Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:07:30.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making music or gaining grades? Assessment practices in tertiary music ensembles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2012

Scott D. Harrison ,
Don Lebler ,
Gemma Carey ,
Matt Hitchcock  and
Jessica O'Bryan
Scott D. Harrison
Affiliation:
Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, PO Box 3428, 140 Grey Street, South Brisbane QLD 4101, Australiascott.harrison@griffith.edu.au; d.lebler@griffith.edu.au; g.carey@griffith.edu.au; m.hitchcock@griffith.edu.au; j.obryan@gmail.com
Don Lebler
Affiliation:
Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, PO Box 3428, 140 Grey Street, South Brisbane QLD 4101, Australiascott.harrison@griffith.edu.au; d.lebler@griffith.edu.au; g.carey@griffith.edu.au; m.hitchcock@griffith.edu.au; j.obryan@gmail.com
Gemma Carey
Affiliation:
Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, PO Box 3428, 140 Grey Street, South Brisbane QLD 4101, Australiascott.harrison@griffith.edu.au; d.lebler@griffith.edu.au; g.carey@griffith.edu.au; m.hitchcock@griffith.edu.au; j.obryan@gmail.com
Matt Hitchcock
Affiliation:
Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, PO Box 3428, 140 Grey Street, South Brisbane QLD 4101, Australiascott.harrison@griffith.edu.au; d.lebler@griffith.edu.au; g.carey@griffith.edu.au; m.hitchcock@griffith.edu.au; j.obryan@gmail.com
Jessica O'Bryan
Affiliation:
Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University, PO Box 3428, 140 Grey Street, South Brisbane QLD 4101, Australiascott.harrison@griffith.edu.au; d.lebler@griffith.edu.au; g.carey@griffith.edu.au; m.hitchcock@griffith.edu.au; j.obryan@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Participation in an ensemble is a significant aspect of tertiary music experience. Learning and assessment practices within ensembles have rarely been investigated in Australia and the perceptions of staff and students as to how they learn and are assessed within ensembles remain largely unexplored. This paper reports on part of a larger project that investigated learning and assessment practices within ensembles at an Australian Conservatorium of Music. Ensembles contribute to approximately 25% of student work in each semester, and the assessment contributes to a final grade for the semester. Using a case study methodology, four music ensembles were studied. The data generated were coded into themes including assessment practices and processes; collaborative learning practices; the development of the professional musician; and communication and transparency between participants and the institution. Findings revealed that both staff and student participants in this study perceived ensemble participation to be valuable to the development of a professional musician, but that assessment procedures did not always support this goal. Institutional demands were found to be an inhibiting factor in the assessment of ensembles, and both students and teachers had problems with current assessment procedures, resulting in confusion and lack of transparency about how ensembles are assessed. Approaches to the development of the professional musician became a dominant discussion point and a substantial finding of the research. By examining dominant and subjugated knowledge in this domain, institutional power relations were interrogated, existing practices were challenged, and assessment practices rethought.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Music Education , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 27 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barratt, E. & Moore, H. (2005) Researching group assessment: jazz in the conservatoire curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 22, 299–314.Google Scholar
Black, P. J. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. London: King's College.Google Scholar
Blom, D. & Poole, K. (2004) Peer assessment of tertiary music performance: opportunities for understanding performance assessment and performing through experience and self-reflection. British Journal of Music Education, 21, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999) Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, J. & Radocy, R. (1987) Measurement and Evaluation of Musical Experiences. New York: Schirmer.Google Scholar
Branum, K., Fusco, L., Haag, R., Richmond, F. & Russo, M. D. (1988) Idea bank: evaluating music students. Music Educators Journal, 75 (2), 38–41.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. (2006) New learning environments for the 21st century: exploring the edge. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38 (5), 18–24.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. & Adler, R.P. (2008) Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43, 16–32.Google Scholar
Carey, G. & Lebler, D. (2012) Reforming a Bachelor of Music program: professional integration and innovation fro the 21st Century. Paper presentation at Reflective Conservatoire Conference, March 18, 2012.Google Scholar
Carruthers, G. (2008) Educating professional musicians: lessons learned from school music. International Journal of Music Education, 26, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkhill, D. (2005) A young person's guide to the orchestral profession. British Journal of Music Education, 22, 269–285.Google Scholar
Daniel, R. (2004) Peer assessment in musical performance: the development, trial and evaluation of a methodology for the Australian tertiary environment. British Journal of Music Education, 21, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denson, L. & Nulty, D. (2008) Peer and Self-assessment in Music Ensembles. http://www.griffith.edu.au/gihe/resources-support/assessment/peer-self-assessment/case-studies [accessed 30 March 2012].Google Scholar
Eisner, E. W. (1998) The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
Elliott, D. (1987) Assessing musical performance. British Journal of Music Education, 4, 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross Davis, B. (1993) Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, M. (2008, June 25–27) Making Music Together: The Blending of an On-line Learning Environment for Music Artistic Practice. Paper presented at the Creating Value: Between Commerce and Commons, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, M. (2009) Vertical integration through blended learning: a whole-of-program case study. In Proceedings of CreateWorld 2009 – Mobile Me: Creativity on the Go, 30 November–2 December, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1991) Active learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. (1992) Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers, Inc.Google Scholar
Karlsson, L., Juslin, P. & Olsson, H. (2008) Exemplar-based inference in multi-attribute judgment: Contingent not automatic strategy shifts? Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 244–260.Google Scholar
Krippendorf, K. (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lebler, D. (2007) Student-as-master? Reflections on a learning innovation in popular music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education, 25, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebler, D. (2008) Popular music pedagogy: peer-learning in practice. Music Education Research, 10, 193–213.Google Scholar
Lebler, D. (2010, July 27–30) Informal learning in formal learning: Web 2 to the rescue. Paper presented at the Musician in Creative and Educational Spaces of the 21st Century [electronic resource]. Proceedings from the International Society for Music Education (ISME) 18th International seminar of the Commission for the Education of the Professional Musician, Shanghai Conservatory of Music.Google Scholar
Lehman, P. (1997) Assessment and grading. Teaching Music, 5 (3), 58–59.Google Scholar
McCoy, C. W. (1991) Grading students in performing groups: a comparison of principals’ recommendations with directors’ practices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 181–190.Google Scholar
McPherson, G. E. & Thompson, W. F. (1998) Assessing music performance: issues and influences. Research Studies in Music Education, 10, 12–24.Google Scholar
Millis, B. J. & Cottell, P. G. (1998) Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.Google Scholar
Orr, S. (2010) Collaborating or fighting for the marks? Students’ experiences of group work assessment in the performing arts. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 301–313.Google Scholar
Pitts, S. E. (2005) ‘Testing, testing . . .’: How do students use written feedback? Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, 218–229.Google Scholar
Pontious, M. (2001) Grading, instruction, and assessment in music. In Spotlight on Assessment in Music Education (pp. 60–62). Reston, VA: MENC – The National Association for Music Education.Google Scholar
Prior, L. (2003) Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. (2005) The Status of Higher Educational Teaching Personnel in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. International Higher Education and Research Conference, December, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Schippers, H. (2004) Blame it on the Germans! A cross-cultural invitation to revisit the foundations of training professional musicians. In Musumeci, O. (Ed.), Preparing Musicians: Making New Sound Worlds (pp. 199–208). Barcelona: ISME/ESMUC.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. (1967) The methodology of evaluation. In Tyler, R. W., Gagné, R. M. & Scriven, M. (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Struyven, K., Dochy, F. & Janssens, F. (2005) Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 331–347.Google Scholar
Swanwick, K. (1998) The perils and possibilities of assessment. Research Studies in Music Education, 10, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.Google Scholar
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A. & Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: a Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Wrigley, W. J. (2005) Improving Music Performance Assessment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Griffith University.Google Scholar