I. Lesson Format
The lesson chosen for field testing
is the first lesson in a one to two week unit whose instructional goals include
knowledge, understanding, and application of music theory relating to the
tonal, or major and minor key, system. This first lesson, because it uses
theory and focuses on aural response, was well-suited for testing because of
its application to a wide variety of students in terms of skill, age, and
experience.
A. “Hearing the System”
The lesson consists of three parts:
a listening exercise, a short explanation or lecture, and another listening
exercise intended to apply concepts discussed and discovered earlier in the
class session.
1. Pre-assessment. The pre-assessment is an informal assessment of
the students’ abilities to hear and recognize the differences between pieces of
music in major and minor keys. It was performed by having the students listen
to recordings selected by the teacher and respond to them through description.
As part of the assessment, the active learning technique of affective response was used.
2. Ongoing Assessment. The ongoing assessment took place during the
lecture and class discussion following the recorded examples and is informal
and formative in nature. The instructor polled the class for understanding
using “muddiest point” as an active learning technique and by asking students
to state the concept in their own words.
3. Post-assessment. The post-assessment took the form of a formal
learning activity in which students were asked to listen to more recordings and
make a guess to whether the piece was in a major or minor key. They recorded
their answers in written form. For this field test, since there was no need for
grading or other ongoing measures, the answers were checked at the end of
class.
B. Participants
The participants for the field test
were five individuals, all of whom are involved in private guitar lessons.
Their ages were 12, 14, two 15, and 22 years, respectively. Their experience
levels ranged from three months of instrument experience to four years of
private study. They were tested in two different groups receiving the same
instruction due to time constraints and the schedules of the participants.
C. Materials
The recordings used in the
pre-assessment were as follows, in the order presented: Wolfgang Mozart,
Symphony 25 in G minor, mvt. 1; Beethoven symphony 9, mvt. 4; Heitor
Villa-Lobos, prelude 5 for guitar; Francisco Tarrega, “Los Recuerdos de la
Alhambra” for guitar; J.S. Bach, Art of the Fugue, contrapunctus 1 for organ;
A.S. Weiss, Lute Sonata 25, Presto. Only the first one to two minutes of each
recording were used in the interest of time.
The lecture and discussion phase of
the lesson re-used two pieces: Heitor Villa-Lobos, prelude 5 for guitar;
Francisco Tarrega, “Los Recuerdos de la Alhambra” for guitar. Sections from
these were performed by the instructor at differing speeds to demonstrate
features of the tonal system in each.
The recordings used for the post-assessment
were as follows (note: not in order): F.
Chopin, Nocturne no.2 for piano; L. van Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 5; Isaac
Albinez, Leyenda (Asturias) for guitar; Francisco Tarrega, LaGrima for guitar;
G.F. Handel, Suite for a Musical Clock (for guitar), mvt. 2; Gaspar Sanz,
Canarios (for baroque guitar).
Guitar selections were used
throughout because the participating class was made of guitar players.
II. Findings
A. Assessments
1. Pre-assessment. The results of the pre-assessment are more
thoroughly explored in a different document, but in general students were able
to comprehend the difference between tonal areas and use their own words in
affective response exercises to describe the effect of the music. There was a
single student that struggled initially with comprehension, skewing the results
of the mastery rubric (fig. 1) because of the small sample size.
2. Ongoing Assessment. During the lecture and discussion, all of
the students were involved in commenting and asking questions, though part of
this may have been the result of the small size of the groups.
3. Post-assessment. Each student was asked to write “major” or
“minor” for each piece of music played as the post assessment. Afterward, I
shared the answers with the class. Of the five participants, all five were able
to get better than 50% of their answers correct, making the class as a whole
better than basic. One student got 50% of the answers correct, while the other
four got five or six out of the possible six, meaning that the one low score
skewed the results of the post-assessment when using the mastery rubric.
Without this outlier, the group would have been proficient.
B. Student Feedback
Student feedback was generally
positive, with one exception. Students felt that they would have enjoyed the
lesson more if it had made use of more than just classical music or had also
included popular music that they listened to on a regular basis. Most students
conveyed that they felt like they had a better understanding of major and minor
after the lesson.
III. Reflection
A. Lessons Learned
One of the first lessons I learned
was in grouping classes to heavily together when considering progress toward
mastery. In the small test group one student who had a harder time than the
rest might have, if using the mastery rubric I had designed beforehand, caused
the class to be slowed down beyond what would have been preferable. It is
important to consider individuals and their abilities, not just the class as a
whole when designing instruction. Differentiation of instruction could have
potential to close this gap.
The second lesson was a general
revelation about students’ attitude toward music and being exposed to it. Most
of the students conveyed they would have been more interested in the lesson if
it taught them things about music they liked to listen to or were otherwise
already interested in. While I think it is important to expose students to good
art, it is also important to engage them by offering application of concepts to
things they deem relevant.
B. Possible Changes and Revision
The first revision I thought of
involves a change to the mastery rubric to better address individual progress.
The proposed change would, instead of using guidelines for the whole class at
once that could be skewed by either lagging or exceptional individuals, judge
individuals. That data could then be used to judge mean and median scores to
determine the class’s movement toward mastery. A revised mastery rubric has
been included (fig. 2)
The next change I would make is in
the music used. I tried to use a fair amount of guitar-specific pieces, since
all of the participants were guitar players, but according to student feedback
popular music would have been more relevant than music on their own instrument.
In the future, I will likely include some recordings of popular music, perhaps
one or two at the beginning and the end, to help with interest. Potentially,
students could suggest what music they would like to analyze in this method.
C. Personal Experience
The experience was generally
enjoyable and rewarding. I particularly liked seeing how classical music that I
enjoyed affected (or in some cases, didn’t affect) students and getting to hear
what novices thought about it. This was especially true with the baroque music
used in the examples, which I thought might be over-complex for the students.
Instead, they found the baroque music the most interesting because of its
complexity. They also seemed to have an easier time discerning the key on the
other, more polyphonic, music.
Overall, I think it is a lesson I
would use in a larger class as well, and might provide a needed break from
playing. I could also imagine the same technique, affective response, being
used on younger groups to help them listen to music and communicate their
feelings about it as a valuable preparation for later study.
Figure 1
Mastery Rubric
This rubric is intended primarily to
be used by the instructor to gauge how the class is progressing along technical
lines toward mastery of concepts and state standards.
|
|
Beginning
|
Below basic
|
Basic
|
Proficient
|
Mastery
|
|
Techniques
|
A few students are able to perform the technique,
but most have difficulty performing it on command. Using the technique in
time is very difficult.
|
Less than half the students are able to perform
the technique, with or without prompting from the instructor. Using the
technique with rhythmic accuracy is difficult.
|
More than half the students can perform the
technique with prompting. Using the technique with rhythmic accuracy is
possible, but some students still struggle.
|
At least have the students can perform the
technique without prompting, and almost all of the remainder can perform it
with prompts and corrections. Very few, if any, students struggle. The
technique can be performed well with rhythmic accuracy.
|
Almost all of the students can perform the
technique without prompting. Using the technique in time is very easy for the
class. Few, if any, students require any sort of prompting.
|
|
Theory and concepts
|
Very few of the students are able to define
concepts in their own words or correctly apply theory.
|
Less than half of the students are able to define
concepts in their own words or correctly apply theory.
|
More than half of the students are able to define
concepts in their own words and many students can correctly apply theory.
|
The majority of students are able to define
concepts in their own words. They are able to draw connections to other
concepts and can apply theory to music well through composition and
performance.
|
Almost all of the students are able to define
concepts accurately as well as draw connections to other concepts. Those who
cannot are able to define terms well enough for examinations. Almost all of
the students are capable of using music theory in their own performances.
|
|
Performance pieces
|
The class cannot yet play the piece with rhythmic
accuracy or may need frequent prompting to get the music right. They may be
playing one note at a time.
|
The class can play the piece very slowly, with
some prompting from the instructor to assist in accuracy. They cannot yet
play dynamics.
|
The class can play the piece with rhythmic
accuracy, though slightly slower than indicated. There are few missed notes.
Dynamics, if present, are inconsistent.
|
The class can play with both pitch and rhythmic
accuracy without prompting and at an appropriate tempo. Dynamics are used,
but expression is limited.
|
The class can play the whole piece accurately in
terms of pitch and rhythm at performance tempo. There are few missed notes.
The ensemble is able to use dynamics and other expressive techniques to full
effect.
|
Figure
2
Revised
Mastery Rubric for Individuals
|
|
(1)Beginning
|
(2)Below Basic
|
(3)Basic
|
(4)Proficient
|
(5)Mastery
|
|
Identification of Major and Minor
aurally
|
The student is not able to discern
the difference between major and minor aurally.
|
The student is able to correctly
identify the use of major and minor less than half of the time.
|
The student is able to correctly
identify the use of major and minor more than half the time
|
The student is able to correctly
identify the use of major or minor consistently, or more than 85% or the
time.
|
The student is able to correctly
identify the use of major and minor consistently, and is able to identify when a shift from major or minor to the
opposite system has occurred within a piece.
|
|
Affective response description
abilities
|
The student is unable to identify
any effects of a musical example.
|
The student is able to identify
basic emotions produced by a piece of music, such as happy and sad.
|
The student is able to identify
and describe general effects, such as “dark” and “bright” sounds.
|
The student is able to identify
and describe specific musical effects in his or her own words.
|
The student is able to tie effects
of music to specific musical events and is able to use his or her own words
to describe events.
|
Data gathered can be used to
evaluate mastery through evaluation of the mean (average) median (middle score)
and mode (most frequent score).
No comments:
Post a Comment