E-Assessment in the context of music education in primary school students / E-Evaluare în contextul educației muzicale la elevii din școala primară

Reviewed by: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education ed. by David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Gary E. McPherson Michael Gale The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education. Edited By David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Gary E. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. [xx, 550 p. ISBN 978-0-190-26518-2. £110] Of all the issues faced by music educators today, the question of assessment is perhaps the thorniest. Few topics provoke as much impassioned polemic, and this collection of twenty-seven essays by contributors from across the globe certainly makes no apology for that. This book is unashamedly ideological in tone, espousing the 'praxial philosophy' outlined by David J. Elliott in his influential Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). For Elliott, music education should be a fundamentally experiential (rather than theoretically grounded) world, and the meanings and values attached to musical activity are inescapably contextually and socially defined. This vision is incompatible with the standards-based assessment protocols that, according to Elliott and his co-editors here, have been imposed upon modern-day educators through an increasingly dominant state-led neoliberal agenda. As a result, the testing of students now frequently eclipses all other considerations, not least the nurturing of creativity and self-exploration. This substantial volume is divided into four sections: the first ('Foundational Considerations') presents the editors' introduction and six further essays, followed by three sets of case studies gathered under rather loose headings ('Methodological Practices', 'Creativity', and 'International Perspectives') to form a set of lively and (mostly) engaging writings. Together, they offer a remarkably unified philosophical credo, providing contrasting snapshots of educational practice from areas as diverse as Australia, Iran, Nepal, Scandinavia, South Africa, and the U.S. A broad range of professional specialisms is explored, including classroom-based teaching, whole-class instrumental instruction, music therapy, special needs education, and beyond. In their introductory essay, the editors immediately nail their ideological colours to the mast, revealing the three key premises that underpinned their conception of this volume: 1). 'musics are made by and for people', and all musical activities are 'social endeavors and encounters' (p. 15)—ideas which are both central to Elliott's praxial philosophy. 2). music is part of everyday human experience, so music education should emphasise the processes and activities of musicmaking rather than treating musical works themselves as objects for veneration (p. 16). 3). music encompasses a wide range of diverse values which are 'invariably grounded in social experience'; music is contextually defined, and these values are 'functions of its service to various human needs and interests' (p. 17). [End Page 185] Following this, the remaining essays in Part 1 spell out a firm consensus, using a variety of philosophical and theoretical tools to echo and amplify the editors' distaste for prevailing models of testing and assessment. In Chapter 2, 'Institutional Music Education and Ranking as a Form of Subjectification: The Merits of Resistance and Resilience', Lise C. Vaugeois makes a powerful case for viewing ranking and grading as mechanisms for social division and control, while Kathryn Jourdan and John Finney (Chapter 3) fruitfully bring the philosophical ideas of Emmanuel Levinas to bear upon their rather exasperated observations on standard assessment practices in U.K. classrooms. Jourdan and Finney rightly challenge the narrowness of a mode of learning shaped primarily by exam board-defined questioning—but, like many of the chapters in this book, they stop short of offering far-reaching practical solutions to this pervasive problem. In Chapter 4, 'The Primacy of Experience: Phenomenology, Embodiment, and Assessments in Music Education', Andrea Schiavio is also guilty of this same sleight of hand. After sharing a provocative vision of musical learning that embraces embodied knowledge (as well as cognitive), and intersubjective interactions of various kinds (pp. 74–75), Schiavio eventually retreats, stating simply that 'the development of such new music assessment approaches goes beyond the limitations of this chapter' (p. 76). Drawing this opening group of essays to a close, Lauren Kapalka Richerme's invocation of poststructuralist philosopher Gilles Deleuze (Chapter 7), also squirms uncomfortably in this hinterland between theory and practice, outlining...

Without access to official state-sanctioned, public music education, Iranian youth, specifically rock and alternative musicians, follow a self-organized and anarchistic path of music making. Expertly negotiating between the act of music making and the unpredictable situations they face daily, they have become creative in finding new ways to propagate their music and learn the rules of their profession. Meanings attached to assessment in these circumstances become redefined and overshadow the quality of music being created. Assessment becomes a local activism that countervails the top-down, summative model. This chapter provides some characteristics of assessment in music teaching and learning in urban Iran that follow Nilsson and Folkestad’s (2005) ecocultural perspective, consisting of four elements: (a) Gibson’s (1979) concept of affordances, (b) orality, (c) theories of play, and (d) theories of chance. Consequently, assessment in urban Iranian music education can be categorized as follows: (1) do-it-yourself (DIY) and do-it-with-others (DIWO), (2) interactive and decentralized, (3) local anarchism, and (4) lifestyle. This chapter concludes that the field of music education should take a “slightly outside perspective” (Lundström, 2012, p. 652) and proactive approach toward assessment, rather than the reactionary approach to music teaching and learning in which assessment becomes an end goal rather than an approach embodied within learning.

Reviewed by: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education ed. by David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman and Gary E. McPherson Cara Faith Bernard David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Gary E. McPherson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019) Three leading voices in music education, David J. Elliott, Marissa Silverman, and Gary E. McPherson, consistently work to reconceive how music educators create and challenge the discourses of music learning and the ways in which people engage with music. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education furthers their contributions and serves as a break from the familiar and common “default philosophy of assessment” of tests, standards, regimens, and rankings to invite new ways of approaching music assessment.1 They, along with their coauthors, apply their theoretical, research, and teaching experience to examine music assessment through social praxis and how individuals and communities “deepen their growth as knowing and compassionate human beings.”2 In short, this Handbook is an invitation for music educators of all levels to reengage with their values and name them in their current and future practices. Using the current neoliberal state of education as a backdrop, Elliott, Silverman, and McPherson portray schools as spaces that yield corporate types of learning practices and assessments which “place little value on arts education.”3 Countering these realities, the diverse cadre of authors examines assessment [End Page 123] from different settings, roles, policies, and practices, organized around four themes. The first theme examines assessment through theoretical ideas including critical pedagogy, pragmatism, and Deleuzean frameworks. Next, in methodological practices, new ideas for assessment are considered through teacher evaluation, working with students with disabilities, and incorporating habits of mind. Creativity explores assessment through technological possibilities, popular music, and drawing, among others. Closing with international perspectives, the authors explore assessment through German and Scandinavian bildung/bildning, care as a driving force of assessment in South Africa, and an Iranian non-regulated perspective of assessment. Alexandra Kertz-Welzel asks: “Who decides what is assessed? How it is assessed? By whom is it assessed?”4 These questions are embraced and challenged throughout the Handbook. Instead of conceiving of assessment as something diagnostic—reaching musical benchmarks and aptitudes deemed by outside authorities—the authors welcome an epistemological shift of assessment. What might happen when music educators replace written self-assessments, quizzes, and playing tests in favor of, say, habits of mind (as Jillian Hogan and Ellen Winner describe in their chapter5) such as listening, noticing, being part of a community, persisting, expressing oneself, imagining, and making decisions? These changes might transform a community, one where students and teachers embrace music making beyond mere replication.6 The authors suggest ways of engaging in acts of subversion, resistance, care, and pragmatism to push past the product-driven view of assessment dictated by neoliberal and for-profit discourses. Historically, assessment has been contextualized, discussed, and critiqued through its practices; its purpose has been to gain information which aids in making decisions about teaching. In many contexts, particularly in the U.S., assessment practices stem from current educational policies, namely those noted in teacher evaluation systems.7 Such practices are intended to show student growth and drive instruction, to better label teaching quality and student success.8 In my own research on teacher evaluation, I found that music educators struggle with definitions and strategies of assessment; as a result, they defer to assessments based on hierarchies of musical skill and technique.9 Yet, Charlotte Danielson, a creator of many U.S. teacher evaluation frameworks, reminds that teaching “is not simply a matter of following a script of carrying out other people’s instructional designs.”10 Having to uphold the demands of assessment and evaluation forced many of the participants in my research to become compliant, even when they knew their teaching strategies were ancillary to who the students were and what they needed. They fabricated their assessments— often in the form of exit slips and inauthentic writing and musical compositional activities—to comply with policies. As a result, teachers’ values for music [End Page 124] teaching and learning were omitted from...

Assessment and evaluation is inherent in teaching and learning. At the same time, innate in the notion of assessment and evaluation is the goal to improve something and not simply to understand it. Evaluation and assessment in the arts’ classrooms is controversial and often discussions on issues related to the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ of assessment in arts education, lead to heated philosophical debates. The importance and ambiguity of the issue of assessment and evaluation in music education has led this writer to explore the views of Greek music teachers (future and in-service). The results of a small scale inquiry that are presented here, revealed a pattern that mirrored the general discussion on issues from around the world in relation to assessment in music education. In the last part of this paper The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is discussed under the light that is shed by issues of validity and homogeneity that have occurred. Also, the role and suitability of the arts within such an institution and with the use of such tools is considered.

The assessment of music learning in schools is an ongoing focus for music teachers, researchers, policymakers, leaders, and other interested constituents to varying degrees. The contexts within which the assessment of music learning take place are as varied as the historical, cultural, political, philosophical, and educational environments from which they arise. This chapter identifies common conditions that affect the assessment of music learning in schools across the world—opportunity to learn, standards, curriculum, philosophy, and accountability and high-stakes testing. From this arises a discussion of the qualities of well-designed music learning assessments, including reliability, validity and threats to validity, the application of reliability and validity to teacher-made assessments, and the application of consensual assessment and consensus moderation assessment approaches. Next, the chapter presents and rationalizes eight international principles for assessment in music education. The chapter closes with a discussion of the state of the art of assessment in music education, and the challenges encountered with the application of assessment models that are misaligned with the unique nature of music learning.

Assessment continues to be a topic of discussion and concern for many music educators and music teacher educators. The discussion of assessment in music education can spark lively and passionate debate among music educators, music teacher educators, students, policy makers, and parents alike. This article offers a discussion of some of the litigation that has taken place in American courts that may significantly affect how many music educators assess their students now and in the future. Several steps are presented to help music educators create grading policies that meet legal guidelines as outlined by court rulings.

Music education is part of the public school curriculum in many countries, as either a compulsory or an elective subject. While it offers many young people an opportunity to acquire musical knowledge and skills, it also has its challenges. Being part of the public school curriculum results in a need for assessment in music education. While some problems related to assessment are similar internationally (e.g., concerning music as art), assessment in different countries varies. It depends on various factors such as the general assessment culture, the goals of education, music education policy, individual teaching philosophies, and school culture. By utilizing approaches from comparative music education, philosophy, and sociology of music education, this chapter analyzes music education assessment policies and practices in different countries. By scrutinizing global similarities and differences, it proposes new approaches to assessment that may help address some of the challenges the global music education community faces today.

SECTION ONE: ISSUES AND RESEARCH 1. Policy Frameworks, Research and K-12 Schooling 2. MENC: A Case in Point 3. Recent Trends and Issue in Policy-making 4. Law Research and Music Education INTRODUCTION: TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE 'AIMS OF MUSIC EDUCATION' 1. Contemporary Curriculum Practices and Their Theoretical Bases 2. Theory, Research, and the Improvement of Music Education 3. A Comparative Review of Human Ability Theory: Context, Structure, and Development 4. Critical Thinking 5. Improvisation 6. Improvisation and Curriculum Reform 7. Adult Education 8. Music and Early Childhood Education 9. Systematic Research in Studio Instruction in Music 10. Philosophical Issues in Curriculum 11. Educating Musically 12. Distance Learning and Collaboration in Music Education SECTION THREE: MUSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING Introduction: Issues in Perception, Cognition, and Development 1. Learning Theories as Roots of Current Musical Practice and Research 2. Systematic Instruction 3. Behavioural Research on Direct Music Instruction 4. Self-Regulation of Musical Learning: A Social Cognitive Perspective 5. Motivation and Achievement 6. Developmental Characteristics of Music Learners 7. Creative Research in Music, Visual Arts, Theater, and Dance 8. Computer-based Technology and Music Teaching and Learning SECTION FOUR: MUSICAL COGNITION 1. The Neurobiology of Music Cognition and Learning 2. Cognitive Constraints on Music Listening 3. The Development of Musical Abilities 4. Making Music and Making Sense of Music: Expressive Performance and Communication 5. Taking an Acquired Skills Perspective on Music Performance SECTION FIVE: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS 1. The Sociology of Education and Connections to Music Education Research 2. Sociology of Music 3. Social Psychology and Music Education 4. Music, Culture, Curriculum and Instruction 5. Feminism, Feminist Research and Gender Research in Music Education 6. The Social Construction of Music Teacher Identity in Undergraduate Music Education Majors 7. Transforming Research in Music Education History 8. Music Transmission and Learning: A Conspectus of Ethnographic Research in Ethnomusicology and Music Education 9. Community Music: Toward an International Overview SECTION SIX: TEACHER EDUCATION Introduction: Fuzzy Teacher Education 1. Reform-minded Music Teachers: A More Comprehensive Image of Teaching for Music Teacher Education 2. Teaching as a Profession: Two Variations on a Theme 3. Changing Concepts of Teacher Education 4. Strengthening the Teaching of Music Educators in Higher Education 5. Research by Teachers on Teacher Education 6. Research in Music Student Teaching 7. Professional Development SECTION SEVEN: MUSIC EDUCATION CONNECTIONS Introduction: The Growing Impact of Partnerships: A Reason for Research 1. Policy Issues Connecting Music Education and Arts Education 2. The Evaluation of Arts Partnerships and Learning Through the Arts 3. The 'Use and Abuse' of Arts Advocacy and its Consequences for Music Education 4. Research in Visual Arts Education: Implications for Music Education 5. A Review of Research in Theater, Dance, and Other Performing Arts Education: Implications for Music SECTION EIGHT: NEUROSCIENCE, MEDICINE, AND MUSIC 1. Music and Neuroscience 2. Performing arts Medicine 3. Musicians' Health MIRIAM HENOCH, AND JOHN HIPPLE SECTION NINE: INSTRUMENTAL OUTCOMES 1. Nonmusical Outcomes of Music Education: Historical Considerations 2. Teaching Other Subjects Through Music 3. Research: A Foundation for Arts Education Advocacy SECTION TEN: RESEARCH DESIGN, CRITICISM, AND ASSESSMENT IN MUSIC EDUCATION 1. Philosophical Perspectives on Research 2. Maintaining Quality in Research and Reporting 3. Trends in Data Acquisition and Knowledge Development 4. Assessment's Potential in Music Education 5. Contemporary Issues in Qualitative Research and Music Education

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education offers global, comprehensive, and critical perspectives on a wide range of conceptual and practical issues in music education assessment, evaluation, and feedback as these apply to various forms of music education within schools and communities. The central aims of this Handbook focus on broadening and deepening readers’ understandings of and critical thinking about the problems, opportunities, “spaces and places,” concepts, and practical strategies that music educators and community music facilitators employ, develop, and deploy to improve various aspects of music teaching and learning around the world.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction and overview to the aims of the Oxford Handbook of Philosophical and Qualitative Assessment in Music Education. Why philosophical and qualitative perspectives on assessment in or for music education? While there are numerous quantitative research projects that investigate assessment in or for music education, which are certainly important, they typically do not help us understand (which this volume does) the fundamental conceptual nature of and assumptions about music education assessment and music education evaluation across global contexts, which in turn shape and drive why and how students, and their actual and potential creativities, are harmfully or ethically impacted.

This chapter takes as its starting point notions of music making as ethical encounter (Bowman, 2001) and as the exercise of hospitality (Higgins, 2007) in order to explore what ethical practice in music education might look like, through the philosophical writings of Emmanuel Levinas. It puts into question discourses of performativity, which may be understood as constraining and narrowing what we think of as “musical knowing” in the classroom. Thinking tools drawn from Levinas’s first major work, Totality and Infinity (1969), include notions of “practices of facing” and of “putting a world in common.” This conceptual lens enables an investigation of what it might mean for assessment in music education if we embraced Levinas’s radical openness—the breaking in of “infinity” into “totalizing” practices—bringing to light processes of music making, not simply the musical product, as well as the uniqueness of each pupil’s music making in relationship to others and to the Other, and capturing rich learning in the music classroom.

“Music education does not mean educating a musician—it means first of all educating a human being.” This quote from a famous Russian educator Sukhomlinsky was used as the motto for the music education program in the Soviet Union from 1970–1991. The Russian music education system was widely known for excellence in performance and musicianship. This chapter provides an overview of music education movements in prerevolutionary Russia, as well as the rich and controversial history of Soviet music education from 1917 to 1991 and presents an overview of “new” trends in the system of music education from 1991 until 2016. Currently music education is an integral part of the preschool, elementary, and secondary curriculum even though the quality of music program varies depending on region, setting, administration, and individual teachers. According to the 2011 State Educational Standards, music is part of core curriculum in grades 1–9 (ages 6–14) and part of elective curriculum in grades 10–11 (ages 15–17). New curriculum development is now taking place in the general school setting, however, most of it based on the guiding philosophy and methodology of Dmitry Kabalevsky. This chapter explores the scope of music curriculum in preschools, general schools, specialized music schools, and music teacher training programs. It unfolds the methodological approach of Dmitry Kabalevsky and its outcome on the development of Russian music education policies and practice. It provides historical perspective on assessment policies, overview of assessment practices in music education, and discusses the present state of affairs in educational assessment in Russia.

This chapter proposes that educators can draw productive consequences for qualitative assessment in music education from C. S. Peirce’s and John Dewey’s views on how qualities operate in experience. Peirce saw qualities as meaning-potentials, to be actualized as generalized signs in the process of inquiry. Dewey made qualities phenomenological cornerstones of grasping a world in flux, transformed into habits of action that can be interpreted as meaningful in certain contexts. For Dewey, optimally, such transformation amounts to “consummatory experiences” characterized by “esthetic” qualities that are best represented by the arts. Together, Peirce’s and Dewey’s views suggest that developing contextual aesthetic judgment could be an important strategy for qualitative assessment in music education. This also provides a basis for understanding how values are drawn out from experience. In line with Dewey, this chapter calls this process “evaluation,” arguing that qualitative assessment concerns as much ethical as aesthetic matters. One way to specify this claim is to say that evaluation is conducive to equality, implying that there is a close bond between recognition of the uniqueness of qualitative experience and a democratic way of life. As a sounding board for these thoughts, the chapter uses the new Finnish national Core Curriculum for Basic Education, suggesting ways to approach qualitative assessment that are conducive to its cognitive, aesthetic, ethical, and political goals.

The chapter provides a detailed account of the past, present, and future of Kentucky policies and practices for assessment in music education (1992–2016). Kentucky (Kentucky Department of Education, 1990) was a leader in systemic education reform and development of arts (dance, drama/theatre, music, visual arts) assessments. Three generations of music assessment models may provide direction in the design of a large-scale data-driven school-accountability arts assessment system. These are: first generation (1992–1998), Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS); second generation (1998–2009), Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS), focused on individualized student music assessments; and third generation (2009–2016), Unbridled Learning Accountability Model: Next-Generation Instructional Programs and Support with Program Reviews, addressing arts (music) assessments for the evaluation of quality programs. From 2002 to 2006, the Kentucky Music Education Association (KMEA) partnered with the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) in an experiment using listening prompts versus written prompts in CATS test items.

This volume of the handbook addresses music education practice and technology in 37 chapters written by fifty three leading experts from across the world. The volume is divided into three sections and closes with an epilogue. Part 1, “Music Assessment in the United States,” presents a review of legislation and case law, national assessment trends, and state-level assessment programs in eight states. Part 2, “Assessment of Student Music Learning,” covers the practice of assessment in early childhood, special needs, primary, and secondary music classrooms and ensembles. Part 3, “Assessment and Music Technology,” covers policy and practice for technologically assisted music assessment, and details technical issues related to computerized assessment of music performance. The epilogue brings the handbook to a close with a review of the state of the art of music assessment, and introduces the International Principles of Assessment in Music Education.