• No labels

1 Comment

  1. Assessment Results for Academic Year 2018-2019

    Assessment Coordinator: Dr. Amy Stanley, Associate Prof. of Music

    Courses Assessed: Fine Arts Core Classes Musc 100, 105, 110, 120, 123, 165 (ensembles) 222 and 227.

    Total of Students Assessed: 388

    Learning Outcomes for the Arts:

    • Students will demonstrate the ability to interpret works of art by analyzing appropriate social, cultural, psychological, and environmental aspects of the works; (Musc 100, 120, 160, 165)
    • Students will demonstrate the ability to analyze and interpret works of art using the language of art criticism relevant to the art form under study (and create); (Musc 110)         
    • Students in courses that teach the history of an art form will understand the cultural dimensions and contributions of the arts; (Musc 105, 222, 227)
    • Students in courses that teach the history of an art form will appreciate the personal and cultural forces that shape the arts and how the arts in turn shape the diverse cultures of past and present society; (Musc 105, 123, 222, 227)
    • Students in studio/ensemble courses will demonstrate an understanding of the principles and elements used in the art form under study, and demonstrate sensitivity to, and creativity with, the medium.  (Musc 160,  165)

    Rubric Categories Used: Craftsmanship, Portfolio/Performance, and Interpretations/Analysis

    Departmental Standard for Results:  80% of students should either exceed or meet expectations.

    I. Academic Courses:

    1) Musc 100 and Musc 110 section 02: results were not included in this report as the instructors did not provide assessment for one item, but rather, cumulative scores for either all of the course grades or grades for multiple items


    2) Musc 105: Popular Music In America:

    Assessment Category: Interpretation/Analysis

    Enrollment: 41 (non-majors)

    Item assessed: Listening Quiz

    Criteria for Assessment of Interpretations/Analysis:

    • Recognition of musical characteristics
    • Ability to provide correct historical information
    • Ability to define standard musical terms

    Results:  17 students exceeded expectations, 17 met expectations, 4 approached expectations, 3 did not meet expectations

    “Closing the Loop” Comments:  82.92% either exceeded or met expectations, which slightly exceeds departmental standards.


    3) MUSC 110 01: Basic Musicianship

    Assessment Category: Craftsmanship

    Enrollment: 32 (all non-majors)

    Item assessed: Composition of Pop Song (as part of Final Evaluation)

    Criteria for Assessment of Craftsmanship:

    • Form and Text Relationship
    • Choice and Combination of Sounds
    • Synchronization of Layers
    • Creativity and Interest
    • Ability to work on a Team

    Results: 19 students exceeded expectations; 9 met expectations; 4 approached expectations.

    Therefore, 87.5% either exceed or meet expectations, which more than exceeds departmental standards.


    “Closing the Loop” Notes from the Professor: MUSC 110 is a course open to all students regardless of their backgrounds in music. Thus, the class ranges from students with no previous background, who wish to learn more about the mechanics of how music works, to students with an extensive background, who are looking to augment their current knowledge or, truthfully, obtain a high grade easily. My experience in my section of the course is that the vast majority of students work hard enough to learn the materials well (to a grade level of B or A) and that a relatively small number of students (perhaps only one or two per section) have genuine cognitive difficulties with the material. For students with less background, they advance a great deal in their understanding and their ability to manipulate the materials; for students with more background, the materials do not present much challenge, although they also advance in their understanding and ability to manipulate materials.

    Given the nature of this course (general education), it might be worthwhile to address the issue of overqualified students who wish to take it but probably shouldn't, because it does not advance them as much as students with extensive background. Ideally, a placement test could identify those students who should really be in a higher level of music theory (e.g. MUSC 210). If the department were to consider this possibility, it might wish to (a) add a second section of MUSC 210, replacing a section of MUSC 110, and then (b) designate MUSC 210 as a course that satisfies F/core requirements.

    4) Musc 120: Introduction to Music History

    Enrollment: 49 students (48 assessed - all non-majors)

    Assessment Category: Interpretation/Analysis

    Item assessed: essay on a selected musical work

    Criteria for Assessment of Interpretation/Analysis:

    • Analysis of: instrumentation, tone color, pitch variation, dynamics, rhythmic figuration, emotional content.
    • Historical/political events/past critiques. 
    • Research and citation methods used.

     

    Results: 25 students exceeded expectations, 16 met expectations, 2 approached expectations, 5 did not met expectations. (1 student was not assessed due to an incomplete)

    “Closing the Loop” Comments: 83.71 % either exceeded or met expectations, which exceeds departmental standards.

     

     

    5) Musc 123: Music of the World’s People

    Assessment Category: Interpretation/Analysis

    Enrollment: 39 (non-majors)

    Item assessed: Listening Quiz

    Criteria for Assessment of Interpretation/Analysis:

    • Recognition of musical characteristics
    • Ability to define standard musical terms
    • Ability to provide historical context to the listening examples in essay form


    Results:  11 students exceeded expectations, 18 met expectations, 7 approached expectations, 3 did not meet expectations

    “Closing the Loop” Comments:   74.35% either exceeded or met expectations, which is slightly below departmental standards.

     

    6) Musc 222: Stage Musicals

    Assessment Category: Interpretation/Analysis

    Enrollment: 35 (2 musical theatre majors; 33 non-majors)

    Item assessed: Quiz – 3 parts (Listening, short answer, essay)

    Criteria for Assessment for Interpretation/Analysis:

    • Listening Identification Questions
    1. Ability to correctly identify the example by ear, giving the title of the song, title of the show, creators, date of Broadway opening.
    2.  Ability to explain, in a sentence or two, the musical and historical significance of the example
    • Short Answer Questions
    1. Ability to answer questions about musical theater history in 2-3 sentences
    • Essay Question
    1. Ability to write a clear and compelling essay about musical theater history, with a clear thesis, bolstered by musical and historical analysis.

    Results: 29 students exceeded expectations, 2 met expectations, 1 approached, and 3 did not meet expectations.

    “Closing the Loop” Comments:   88.57% of students either exceeded or met expectations.  Because students were given two prompts a week in advance of the quiz and informed that one of the prompts would appear on the quiz, students were able to reflect and form more solid arguments for their writing.  Therefore, the results exceeded departmental standards.

     

    7) Musc 227: Music of Western Civilization after 1750

    Assessment Category: Interpretation/Analysis

    Enrollment: 15 (9 music majors, 3 music minors, 2 non-majors, 1 music major from another SUNY)

    Item assessed: Take Home Essay

    Criteria for Assessment for Interpretation/Analysis:

    Ability to write three clear and compelling essays, each featuring a clear thesis, bolstered by musical and historical analysis.

    Results: 10 students exceeded expectations, 3 met expectations, 0 approached, and 2 did not meet expectations.

    “Closing the Loop” Comments:   86.6% of students either exceeded or met expectations, which, again, exceeds departmental standards. Again, the success rate is due in part to the organization and clarity in course expectations.



    II. Applied Courses

    1) Musc 160: Choral Organizations: Spectrum

    Enrollment: 13 students

    Assessment Category: Portfolio/Performance

    Item Assessed: choral selection

    Criteria for Assessmentof Performance:

    • Tone
    • Pitch/Intonation
    • Rhythm
    • Diction
    • Dynamics/Articulations/Phrasing
    • Ensemble blending
    • Style

    Results: 6 students exceeded expectations, 6 met expectations and 1 did not meet expectations.

    “Closing the Loop” comments: 92.30% of students either exceeded or met expectations.  Therefore, the results exceeded departmental standards.

     

    2) Musc 160: Choral Organizations: Chamber Singers

    Enrollment: 39 students

    Assessment Category: Portfolio/Performance

    Item Assessed: choral selection

    Criteria for Assessment of Performance:

    • Tone
    • Pitch/Intonation
    • Rhythm
    • Diction
    • Dynamics/Articulations/Phrasing
    • Ensemble blending
    • Style

    Results: 23 students exceeded expectations, 16 met expectations

    “Closing the Loop” comments: 100% of students either exceeded or met expectations.  Therefore, the results exceeded departmental standards.


    3) Musc 160: Choral Organizations: Festival Chorus

    Enrollment: 32

    Assessment Category: Portfolio/Performance

    Item Assessed: choral selection

    Criteria for Assessmentof Performance:

    • Tone
    • Pitch/Intonation
    • Rhythm
    • Diction
    • Dynamics/Articulations/Phrasing
    • Ensemble blending
    • Style

    Results: 16 students exceeded expectations (3.5 or higher), 16 met expectations (3 to 3.49).

    “Closing the Loop” comments:.   100% of students either exceeded or met expectations.  Therefore, the results exceeded departmental standards.

     

    4) Musc 165 01: Instrumental Organizations: Orchestra

    Enrollment: 53 students, (10 music majors)

    Assessment Category: Portfolio/Performance

    Item Assessed: orchestral excerpt

    Criteria for Assessment of Performance:

    • Pitch/Intonation
    • Rhythm
    • Dynamics
    • Articulations/Phrasing
    • Ensemble blending
    • Posture/technique
    • Style

    Results:  32 students exceeded expectations (3.5 or higher), 18 met expectations (3 to 3.49) and  3 approached expectations.

    “Closing the Loop” comments:  94.33 % of students either exceeded or met expectations.  Therefore, the results exceeded departmental standards.

     

    5) Musc 165 02: Instrumental Organizations: Wind Ensemble

    Enrollment: 40 (10 music majors)

    Assessment Category: Portfolio/Performance

    Item Assessed: orchestral excerpt

    Criteria for Assessment of Performance:

    • Pitch/Intonation
    • Rhythm
    • Dynamics
    • Articulations/Phrasing
    • Ensemble blending
    • Posture/technique
    • Style

    Results:  32 students exceeded expectations (3.5 pts. or higher),  5 met expectations (3 to 3.49 pts. ), 2 approached expectations (2-3 pts.), and 1 did not meet expectations.

    “Closing the Loop” comments:   92. 5% of students either exceeded or met expectations.  Therefore, the results exceeded departmental standards.