted anonymously for the assessed student to reflect upon (see appendix C for
examples).
The best software for recording basic audio is the free and open-source software Audacity
(Sichivitsa, 2007). It is very easy to learn the basic recording and saving actions, compared to the more
busy screens found in Garageband or ProToolsexcellent programs with much pedagogic value in their
own right, nevertheless. Instead of creating separate files for each student, create one file and record each
student onto separate tracks. Then, when all students have being recorded, save each track separately to a
large enough folder on a disk with its own separate subfolders for each student: their electronic portfolios
(Silveira, 2013). Saved audio files take up a considerable amount of memory: one minute of
uncompressed audio may take up ten gigabytes of memory. One may compress the files into MP3

SONGBIRDS

formats if space is an issue; free MP3 converters are readily available on most audio players, such as
ITunes or off the internet.
I recommend the input device should not look like a smartphone or something commonly used by
students, but a standard microphone or camcorder owned by the school: Firstly, the physical uniqueness
of the tool will make the assessment process more interesting for the students, making their tasks more
purposeful and engaging (Wardlow, 2013) If using a microphone only, it should be a USB digital
microphone thats easy to plug into any computer. I recommend the Apogee MiC 96k, which has a
simple setup, a good frequency range, and is inexpensive. If using a camcorder, I recommend that you
record the audio simultaneously with a secondary microphone, because the camcorders own microphone
may be of dubious quality. As this recording is going into the students electronic portfolio, quality
technology will inspire quality work from the students.
One final area which audio-visual recording assessment may positively contribute towards is as
part of a composition project. Music composition is an area in music education which has been perhaps
the least taught in public schools, even though the most recent curriculums of the twenty-first century in
both Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, have boosted its presence considerably. Just as
band method books and repertoire serve their purpose for teaching music as a performance art, new tools
and resources are being researched and developed for the effective teaching of music composition in
schools (Koops, 2009; Holsberg, 2009; Hickey, 2012). With audio-visual recording devices, students no
longer need to be hindered in expressing their often complex musical thoughts only written musical
notation, a medium they may or not have yet achieved a mastery of yet. Instead, they can record their
ideas directly, by singing or playing an instrument, and then assess heir ideas merits. For example, a
saxophonist can record a ten second improvised melody, placed into a computer, and artistically
manipulate the recording using software in the same way rappers utilize samples. Alternatively, students
can notate their musical ideas and then demonstrate their understanding of musical notation by reading
and performing their peers notated musical ideas. just as students may create recorded performances for
their own portfolios, there can also exist an open-to-everybody cataloguean ideas libraryof
student-created riffs, melodies, and rhythms that can be accessed for any creative project.
Conclusion:
Audio-visual recording technology has positively contributed to the authentic assessment
experiencing of music education. A school that integrates the technology effectively will encourage a
musical culture of fair and measurable assessment and a culture of collaboration imbued with an
appreciation of music existing as both an intellectual and sensual medium worthy of learning in the
twenty-first century.

SONGBIRDS

10

Appendix A: my audio-visual assessment rubric based on the Ontario Curriculum

Achievement Chart and Individual Performance Rubric by Farrell:
Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Applies knowledge
and skills with limited
effectiveness

Applies knowledge
and skills with some
effective

Applies knowledge
and skills with
considerable
effectiveness

Applies knowledge
and skills with a high
degree of
effectiveness

Seldom performs
pitch accurately
(0-50%) or securely

Sometimes performs
with accurate pitches
(50-75%) but with
frequent or repeated
errors

Mostly accurate and

secure pitches
(75-95%) but with a
few isolated errors.

Virtually no errors
and very secure
pitches.

Rhythm/Tempo
Production

Seldom performs
durations accurately
(0-50%) or with a
steady tempo

Sometimes performs
durations accurately
(50-75%) but with
erratic pulse or with
frequent or repeated
durational errors.

Mostly accurate
rhythm (75-95%)
and steady pulse
with a few durational
errors.

Secure pulse and

rhythmically
accurate (95-100%)

Articulation

Seldom able to
regulate attacks
(0-50%)

Generally consistent
attacks (50-75%)
with some response
to staccato, legato,
and slur markings

Mostly accurate
attacks (75-95%)
and often responds
to articulations

secure attacks
(95-100%) and
accurate response to
articulations
indicated.

Dynamics

seldom able to
control dynamics
(0-50%)

generally performs
dynamic levels
(50-75%) with some
responses to
dynamic effects
(cresc., decrease.) in
the score.

mostly accurate
dynamics (75-95%)
and often responds
to the dynamic
effects in the score

consistent dynamics
(95-100% and
responds to
dynamics indicated
in the score as well
as those interpreted
from the style of the
piece.

Application: The
use of knowledge
and skills to make
connections within
and between various
contexts (The Arts,
25)

Pitch Production

SONGBIRDS
Physical
Presence:

11
Seldom able to
maintain good
posture.

Sometimes
maintains good
posture.

Usually maintains
good poster.

Almost always
maintains good
posture.

SONGBIRDS

12

Appendix B: Ensemble Achievement Chart

Level 1
(seldom)

Level 2
(sometimes)

Level 3
(usually)

Level 4
(always)

Woodwinds

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

Brass

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

Strings

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

Percussion

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

In tune
Accurate rhythm
and tempo
Accurate
articulations
Balanced
dynamics
Professional
presence

SONGBIRDS

13

Appendix C: My Peer and Self-Assessment Templates

Peer Assessment Template #1: Two-Stars and A Wish

Your Name:

Performers Name:

One thing I liked

was
Another thing I
liked was
Personally, I
wished there
was

Peer Assessment Template #2: Jigsaw Assessment

Your Name:

Performers Name:

Music Element
Youre Assessing:
Levels of
Effectiveness:

1:
Limited

2:
Some

3:
Considerable

4:
High Degree

Self-Assessment: Affective Domain:

Your Name:
How confident were you
coming in for your test?
What were you most
worried about?
What went the best?
What would you like to
improve?

Very

Neutral

Not Very

SONGBIRDS
Appendix D: Glossary of musical terms used in this paper:

Conductor: The individual who leads and coordinates a wind band, orchestra, or choir. The
most typical role of a North American music teacher.

Dynamics: How loud or how soft a musical sound is.

Ensemble: A group of musicians, such as a wind band, orchestra, or choir.

Melody: The ordering of pitches; a tune.

Pitch: A musical note defined by how high or how low its frequency is.

Repertoire: The collection of musical pieces a wind band, orchestra, or choir rehearses.

Rhythm: The arrangement of long, short, stressed, and unstressed sounds.

Tempo: The speed of a piece of music.

14

SONGBIRDS

15

Bibliography:
Adorno, T. (1956) Quasi una Fantasia, Essays on Modern Music (Trans. Rodney Livingstone).
London: VERSO [excerpt]. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/~sullivan/
AdornoMusLangFrag.html
Airasian, W., Engemann, J., Gallagher, T. (2012). Classroom assessment: Concepts and
applications (2nd Canadian ed.). Whitby, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Alberta Education (2013). Bring your own device: A guide for schools [PDF]. Retrieved from https://
archive.education.alberta.ca/media/6749210/byod%20guide%20revised%202012-09-05.pdf
Bennett, B., & Rolheiser-Bennett, N. (2001). Beyond Monet : The artful science of instructional
integration. Toronto, ON: Bookation Inc.
Call Monitoring and Recording Notification: Best Practices for Survey, Opinion and Marketing
Research (2015, August 30). Retrieved form http://www.marketingresearch.org/issues-policies/
best-practice/call-monitoring-and-recording-notification-best-practices-survey
Chiodo, Patricia. (2001). Assessing a cast of thousands. Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 17.
Dobrian, C. (1992). Music as Language. Retrieved from http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/
CD.music.lang.htm
Doward, J. (2015, May 16). Schools that ban mobile phones see better academic results; Effect
of ban on phones adds up to equivalent of extra week of classes over a pupil's school year. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/16/schools-mobilephones-academic-results
Evaluation Policy (Retrieved February 22, 2016). Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/HowWe-Work/General-Information/Evaluation-Policy.
Farrell, S. (1997). Tools for powerful student evaluation: A practical source of authentic
assessment strategies for music teachers. Delray Beach, FL: Meredith Music
Publications.
Fautley, Martin. (2013). The potential of audio and video for formative assessment purposes in
music education in the lower secondary school in England: Issues arising from a small-scale
study of trainee music teachers. Journal of Music, 6(1), 29-42.
Geinsbrecht, M. 2015. Music composition: A review of past and current literature. Unpublished
manuscript, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa
Hammer, K. (2011, September 07). Cellphones head back to school in Toronto. The Globe and
Mail (Index-only), p. A.10.
Hewitt, M. (2002). Self-Evaluation Tendencies of Junior High Instrumentalists. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 50(3), 215-226.
Holsberg, P. (2009). Constructivism in band: New approaches for instrumental music (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (UMI No.
3388717).

SONGBIRDS

16

Kitchenham, Andrew D. (2009). School Cultures, Teachers, and Technology Transformation. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(2), Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2009,
Vol.35(2).
Koops, A. (2009). Incorporating music composition in middle school band rehearsals [Doctoral
dissertation] Retrieved from the University of Southern California digital library
(uscthesesreloadpub_Volume32/etd-Koops-3241.pdf).
Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ofsted (2009), Making more of music, London: Ofsted.
(2012), Music in schools: Wider still, and wider, Manchester: Ofsted.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (2010) The arts: The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10.
Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education and Training.
Ottawa-Carleton School Board (2012, February 15). Appropriate use of technology [PDF].
Retrieved from http://www.ocdsb.ca/ab-ocdsb/p-n-p/Policies%20and%20Procedures/
OCDSB%20019%20Acceptable%20Use%20of%20Technology%20Agreement-Int.
%20Sr.doc
Partnership for 21st century learning (January 2016). Framework for 21st century learning
[PDF]. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Pedecini, A (2014, May 8). Benefits of using video recordings in sports practice [web log post].
Retrieved from https://blog.teamsnap.com/general-sports/benefits-of-using-video-analysis-insports-practices
The people's panopticon; Ubiquitous cameras. (2013). The Economist, 409(8862), 27.
Robair, G. (2015). Capturing inspiration: Tool sets for recording rehearsals and gigs. Electronic Musician,
31(7), 30.
Rudolph, T. (2004). Teaching music with technology (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
Sheridan, M., & Byrne, C. (2002). Ebb and flow of assessment in music. British Journal of
Music Education, 19(2), 135-143.
Sichivitsa, V. (2007). General music: Audacity in vocal improvisation - motivating elementary
school students through technology. Teaching Music, 14(4), 49-51.
Silveira, J. (2013). Idea Bank: Portfolios and assessment in music class. Music Educators
Journal, 99(3), 15-24.
State Educational Agency Directors of Arts Education (2013). National core arts standards: A
conceptual framework for arts learning (PDF). Retrieved from http://
www.nationalartsstandards.org/content/conceptual-framework
Wardlow, L. (2014 May 1). How Technology Can Boost Student Engagement [web log].
Retrieved from http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/learning-science-technology/
technology-can-boost-student-engagement

SONGBIRDS

Waters, John K. (2013). High-tech cheating: With the proliferation of mobile devices and instant
access to the internet, cheating has become easier than ever. What can educators do to
stop it? Technological Horizons In Education, 40(8), 13.
Von Drehle, D. (2013). The Surveillance Society. Time, 182(7), 1.

17