Chapter 4

1) I do not fully agree that creative ability not be assessed. In the previous assignment I handed in a lesson that included creativity and original thought as part of the assessment. The lesson was on 20th century composers, and the result of their original thoughts on music composition. The reason for the lesson is to show students that it's okay to think outside the box and make mistakes, because as Ken Robinson said if you're not willing to make mistakes then you'll never have an original thought. I think that taking creativity out of assessment is like taking creativity out of school all together. If we're not going to force our students to think outside of what they know and are comfortable with, then they will not grow. Kids used to be forced to be creative in order to stay out of boredom, or trouble. However, more and more children are spending countless hours in front of screens (TV, Computer, Video Game, Cell phone, etc...) that their creativity is being killed outside of school as well. It is so important that creativity be a part of their assessment, but as more of a yes or no, did you or didn't you. We may ask our students to be creative, and assess whether they were able and willing to, but we need to be careful when assessing what the creativity comes up with, because if we criticize or judge somebody's original thought in a negative way they are likely never to want to think originally again.

3)Creativity to me, going off of my last answer, is what happens when one thinks independently of outside resources. In everyday life creativity happens when you're faced with a problem that has never happened to you, and you're not aware of any resources that can help you so you turn to your own imagination. It can take place when you're trying to find grab something that is just out of your reach. You use your creativity when you really want something that you can't have. Kids use creativity every day, it is not something that is an ability or talent. Human beings are born with the ability to be intuitive and inventive and to create, that is why we have flourished as the most complex beings on the planet. It is in our nature to come up with solutions, ideas, hopes and dreams. All of these things are products of our creativity. Even in music, when we are forced with the issue of improvisation, when we feel we can't do it and there's nothing in the world that can make us, we can come up with something on the spot. Creativity to me is something this is missing in many lives today and is so important in my philosophy of teaching. As a music teacher, I am not directed solely by government and district standards. I can take some time to allow my students to be creative beings. In my experience, most students are not willing to do this and it is so fulfilling when they try and succeed.

5) For me, composition is the most comfortable. When students are given strict parameters in which to compose, their creativity is stifled. As a teacher, I like to give as few rules and regulations as possible and allow the students to be their own teachers. My part of student teaching was at the end of each lesson when students were given the chance to compose their own song. We ended each lesson with this, and the students loved it. I enjoyed watching them take their own ideas and turn them into music. A lot of time there were few to no boundaries, and when students are given that freedom they really create some beautiful pieces.

When reading the Orzolek article, it was a little bit easier to relate to it because of the Brophy text. However, I feel that the Brophy gives much more practical information, while the Orzolek gives more philosophical information. Because of this, I had something to relate to when Orzolek mentioned those people who give ambiguous solutions to assessment. "This works for some people, but you may have to adapt it for your classroom." I understand what Orzolek was saying about the ambiguity of assessment, because there is not much emphasis on it in music education. However, I never thought about the effects of that until reading this article. From my own experience, I know that assessment is not reported but I always saw that as a positive thing. I felt that music teachers were given the freedom of teaching value added lessons to their students because they don't have standards and benchmarks to meet and report about. However, after reading this article I understand that this contributes to the ease of elimination for music programs. If we're not forced to report our scores to anyone, then all parents and administrators see are the "awards" that the students achieve (concerts, trips, high numbers in ensembles). I feel that, while Brophy offers practical and straight forward ways of assessing student learning, he falls prey to this paradox of education.
I think that Orzolek supports much of what we learn at Westminster, except rather than bashing the system he provides positive comments that may help motivate teachers to change their own way of assessing. I like how he implies that even if we can't change the world we can change our own classrooms, including many different kinds of assessment. As good educators we understand the individual learning styles of students, and will do our best to accommodate for that.

2/10/08

Pg 193 #3

Discuss how technology might help in assessing musical performances. Do you think that the presence of technological apparatus in the general music threatens th authenticity of the task, why or why not?

I believe that in some cases technology helps and in some cases it doesn't. I don't agree with Brophy in the previous chapter when he claims that students will be distracted by a recorder or camera in the room, because I have been in a situation where both have been used and the authenticity was not altered.
In my student teaching placement, a camera was positioned in the back of the room almost every day, and once the students settled down, usually after a minute, they forgot it was there. Also, a tape recorder was used after nearly every lesson to record the group compositions that were created. Not only does this tape provide a chance for the teacher to go back and listen to the composition, but it also gave the students a chance to hear themselves and analyze their own performances.
This was a middle school situation, so I believe that the students were old enough to handle this type of technology in the classroom. I also believe that elementary students may have a harder time with such things as a camera in the room. In that case however, the assessment will usually be of a more simple nature, such as did they sing the right interval or not (sol-mi). Rather than in the middle school, when the students were playing 2 or 3 minute compositions.
Nothing can replace simply watching and listening, and nothing should ever replace that. As with all types of technology, if we take them too far they lead to problems such as lack of social interaction. However, if all else fails and the teacher just cannot remember whether one of her students sang that one note right, she has the resources to go back and check.

Page 85-86 questions 3 and 9.

3) Should improvisation be included in musical skills?
I believe that improvisation is one of the clearest indicators of a student's musical understanding. In jazz, an extensive knowledge of the fundamentals of music allows players the freedom of expression through beautiful sounding music. When a person improvises, whether it's on a piano or an orff xylophone, he or she is showing that they have the knowledge at their fingertips, literally, and can retrieve that knowledge almost automatically.
Improvisation is a challenge, even to advanced music students. It requires a knowledge of music theory and of the instrument being played, as well as originality. Improvisation can be executed within certain boundaries, such as on certain keys on the xylophone. This not only makes it less threatening to students, but also allows the teacher to focus on one area of assessment such as rhythm, rather than right or wrong notes.
I think that improvisation allows for many types of assessment, and has a rightful place withing the musical skills level of learning areas.

9) I feel the same way for standardized testing in music as I do in any subject. I feel that standardized testing is a good way to assess concrete content domains, such as the value of a certain rhythm. However, I feel that too much pressure and importance is put onto standardized testing. This type of testing puts all students on one level, testing them in one way, when it is so obvious that students all learn and express their learning in different ways. For some students, the pressure of standardized testing hinders their grade, therefore creating an inaccurate test score.
As part of an overall assessment program, I feel that standardized testing does have a place, but has too much emphasis put onto it. There are so many ways to find out what a student knows, other than their answer with a pen on paper. Integrated projects seem to me one of the best ways to do that. I love giving my students the chance to show me as much as they know, in a creative context. It takes the pressure off of me to ask the "right questions" and puts the pressure on them to form their knowledge into something that I can physically see, hear, or read. It's also exciting for me to experience creative projects, and to see sides of my students that I don't otherwise get to see.
Not all students learn the same, and to that end not all students express the same way. Some are terrified of tests, but others are terrified of public speaking and expression of themselves. I feel that it is up to me to challenge their comfort zone and have them step out of it, but I also feel that it is my responsibility to create ways of finding out what is it that they actually know. That way I can shape my teaching to complement that.