It was very interesting this week to be studying about assessment and instructional design as I go back into the classroom for my fifteenth year of teaching. This year for our professional development before the students come back to class we had a sharing session in the morning in which we were able to get some new ideas for the beginning of a new year. That same day, we sat down in groups to write out specific assessments for our scope and sequence for second grade and fifth grade. Having read chapter six before we met, I had some ideas in my mind of how to go about it.
My colleagues and I discussed the essential questions and what we wanted to make sure we wanted the students to know from a lesson based on the standard we were working on at the time. We used a backward design to map out a lesson based on the standard in which we were looking. Our questions were: "Did we want the assessment to be summative or authentic?" Would the student be performing the task and would it be just from that one lesson? Would it be cyclic? Would we expect them to remember information from a previous lesson as well as the information that was just taught?
I tried to bring up project based learning, especially with fifth grade and composing. This was a difficult conversation as there were some teachers who did not want to deviate from their regular lesson that they always teach every year with composing. Earlier in the week, the fine arts departments of every school in our county heard a presentation from the Dean of O'More College of Art and Design, here in Franklin, TN. The biggest takeaway from his presentation for me, was that our jobs as fine arts educators is to foster creativity. Our job is to create lessons that are designed to help our students develop the 4Cs (p. 153) - creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. Our technology standards go hand in hand with our national music standards when teachers use instructional design to create lessons that are interesting and relevant to their worlds.
Bauer, W. I. (2014) Music learning today Digital Pedagogy for Creating Performing andResponding to Music. New York, NY Oxford University Press.
My school is launching a huge emphasis on project-based learning this next school year. The irony for me is that I have been a member of the leadership team for three years and sat through countless meetings regarding the push toward project-based learning. However, Brauer's explanation of the process of rationale was actually the first succinct explanation I have received. I know that my grade level counterparts have all had extensive training and time to develop projects with their teams, but because our campus instructional coaches have the same conference time and lunch as my team, (fine arts and PE), we do not receive the same training. I agree with you. I believe that Project Based Learning is an ideal structure for music composition, especially if you can combine it with a problem that needs solving. Does your school need a new school song? Perhaps, there would be time to create a class song that could be performed at 5th grade graduation or awards ceremony. As you developed the project, it might even be possible to invite students to record the work. Could you sell copies and donate the funds to charity? It might not be feasible this year, but you might be able to grow into it. Then when the community responds favorably to the effort of your students, the other music teachers will follow your lead.
ReplyDeleteI can relate to your dilemma of feeling as though you have to assess everything! Assessment can be an overwhelming task, especially with hundreds of students and limited student contact time. In one of my former districts, K-4 elementary music students were assessed in six different areas that were all documented on report cards each term. There was simply too much to assess given the amount of student contact time we had; as a result, my colleagues and I rewrote the content of the students’ music report cards. With 550 students to assess each term, we had to settle for the idea that while we would still teach all the concepts listed on the former report card (and more), it was not realistic for us to formally assess the students on all these skills. We also discussed the possibility of grading a different set of skills or concepts each term, but with changing concert dates and schedule conflicts between buildings, this was not feasible either.
ReplyDeleteOur solution was to reduce our six areas to only three: performance, music literacy, and participation. “Performance” was a general enough term to communicate what the students were doing, but it was also vague enough that we could adapt it from grade to grade and even from trimester to trimester. For example, the Kindergarten students may have been assessed on keeping a steady beat in the first trimester and achieving a singing voice in the second. In other grade levels, we could change from recorder performance to singing performance to Orff performance all within a single year. “Music Literacy” was also something that was easily adaptable, as it allowed us to address melodic and rhythmic literacy as well as listening, dictating, and labeling notes. Lastly, we felt that including some kind of participation grade was important because music is a community activity that builds social skills and promotes healthy interaction. This is just one solution that we came up with to help make assessment more manageable for us, and I hope that you and your colleagues find solutions that fit your (and your students’) needs as well. Best of luck!