2016

 Illinois  Music  Educa2on  Conference  

 
Assessing  Your  Choir  through  Chamber  Music  

David W. Snyder, Illinois State Univ.

Ben Luginbuhl, Normal Community HS

#imec2016
Danielson Framework for Teaching

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

—  1a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
—  1b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
—  1c Setting Instructional Outcomes
—  1d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
—  1e Designing Coherent Instruction
—  1f Designing Student Assessment

#imec2016
Danielson Framework for Teaching

Domain 3: Instruction
—  3a Communicating with Students
—  3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
—  3c Engaging Students in Learning
—  3d Using Assessment in Instruction
—  3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

#imec2016
Danielson Framework for Teaching

Designing and using assessments in your choral

classes often involves designing a rubric

#imec2016
Writing Rubrics

Advantages to using performance rubrics over other means

of assessment. Rubrics can…
1. make scores and grades in performance more
objective
2. make performance evaluations more consistent
3. provide feedback to the student for
improvement
4. allow for tracking student improvement over time
(PERA II or III)

#imec2016
Writing Rubrics

Creating a rubric involves 3 steps….

1. Define the task
2. Decide on the criteria to be evaluated
3. Create the standards by which the criteria
will be compared

#imec2016
Writing Rubrics

Defining the task- a student needs to know

WHAT they will be asked to do in a performance
test. The most common performing tasks
include:
¡  Singing music (excerpts)being worked on in class
¡  Singing scales and arpeggios
¡  Sight singing music that contains concepts/notes/
rhythms that the student has been working on

#imec2016
Writing Rubrics

Defining the task- can also include other

standards outside of performance including:
¡  Criticallistening/analysis (example given later)
¡  Historical background and context (examples give
later)

#imec2016
Writing Rubrics

Deciding on the Criteria to be evaluated-a student further

must know what specific aspects of their performance will be
evaluated. Some of the most common criteria are:
¡  Tone/support (can be very subjective)
¡  Intonation
¡  Diction
¡  Rhythm
¡  Note accuracy
¡  Posture/Presence
¡  Phrasing/Musicality (can be very subjective)

#imec2016
Writing Rubrics

Creating the standard to compare- finally, we as the evaluators

must know what is considered outstanding, acceptable, unacceptable,
average, poor, etc. in each of these criteria areas. This is the difficult
part in writing a rubric.

o  The idea is to present enough of a descriptor or exemplar to the

person evaluating that their score is likely to be the same as another
person who evaluates the same performance.

o  These standards should be arranged in a scale ranging from

outstanding to poor with corresponding numerical values. They
should represent a “continuum of quality” throughout each criteria
category.

#imec2016
Rubric Samples

A very familiar rubric:

NFHS/IHSA rubric

#imec2016
Rubric Samples

Let’s look at some examples:

Choral rubric

#imec2016
Rubric Samples

Manfredo Vocal rubric:

#imec2016
Tracking individual improvement over time

A. Why is it good to track improvement over time?

1. It is a good way to objectively assess
“improvement/effort”
2. It motivates students to accept more
challenging tasks
3. It helps students move beyond comparing
themselves to others
4. It helps students focus on progress towards
educational goals rather than just a grade.
5. The state’s new teacher evaluation system
includes a student improvement component

#imec2016
 EXAMPLE

Normal Community High School

Chamber Singing Project

#imec2016
 OVERVIEW

—  Divide large concert choir into small ensembles

—  Each ensemble chooses a piece to learn and perform
—  Rehearsals are student-run with coaching/guidance
from director as needed
—  Groups perform for each other AND at IHSA Solo-
Ensemble Contest

#imec2016
 RATIONALE

—  Chamber Choir had grown quite large (63 students)

—  Tough to perform works intended for smaller
ensembles
—  Students didn’t know each other well
—  Weaker singers were “hiding” behind
stronger singers

#imec2016
 EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

—  Students will grow as independent musicians

(Danielson!)
—  Make musical decisions on their learning and
performance (Danielson!)
—  Cooperative, student-led learning (Danielson!)

#imec2016
 DETAILS

—  Students surveyed on ensemble preference

¡  SATB, SSAA, TTBB, or No Preference (wherever needed)

—  I created the ensembles

¡  No more than 9 in each group

¡  Match voice types

¡  Mix up the ability levels

¡  Mix up the different “friend groups”

#imec2016
 DETAILS

—  Ensembles choose music from a variety of pieces

(with my guidance)
¡  Note: Make sure you have enough space for each ensemble to
rehearse at the same time! Or, figure out how to stagger
rehearsal times if necessary.
—  2015: 8 ensembles:
¡  4 SATB, 2 SSAA, 2 TTBB

—  2016: 10 ensembles in 2 separate classes:

¡  6 SATB, 3 SSA/SSAA, 1 TBB

#imec2016
 PIECES CHOSEN - 2016

SATB:
O My Love's Like a Red, Red Rose, René Clausen
Ubi Caritas, Ola Gjeilo
The Cloths of Heaven, Kenneth T. Kosche
Fair Phyllis I Saw, John Farmer
The Road Not Taken, Douglas E. Wagner
Set Me As A Seal, René Clausen
SSA / SSAA:
Mon Coeur, Orlando diLasso (SSA)
You Are the New Day, Peter Knight (SSA)
Ave Maria 2, Kathryn Parrotta
TBB:
Bound For the Promised Land, Emily Crocker
#imec2016
 ASSESSMENT

—  In-depth analysis of the piece (similar to CMP)

—  Initial sight-reading recording
—  Weekly recordings of progress
—  Individual and group rehearsal self-assessments
—  Performance for peers in class (assessed by students
and teacher)
—  Performance at IHSA (final score from judge not
counted)
—  Closing survey / evaluation of project and self-
assessment

#imec2016
RUBRIC: IN-DEPTH WORKSHEET

#imec2016
RUBRIC: REHEARSAL SELF-ASSESSMENT

#imec2016
RUBRIC: ADJUDICATION FORM (IHSA)

#imec2016
 CLOSING SURVEY RESULTS(2015)

5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree

—  My group worked well together: 4.6

—  My group had enough rehearsal time: 4.6
—  My group stayed on task: 4.2
—  I am a better musician from this project: 4.4
—  This was a valuable learning experience: 4.7

#imec2016
OVERALL RESPONSE

#imec2016
 EVALUATING (2015)

—  Make sure to have a “spokesperson” from each group

—  Consider having a different person lead each rehearsal
—  Use weekly recordings as formative assessments
¡  Students need to listen to their recording and evaluate what needs to
be worked on, or change their rehearsal plan
¡  Help guide students in rehearsal / staying on task / evaluating where
they need to be
—  Create a rubric for scoring performance evaluations
¡  Choose one or two of their evaluations and score their ability to listen
and critique
—  Create a final project checklist / score sheet

#imec2016
 PERA POSSIBILITIES

—  Use in conjunction with standard voice tests

¡  Students individually tested on sections of their piece

¡  Rubric-based

—  Create units of study on the “Digging Deeper”

worksheet
¡  Example: study of musical forms
÷  Pretest by having them label standard classical or pop forms
through listening examples
÷  Teach form through pieces in class & through chamber project
÷  Post-test: identify forms (similar to pretest but not identical)

¡  Can add more levels (harmony, melody, etc) to In-Depth form

#imec2016
 STUDENT PERFORMANCES

—  Discussion of their experiences

—  Presentations
—  Performances

#imec2016
 RESOURCES

David W. Snyder
dsnyder@ilstu.edu

Ben Luginbuhl
luginbbr@unit5.org

Rubric examples can be found at:

www.nchschoirs.org
www.ilmea.org
www.cfa.ilstu.edu/dsnyder/news

#imec2016