Tennessee Musician - Vol. 67 No. 1

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TM A Pilot Study: The Burden of Assessment Michael Catalano & Jamila L. McWhirter Teacher assessment is an important topic for music educators. Many changes have occurred recently with the “Race To the Top” incentive program, the implementation of Common Core Standards, and the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM). Arts specialists are assessed regularly by administrators who appear to have little or no training in these subjects. However, these administrators are to evaluate arts teachers on content knowledge in their areas. On several occasions, I have spoken with fellow music educators who feel that it is unfair for an administrator to score for content knowledge when the administrators themselves do not typically possess this knowledge. My original idea for a pilot study was to explore administrator efficacy regarding assessment of arts specialists, more specifically music specialists. When trying to find studies that dealt with administrator efficacy, I was not successful in locating information on the subject from the perspective of the administrator. I spoke informally with an administrator about how he felt about having to observe music teachers. He expressed a little discomfort in having to assess music teachers, but that “good teaching is good teaching” regardless of subject matter. Therefore, I began to wonder, “What does good teaching look like?” Can it “look like” good teaching and not actually be appropriate for the students in the class? As my thoughts began to take shape, I constructed a survey that asked administrators how they felt about assessing music teachers. In addition, I embedded a video of a short music lesson into the survey that was to be scored for the teacher content knowledge portion of the TEAM rubric. I designed a lesson that focused on teaching sixteenth notes to a class of first grade students. The person I chose to teach the lesson is a colleague who is an academic coach and an amazing teacher. She does have a degree in music although it is not in music education. She has had no prior experience teaching general music in the public school. The lesson itself was designed mostly using the format as laid out by the book Explicit Direct Instruction: The Power of the Well-Crafted, Well-Taught Lesson. The lesson started with a clear daily target followed by accessing prior knowledge using the rhythm/visual icons (Coke and Pepsi) that were used to teach quarter and eighth notes. A new icon was introduced to represent the sixteenth notes (Dr. Pepper) and was then followed by some rhythm reading by the class. The lesson ended with the students learning a the song “No One’s In the House But Dinah” that had within it a sixteenth note grouping that the students were to try and identify, followed by the reiteration of the clear daily target. The lesson was constructed to exhibit great teacher qualities and techniques, such as using strategies that involve different modalities, good structure and pacing, meaningful repetition, pair sharing, etc. However, there were also items included that a person trained in music education would recognize as inappropriate, such as singing in a range that is too low, randomly using different rhythm syllables, teaching a song inappropriately, and teaching content several grade levels beyond the recommended standards. The survey was sent to administrators across 30 www.tnmea.org TM | Volume 67 number 1
the state of Tennessee, but only forty-three responded. The survey consisted of 11 multiple-choice questions, a 15-minute lesson, and one short answer question. Twenty-seven studied general music in public school with the rest having varying degrees of musical experience throughout their career. Two respondents held degrees in music, although their specific area of musical expertise was not mentioned. Thirty-seven participants responded that they were either “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with observing and scoring music teachers. Only six of the participants were “somewhat” to “not comfortable.” Another question asked how they felt about using the TEAM rubric to assess teachers of non-tested subjects. Twenty-nine participants responded that it needs improvement or should be changed completely. However, thirteen participants expressed that the TEAM rubric does not need any changes for assessing teachers of non-tested subject areas. Another question asked if they had ever given a music teacher a “1” in teacher content knowledge and five participants answered “yes.” When asked if they felt it was fair to combine student’s scores in math and reading together with observations to get an educator score for special area teachers twenty-six replied “no” while fifteen responded “yes.” The lesson, according to state standards, is inappropriate for first graders. Sixteenth notes are not typically introduced until the third grade. Not one administrator remarked on this element even though a majority of the respondents indicated that they were knowledgeable of the state standards for music. The majority of respondents scored the lesson at a “3” or above in the area of teacher content knowledge, even though the music content issues stated earlier were evident. One administrator, who scored the lesson as a “5”, expressed that the “teacher demonstrated content mastery.” Other respondents who scored the lesson a “4 “made note that “she covered the standards,” and “displayed accurate content knowledge.” Only one administrator mentioned that some students were having issues reading the sixteenth note icons, stating “the confusion of understanding of the sound start is a bit bothersome- many student(s) were early in their start of the eighth notes or sixteenth notes after the quarter. The instructor did not make the start of sound groups as much a focus as necessary.” It is interesting to note that this respondent was one of two that had a degree in music. Another respondent said that “as a class it sounded like 100% mastery,” which was not true of the lesson in the video clip. Another administrator who gave the lesson a “3” commented that there was “no extended writing” in the lesson. This was an interesting comment to me as I considered if a music teacher in this administrator’s school would be required to have writing assignments with every lesson to get a score higher than “3” on their observation? I fear this may be the case for numerous music educators. When analyzing the short answer responses I came across a few similarities. Eight respondents commented about the effectiveness of using many different strategies to help students gain mastery. Six respondents commented on the vast knowledge of the content possessed by the teacher. Five noted that they had seen evidence that the students had mastered the target. When my colleague taught the song “No One’s In the House but Dinah,” she did not break it into smaller segments. She taught the whole song with words, melody, and movement simultaneously. As music educators we know that teaching line by line is the most effective strategy. Not one administrator commented about this issue. She also began the song in too low a key for 1st grade voices and she modulated to an even lower key after singing it a few times. Again, not one administrator took note. Sixteenth notes were taught using the words “Dr. Pepper” but also “takadimi” was used without any explanation. None of the administrators commented on this inconsistency. This pilot study has shown that “good” teaching techniques may disguise issues in content knowledge. Unfortunately, the administrator evaluating the music teacher may not even recognize these content knowledge issues due to lack of training in the content area. Beginning music educators may not get the feedback that they truly need. In addition, music educators who are very skilled in content knowledge may not receive the higher score they deserve because of the lack of knowledge of the administrator. Administrators need to be equipped with the proper training to really assist their specialists through the process of TEAM evaluations. Further discussion on this issue may include the possibility of others conducting the TEAM evaluations of arts specialists, such as university music education faculty or retired, veteran music educators. TM 31
Page 1: Volume 67 | 2014 | No.I TM ennessee
Page 4 and 5: T ennessee M USICIAN Tennessee Musi
Page 6 and 7: TM Executive Director’s Greeting
Page 8 and 9: TM the score|news from across the s
Page 10 and 11: TM the score|news from across the s
Page 12 and 13: TM President’s message Jeff Phill
Page 14 and 15: TM General Music Chair |Charlene Co
Page 16 and 17: TM Choral Chair |Janet Johnson Chan
Page 18 and 19: TM Orchestra Chair |Ben Reagh I rec
Page 20 and 21: TM Band Chair |Debbie Burton Greeti
Page 22 and 23: TM Collegiate NAfME Chair Michael M
Page 24 and 25: TM Higher Education Chair Eric Bran
Page 26 and 27: TM Collegiate NAfME |J.J. Norman At
Page 28 and 29: TM National Core Arts Standards: An
Page 32 and 33: TM Practice Personalities: What’s
Page 34 and 35: TM Why Music Education? Facts & Ins
Page 36 and 37: TM Why Music Education? Data shows
Page 38 and 39: T M Why Music Education? than face-
Page 40 and 41: TM Why Music Education? Students of
Page 42 and 43: TM Why Music Education? the past, i
Page 44 and 45: TM Why Music Education? cal trainin
Page 46 and 47: TM Why Music Education? between sub
Page 48 and 49: TM Why Music Education? ing and enn
Page 50 and 51: TM 2014-2015 Tennessee Music Educat
Page 52: Tennessee Music Education Associati

Tennessee Musician - Vol. 67 No. 1

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?