TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

Technology in Music Assessment Stephanie L. Miller UMUC EDTC615

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

Abstract Information was gathered from scholarly articles and empirical studies that looked at the use of technology in core curriculum and music classrooms. This information was then utilized to determine ways in which technology can be used to enhance the gathering and organization of data, and make assessment smoother, more informative and less time-consuming in the music classroom. Key terms: music, assessment, technology, electronic grade books

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

Meredith Napolitano, a music teacher in Connecticut says, These days, it seems like everything in the classroom needs to be data driven and data supported (2010). If that is the case, then there need to be consistent ways to collect data in order to determine what needs to occur. The most popular way to do this is through assessment; however, the face of assessment has changed some. No longer do students learn a unit, then take a unit test upon unit completion, and then move on. Data-driven education relies on educators assessing throughout the learning process to see which direction they need to go. In Data Wise, there is an eight-step process for utilizing data to determine what needs to occur in the classroom, school and district levels (Boudett, City, & Murnane, 2010). In looking at assessment and what it will look like for Meredith Napolitano and other music educators across the country, three things need to be considered. First, what are methods with which music has been assessed in the k-12 level? Secondly, how is technology utilized in the music classroom to assess student learning? Finally, what can be done with the data collected from assessments? Before the type assessment can be chosen, it needs to be determined that assessment in the music classroom is equally as important as assessing students in subjects such as math and reading. In 2001 No Child Left Behind named the arts courses as part of the core curriculum in education, and with that in mind there are music educators who are in favor of a national music assessment to gauge what and how students are learning in music. In his article, Fisher quotes Sims as saying about a national music assessment, The fact that the arts are valued enough to be included in the NAEP undertaking is a positive sign that they are viewed as a curricular discipline worthy of this considerable effort and expense. (2008). The argument for a national level assessment is made by the author for many reasons, one of which includes the ability for
3

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

educators to use the assessment data to support the importance of music education in schools (Fisher, 2010). Regardless of which direction the argument to assess music nationally goes, educators need to be assessing in their own classrooms. Fisher says, Music education literature is abundant in promoting assessment within the music classroom. In todays data-driven educational climate, there is a great need to demonstrate that learning is, in fact, taking place (2008). The only way to ensure that learning is taking place is to do some form of assessment and analyze the data that is collected. Utilizing Boudett, et als plan in Data Wise, data needs to be collected and examined, and then instruction needs to be studied according to the student data results (2010). Beyond just utilizing data to alter instruction, it is also important to later go back and assess whether the changes are having a positive effect on student learning (Boudett, City & Murnane, 2010). Collecting data through assessment helps music educators defend the importance of music education to administrators and district-level employees. It also allows the teacher to have written evidence as to why students receive a particular grade on a report card. Finally, it can allow the educator to adjust their teaching as needed in order to help students master the objectives from the music curriculum. The next issue faced by music educators is the sheer number of assessments that need to be given in order to know where each student stands. In her 2001 article Assessing a Cast of Thousands, Chiodo points out that music educators teach and assess more students than regular classroom teachers. In the elementary level, music educators teach the entire school. In middle and high school chorus classes, there can be sixty students or more in one class that require assessment during a class period. This makes assessment for the music educator a different task than it is for many other educators. In order to get a good idea of what students are accomplishing and mastering in the music class, music teachers need to find a wide array of
4

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

assessment types. In assessing something which is a talent, music teachers need to be conscientious of the actual objective skills they are assessing, and make sure their students are also aware of what those skills are and what is expected (Randall, 2010). It is important to have a well-designed rubric or set of criteria, and a manageable way to collect information in real time as students are engaged musically (Randall, 2010). Randall suggests checklists and rubrics that allow for assessing students on how they perform a task rather than how they recall information (2010). He also is a proponent of student self-evaluation (Randall, 2010). Many music assessments are derived from educator observation of an activity, such as singing, playing an instrument, or performing movement. It is because of this observation method that the predetermined rubrics and checklists are often mentioned in articles regarding assessment in the music classroom. Chiodo suggests teaming up with coworkers and having students do a crosscurricular activity, which allows them more time to work on music standards while not directly in the music classroom (2001). This helps with the previously mentioned time constraints due to a high number of students with a limited amount of time to work with and assess each (Chiodo, 2001). There are many forms of assessment that can be given to students in the music classroom in conjunction with written paper-pencil tasks. This is beneficial in getting an accurate assessment because there are many more activities, besides those that are written, occurring in the music classroom. The data collected from a wider variety of assessment techniques will provide better feedback for the educator to determine student mastery. Napolitano says her goal is to collect an appropriate amount of meaningful data without interrupting my teaching or causing me to cut out activities. [] I usually try to get three to five pieces of evidence on anything I will be grading (2010). The types of assessment listed above are very useful, but can be enhanced and made more efficient by utilizing technology, thus
5

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

making the three to five pieces of evidence easier to collect for each of 500 students or more. There are many uses for technology in the realm of assessing music students. Some of the technologies include computer software; others include devices such as clickers or the use of the SMART board. Basic technologies that can be combined with the aforementioned rubrics include recording devices such as Flip video cameras, audio recorders, and digital cameras. The Flip video camera can be used to record playing tests, movement activities, and beat and rhythm activities, where the visual is equally as important as the aural aspect of the assessment (Napolitano, 2010). Educators can then go back and review a students playing after the fact (Chiodo, 2008). This frees up educator time in class while also giving a substantial piece of evidence if there is ever a question regarding the students grade. The audio recorder can be utilized when there is a singing test, held directly in front of the student being assessed even while that student sings with others (Napolitano, 2010). The digital camera can take a quick snapshot of a students singing or playing posture. Music software such as Music Ace, Music Ace 2 or Midisaurus provide the ability for students to do skill and drill practice and save their scores (Chiodo, 2008). Software such as EduTest@school, ClearLearning.coms Test Pilot, ParSYSTEM3.0 and ParSCORE help create and grade written assessments for any subject (Schneider, 2000). There is music composition software that can allow students to compose short melodies. Hewitt did a study published in 2009 of one such software program, with an experimental group of 760 students, ranging from ages 8-12. The participants included students with formal music training as well as those without formal music training. The variables were the ages and music training, while the constant in this experimental research was the software that was utilized and the method of teaching students to use it. While the study was done to determine the process of student composition rather the product that was composed, the software program

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

provided a method of assessing student ability to compose. The use of the program allowed the studys author to see what functions within the software program students used, from listening to the composition to deleting or changing note inputs. This information would be useful to a teacher in assessing whether or not the student understands concepts surrounding composition, or if they need to have the information presented in a different way. Another use of technology in music assessment includes using the interactive response or clicker system. Randall describes utilizing the clicker system in conjunction with a PowerPoint presentation of a written quiz (Randall, 2010). This provides an immediate assessment of student knowledge that the teacher can look at without having to grade papers. Another method of assessment utilized by music educators is the Leadsinger program (Randall, 2010). The computer is able to rate a students singing ability based on pitch and rhythmic accuracy. Other programs that work similarly include Carry-a-Tune, Singing Coach, and new software titled TUNEin. to Reading (Nardo, 2009). Use of the SMART board can help students show examples of what they have learned while still furthering class instruction. This is especially useful with music theory and composition (Nolin, 2009). In the upper grades another use of technology is a portfolio evaluation assessment (Hagen, 1999). With this, students could develop different projects utilizing technology to showcase their understanding of the objectives for the class. Examples of projects that they could incorporate in said portfolio would include a music history project, playing tests that were digitally recorded, and a music theory composition project. Finally, Keast created a collegiate level online music history course with assessments that could be easily modified to work at the high school level, and with a little more work could be used in part at the elementary and middle school levels (2009). The listening assessments are done online, which allows students to be assessed at their own pace rather than having to participate in a listening assessment at the speed

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

the teacher chooses. Keast created the course and its assessments using the server at the University of Texas, and the article describes the time and effort it took to complete this process. The course design could be modified at the high school classroom level by utilizing a secure link on voicethread.com to show the score of a musical composition while listening to the recording. All of these technologies have the potential to enhance the assessments given in the music classroom. They help the educator to collect data that can be used to help students achieve. Once the information has been collected from the assessments, the next question is what should be done with it? If educators are assessing throughout the marking period, they will have plenty of data with which to work. There are quite a few technology tools that can be used by educators to make the organization and analyzing of the collected data more useful and worthwhile. One such technology is electronic grading software. This software provides educators with a place to create weighted categories that organize student work and student scores to provide a more accurate view of how the student is doing. That information can then be given to the student, the parents, or utilized by the teacher to determine where the student needs help. Migliorino and Maiden did a study in 2004 where they looked at the attitudes of educators regarding the use of electronic grading software. The research methodology utilized in this study was designed to determine educator attitudes about the software. The variables that were used were chosen because they may possibly be related to the success or failure of the use of electronic grading software (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). They utilized the variables of age, years of teaching experience, gender, years of computer experience, and educator and administrator attitudes. The implications of this study could possibly affect how school districts introduce the use of electronic grading software (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). By utilizing structured interviews and questionnaires, the study focuses on subjective data. Interestingly
8

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

enough, according to the statistical analyses they found that there was no correlation between age or gender and the actual utilization of the electronic grading programs. The teachers used them across the board. They did find that there was more resistance to changing over to electronic grading software as the age increased. Also, the longer an educator had been teaching, the more resistant they were to the new technology (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). According to the study, a majority of educators who made comments did state that electronic grading programs were very helpful (Migliorino & Maiden, 2004). This shows that the technology available in these programs is useful to educators, even if it is a forced change. Some of the software programs that can be used once there is data from assessments include Excelsiors Gradebook 2, AbleSofts Teachers Toolbox 3.0, and eClass Grades (Schneider, 2000). Having these tools to aid in managing student assessment data can help educators view exactly where individual students are succeeding and failing. Not only can they look at the progress of individual students, a particular assessment or a group of assessments surrounding a particular objective can be viewed to see how the classs performance breaks down. That information is very important when it comes to lesson planning for future classes. With that knowledge the teacher can alter the classroom and the activities to enable every student to be successful. Once the data is charted or scores are analyzed and reviewed, the teachers work is not completed. There needs to be an effort to utilize that information for more than simply a grade on a report card. Assessment data can be used to support said grades at the end of the marking period, but educators should be willing to do more with that information. Altering lesson plans, finding multiple methods of teaching information, and working to get every student up to mastery on each objective is the goal. Technology can come into play there as well. If there is a topic that has been taught in class and students have still not mastered the objective at hand, it is
9

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

time for the teacher to look at what is causing the breakdown in communicating the information. If it is boredom or frustration with the subject matter, Vega has done a study that shows how musical achievement can be increased by using motivational strategies, and much of that motivation stems from technology use (2001). The study provides a base-line assessment once students are taught the units relevant to their curriculum. They are then given lessons that utilize innovative, motivating ideas. Once they have completed the eight weeks of lessons, they are given an end-of-quarter assessment as a summative research method. There are multiple methods used in this study, because the researcher also utilizes observation, student journals, student surveys and student interviews to gather information (Vega, 2001). In the conclusion, the utilization of multiple intelligences and technology in the lessons increased positive student outlook and student effort, and test scores also increased (Vega, 2001). Lesson plans from Vegas study include the following ideas: Using synthesizers to create different voices for different layers of composition is one method of reteaching composition goals. Asking students to play chords and songs on the synthesizer helps students understand music reading, as does drill and practice software such as Music Ace. Band-in-a-Box provides an accompaniment for remixing easy piano melodies that students learn such as Aura Lee and Ode to Joy. This also relates to music composition and arranging. MusicShop software allows students to visually and aurally compose their own accompaniment for one of the easy piano melodies. That enhances note-reading, composition and harmony skills (2001). Another study by Tejada, Laucirica, and Ordonana looked at utilizing aural training software to improve rhythm abilities (2005). Technology is not the only way to reteach objectives that have not been mastered, but if those objectives were taught through lecture initially and something new needs to be utilized, technology is a great place to find new options.

10

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT

After the No Child Left Behind legislature was enacted in 2001, data-driven discussions have become extremely prevalent in schools throughout the country. The area of music education is no different. Simultaneously, collecting data and using it to determine grades is not enough anymore. Data has been realized as a method of driving instruction to make it more meaningful and pertinent to students. Technology has opened up new possibilities in the world of assessment. Utilizing technology in the classroom can enable educators to assess students in a more streamlined way. It takes some of the work out of it for the teacher, some software and other technologies record scores for the teacher so there is no active grading involved. Other technology aids in organizing and analyzing data to ensure that the class time is spent well. In the music classroom, educators can use this technology to assess the entire school and offer a grade at the end of the marking period that reflects a students ability in music rather than simply a participation grade with no concrete data to back it up. In a world where NCLB has determined music to be a core curriculum subject, music educators need to spend time looking at the tools for assessment that are available to them to ensure that they are prepared to assess all of their students.

11

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT References Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2010). Data Wise. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press Casey, A. (2005). A learning center solution for using technology in elementary music. Teaching Music, 12(4), 50-53. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier. Chiodo, P. (2001). Assessing a cast of thousands. Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 17-23. Retrieved from ERIC. Fisher, R. (2008). Debating assessment in music education. Research and issues in music education, 6, 1. Retrieved from Education Research Complete. Hagen, S.L. (1999). Technology diffusion and innovations in music education in a notebook computer environment. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from ERIC. Hewitt, A. (2009). Some features of childrens composing in a computer-based environment: the influence of age, task familiarity and formal instrumental music instruction. Journal of Music, Technology, and Education, 2(1), 5-24. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. Kearsley, G., Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: a framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23. Keast, D.A. (2009). A constructivist application for online learning in music. Research and issues in music education, 7(1), 4. Retrieved from Education Research Complete.

Migliorino, N.J., Maiden, J. (2004). Educator attitudes toward electronic grading software. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 193-212. Retrieved from ERIC. 12

TECHNOLOGY IN MUSIC ASSESSMENT Napolitano, M. (2010). The key to effective assessment. Kodaly Envoy, 36(2), 21. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete

Nardo, R. (2009). A new role for music technology: enhancing literacy. General Music Today, 22(3), 3234. Retrieved from ERIC.

Nolan, K.K. (2009). SMARTer music teaching. General Music Today, 22(2), 3-11. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. Randall, M. (2010). Beyond the grade. Teaching music, 17(6), 36-39. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier. Schneider, J. (2000). Focus on administration and assessment. T.H.E. Journal, 27(8), 68-73. Retrieved from Technology Tools for Educators. Tejada, J., Laucirica, A. & Ordonana, J. (2005/2006). Development of rhythm abilities and aural training software. International Journal of Learning, 12(5), 345-353. Retrieved from Education Research Complete. *Vega, L. (2001). Increasing student music achievement through the use of motivational strategies (Masters thesis). Retrieved from ERIC.

13