F/Core Assessment Results for 2015-2016 Academic Year
Coordinator: Amy Stanley
Assessment and data collection was divided into two large areas:
Academic and Applied.
Total of students in F/Core assessed: 442
I. Five Academic F/Core classes were assessed in the Fall 2015:
Musc 110 (2 sections), Musc 120, and Musc 110 (2 sections)
Number of Students assessed in academic courses: 262
1) MUSC100: Understanding Music: American Songbook
Enrollment: 80 students (79 non-majors, 1 major)
Form of Assessment completed: Individual Radio Broadcast Project
Assessment criteria: Organization, Expression, Presentation, Historical Accuracy, Quality of Song Selection
Results: 44 exceeded expectations, 28 met expectations, 5 approached expectations, 3 did not meet
2) MUSC 100: Understanding Music: listening to Modern Japan
Enrollment: 69 students (all non-majors)
Form of Assessment completed: Final group project- peer assessment
Assessment criteria: Listening skills, openness to others’ ideas, preparation contribution, leadership
Results: 24 exceeded expectations, 35 met expectations, 7 approached, 3 did not meet
3) MUSC 110 01: Basic Musicianship:
Enrollment: 37 students
Form of assessment completed: musical composition in choral style, using triads and seventh chords
a) ability to compose a melody in a soprano range
b) ability to use both treble and bass clefs
c) ability to use a variety of intervals, rhythms and meters
d) ability to establish the home key
e) ability to use a perfect authentic cadence at the end of the harmonization
f) understanding choral texture
g) ability to double triad ingredients while harmonizing in SATB style
h) ability to choose logical chord progressions supporting the melody line
i) understanding voice ranges
Results: 9 exceeding, 25 meeting, 2 approaching, 1 not meeting
4) MUSC 110 02: Basic Musicianship
Enrollment: 37 students (36 non-majors, 1 Musical Theatre Major)
Form of Assessment: composition of Pop Song
a. Form and Text Relationship
b. Choice and Combination of Sounds
c. Synchronization of Layers
d. Creativity and Interest
e. Ability to work on a Team
5) MUSC 120: Introduction to Music History
Enrollment: 38 students
Form of Assessment: group project on American composers
a) ability to work in a group environment
b) ability to share an assignment, to interact with other presenters in a professional fashion, and to communicate successfully with the peer presenters
c) quality and organization of the information provided in the oral presentation
d) ability to speak in public clearly and without hesitation
e) ability to clearly express the presenter’s analysis of the composer’s style and to compare various musical trends
f) ability to answer questions related to the topic and to explain terms associated with the presentation
Reflections/Closing the Loop: The various type of projects are examples in how the department works toward ensure active learning to assist students in taking ownership of their own success.
Students are more successful when allowed to capitalize on their different backgrounds and interests, while still being held accountable to set parameters to ensure the proper level of rigor and overall fairness. As a result, our goal of 80% either meeting or exceeding expectations was achieved. This year, in particular, we had more participation among faculty in implementation and data collection. Nevertheless, is our hope that all of our professors in other music courses will consider engaging in the process to give us a clearer picture of how our students are performing.
II. Applied Courses: Choral and Instrumental Music Ensembles - MUSC 160, 165, 265 (Chamber Singers, Spectrum, GSO Orchestra, Geneseo Wind Ensemble, Geneseo Percussion Ensemble, Brass Chamber Music)
Number of students assessed: 180
Choral students: 86
Instrumental students: 94
A. Choral ensembles:
Musc 160 01: Chamber Singers - 39 students enrolled and assessed in Fall 2015
Musc160 02: Spectrum Choir- 20 students in Fall and 27 in Spring enrolled and assessed
Form of Assessment: final performance of selected works
Criteria for Assessment: Tone, pitch/intonation/rhythm, diction, dynamics/articulation/phrasing, blending with ensemble, musical style
Results: 27 exceeded, 11 met, 47 approached, 1 did not meet expectations (86 students)
B. Instrumental ensembles:
Musc 165 01 (Orchestra- 35 assessed), Musc 165 02 (Wind Ensemble, with 35 students assessed), Musc 165 03 (Percussion ensemble-11 students assessed), Musc 265 (Brass Chamber Group -13 students assessed)
Form of assessment: final performance of selected works
Criteria for Assessment: Pitch/Intonation, Rhythm/Tempo/Pulse, Dynamics, Articulations/Phrasing, Style, Posture/Technique, Blending in ensemble
Results: 3 exceeded, 36 met, 48 approached, and 7 did not meet expectations ( 94 students)
Combined Results in Applied Courses:
30 exceeded expectations, 47 met expectations, 95 approached expectations, and 8 did not meet expectations
Reflections/Closing the Loop:
For all groups, ensemble directors, faculty section leaders or student section leaders recorded the assessment data, through value-added assessments. A preliminary test was given at the beginning of the semester, with a follow-up exam near a final performance to measure the learning outcomes.
This year in assessment resulted in a much higher rate of participation. The assessment coordinator excluded only one choral group –Festival Chorus – from the process because most participants are from the community and are not students. The assessment process would have been too cumbersome, especially because the work falls only on one choral professor per choral group. In general, the choral groups continue to implement consistent assessment tools.
As for the instrumental groups, a higher number were willing to engage in the process. Data from the Percussion ensemble and Wind ensemble was gathered this year and very detailed, showing great care in the implementation.
As for the results of the data, it reflects the departments desire to either exceed or meet expectations at 80 percent.
However, the data did reflect lower numbers than the past, perhaps because of higher standards expected by newer faculty.
Again, the assessment coordinator continues to hope for a 100 percent “buy-in” and involvement in obtaining data from all groups so that ensembles, such as String Band and Jazz Ensemble, are included in the data collection.