Relationship Between Examination and Vocational Teaching

Relationship Between Examination and Vocational Teaching

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview of the Need For Assessment of Music Students

Musical activities such as differentiated instruction, and engaging in formative assessments have become required elements in relation to teaching music in the classroom setting. Today, music teachers are required to provide evidence of the students’ progress on an individual basis, and this means that they have to devise ways in which they can track the students’ progress on a year-to-year basis (Major, 2008). The singing instruction process is considered to be an important component of the general music curriculum. As is the case in any other course, in music, there are students who will be able to match their pitches easily, while for others, they normally experience a difficulty in terms of coordinating their voices to be able to match what they are hearing (Rutkowski &Barnes, 2000). For the students who experience singing problems, they may develop and become timid singers, or dislike the singing activity if they are not encouraged to continue singing. According to Clements (2002), one of the most effective ways of providing students with a positive feedback is through regularly assessing them, and encouraging them through provision of individual students’ singing development based on their needs as students.

Different Forms of Music Assessments That Are Used in the Music Curriculum

Peer-Peer and Self-Assessment

In the elementary music training level, there is the varied use of the peer-peer and self-assessment strategies to determine the students’ progress. According to the study findings by Hepworth-Osiowy’s 2004 study, the findings indicated that up to 64.8% of the respondents noted that they used the student self-assessment approach in their classrooms (Hepworth-Osiowy, 2004). In another study that was conducted by Patterson, the study findings indicated that only 33% of the respondents used the student self-assessment approach to track the progress of the individual students in their classrooms (Patterson, 2006). Additionally, the study findings by Talley (2005) and Lane (2007) found out that only 2-3% of the respondents use the student self-assessment to track the overall progress of their students in relation to music training, or learning. In particular, according to Lane’s study findings, the response was that the student self-assessment was rarely used by the study respondents. Similarly, in a qualitative study that was conducted by Niebur (1997) on four elementary level music teachers in Arizona, the study findings showed that only one, out of the four used the student self-assessment. However, for the one music teacher who used this strategy stated that it is a valuable assessment strategy to evaluate the students’ progress.

There are different studies that have assessed the impact of student peer-to-peer assessment, and self-assessment on the music progression of the students. In a study that was conducted by Forrester and Wong (2008), they highlighted that, on one hand, the students’ peer and self-assessment had a positive impact on the general communication skills of the students, however, the study findings failed to show if this assessment strategy contributed to the students’ music skill development. Two studies by Riley (2010, and 2013) investigated the impact of the student self-assessment and generated mixed results. According to a study that was conducted by Riley (2010), there was a comparison between the second-and third-grade students in terms of singing self-assessment with the ratings that were made by three judges in four areas. The study findings indicated that both the students and the judges were in agreement in relation to the students’ using correct words in their songs, singing in time, and the use of a singing voice that was in line with the matching pitch 57% of the time. However, in another study that was conducted by Riley (2013), it indicated that the presence, or absence of the teacher’s feedback dd not affect the students’ self-assessment accuracy (Riley, 2013). However, an earlier study by Hickey (2001) on the students’ self-assessment provided different findings. In the study, the researcher selected second, and seventh grade students to participate. In addition to that, there were music composers, and teachers who were asked to rate the students’ composition. The results of this study indicated that the students had reliability difficulties in terms of assessing the compositions, and they mainly rated the compositions that they liked as creative. Hickey (2001) concluded by stating that students at different grade levels may not be in a position to assess their peers singing and compositions (Hickey, 2001).

Application of the Informal Observation as an Assessment to Students’ Music Progress

The application of the informal assessment is commonly used by music teachers to track the progress of their students. Studies by Barkley (2006) and Lane (2007) showed that informal assessment is one of the most commonly used method to measure the overall student learning. These findings were supported by the study by Delaney (2011) who found out in his qualitative study of assessment that practice among the elementary general music teachers mainly used the informal observation strategy (Delaney, 2011).

The informal observations are conducted without the use of either rating scales, or measurement tools. In addition to that, the observations are mainly not formally documented. According to McQuarrie and Sherwin (2013) study findings indicated that a majority of the music teachers assessed their students’ individual performance through the use of informal observation, rather than using a rating scale (McQuarrie and Sherwin, 2013). In a study by Patterson (2006), the study findings indicated that 100% of the respondents stated that they conducted their assessments through informal observation, 29% stated that they used a rating scale for assessment of individual students’ music performance, and 57% additionally used checklists and rating scales during their assessments (Patterson, 2006). Additionally, according to Miranda (2004), the study findings by the kindergarten music teachers showed that the teachers mainly used informal observations to collect observational impressions, but they did not formally record the children’s musical skill development (Miranda, 2004).

Group Performance

A majority of music teachers apply group performances, rather than solo acts to assess the music education progression of the students. In a study by McQuarrie and Sherwin (2013), they established that in a majority of the learning institutions, the teachers mainly use group performance, over individual acts to assess the expected singing objectives. This study finding was in-line with an earlier qualitative study that was conducted by Delaney (2011) which indicated that solo singing was infrequently used for assessment purposes by music teachers. The high level of preference for conducting group, over individual assessments by music teachers is based on the skepticism of expecting students to effectively perform solo in a classroom setting. This notion was supported by Delaney (2011) who noted that individual singing by the students may fail to attain the assessment objective because of the high possibility of the students feeling embarrassed when they are singing alone (Delaney, 2011). In addition to that, there are music teachers who feel that public performances are a form of assessment. According to Hepworth-Osiowy (2004), the study survey indicated that a majority of elementary teachers list concerts and public performances as part of their assessment of a student progress in accordance with the music lessons that they are offered. However, in Salvador’s study, although group, and public performances are considered to be part of the assessment of the overall student learning, this form of assessment failed to record the individual students’ music abilities, or skills (Salvador, 2011).

Rate of the Music Teachers Assessment on the Students’ Progress in Music

While it has been established that conducting assessments is important in determining the overall student progress in music education, there is no standardized rate, or frequency of administering these assessments. To put it into perspective, there are teachers who administer it at a higher frequency than others. According to studies by (Livingston 2000; and Lane 2007), they found out that music teachers mainly assess their students infrequently at once, or twice per month. According to Patterson (2006), a majority of the study participants i.e. 50% stated that they conducted student assessments at least once per month, 30% noted that they conducted assessments only once per marking period, 5% claimed that they conduct assessments at least once in every other class period, while no teacher acknowledged doing it in every class period.

There are studies that have shown that the frequency of assessments is dependent on the grade level of the students. This was attested by a study by Talley (2005) who noted that 41% of the study participants pointed out that they conducted zero assessments for students in the kindergarten level of education, while only 10% assessed students who were either six years, or less in relation to their music progression. For the fourth grade students, 30% of the music teachers noted that they had conducted more than six assessments on them to monitor their overall music progress, while 31% conducted either four to six assessments. It can be argued that the difference in assessments based on the grade level of the students can be because of a variety of factors such as greater contact time for the upper grade level students, or the belief of the inappropriateness of assessing the young learners (kindergarten level students).

The music teachers vary in terms of the consistency level of their assessments of the students’ progression based on the lessons that they are accorded. There are teachers who will only conduct assessments on students during the completion stages of their report cards. However, on the other hand, there are the teachers who conduct assessments on a consistent basis (Nierman, 2007). This means that they will assess the progress of the students after every lesson, or after a couple of lessons to determine their overall progress in relation to the lessons that they are learning in class. Consequently, as has been pointed out before, there are teachers who do not use any form of assessment to track their students’ progress. According to the study findings by Talley (2005), they established that in some cases, there are teachers who hold the belief that assessing their music students does not provide them with any form of indications on their overall progress.

Attitudes and Perceptions that Music Teachers Have on the Relationship Between Music Assessment and Students Progress in Music Education

It is imperative to determine the attitude, or beliefs that music teachers have on assessments, and how they impact the music students progress from an education point of view. A majority of teachers believe that conducting regular assessments on the students is instrumental in terms of gauging the current students’ understanding based on the lessons provided, and guiding their future instructions (Persellin, 2010). In this case, the assessments will provide indications to the students in relation to whether they are learning, and the areas where they are encountering challenges and therefore, they can be assisted to make the relevant progress. According to Peppers (2010) study findings, they highlighted that for a majority of music teachers conducting assessments on the music students is instrumental in terms of determining their overall progress over time, and improving the level of instruction. To put this into perspective, the teachers utilize these assessments to determine whether, or not their teaching strategies are effective, or there are areas where they need to improve to ensure that the students develop a better understanding of their lessons. These findings were in line with the study results of an earlier study by Talley (2005) whereby it was established that, for a majority of teachers, the students’ assessments are meant to adapt their instructions to fit the students’ education needs, while the secondary purpose was to assess the overall understanding of the students. This means that, while the general assumption is that, the student assessments on music lessons is meant to determine their actual progress in line with the lessons that they are provided, it is imperative that for a majority of the teachers, they use it to determine whether, or not the instruction approaches that they use are effective in terms of assisting the students to understand what they are learning in the music lessons.

There are teachers who feel that, the purpose of conducting these assessments is to monitor the progress of the students, while at the same time being in a position to tailor their instructions to meet the individual students’ needs. In this case, the teachers emphasize on utilizing the individual, instead of the group assessment strategy whereby they will identify the current progress of the students, and identify the areas where they need to have some level of improvement (Lee Nardo et al., 2006). They will then be in a better position to develop a teaching strategy that will contribute to the overall improvement in understanding and performance of the student. In addition to that, on one hand, there are music teachers who feel that conducting examinations, or assessments is instrumental in identifying, and challenging the musically gifted students (Legg, 2010). However, for other teachers, they feel that the use of examinations can contribute towards addressing the students’ need for conducting remediation, or extra classes so that they can improve their overall performance.

Still, there are music teachers who feel that the only reason to conduct examinations on music students is for the purpose of assigning grades to the students. These teachers highlighted that providing examinations provided them with an opportunity to grade their students and provide them with an appropriate feedback on the areas that they can improve. In addition to that, according to Peppers (2010), the study findings indicated that assessments are meant to motivate students in relation to their current progress. For Talley (2005), conducting assessments is the best way that the teachers can use to validate their music programs. This means that, if the students are performing at a high level, then it validates music being part of a school subject in an academic institution.

Vocal Teaching Development and Examination

The singing tests that are designed to test a student’s progress in terms of music education should be designed in such a way that they fulfil the purpose of the assessment. If the purpose of the assessment is to examine a student’s voice development, then the examination tasks and scales for measurement should be conducted in a manner, which is appropriate for the construct that will need to be used (Leong, 2010). For instance, the Singing Voice Development Measure (SVDM) is normally used to assess the vocal developmental characteristics such as the range of the voice, and the use of the singing over the talking voice (Rutkowski, 1990). In a study that was conducted by Levinowitz et al. (1998), it showed that the SVDM can accurately be used to determine the vocal, or singing development for the music students in grades 1 to 5.

If the intention of the assessment is to examine the students singing accuracy, which is the ability of a student to sing the specific, or the right pitches in the tune, then there is the need to design the appropriate tasks and scoring system for the student. An important point to note is that the assessment should take into consideration the initial range of the singer, meaning that a student should not be assessed for accuracy of a tune, which is outside his, or her singing range. For the assessment of the singing accuracy, music teachers can design singing tests through the selection of specific singing tasks. According to studies by Robert and Davies (1975) and Nichols (2016) there is the need first to determine the specific pitch matching for the selected singing task, and the overall ranges of the students in terms of singing. After the selection of the singing task, a teacher may make the decision of whether to determine the number of students who can sing a specific interval accurately i.e., as is the case when that song is being performed, or determine the number of patterns that the students have mastered in a specific music piece. An important point to note is that, when it comes to pitch matching, there is the need for the music teacher to select at least three items, which are the single pitch, interval and pattern to establish good reliability of the singing test (Nichols, 2016).

When it comes to song singing to determine if a student has grasped a tune, any song can be used. However, as Nichols (2016) noted, the performance of a student on one song should not be used as a representative to the overall students’ ability in relation to singing. This means that, it is imperative for the teacher to use more than one song, and engage the student in different tasks so that to determine the overall student ability in terms of singing a song. This means that two, or three songs could be used to evaluate the tuneful singing of the student. In addition to that, there is the need to use several pitch matching items, sing songs that have different ranges, tones, and even accuracy to determine a student’s overall ability during their music education (Wolf, 2005).

Range is an important feature for the teachers when it comes to assessing some of the songs that they have selected. When selecting a song that will be used to assess the range of the students’ voice, music teachers are advised to avoid pitches that are considered to be too low (Wolf, 2005). An important point to note is that, when selecting a song that will be used for assessment purposes, the song should align to the students’ range and tessitura to ensure that the teacher can assess a singer’s overall development from a music perspective. In a majority of the cases, the teacher will be better placed to know whether, or not the selected range is considered to be too high, or too low in relation to whether the student can sing some of the pitches, but is unable to do so for others (Philpott, 2012). Alternatively, a teacher will be able to determine if the pitch is high, or low if the students are singing at a higher, or lower octave. An important point to note is that, for a music teacher who is an expert in this field, one will be able to differentiate between the students who make the choice to do this (sing at a higher or lower octave to match the selected range), and the ones who switch because they feel they must (Hedden, 2012).

For a majority of the young music students, not all of them have developed the ability to use their full voice range. The SVDM testing tool can be used for the evaluation purposes to identify the varying degrees of range, and singing voice use. There are five constructs that will be found, which are: pre-singer, or chants, the speaking range singer, the uncertain singer, the initial range singer, and the singer. The last step is for a musical student who has developed the full use of his, or her voice range (Rutwoski, 1990).

After the selection of the range and register, a music teacher needs to make choice on how the different test items will be presented to the students. One of the testing strategies that can be used on students is, students can be requested to echo pitch sequences through the call-and-response vocal modeling. An important point to note is that, when teaching children who are in the lower academic levels, it is advisable to use an adult’s female voice, another child’s voice, or even a musical instrument such as piano, over the use of a male voice (Resta, 2020). The reason for this is that, these students respond poorly to the voice of a male instructor in relation to echoing the pitch.

During the examination of the students, there is the need to apply the use of text. The students have to sing using text, or through the use of the neutral syllable. However, before its application, the role of the text needs to be determined. If one of the purposes, or objective of the examination is to test memorization, then the use of text should be included. On the other hand, if the objective of conducting the test is to assess the single pitches, or intervals, then the use of the text may not necessarily be required. When conducting tests for an echo task for the students, then neutral syllables can be used (Gault, 2002).

For music teachers, before they engage in the process of testing students, they have to make the decision on the approach that they will use to score the overall students’ responses. For instance, a teacher can make the decision to count the number of the accurate pitches that will be used to create the score. Alternatively, the teachers can use rubric, or scales (Wise and Sloboda, 2008). For a majority of teachers, they face time constraints, and in such cases, it means that the teachers tend to use cut-off score during the consideration of the ‘in-tune’ students testing. The reason for this is that, it will save the teachers time in relation to scoring the pitch during the time for testing over recording the audio that will be used for later scoring. However, for teachers who do not face challenges of time, they may record audios that will be used for the later scoring purposes. Regardless of the scoring strategy that is used, the intention is to ensure that they can monitor the overall performance of the students, and therefore determine the approaches that will be used to improve their overall scores.

Challenges on Conducting Assessments By Music Teachers

A majority of the music teachers face challenges in relation to assessing their student’s performance in terms of music education, and training. The challenges that they face impede their ability to assess their students in an effective manner. Some of the most common challenges that the teachers face is: they are dealing with a lot of students, they lack enough time to assess all the students, the class time, or duration is too short for them to make regular class assessments on all the students (Riley, 2010). In addition to that, for some teachers, they are overwhelmed by other tasks such as preparation of music programs, events and performances.

For some teachers the pressure for the successful student performances is higher than the ability to demonstrate to the key stakeholders of a learning institution such as school heads, other teachers, students, and even parents that they have helped the students in terms of learning new things when it comes to music (Riley, 2013). Furthermore, in some cases, there are teachers who lack manageable record-keeping system. There are teachers who do not have a way in which they can record the assessment data immediately. For others, they feel that the use of a record-keeping system such as video-recording the students will take away their experience from them, and this may affect their overall performance (Roberts & Davies, 1975). Also, in some cases, there are educators who face the challenge of incorporating these assessments to be part of their daily lessons. The reason for this is that, they tend to encounter class management issues and this means that they cannot conduct the assessments as frequently as they would like.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the researcher has utilized previous research studies to provide indications on the relationship between examination, or assessments on music education. Different studies have provided the indication that through assessments, teachers are able to determine the overall progress of the students, and note the areas that need, or require improvement. It is important to point out that the music teachers use different from assessments such as students’ self-assessment, and observations to determine the overall progress of the students. There are different factors that need to be taken into consideration when assessing a student such as the students’ voice range. In addition to that, for a majority of teachers, they face a variety of challenges in relation to conducting assessments such as large class sizes, being overwhelmed with engaging in other activities such as organizing the music programs, and the music lessons being too short for the teachers to being able to conduct these assessments.

References

Ballantyne, J. (2005). “Effectiveness of Preservice Music Teacher Education Programs: Perceptions of Early-career Music teachers.” PhD diss., Queensland University of Technology.

Barkley, M. (2006). “Assessment of the National Standards for Music Education: A Study of Elementary General Music Teacher Attitudes and Practices.” Master’s thesis, Wayne State University. ProQuest.

Bauer, W. I., & Moehle, M. L. (2008). “A Content Analysis of the MENC Discussion Forums.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 175: 71–84.

Beston, P. (2004). “Senior Student Composition: An Investigation of Criteria Used in Assessments by New South Wales Secondary School Music Teachers.” Research Studies in Music Education 22 (1): 28–41.

Bowles, C. (2002). “The Self-Expressed Professional Development Needs of Music Educators.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 21 (2): 35–41.

Burgess, S. F. (2013). “Music Matters: Improving Practice in Music Education among Early Childhood Educators in a Reggio-Inspired Climate.” PhD diss. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. ProQuest.

Delaney, D. W. (2011). “Elementary General Music Teachers’ Reflections on Instruction.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 29 (2): 41–49.

Etopio, E. A. (2009). “Characteristics of Early Musical Environments Associated with Preschool Children’s Music Skills.” PhD diss., State University of New York at Buffalo. ProQuest.

Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2011). “Assessment of Composing in the Lower Secondary School in the English National Curriculum.” British Journal of Music Education 28 (1): 51–67.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). “What Do Teachers Believe? Developing a Framework for Examining Beliefs about Teachers’ Knowledge and Ability.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 33: 134–76.

Freed-Garrod, J. (1999). “Assessment in the Arts: Elementary-aged Students as Qualitative Assessors of Their Own and Peers’ Musical Compositions.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 139: 50–63.

Gault, B. (2002). Effects of pedagogical approach, presence/ absence of text, and developmental music aptitude on the song performance accuracy of kindergarten and first-grade students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 54–63.

Hedden, D. (2012). An overview of existing research about children’s singing and the implications for teaching children to sing. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 30, 52-62.

Hepworth-Osiowy, K. (2004). “Assessment in Elementary Music Education: Perspectives and Practices of Teachers in Winnipeg Public Schools.” Master’s thesis. University of Manitoba. ProQuest.

Hickey, M. (2001). “An Application of Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique for Rating the Creativity of Children’s Musical Compositions.” Journal of Research in Music Education 49 (3): 234–44.

Hornbach, C. M., & Taggart, C. C. (2005). “The Relationship between Developmental Tonal Aptitude and Singing Achievement among Kindergarten, First-, Second-, and Third-Grade Students.” Journal of Research in Music Education 53 (4): 322–31.

Kirsten, J. D. (2006). “Pre-Kindergarten Music Education Standards and the Opportunity-to-Learn Standards as Applied to Preschool Settings in the United States.” PhD diss., University of Miami. ProQuest.

Lane, A. M. (2007). “Music Evaluation: A Research Study in Elementary Music Education.” Canadian Music Educator 49 (1): 34–38.

Lee Nardo, R., Custodero, L. A., Persellin, D. C., & Fox, D. B. (2006). Looking back, looking forward: A report on early childhood music education in accredited American preschools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940605400402Legg, R. (2010). “‘One Equal Music’: An Exploration of Gender Perceptions and the Fair Assessment by Beginning Music Teachers of Musical Compositions.’ Music Education Research 12 (2): 141–49.

Leong, S. (2010). “Creativity and Assessment in Chinese Arts Education: Perspectives of Hong Kong Students.” Research Studies in Music Education 32 (1): 75–92.

Levinowitz, L. M., Barnes, P., Guerrini, S., Clement, M., D’April, P., & Morey, M. J. (1998). Measuring singing voice development in the elementary general music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345758Livingston, J. J. (2000). “Assessment Practices Used in Kodaly-Based Elementary Music Classrooms.” Master’s thesis. Silver Lake College. ProQuest.

Major, A. E. (2008). “Appraising Composing in Secondary-School Music Lessons.” Music Education Research 10 (2): 307–19.

McQuarrie, S. H., & Sherwin, R. G. (2013). “Assessment in Music Education: Relationships between Classroom Practice and Professional Publication Topics.” Research & Issues in Music Education 11 (1).

Miranda, M. L. (2004). “The Implications of Developmentally Appropriate Practice for the Kindergarten General Music Classroom.” Journal of Research in Music Education 52 (1): 43–63.

Nichols, B. E. (2016). Task-based variability in children’s singing accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022429 416666054.

Nierman, G. E. (2007). “The Development and Validation of a Measurement Tool for Assessing Students’ Ability to Keep a Steady Beat.” In Assessment in Music Education: Integrating Curriculum, Theory, and Practice, edited by T. S. Brophy, 289–95. Chicago: GIA Publications.

Nightingale-Abell, S. E. (1993). “Teacher Evaluation Practices in the Elementary General Music Classroom: A Study of Three Teachers.” PhD diss., University of Cincinnati. ProQuest.

Patterson, J. R. (2006). “Elementary Music Assessment and Report Card Practices in Livingston County, Michigan.” Master’s thesis. Eastern Michigan University. Digital Commons.

Peppers, M. R. (2010). “An Examination of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Assessment and Their Relationship to Demographic Factors in Michigan Elementary General Music Classrooms.” Master’s thesis, Michigan State University. ProQuest.

Persellin, D. (2010). Looking back, looking forward: General music yesterday, today, and tomorrow. General Music Today, 24(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371310379758Philpott, C. (2012). “Assessment for Self-Directed Learning in Music Education.” In Debates in Music Teaching, edited by C. Philpott and G. Spruce, 153–68. London and New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Resta, C. (2020). Looking back to move forward: Charles Fowler and his reconstructionist philosop