Assessment and Technology

In my final blog for my Technology Assisted Music Learning course, we discussed assessment and professional productivity and how technology can be incorporated to enhance the processes. Technology can often make tasks simpler, quicker, and more accessible to the teacher, parents, and students.

To begin with, there are two main types of assessment, formative and summative.  According to Marzano (2006), formative assessment “involves both formal and informal procedures that provide information for the teacher and feedback to the student during the learning process. The goal of formative assessment is to allow the teacher and student to adapt their learning approaches to better achieve learning goals” (p. 146). While summative assessment “summarizes learning at a particular point in time, typically at the end of a project, unit, semester, or entire class. Through a summative assessment, teachers can determine whether students have accomplished learning goals and are ready to move on to new material or whether they need remediation” (p. 146). A teacher must use both forms of assessment to ensure their students’ success. Overall, formative assessment is used throughout the learning process, while summative assessment is used at the end.

In addition to formative and summative assessment, music courses also have authentic or performance-based assessment, which is equally as important. “Authentic [or performance-based] assessments require students to perform a task rather than to select or describe a response on a paper-and-pencil test” (p. 147). Music courses require this type of assessment due to the performance aspect of what they teach.  “A cognitive understanding of something doesn’t necessarily translate to the ability to do that thing (of course, the opposite is also true)” (p. 147). In music courses, teachers must use authentic or performance-based assessments in addition to paper-and-pencil assessments to determine the appropriate learning goals and scaffolding for their students. To become life-long musicians, students must be able to perform well on both forms of assessment, paper-and-pencil and performance-based.

Now the big question, how to use technology to make assessing students easier, quicker, and more interactive. During this module, we discussed numerous technology programs and apps that are useful for assessment. The first was Google Forms. Google Forms is a cloud-based program that can be used to create online tests and rubrics. Instead of creating a paper-and-pencil test that needs to be hand graded, a teacher can create a test in Google Forms using multiple choice, single text answer, paragraph answer, multiple checkbox answer, or drop-down list answer questions. After a student completes the test and submits their answers, their responses are automatically filed in a spreadsheet document, also contained in the cloud. Teachers can then use a program called Flubaroo to grade and email scores and test results to the students and/or parents. Additionally, teachers can use Google Forms to create online rubrics for papers and projects. The teacher can then complete the rubric for each project and likewise email results and comments to the students. Why create and grade a test when you can have technology do the grading for you?

In addition to Google Forms, a second technology tool we discussed was the SmartBoard. A SmartBoard is a phenomenal tool that increases the active engagement of students in the classroom exponentially. Students adore the opportunity to volunteer and interact with the board, by moving objects around the board, sorting items, or making selections.  Teachers can also use the board to create interactive assessments that can be saved for review after class or presentation. Teachers can also find numerous activity and assessment programs designed specifically for SmartBoards for free or purchase.

The final two programs discussed were programs used school-wide. For example, my school uses Aspen X2, which contains all grades and student information in one central cloud-based program. This allows grades and teacher feedback to be easily accessed by students and parents. A second example of a school-wide program is Class Dojo. Class Dojo is an online positive behavior incentive program, in which students are rewarded for positive behavior through Dojo Points. Likewise, students can lose points when the teacher deems it necessary. At fixed points throughout the year, students can attend incentive programs, such as a Fall Festival or Spring Fair, based on how many positive Dojo Points they have received. Additionally, parents are connected to the Dojo program and receive immediate notifications when their child receives a positive or negative Dojo Point. This keeps the parents informed on what is happening in the classroom at all times.

When incorporating technology, it is up to the teacher to determine what works best for him/her and the students. Technology will not replace generic forms of assessment, but it can make it simpler, quicker, and more accessible to the teacher, students, and parents.

References:

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Designing Meaningful Instruction

During Module 6 of Technology Assisted Music Learning, we discussed the process of designing instruction. As a music educator, it is vital to remember that students learn in multiple ways. “Driscoll (2002) describes learning as contextual, active, social, and reflective” (pg. 160). Students learn material that is presented to them in context based on previous knowledge. In addition, students learn through active and social engagement in the classroom.

Singing games in a music classroom is a great example of Driscoll’s learning description. Singing games not only encourage proper technique and application of material, but they also force the students to engage with each other. Students engage with others by picking new volunteers or working in small groups to complete the task of the singing games. In addition, a singing game includes the whole class participating together, which relies on active and social engagement from all students. Also, the singing games often require students to reflect on their own performance or the performance of their peers. Finally and most importantly, students enjoy playing singing games, because they are learning while playing a “game.” Students enjoy watching their peers succeeded and the engagement of being a leader or a picker of a new volunteer.

With these concepts in mind, when designing instruction for my classroom, I often use backward design. “Backward design or backward planning is an approach in which the teacher begins with the end in mind” (pg. 165).  More often than not, I determine what the final product or goal of a lesson is, then I plan backwards on how the lesson should start. I do this by breaking each step of the process down to the smallest chunk. I then teach those chunks in order to reach the final product or goal. Overall, I firmly believe it is easier to use backward design, because you have a clear vision of what you want the students to accomplish.

For example, I determined I wanted my students to partake in a partner activity in class. Then, I decided I wanted the partners to compose and perform short rhythmic patterns for each other, and then reflect on their performance. Once I had the final vision of the activity in mind, I was able to determine the main topic (rhythm reading and writing) and the information that needed to be taught prior to beginning the activity. Thus, I preceded this lesson with shorter lessons on quarter and eighth notes that required the students to draw the notes, as well as lessons on composing as a class with volunteers. Finally, when the students arrived at the partner activity lesson, they had the base knowledge and skills needed to be successful and it flowed smoothly. Backward planning allowed me to created this unit of lessons easily and present them in a flowing manner for the students.

In addition to backward design, when planning lessons for my classroom, I do my best to include teacher-centered and learner-centered instruction. Young students need a large amount of teacher-centered instruction, but they also need some learner-centered instruction, in which students work together or on their own to accomplish a goal. “A variety of factors that include student developmental levels, the classroom environment, time constraints, and desired learning outcomes will all influence the use of a particular approach” (pg. 170). However, the most difficult factor for me, when using learner-centered activities, is the time-constraint. I see my students 2 times every 6 school days for 30 minutes. By the time I teach the material and pass out materials necessary to accomplish a learner-centered activity in the 30 minute time frame, including entrance and exit procedures, there is often not much time for the students to complete their activity. In order to accomplish learner-centered activities, I must use 2 class periods to cover the material and conduct the activity. Thus, I find it difficult to plan many learner-centered activities.

Overall, no matter what form of activities and learning you present to your students, the most important part is the guarantee that students are learning the material needed to be successful in music. As a music educator, your job is to use your instruction design knowledge to design lessons that reach all students at all levels, and bring them to the same general level of music knowledge. By doing this, you will be creating life-long musicians and music learners, who can learn in a group or on their own.

References:

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music. New York: Oxford University Press.