TPE Domain B (2)

Assessing Student Learning.

TPE 2:  Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction

Candidates for a Teaching Credential use progress monitoring at key points during instruction to determine whether students are progressing adequately toward achieving the frameworks and state adopted academic content standards for students.  They pace instruction and re-teach content based on evidence gathered using assessment strategies such as questioning students and examining student work and products. Candidates anticipate, check for, and address common student misconceptions and misunderstandings.

TPE 3:  Interpretation and Use of Assessments

Candidates for a Teaching Credential understand and use a variety of informal and formal, as well as formative and summative assessments, to determine students’ progress and plan instruction. They know about and can appropriately implement the state-adopted student assessment program.  Candidates understand the purposes and uses of different types of diagnostic instruments, including entry level, progress-monitoring and summative assessments.  They use multiple measures, including information from families, to assess student knowledge, skills, and behaviors.  They know when and how to use specialized assessments based on students’ needs. Candidates know about and can appropriately use informal classroom assessments and analyze student work. They teach students how to use self-assessment strategies.  Candidates provide guidance and time for students to practice these strategies.

Candidates understand how to familiarize students with the format of standardized tests.  They know how to appropriately administer standardized tests, including when to make accommodations for  students with special needs. They know how to accurately interpret assessment results of individuals and groups in order to develop and modify instruction.

Candidates interpret assessment data to identify the level of proficiency of English language learners in English as well as in the students’ primary language.  They give students specific, timely feedback on their learning, and maintain accurate records summarizing student achievement. They are able to explain, to students and to their families, student academic and behavioral strengths, areas for academic growth, promotion and retention policies, and how a grade or progress report is derived. Candidates can clearly explain to families how to help students achieve the curriculum.

Artifact 1 : Scale Assessment and Gradebook 

Artifact one has two elements- a written visual and aural assessment of students playing their twelve major scales and gradebook entries for each student’s weekly progress.  Artifact one is evidence of teaching as the students must not only have this knowledge as musicians for the enjoyment of music-making but also to adhere to California standards and use of assessments.  Documentation of student progress allows for the students to regularly know if they are adequately prepared in a timely manner as well as for the teacher to have a checkpoint to reflect upon for the improvement of the system in place for enhancing their student’s experiences.  Artifact one relates to Domain B as Domain B discusses assessments and monitoring student learning.

Artifact 2: Videos Showing Evidence of Teaching

Artifact two includes embedded videos and active links of many videos showing examples of the result of my Parkside class teaching.  Artifact one is evidence of teaching as the videos directly show the culmination of class training performance.  ‘The most important thing about assessment is knowing what it is that you should be able to do- the best way for me to think about it is a child learning a sport or a child learning an art form, because it is completely unmysterious what you have to be to be a quarterback or a figure skater or a violin player as you see it, you try it out, you're coached, you know when you're getting better, you know how you're doing compared to other kids’ (PBS, 2009). Artifact two relates to Domain B as Domain B discusses assessments and monitoring student learning and concerts achieve both elements.

Parkside Middle School Music Program Facebook- Click Here

***Parkside Choir Soloist Darren Schoensee with Brian Switzer of Train and Jazz Deck- Let Her Go *** (Winter 2014)
***Parkside Choir Soloist Darren Schoensee - Wake Me Up*** (Spring 2014)

***Parkside Concert Band Video 1- Deck the Halls with Chips and Salsa* (Winter 2014)

    

***3 Minute Nutcracker- Click here*** (Winter 2014)

***Parkside at San Bruno, CA Centennial Celebration*** (Fall 2014)

***Parkside at San Bruno's Posy Parade 2014***

***Parkside Concert Band Video 2- 4 pieces*** (Spring 2014)

*** Parkside Jazz Band- 3 pieces*** (Spring 2014)

***Parkside Winter Concert 2013- Click Here***
***(Including guitar ensemble)

***Click Here for Parkside Rock Band Example Spring 2014*** 
(Rock band at 33:00")

Artifact 3 Literature Review:  “Debating assessment in music education”

Artifact three chosen is a review of supporting literature entitled “Debating assessment in music education” from the Research and Issues in Music Education Journal in 2008 by Ryan Fisher. This article is important and was selected for TPE Domain B, as mentioned in the above literature review, because it is related to the content within the domain regarding assessment and monitoring student learning during instruction.  Although music educators have split views regarding the assessment of music education, informal to formal assessment can be a useful tool for the improvement of general artistic expression and testing.  The article describes the importance of both views and it is a music educators job to incorporate the positive elements of both sides into their lessons.

*Click here to read this article*

Article number one to be discussed is for TPE Domain B, “Debating assessment in music education” from the Research and Issues in Music Education Journal in 2008 by Ryan Fisher. Ryan Fisher ‘is Assistant Professor of Choral Music Education at the University of Central Arkansas (UCA).  Dr. Fisher earned a BME from Lee University, a MM in choral conducting and a PhD in music education from the University of North Texas and his previous teaching experience includes elementary music, middle school chorus, and high school chorus in Texas.  Dr. Fisher is involved in many activities such as being an active choral clinician and adjudicator with research interests involving the male voice change, assessment in music education, and arts education collaboration’ (Fisher, 2008).

This article was selected for TPE Domain B as it is regarding a very important and commonly debated element of music education- assessment.  As music is a very performance-centered subject and an art, is it often debated if this form of self-expression should be graded and in addition, include competition.  If music is often part of life for the purposes of music-making for music’s sake instead of being graded as a subject, how do we as music educators move forward with planning and assessment?

            This article “serves to discuss the current debate on national music assessment and to argue that music education's place in the core curriculum demands an increase in oversight through standardized music assessment of students in music education classes” (Fisher, 2008).

The article begins with a review of music education assessment history and the three (to the article date) administered music assessments in the United States and their related details of age and outcomes.  The first two assessments were quite positive in the 1970’s while the last assessment of the 1990’s shows decline and conflicted reviews.

Following the introduction is the discussion and comparison of the supporters and opposition of national music assessments.  Supporters arguments include adhering to the current data-driven climate, accountability for teachers and NCLB, testing creating a belief that music is a serious subject instead of just a fun elective, support to inform professional development needs to show areas needing improvement, and academic credibility- showing success in music to create a greater appreciation for the subject (Fisher, 2008).  “While most music educators would largely promote informally assessing music students within the classroom, many remain strongly opposed to a national standardized music assessment”  (Fisher, 2008).  Those in opposition to music education assessment argue that music is a form of artistic expression that isn’t to be assessed and that arts are not to be treated as a similar subject to others- according to Hoffa 1994 in Fisher, 2008, Hoffa argues “that the arts ‘defy the norms of objective measurement by which learning is assessed in other subjects.’  Other listed concerns include the teachers being held accountable for adopting a student with unsuccessful results due to another teacher’s lessons and the element of performance pressure- how can music teachers teach to a test in addition to all of the ensemble work middle and high schools have?

The positives and negatives are then followed with discussions regarding the necessity for national music assessment and accountability, music education and political gain, protection of instructional time, and a national gauge of music organizations. The article concludes that “though those in opposition to national music assessment have compelling arguments that deserve consideration, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks” (Fisher, 2008).  This has been an ongoing argument in the United States that joins the collection of standardized tests that are being questioned and set-up for long-term debate.