MUS 1
Judith Johansen
Assessment Results: MUS 1 Teaching Music To Young Children
Compiled by Judith Johansen • Spring, 2012
Plan for Assessment
Give a pretest at the beginning of a session to the Teaching Music to Children
classes. The pretest will contain questions used in exams and quizzes. Those answers
will be compared to student answers found in the session’s exams and quizzes. All
of the questions will be identified with the SLOs they address. At the conclusion of
the session, faculty involved in teaching the courses will then meet to discuss the
results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
First week, pretest will be given
Last week, Final Exams
After exams are graded, faculty will meet to discuss results and a plan for
improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Evaluate how to create a nurturing environment for teaching and learning music.
:Analyze and implement the teaching of musical notation.
Questions:
Write and explain the five basic types of learning.
Write and explain the twelve key elements which should be used when designing
integrated experiences with music (SLOs:Evaluate how to create a nurturing
environment for teaching and learning music).
Question:
Write the pitch/letter names and intervals as found in a musical example.
Write and clap the rhythm as found in a musical example.
(SLOs:Analyze and implement the teaching of musical notation).
It is obvious from the pretest that the students in Mus 1 are at varying levels of
musical ability and teaching experience. The levels range from no musical
background and/or teaching experience to music and education majors who are
proficient in one or both areas.
The challenge in teaching this class is to balance
the activities so that they are not too advanced for the beginners or too boring for
the experienced students. We have worked in groups where the experienced music
students have been teamed with inexperienced students. This helps both parties.
The experienced students get practice working with others and the inexperienced
students get extra help.
Upon comparing the pretest to the post-test, there was an obvious improvement in
all tests when students were asked to write the five basic styles of learning and the
twelve key elements used for designing integrated experiences in music. (Student
Learning Outcome Evaluate how to create a nurturing environment for teaching and
learning music). The majority of the pretests were left blank and those who did
attempt to write something used information they might have received in an earlier
education class. On the post-test every single student answered the questions with
19 out of 22 earning Good or Excellent on those questions. I also evaluated music
lessons that were presented to the entire class by individual students. Most of these
lessons were well-thought out, very creative and excellent examples of how to
design integrated experiences in music. The students were totally involved in the
lessons
When comparing the pretest and post-test in the area of note reading and rhythm
reading there was also improvement, but it was obvious that the non-musical
experience students still had some difficulty with advanced rhythms. (Student
Learning Outcome: students will able be to successfully implement the basic
elements of music).
After discussing the results with my colleague, Charlie Richard, on June 12, 2012, we
decided to continue the course of instructions as they seem to be working well. I
will spend a bit more time with difficult rhythmic patterns to try to improve the
overall scores on rhythmic reading. Improvement was substantial but not quite as
high as I would like to see it.
Music I
SLO#4 Evaluate how to create a nurturing environment for teaching
and learning music.
Write and explain the five basic types of learning
Excellent
Pretest: 0
Post test: 14
• The student writes the five basic
learning styles.
• The student demonstrates a full
understanding of the five basic
learning styles.
Good
Pretest: 0
Post test: 5
• The student writes four of the five
basic learning styles.
• The student demonstrates less
understanding of the five basic
learning styles.
Acceptable
Pretest: 0
Post test: 0
• The student writes two or three of
the basic learning styles.
• The student demonstrates little
understanding of the five basic
learning styles.
Poor
Pretest: 8
Post test: 0
• The student writes one of the basic
learning styles.
• The student demonstrates no
understanding of the five basic
learning styles
Unacceptable
Pretest: 14
Post test: 3
• The student does not attempt to
write the five basic styles of learning.
• The student does not attempt to
explain the five basic learning styles.
Write and explain the twelve key elements which should be used when designing
integrated experiences with music.
Excellent
Pretest: 0
Post test: 17
• The student writes the twelve key
elements.
• The student demonstrates a full
understanding of the twelve key
elements.
Good
Pretest: 0
Post test: 3
• The student writes ten or eleven of
the twelve key elements.
• The student demonstrates less
understanding of the twelve key
elements.
Acceptable
Pretest: 0
Post test: 1
• The student writes seven to nine of
the twelve key elements.
• The student demonstrates little
understanding of the twelve key
elements.
Poor
Pretest: 1
Post test: 1
• The student writes less than seven
of the twelve key elements.
• The student demonstrates no
understanding of the twelve key
elements.
Unacceptable
Pretest: 21
Post test: 0
• The student does not attempt to
write the twelve key elements
• The student does not attempt to
explain the twelve key elements.
SLO#5
Analyze and implement the basic elements of music.
Write the pitch/letter names and rhythmic values as found in a musical example.
Excellent
Pretest: 3
Post test: 12
• The
• Student demonstrates a full
understanding of recognizing note
names and intervals.
• The student names all notes
correctly.
• The student names all intervals
correctly.
Good
Pretest: 4
Post test: 7
• The student demonstrates
substantial knowledge of recognizing
note names and intervals.
• The student names most of the
notes correctly.
• The student names most of the
intervals correctly.
Acceptable
Pretest: 2
Post test: 3
• The student demonstrates some
knowledge of recognizing note
names and intervals.
• The student names some of the
notes correctly.
• The student names some of the
intervals correctly.
Unacceptable
Pretest: 13
Post test: 0
• The student has no understanding
of note names.
• The student has no understanding
of intervals.
• The student does not attempt to
name any notes or intervals.
Write and clap the rhythm as found in a musical example.
Excellent
Pretest: 1
Post test: 9
• The student demonstrates a full
understanding of recognizing note
values.
• The student claps all rhythms
correctly.
Good
Pretest: 3
Post test: 6
• The student demonstrates
substantial knowledge of recognizing
note values.
• The student claps all rhythms
correctly.
Acceptable
Pretest: 3
Post test: 6
• The student demonstrates some
knowledge of recognizing note
values.
• The student claps some of the
rhythms correctly.
Unacceptable
Pretest: 15
Post test: 1
• The student has no understanding
of note values.
• The student does not attempt to
clap any of the rhythms.
Assessment Plan for MUS 1: Teaching Music to Young Children
February 24, 2009
Plan for Assessment
Give a pretest at the beginning of a session to the Teaching Music to Children
classes. The pretest will contain questions used in exams and quizzes. Those answers
will be compared to student answers found in the session’s exams and quizzes. All
of the questions will be identified with the SLOs they address. At the conclusion of
the session, faculty involved in teaching the courses will then meet to discuss the
results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
First week, pretest will be given
Last week, Final Exams
After exams are graded, faculty will meet to discuss results and a plan for
improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Evaluate, organize and implement a daily music curriculum for the classroom.
Analyze and implement the basic elements of music.
Demonstrate and perform functionally on autoharp, recorder, and simple percussion
instruments
Question:
Write a complete lesson plan for an introductory lesson in rhythm for an elementary
general music class.
(SLOs: Evaluate, organize and implement a daily music curriculum for the classroom.
Question:
Write the pitch/letter names and rhythmic values as found in a musical example.
(SLOs: Analyze and implement the basic elements of music.
Question:
Perform a written rhythmic example by banging the rhythms on the desk.
(SLOs: Demonstrate and perform functionally on autoharp, recorder, and simple
percussion instruments
Assessment Results: MUS 1 Teaching Music To Young Children
Compiled by Judith Johansen • Spring, 2010
It is obvious from the pretest that the students in Mus 1 are at varying levels of
musical ability and teaching experience. The levels range from no musical
background and/or teaching experience to music and education majors who are
proficient in one or both areas.
The challenge in teaching this class is to balance
the activities so that they are not too advanced for the beginners or too boring for
the experienced students. We have worked in groups where the experienced music
students have been teamed with inexperienced students. This helps both parties.
The experienced students get practice working with others and the inexperienced
students get extra help.
Upon comparing the pretest to the post-test, there was an obvious improvement in
all tests when students were asked to write a complete lesson plan (Student
Learning Outcome: students will be able to successfully write a lesson plan for a
musical lesson). Many of the pretests were left blank and those who did attempt
to write a plan had no format for writing a complete lesson plan. On the post-test
every single student used a format and great detail for their lesson.
When comparing the pretest and post-test in the area of note reading and rhythm
reading there was also improvement, but it was obvious that the non-musical
experience students still had some difficulty with advanced rhythms. (Student
Learning Outcome: students will able be to successfully implement the basic
elements of music).
When comparing students' ability to perform on simple percussion instruments,
recorder and autoharp, the inexperienced students did very well when compared to
their initial inability to play any of the instruments. Here again, the weakness that
was noted among the students was the difficulty of playing advanced rhythmic
patterns. (Student Learning Outcome: students will be able to perform
functionally on simple percussion instruments, autoharp and recorder.)
After discussing the results with my colleague, Charlie Richard, on March 25, 2010,
we decided that I will spend more time with the students working on more difficult
rhythmic patterns using 16th notes and rests in various combinations. I will
implement these changes in the spring of 2011, the next time the course is offered.
Music I
SLO#1
Evaluate, organize and implement a music lesson plan.
Excellent
Pretest: 0
Post test: 9
Feb. 26, 2009
June 9, 2009
• The student demonstrates a full understanding
of writing a complete lesson plan.
• The student uses all ten components in the
lesson plan format.
• The student writes a detailed and age
appropriate lesson plan.
Good
• The student demonstrates substantial
Pretest: 0
Post test: 4
knowledge of writing a complete lesson plan.
• The student uses eight or nine of the ten
components in the lesson plan format.
• The student writes a somewhat less detailed
lesson plan but it is still age appropriate.
• The student demonstrates some knowledge of
Acceptable Pretest: 5
Post test: 0
writing a complete lesson plan.
• The student uses some of the ten components
in the lesson plan format.
• The student writes very little detail in the
lesson plan.
Poor
• The student demonstrates little knowledge of
Pretest: 4
Post test: 0
writing a complete lesson plan.
• The student does not use any kind of the
format in writing the lesson.
• The student uses no detail in the lesson plan
and the lesson is not age appropriate
• The student does not attempt to write a lesson
Unacceptable Pretest: 4
Post test: 0
Music I
plan.
SLO#2
Analyze and implement the basic elements of music
Excellent
Pretest: 5
Post test: 10
Feb. 26, 2009
June 9, 2009
• The student demonstrates a full
understanding of recognizing note names.
• The student names all notes correctly.
Acceptable
Pretest: 0
Post test: 1
• The student demonstrates substantial
knowledge of recognizing note names.
• The student names all but 3-4 notes
correctly.
Acceptable Pretest: 0
Post test: 1
• The student demonstrates some knowledge
of recognizing note names.
• The student names some of the notes
correctly.
Unacceptable Pretest: 8
Post test: 1
• The student does not attempt to name any of
Excellent
• The student demonstrates a full
the notes.
Pretest: 4
Post test: 8
understanding of recognizing note values.
• The student claps all rhythms correctly.
Acceptable
• The student demonstrates substantial
Pretest: 0
Post test: 1
knowledge of recognizing note values.
• The student claps all rhythms correctly.
• The student demonstrates some knowledge
Acceptable Pretest: 0
Post test: 2
of recognizing note values.
• The student claps some of the rhythms
correctly.
• The student has no understanding of note
Unacceptable Pretest: 9
Post test: 2
values.
• The student does not attempt to clap any of
the rhythms.
Music I
SLO#3
Demonstrate and perform functionally on guitar, recorder and rhythm
instruments
Excellent
Pretest: 0
Post test: 8
Feb.26, 2009
June 9, 2009
• The student performs on the recorder with
perfect rhythm.
• The student performs on the recorder with
correct pitches.
• The student performs on the recorder in a
steady tempo.
• The student performs on the recorder in a
musical manner.
Good
Pretest: 1
• The student performs on the recorder with
Post test: 2
near perfect rhythm.
• The student performs on the recorder with
correct pitches.
• The student performs on the recorder with
less security and some uneven tempi.
• The student performs on the recorder in a
less musical manner.
Acceptable Pretest: 2
Post test: 3
• The student performs on the recorder with
some incorrect rhythms.
• The student performs on the recorder with
some incorrect pitches.
• The student performs on the recorder with
less security and some uneven tempi.
• The student performs on the recorder in a
less musical manner.
Poor
Pretest: 2
Post test: 0
• The student performs on the recorder with
many incorrect rhythms.
• The student performs on the recorder with
many incorrect pitches.
• The student performs on the recorder with
uneven tempi.
• The student performs on the recorder in a
nonmusical manner.
Unacceptable
Pretest: 8
Post test: 0
• The student does not perform on the
recorder.
MUS 3
Jasminka Knecht
Assessment Results: MUS 3 Music Fundamentals
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • June 15, 2012
SLO Assessed
3. Analyze diatonic music examples written in Common Practice style.
Assessment Results
MUS 3 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS)
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students can always analyze diatonic music
45%
Excellent
examples written in Common Practice style
Students can often analyze diatonic music examples 20%
Good
written in Common Practice style
Students can sometimes analyze diatonic music
21%
Fair
examples written in Common Practice style
Students can rarely analyze diatonic music examples 7%
Poor
written in Common Practice style
Students could not analyze diatonic music examples 7%
Unacceptable
written in Common Practice style
Students entering MUS 3 class are at varying levels of musical ability. The levels
range from no musical background to music majors with experience in music.
On June 5, 2012, Roger Duffer and I discussed the results of this assessment. Even
though majority of the students are completing the SLO above, we agreed that
analyzing is still a complex skill for most students and a simple example of just a
few measures took a long time to analyze. We discussed that students need more
practice with basic concepts (scales, key signatures, chords) in order to be able to
analyze musical examples.
The students that could not analyze music examples
written in Common Practice style, do not know key signatures and chords. We
discussed introducing chords earlier in the semester in order to allow more time for
practicing chords and analyzing.
Assessment Results: MUS 3 Music Fundamentals
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Sing diatonic melodies at sight using solfège syllables.
Assessment Results
MUS 3 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Qualifiers
% of Students
All notes are sung accurately with correct solfege syllables.
Excellent
25%
Rhythm is performed accurately. The exercise is sung in a
consistent tempo with no starts or stops.
There are only a few wrong pitches and/or wrong solfege
Good
33%
syllables or rhythms. There is one break in a fairly consistent
tempo.
There are several wrong pitches and/or wrong solfege
Fair
syllables or rhythm.
27%
There are several stops and starts.
About half of the pitches and/or solfege syllables or rhythm
Poor
15%
are incorrect. There are over 4 stops and starts.
Unacceptable
There are numerous wrong pitches and /or solfege syllables
0%
and/or rhythm. There are numerous stops and starts.
SLO Assessed
Notate diatonic intervals and melodies from aural examples.
Assessment Results
MUS 3 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Qualifiers
% of Students
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The student can identify and write properly all pitches and/or
48%
rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
The student can identify and write properly most pitches
14%
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
The student can identify and write properly some pitches
16%
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
The student can identify and write properly a few pitches
12%
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
Unacceptab
The student cannot identify and write properly most pitches
le
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
10%
Students entering MUS 3 class are at varying levels of musical ability. The levels
range from no musical background to music majors with experience in music.
On December 1, 2011, Roger Duffer and I discussed the results of this assessment.
As expected, majority of the students are completing the SLOs above. We agreed
that ear training time we spend in the class is not enough for all students to
improve and we need to remind students to practice ear training outside class time.
Assessment Results: MUS 3 Music Fundamentals
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate diatonic scales using the piano.
Assessment Results
MUS 3 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Excellent
8%
79%
Students always demonstrate diatonic scales using the piano
Good
6%
12%
Students often demonstrate diatonic scales using the piano
Students sometimes demonstrate diatonic scales using the
Fair
24%
9%
piano
Poor
10%
0%
Students rarely demonstrate diatonic scales using the piano
Unaccepta
52%
0%
Students could not demonstrate diatonic scales using the
ble
piano
Evaluation
Students entering MUS 3 class are at varying levels of musical ability. The levels
range from no musical background to music majors with experience in music. The
pre-test was designed to identify students who play piano and scales on the piano
and those who have limited or no experience with piano and scales. The instructor
can use that information to better plan lab activities.
On June 20, 2011, Steven Schmidt and I discussed the results of this assessment. As
expected, all students showed improvement and completed the SLO above. We
agreed to continue giving different scale exercises to students based on their piano
abilities: beginners will learn scales by playing one octave and hands separately
while more advanced students will continue playing scales one octave, hands
together or two or more octaves and hands together.
Assessment Plan: MUS 3 Music Fundamentals
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first class meeting, give students Entrance Exam and ask them to identify notated pitches
in treble, bass and various C clefs using octave identification numbers.
At the end of the semester (during Final Exam), ask students the same question.
Following the Final Exam, faculty involved in teaching MUS 3 course will meet to discuss the results
and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
Identify notated pitches in treble, bass, and various C clefs using octave identification numbers, i.e.,
C1 through C8.
Dates
Week 1: Entrance Exam
Week 16: Final Exam
Following Week 16: Faculty meet and discuss the results.
Assessment Results: MUS 3 Music Fundamentals
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • April 15, 2010
SLO Assessed
Identify notated pitches in treble, bass, and various C clefs using octave
identification numbers, i.e., C1 through C8.
Assessment Results
MUS 3 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
6%
78%
Good
28%
9%
Fair
36%
7%
Poor
9%
6%
Unacceptable
21%
0%
Qualifiers
Students always identify notated pitches in all clefs
Students always use octave identification numbers
Students often identify notated pitches in all clefs
Students often use octave identification numbers
Students sometimes identify notated pitches in all clefs
Students sometimes use octave identification numbers
Students rarely identify notated pitches in all clefs
Students rarely use octave identification numbers
Students could not identify notated pitches in all clefs
Students could not use octave identification numbers
Evaluation
Students entering MUS 3 class are at varying levels of musical ability. The levels
range from no musical background to music majors with experience in music. The
pre-test was designed to identify students who cannot read music and those who
can read one or all clefs. The instructor can use that information to better plan for
lectures and lab activities.
Upon entering MUS 3 most students could not correctly identify all notes in all clefs
and use octave identification numbers. As expected, most students could do both
by the end of the semester.
On February 12, 2010, Steven Schmidt and I discussed the results of this assessment
as well as the impact of current teaching strategies and textbook choices on other
course SLOs. We agreed that students were learning the concepts but not always
excelling. We discussed homework grading methods, aural skills laboratory activities
and what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I revised lab activities and assignments and will follow
a "Music Notation & Labeling" handout (a standardized system for music
notation/manuscript) that Steven Schmidt created.
MUS 4
Steven Schmidt
Assessment Results: MUS 4 Music Theory I
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Compose original four-voice diatonic music compositions using Common Practice
period techniques.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always entered appropriate pitches.
Excellent
30%
Students always demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students always demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
Students often entered appropriate pitches.
Good
70%
Students often demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students often demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
Fair
0%
Students sometimes entered appropriate pitches.
Students sometimes demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students sometimes demonstrated good voice-leading choices.
Students rarely entered appropriate pitches.
Poor
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students rarely demonstrated good voice-leading choices.
Students could not enter appropriate pitches.
Unaccepta
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper pitch doubling.
ble
Students could not demonstrate good voice-leading choices.
SLO Assessed
3. Analyze diatonic music compositions from the Common Practice period.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
Excellent
0%
correctly.
Students always entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students always identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students often entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Good
65%
Students often entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students often identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students sometimes entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Fair
22%
Students sometimes entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students sometimes identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students rarely entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Poor
9%
Students rarely entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students rarely identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students could not enter harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
Unaccepta
correctly.
4%
ble
Students could not enter lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students could not identify non-chord tones correctly.
SLO Assessed
4. Sing complex diatonic melodies at sight using solfège syllables.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always sang complex diatonic melodies in tune.
Students always sang complex diatonic melodies in rhythm.
Excellent
39%
Students always sang complex diatonic melodies using correct
solfège syllables.
Students often sang complex diatonic melodies in tune.
Students often sang complex diatonic melodies in rhythm.
Good
48%
Students often sang complex diatonic melodies using correct
solfège syllables.
Students sometimes sang complex diatonic melodies in tune.
Students sometimes sang complex diatonic melodies in rhythm.
Fair
9%
Students sometimes sang complex diatonic melodies using correct
solfège syllables.
Students rarely sang complex diatonic melodies in tune.
Students rarely sang complex diatonic melodies in rhythm.
Poor
4%
Students rarely sang complex diatonic melodies using correct
solfège syllables.
Students could not sing complex diatonic melodies in tune.
Unaccepta
Students could not sing complex diatonic melodies in rhythm.
0%
ble
Students could not sing complex diatonic melodies using correct
solfège syllables.
Assessment Results: MUS 4 45002 Music Theory I
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • June 12, 2011
SLO Assessed
Construct four-voice diatonic music compositions by interpreting a figured bass.
Assessment Results
MUS 4 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always entered correct pitches by interpreting a
figured bass.
Students always demonstrated proper pitch doubling by
Excellent
0%
26%
interpreting a figured bass.
Students always demonstrated the best voice-leading
choices.
Students often entered correct pitches by interpreting a
Good
0%
42%
figured bass.
Students often demonstrated proper pitch doubling by
interpreting a figured bass.
Students often demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
Students sometimes entered correct pitches by interpreting a
figured bass.
Students sometimes demonstrated proper pitch doubling by
Fair
17%
19%
interpreting a figured bass.
Students sometimes demonstrated the best voice-leading
choices.
Students rarely entered correct pitches by interpreting a
figured bass.
Poor
38%
9%
Students rarely demonstrated proper pitch doubling by
interpreting a figured bass.
Students rarely demonstrated good voice-leading choices.
Students could not enter correct pitches by interpreting a
figured bass.
Unacceptable
45%
4%
Students could not demonstrate proper pitch doubling by
interpreting a figured bass.
Students could not demonstrate good voice-leading choices.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 4 most students could not construct four-voice diatonic music
compositions by interpreting a figured bass. As expected, many students could do a
good job while some could do an excellent job of constructing four-voice diatonic
music compositions by interpreting a figured bass by the end of the semester.
Discussion
At the conclusion of the semester, Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of
this assessment and agreed that students were doing well with their written work
(constructing four-voice diatonic music compositions.) I noted that the larger than
normal class size I experienced this semester seemed to have a slight negative effect
on student success especially in regards to ear training and we agreed that adhering
more rigorously to the enrollment cap would improve student success. We also
discussed grading systems and the impact this had on student success. I proposed
the idea of grading the written portion of the course as if it was a separate class
from the musicianship (“aural skills”) portion.
Recommendation
I recommend dividing the all the “Music Major” level music theory courses (MUS
4,5,6) into two classes each (as it was when originally conceived): A 3-unit theory
class and a 1-unit musicianship class. The weight of the musicianship grade in the
current combined 4-unit class structure does not provide enough motivation for
student success in that area.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Plan for MUS 4
November 23, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first class meeting, ask students to demonstrate conventional procedures
for common practice period part-writing by completing a short part-writing exercise.
At the end of the semester, ask students to complete a new copy of the same
exercise.
At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching music theory will meet
to
discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students complete part-writing exercise.
Week #16: Students complete part-writing exercise.
Following Week #16: Faculty meet & discuss results.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
1. Analyze chord progressions in tonal, diatonic harmony.
2. Realize a figured bass using root position [first inversion and second inversion]
diatonic triads and V7 in 4-part chorale style.
Sample assessment tool:
Part-writing exercise:
Soprano, bass and figured bass given; fill in key, function and alto/tenor voices.
Assessment Results: MUS 4 Music Theory I
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
Interpret a figured bass using root position, first inversion and second inversion
diatonic triads and V7 chords in 4-part chorale style.
Assessment Results
MUS 4 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always entered correct pitches as dictated by the figured bass.
Excellent
0%
26%
 Students always demonstrated proper pitch doubling as dictated by the figured
bass.
 Students always demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
 Students often entered correct pitches as dictated by the figured bass.
Good
0%
56%
 Students often demonstrated proper pitch doubling as dictated by the figured bass.
 Students often demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
 Students sometimes entered correct pitches as dictated by the figured bass.
Fair
23%
6%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper pitch doubling as dictated by the figured
bass.
 Students sometimes demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
 Students rarely entered correct pitches as dictated by the figured bass.
Poor
28%
12%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper pitch doubling as dictated by the figured bass.
 Students rarely demonstrated good voice-leading choices.
 Students could not enter correct pitches as dictated by the figured bass.
Unacceptable
49%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper pitch doubling as dictated by the figured
bass.
 Students could not demonstrate good voice-leading choices.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 4 most students did not understand how to correctly
interpret a figured bass that included triads, triads in inversion and V7 chords.
As expected, most students could successfully interpret a figured bass that
included triads, triads in inversion and V7 chords by the end of the semester.
On February 12, 2010, Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this
assessment as well as the impact of current teaching strategies and textbook
choices on other course SLOs. We agreed that students were learning the
concepts but not always excelling. We discussed homework grading methods,
aural skills laboratory activities and what might be added/changed to improve
student success.
As a result of our discussions, I designed and implemented an in-class
homework grading system to provide instant feedback to students. I also
augmented their current aural skills lab assignment with additional ear
training exercises. Additionally, I proposed and (after departmental
discussion) a standardized system for music notation/manuscript and created
a "Music Notation & Labeling" handout for use in all of our theory classes.
MUS 5
Steven Schmidt
Assessment Results: MUS 5 Music Theory II
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Compose original four-voice chromatic music compositions using Common
Practice period techniques.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always entered appropriate pitches.
Excellent
0%
Students always demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students always demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
Students often entered appropriate pitches.
Good
83%
Students often demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students often demonstrated the best voice-leading choices.
Students sometimes entered appropriate pitches.
Fair
17%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students sometimes demonstrated good voice-leading choices.
Students rarely entered appropriate pitches.
Poor
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper pitch doubling.
Students rarely demonstrated good voice-leading choices.
Students could not enter appropriate pitches.
Unaccepta
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper pitch doubling.
ble
Students could not demonstrate good voice-leading choices.
SLO Assessed
3. Analyze chromatic music compositions from the Common Practice period.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Excellent
38%
Students always entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students always identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students often entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Good
58%
Students often entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students often identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students sometimes entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
Fair
4%
correctly.
Students sometimes entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students sometimes identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students rarely entered harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Poor
0%
Students rarely entered lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students rarely identified non-chord tones correctly.
Students could not enter harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
Unaccepta
correctly.
0%
ble
Students could not enter lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students could not identify non-chord tones correctly.
SLO Assessed
4. Sing chromatic melodies at sight using solfège syllables.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always sang chromatic melodies in tune.
Students always sang chromatic melodies in rhythm.
Excellent
33%
Students always sang chromatic melodies using correct solfège
syllables.
Students often sang chromatic melodies in tune.
Students often sang chromatic melodies in rhythm.
Good
63%
Students often sang chromatic melodies using correct solfège
syllables.
Students sometimes sang chromatic melodies in tune.
Students sometimes sang chromatic melodies in rhythm.
Fair
4%
Students sometimes sang chromatic melodies using correct solfège
syllables.
Students rarely sang chromatic melodies in tune.
Poor
0%
Students rarely sang chromatic melodies in rhythm.
Students rarely sang chromatic melodies using correct solfège
syllables.
Students could not sing chromatic melodies in tune.
Unaccepta
Students could not sing chromatic melodies in rhythm.
0%
ble
Students could not sing chromatic melodies using correct solfège
syllables.
SLO Assessed
5. Notate chromatic melodies and chord progressions from aural examples.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always notated pitches correctly.
Excellent
4%
Students always notated rhythms correctly.
Students always notated harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Students always notated lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students often notated pitches correctly.
Students often notated rhythms correctly.
Good
25%
Students often notated harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Students often notated lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students sometimes notated pitches correctly.
Students sometimes notated rhythms correctly.
Fair
67%
Students sometimes notated harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Students sometimes notated lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students rarely notated pitches correctly.
Students rarely notated rhythms correctly.
Poor
4%
Students rarely notated harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
correctly.
Students rarely notated lead sheet symbols correctly.
Students could not notate pitches correctly.
Students could not notate rhythms correctly.
Unaccepta
0%
Students could not notate harmonic (roman numeral) analysis
ble
correctly.
Students could not notate lead sheet symbols correctly.
SLO Assessed
6. Demonstrate chromatic chord progressions using the piano.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always demonstrated pitches correctly.
Excellent
67%
Students always demonstrated rhythms correctly.
Students often demonstrated pitches correctly.
Good
25%
Students often demonstrated rhythms correctly.
Students sometimes demonstrated pitches correctly.
Fair
8%
Students sometimes demonstrated rhythms correctly.
Students rarely demonstrated pitches correctly.
Poor
0%
Students rarely demonstrated rhythms correctly.
Unaccepta
0%
Students could not demonstrate pitches correctly.
ble
Students could not demonstrate rhythms correctly.
Assessment Results: MUS 5 Music Theory II
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
Illustrate correct voice leading in four-part chorale style diatonic and
chromatic harmony using complex chords and inversions.
Assessment Results
MUS 5 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Post-test
Pre-test
Rating
Qualifiers
 Students always illustrated correct voice leading when completing diatonic four-part
Excellent
0%
58%
chorales.
 Students always illustrated correct voice leading when completing chromatic four-part
chorales.
 Students often illustrated correct voice leading when completing diatonic four-part chorales.
Good
21%
32%
 Students often illustrated correct voice leading when completing chromatic four-part
chorales.
 Students sometimes illustrated correct voice leading when completing diatonic four-part
Fair
47%
10%
chorales.
 Students sometimes illustrated correct voice leading when completing chromatic four-part
chorales.
 Students rarely illustrated correct voice leading when completing diatonic four-part chorales.
Poor
21%
0%
 Students rarely illustrated correct voice leading when completing chromatic four-part
chorales.
 Students could not illustrate correct voice leading when completing diatonic four-part
Unacceptable
11%
0%
chorales.
 Students could not illustrate correct voice leading when completing chromatic four-part
chorales.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 5 many students understood how to correctly interpret a
figured bass that included triads, triads in inversion and V7 chords but could
not correctly apply voice leading principles when completing a chorale that
required complex harmonic structures such as diatonic seventh chords, nonharmonic tones and chromatic tones. As expected, most students could apply
correct voice leading principles when completing a chorale that contained
complex harmonic structures such as diatonic seventh chords, non-harmonic
tones and chromatic tones by the end of the semester.
On February 12, 2010, Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this
assessment as well as the impact of current teaching strategies and textbook
choices on other course SLOs. We agreed that students were learning the
concepts but not always excelling. We discussed homework grading methods,
aural skills laboratory activities and what might be added/changed to improve
student success.
As a result of our discussions, I will design and implement an in-class
homework grading system that provide instant feedback to students. I will
also augment their current aural skills lab assignment with additional ear
training exercises. Additionally, I proposed and (after departmental
discussion) a standardized system for music notation/manuscript and created
a "Music Notation & Labeling" handout for use in all of our theory classes.
MUS 6
Steven Schmidt
MUS 8A
Steven Schmidt
Assessment Results: MUS 8A Introduction to MIDI and Digital Audio
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Demonstrate basic MIDI and Digital Audio editing techniques including recording
and arranging.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always demonstrated real-time MIDI recording correctly.
Students always demonstrated manual MIDI event entry correctly.
Excellent
65%
Students always demonstrated real-time audio recording correctly.
Students always demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had no difficulty manipulating regions.
Students often demonstrated real-time MIDI recording correctly.
Students often demonstrated manual MIDI event entry correctly.
Good
30%
Students often demonstrated real-time audio recording correctly.
Students often demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had little difficulty manipulating regions.
Students sometimes demonstrated real-time MIDI recording
correctly.
Students sometimes demonstrated manual MIDI event entry
correctly.
Fair
0%
Students sometimes demonstrated real-time audio recording
correctly.
Students sometimes demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had some difficulty manipulating regions.
Students rarely demonstrated real-time MIDI recording correctly.
Students rarely demonstrated manual MIDI event entry correctly.
Poor
0%
Students rarely demonstrated real-time audio recording correctly.
Students rarely demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had quite a bit of difficulty manipulating regions.
Students could not demonstrate real-time MIDI recording.
Students could not demonstrate manual MIDI event entry.
Unaccepta
5%
Students could not demonstrate real-time audio recording.
ble
Students could not demonstrate audio file importing.
Students could not manipulate regions.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Plan for MUS 8A
November 30, 2008
______________________________________________________________________________
Plan for Assessment
During the first class meeting, ask students to demonstrate knowledge of MIDI
sequencer syntax by completing a short questionnaire. At the end of the semester,
ask students to complete a new copy of the same questionnaire. At the conclusion
of the session, faculty involved in teaching MIDI/Digital Audio will meet to discuss
the results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students complete MIDI sequencer syntax questionnaire.
Week #16: Students complete MIDI sequencer syntax questionnaire.
Following Week #16: Faculty meet & discuss results.
Student Learning Outcome to be Assessed
Record, edit and perform music using digital audio recording, MIDI sequencing and
sampling software applications.
Sample assessment tool:
MIDI sequencer syntax questionnaire:
1. Define “PPQN”.
2. Define “BPM”.
3. Define “Multitimbral”.
4. Describe the process of “freezing” or “bouncing to disk”.
5. Define “Note On Velocity” and describe possible values.
6. Define “Pitch Bend” and describe possible values.
7. Describe the target of Controller #7 and possible values.
8. Describe the target of Controller #10 and possible values.
Assessment Results: MUS 8a Introduction to MIDI and Digital Audio
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
Explain basic MIDI concepts including bit data, general MIDI, patch changes,
sequencing, quantization and velocity.
Assessment Results
MUS 8a (SPRING 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
0%
55%
Good
9%
32%
Fair
9%
5%
Poor
45%
8%
Unacceptable
37%
0%
Qualifiers
 Students correctly explained all of the following:
Bit data, general MIDI, patch changes, sequencing, quantization and velocity.
 Students correctly explained most of the following:
Bit data, general MIDI, patch changes, sequencing, quantization and velocity.
 Students correctly explained some of the following:
Bit data, general MIDI, patch changes, sequencing, quantization and velocity.
 Students correctly explained one of the following:
Bit data, general MIDI, patch changes, sequencing, quantization and velocity.
 Students could not correctly explain any of the following:
Bit data, general MIDI, patch changes, sequencing, quantization and velocity.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 8a most students could not explain basic MIDI concepts
including bit data, general MIDI, patch changes, sequencing, quantization and
velocity. As expected, most students could successfully explain basic MIDI
concepts including bit data, general MIDI, patch changes, sequencing,
quantization and velocity by the end of the semester.
In the summer of 2009, Jenny Amaya and I discussed the results of this
assessment as well as advances in MIDI/Digital Audio technology. We agreed
that students were learning the skills described in the course outline but felt
that we need to expand the curriculum to include Pro Tools software and
hardware.
As a result of our discussions, we have updated our curriculum to include Pro
Tools, expanded the discussion of Digital Audio in MUS 8a and expanded the
discussion of MIDI in MUS 8b.
MUS 8B
Steven Schmidt
Assessment Results: MUS 8B Sequencing and Orchestration with Digital Audio
and MIDI
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
1. Assemble multi-track music compositions using a Digital Audio Workstation.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
Students always demonstrated real-time MIDI recording correctly.
Students always demonstrated manual MIDI event entry correctly.
Excellent
78%
Students always demonstrated real-time audio recording correctly.
Students always demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had no difficulty manipulating regions.
Good
17%
Students often demonstrated real-time MIDI recording correctly.
Students often demonstrated manual MIDI event entry correctly.
Students often demonstrated real-time audio recording correctly.
Students often demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had little difficulty manipulating regions.
Students sometimes demonstrated real-time MIDI recording
correctly.
Students sometimes demonstrated manual MIDI event entry
correctly.
Fair
5%
Students sometimes demonstrated real-time audio recording
correctly.
Students sometimes demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had some difficulty manipulating regions.
Students rarely demonstrated real-time MIDI recording correctly.
Students rarely demonstrated manual MIDI event entry correctly.
Poor
0%
Students rarely demonstrated real-time audio recording correctly.
Students rarely demonstrated audio file importing correctly.
Students had quite a bit of difficulty manipulating regions.
Students could not demonstrate real-time MIDI recording.
Students could not demonstrate manual MIDI event entry.
Unaccepta
0%
Students could not demonstrate real-time audio recording.
ble
Students could not demonstrate audio file importing.
Students could not manipulate regions.
Assessment Results: MUS 8b 45035 Sequencing & Orchestration with Digital
Audio & MIDI
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • June 12, 2011
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate advanced MIDI and Digital Audio editing concepts including region
trimming, cross fading, quantization and tempo matching.
Assessment Results
MUS 8b (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students correctly demonstrated all of the following:
Excellent
0%
92%
Region trimming, cross fading, quantization and tempo
matching.
Students correctly demonstrated most of the following:
Good
0%
0%
Region trimming, cross fading, quantization and tempo
matching.
Fair
32%
8%
Students correctly demonstrated some of the following:
Region trimming, cross fading, quantization and tempo
matching.
Students correctly demonstrated one of the following:
Poor
28%
0%
Region trimming, cross fading, quantization and tempo
matching.
Students could not correctly demonstrate any of the
Unaccepta
following:
40%
ble
0%
Region trimming, cross fading, quantization and tempo
matching.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 8b most students could not demonstrate advanced MIDI and
Digital Audio editing concepts including region trimming, cross fading, quantizing
and tempo matching. As expected, almost all students could demonstrate advanced
MIDI and Digital Audio editing concepts including region trimming, cross fading,
quantizing and tempo matching by the end of the semester.
Discussion
Most (if not all) students in MUS 8b achieved all course SLOs. Jenny Amaya agree
that the current structure of both MUS 8a and MUS 8b lead to a high level of
student success.
Recommendation: Critical Update Needed
12 of the 19 MIDI/Digital Audio workstations in our lab (MU101) are driven by
1.6gHz PowerMac G5 computers that are more than 7 years old. These outdated
computers are unable to boot the current version of our primary software platform the industry-standard Avid/Digidesign Pro Tools music editing software. In addition
to MIDI/Digital Audio instruction we offer Pro Tools industry certification. Computer
system upgrades are critical to the future of this course, our potential to offer
industry certification and the viability of the entire MIDI/Digital Audio program
(which also supports audio instruction for the Film/Television department.)
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Plan for MUS 8B: Sequencing and Orchestration with Digital Audio
and MIDI
November 30, 2008
______________________________________________________________________________
Plan for Assessment
During the first class meeting, ask students to demonstrate knowledge of Digital
Audio editing by successfully editing and tempo-matching an 8 beat musical phrase.
At the end of the semester, ask students to again edit and tempo-match an 8 beat
musical phrase. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching
MIDI/Digital Audio will meet to discuss the results and implement any changes
needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students complete Digital Audio editing assignment.
Week #16: Students complete Digital Audio editing assignment.
Following Week #16: Faculty meet & discuss results.
Student Learning Outcome to be Assessed
Record and edit digital audio (Samples.)
Sample assessment tool:
Digital Audio editing assignment (Given: Audio CD with one complete piece of
music):
1. Successfully transfer piece (“CD Audio File”) from CD to digital audio editing
application.
2. Extract exactly 8 beats of music and save it in the correct file format.
3. “Clean up” the 8 beat file (normalize and create quick fade in/fade out.)
4. Successfully transfer the 8 beat file into a MIDI/Digital Audio sequencer
application.
5. Match the tempo of the sequence to that of the 8 beat file.
Assessment Results: MUS 8b Sequencing and Orchestration with Digital Audio
and MIDI
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
Explain digital audio editing concepts including regions, trimming, fades and
tempo matching.
Assessment Results
MUS 8b (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
0%
58%
Good
0%
17%
Fair
0%
0%
Poor
33%
25%
Unacceptable
67%
0%
Qualifiers
 Students correctly explained all of the following:
Audio Regions, Trimming Regions, Audio Fades, Audio Tempo Matching.
 Students correctly explained most of the following:
Audio Regions, Trimming Regions, Audio Fades, Audio Tempo Matching.
 Students correctly explained some of the following:
Audio Regions, Trimming Regions, Audio Fades, Audio Tempo Matching.
 Students correctly explained one of the following:
Audio Regions, Trimming Regions, Audio Fades, Audio Tempo Matching.
 Students could not correctly explain any of the following:
Audio Regions, Trimming Regions, Audio Fades, Audio Tempo Matching.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 8b most students could not explain basic audio editing
concepts including audio regions, trimming regions, audio fades and audio
tempo matching. As expected, most students could explain basic audio
editing concepts including audio regions, trimming regions, audio fades and
audio tempo matching by the end of the semester.
In the winter of 2009, Jenny Amaya and I discussed the results of this
assessment as well as advances in MIDI/Digital Audio technology. We agreed
that students were learning the skills described in the course outline but felt
that we need to expand the curriculum to include Pro Tools software and
hardware.
As a result of our discussions, we have updated our curriculum to include Pro
Tools, expanded the discussion of Digital Audio in MUS 8a and expanded the
discussion of MIDI in MUS 8b.
MUS 9
Steven Schmidt
Assessment Results: MUS 9 45036 MIDI Composition and Film Scoring
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • June 12, 2011
SLO Assessed
Compose music for film using a Digital Audio Workstation.
Assessment Results
MUS 9 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students composed music for film that included all of the
following:
Excellent
0%
88%
Locked to frame; tempo mapped; appropriate
instrumentation, balance and ambience; clear intention
(underscore, narrative, subtext, foreshadow, etc.)
Good
12%
0%
Students composed music for film that included most of the
following:
Locked to frame; tempo mapped; appropriate
instrumentation, balance and ambience; clear intention
(underscore, narrative, subtext, foreshadow, etc.)
Students composed music for film that included some of the
following:
Fair
38%
12%
Locked to frame; tempo mapped; appropriate
instrumentation, balance and ambience; clear intention
(underscore, narrative, subtext, foreshadow, etc.)
Students composed music for film that included one or two
of the following:
Poor
50%
0%
Locked to frame; tempo mapped; appropriate
instrumentation, balance and ambience; clear intention
(underscore, narrative, subtext, foreshadow, etc.)
Students could not compose music for film.
Unaccepta
0%
ble
0%
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 9 most students could complete all the tasks necessary to
compose music for film. As expected, most students could successfully compose
music for film using a digital audio workstation by the end of the semester. Even
though there were some aspects of the structure of the course that were less
successful than I would have liked, overall success was high.
Discussion
At the conclusion of the Fall 2010 semester, Jenny Amaya and I discussed both the
technical successes and creative shortcomings of our students. We agreed that, in
order to improve the quality of compositions for film, students needed more
opportunities to analyze and discuss film scores. However, I found that, after
implementing more analysis and discussion activities in Spring 2011, students were
less motivated to complete assignments. In the future the course will again be more
project-based with activities that restrict students to real-world composition
scenarios and allow discussions to evolve from there.
Recommendation: Critical Update Needed
12 of the 19 MIDI/Digital Audio workstations in our lab (MU101) are driven by
1.6gHz PowerMac G5 computers that are more than 7 years old. These outdated
computers are unable to boot the current version of our primary software platform the industry-standard Avid/Digidesign Pro Tools music editing software. In addition
to MIDI/Digital Audio instruction we offer Pro Tools industry certification. Computer
system upgrades are critical to the future of this course, our potential to offer
industry certification and the viability of the entire MIDI/Digital Audio program
(which also supports audio instruction for the Film/Television department.)
_____________________________________________________________
Assessment Plan for MUS 9: MIDI Composition and Film Scoring
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first class meeting, ask students to demonstrate knowledge of film
scoring by successfully tempo-mapping and creating a MIDI score for a video cue.
At the end of the semester, ask students to again tempo-map and create a MIDI
score for a video cue. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching
MIDI/Digital Audio will meet to discuss the results and implement any changes
needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students complete video tempo-mapping/MIDI scoring assignment.
Week #16: Students complete video tempo-mapping/MIDI scoring assignment.
Following Week #16: Faculty meet & discuss results.
Student Learning Outcome to be Assessed
Score sophisticated music for film cues.
Sample assessment tool:
Video tempo-mapping/MIDI scoring (Given: Video cue in QuickTime format):
1. Successfully import video cue into MIDI/Digital Audio sequencer application.
2. Generate markers at “cues”, “edits” and “hits”.
3. Successfully map tempos so that downbeats occur on markers.
4. Add a MIDI score appropriate to the scene.
5. Be able to rationalize/defend musical choices and describe connections to visual
elements/narrative.
Assessment Results: MUS 9 MIDI Composition and Film Scoring
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
Add sound effects to live-action and animated films using a digital audio
workstation.
Assessment Results
MUS 9 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students correctly completed all of the following:
Excellent
0%
88%
Imported Audio Samples, Renamed Audio Samples, Inserted Markers, Renamed
Markers, Locked Markers to Frame and Spotted Audio Regions to Markers.
 Students correctly completed most of the following:
Good
0%
0%
Imported Audio Samples, Renamed Audio Samples, Inserted Markers, Renamed
Markers, Locked Markers to Frame and Spotted Audio Regions to Markers.
 Students correctly completed some of the following:
Fair
50%
12%
Imported Audio Samples, Renamed Audio Samples, Inserted Markers, Renamed
Markers, Locked Markers to Frame and Spotted Audio Regions to Markers.
 Students correctly completed one of the following:
Poor
25%
0%
Imported Audio Samples, Renamed Audio Samples, Inserted Markers, Renamed
Markers, Locked Markers to Frame and Spotted Audio Regions to Markers.
Unacceptable
25%
0%
 Students could not complete any of the following:
Imported Audio Samples, Renamed Audio Samples, Inserted Markers, Renamed
Markers, Locked Markers to Frame and Spotted Audio Regions to Markers.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 9 most students could not add sound effects to liveaction and animated films using a digital audio workstation. As expected,
most students could add sound effects to live-action and animated films
using a digital audio workstation by the end of the semester.
In the winter of 2009, Jenny Amaya and I discussed the results of this
assessment as well as advances in MIDI/Digital Audio technology. We agreed
that students were learning the skills described in the course outline but felt
that we need to expand the curriculum to include Pro Tools software and
hardware.
As a result of our discussions, we have updated our curriculum to include Pro
Tools.
MUS 12
Jasminka Knecht
Assessment Results: MUS 12 Advanced Applied Piano
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Analyze and critique music concerts.
Assessment Results
# of
Rating
Qualifiers
students
Excellent
2
Students analyzed and critiqued 6 hours of concerts
Good
0
Students analyzed and critiqued 5 hours of concerts
Fair
0
Students analyzed and critiqued 4 hours of concerts
Poor
0
Students analyzed and critiqued 3 hours of concerts
Unacceptable
2
Students analyzed and critiqued 2 or less hours of concerts
Evaluation
On June 15, 2011, Judy Johansen, Dr. Jeanette Wong, Sylvia Ho, Joel Paat, Kim Amin
and I discussed the results of this assessment. We agreed that many students are
not completing the SLO above. Instructors are aware that some of their students
are attending concerts but they are not submitting reports.
As a result, the
instructors will discuss this requirement with their students and how to submit
concert reports and enforce that policy.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Plan
MUS 12
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the auditions, ask students to demonstrate playing:
• scales/modes, arpeggios, and/or etudes
• repertoire
• sight reading
At the end of the semester (during Jury Exam), ask students to demonstrate playing:
• scales/modes, arpeggios, and/or etudes
• repertoire
• sight reading
Following the Jury Exam, faculty involved in teaching MUS 12 course will meet to discuss the results
and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
Perform advanced piano repertoire of increasing complexity and interpretative sophistication from
memory in front of a faculty jury.
Play major and harmonic minor scales, hand together, four octaves, at a speed appropriate for an
audition or transfer examination at a four-year college or university.
Dates
Week 1: Auditions
Week 16: Jury Exam
Week 16 (following the Jury Exam): Faculty meet and discuss the results.
Assessment Results: MUS 12 Advanced Applied Piano
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • April 15, 2010
SLO Assessed
Perform advanced piano repertoire of increasing complexity and interpretative
sophistication from memory in front of a faculty jury.
Play major and harmonic minor scales, hand together, four octaves, at a speed
appropriate for an audition or transfer examination at a four-year college or
university.
Assessment Results
MUS 12 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to perform advanced piano repertoire of increasing
complexity and interpretative sophistication from memory.
Excellent
0%
100%
Students were always able to play major and harmonic minor scales, hand together,
four octaves, at a speed appropriate for an audition or transfer examination at a fouryear college or university
Students were usually able to perform advanced piano repertoire of increasing
complexity and interpretative sophistication from memory.
Good
100%
0%
Students were usually able to play major and harmonic minor scales, hand together,
four octaves, at a speed appropriate for an audition or transfer examination at a fouryear college or university
Students were sometimes able to perform advanced piano repertoire of increasing
complexity and interpretative sophistication from memory.
Fair
0%
0%
Students were sometimes able to play major and harmonic minor scales, hand
together, four octaves, at a speed appropriate for an audition or transfer examination
at a four-year college or university
Students were occasionally able to perform advanced piano repertoire of increasing
complexity and interpretative sophistication from memory.
Poor
0%
0%
Students were occasionally able to play major and harmonic minor scales, hand
together, four octaves, at a speed appropriate for an audition or transfer examination
at a four-year college or university
Students were never able to perform advanced piano repertoire of increasing
complexity and interpretative sophistication from memory.
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students were never able to play major and harmonic minor scales, hand together,
four octaves, at a speed appropriate for an audition or transfer examination at a fouryear college or university
Evaluation
We only had one student enrolled in this class and in his audition he performed
some advanced piano repertoire by memory. He also played major and harmonic
minor scales, hand together, four octaves, but the speed was not appropriate for a
music major who is preparing for transfer to a four-year university.
On December 14, 2009, Judy Johansen, Dr. Jeanette Wong, Sylvia Ho, Joel Paat, Kim
Amin and I discussed the results of this assessment. We agreed that student
showed improvement and completed the SLOs above. As a result, we will continue
to have high expectations and broaden his repertoire and technique.
MUS 19
I-Ching Tsai
Assessment Results: MUS 19 Music Appreciation
Compiled by I-Ching Tsai • December 15, 2011
SLO ASSESSED:
VI. Attend an approved concert of live music and critique it using appropriate
terminology.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS:
No. of students
Rating
Grading Rubric
(total:79)
Students fulfilled all the requirements of the
following assignment:
Excellent
65
Attend an approved concert of live music and
critique it using appropriate terminology.
Students fulfilled most of the requirements of
the following assignment:
Good
0
Attend an approved concert of live music and
critique it using appropriate terminology.
Students fulfilled some of the requirements of
the following assignment:
Fair
5
Attend an approved concert of live music and
critique it using appropriate terminology.
Students fulfilled very few of the requirements
of the following assignment:
Poor
0
Attend an approved concert of live music and
critique it using appropriate terminology.
Students fulfilled none of the requirements of
the following assignment:
Unacceptable
9
Attend an approved concert of live music and
critique it using appropriate terminology.
EVALUATION:
Dr. Peter Curtis and I discussed the results of this assessment. This Assessment
report shows that students are able to reach the achievement levels desired by the
music faculty with careful monitoring online and very specific guidance throughout
the class by qualified music faculty.
Assessment Results: MUS 19 Music Appreciation
by Dr. Carolyn L. Quin • April 13, 2010
Consultation with colleagues: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Discussion with I-Ching Tsai, Peter Curtis, and Carolyn Quin
This assessment report covers Lessons 4, 5, and 6 of the Spring 2010 MUS 19
online class in Music Appreciation that is part of the CAP Learning Community and
is paired with English 1A taught by Ms. Kristine Anderson. This is the second time
this all-online learning community has been offered through the CAP program, and
the instructors have made many improvements to the classes to align them
regarding skills in writing and in content. This group of students is unusually
homogenous because they had to qualify for ENG 1A in order to participate in this
learning community. This class is not typical of most online MUS 19 classes. The
span of time for these three lessons and for the assessment survey of students is
from March 12, 2010, until April 12, 2010.
This instructor did not do a pre-test because, at the time the class started, she
was not aware of the need for an assessment of this class specifically. However,
because of the results of the assessment exam, a post-test will be given at the end
of the term on June 9, 2010, to measure listening skills using audio files created
especially for the purpose of following up on this assessment exam. A supplement
to this report will be submitted at that time.
This instructor was able to evaluate to some extent seven of the nine
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) from the official Course Outline of Record (COR)
and to apply those SLOs to two specific style periods in Western musical history,
specifically the Baroque era and Classical eras. Students in MUS 19 across the
District share a common textbook and listening materials, a significant aspect of the
cooperation that exists among music faculty within RCCD.
Student Learning Outcomes for this class are agreed upon by music faculty
across the three-college system through the music discipline. All sections use a
common COR with individual instructors developing unique syllabi explaining
procedures for specific classes. MUS 19 is taught in face-to-face sections and in
100% online sections by faculty on all three college campuses. This assessment is
designed to meet the needs of the Riverside City College Assessment Program and
is structured according to its guidelines and procedures as developed by the RCC
music faculty and coordinated by the RCC Assessment Coordinator, Dr. Susan Mills.
Measures of the SLOs were done using short answer questions and a short
writing from students. The tool was a voluntary Assessment Exam posted online for
the purpose of preparing this report. Students earned 20 extra credit points for their
participation. Of the 23 students enrolled on April 12, 15 students participated, or
65%. Results for each SLO are based on responses from participating students only.
For SLO # 3, results from a required Style Quiz that is part of this class were used to
verify “aural identification” from audio tracks (17 students participated).
The results of the measures of the SLO’s are given below.
MUS 19: Student Learning Outcomes (updated Fall 2009). Upon completion of
this course, students should be able to
1
Recognize musical styles from the major periods in Western musical history;
Assessment Method
Results
a. Students were asked if they could
a. 53%, 8 out of 15 students, reported that they
could “distinguish” the selections.
“distinguish” the aria from Dido and
Aeneas by Purcell from the Baroque
period and from the aria they listened to
from The Marriage of Figaro by Mozart.
b. Students were asked if they could
“distinguish” the recitative section from
40%, 6 out of 15, reported that they could not
distinguish these selections.
7%, one student, did not respond.
b. 53%, 8 out of 15, reported that they could
“distinguish” the recitative from the aria.
47%, 7 out of 15, reported that they could not.
2
the aria in “The Marriage of Figaro.”
c. 60%, 9 out of 15, can distinguish the piano
concerto from the opera.
c. Students were asked if they could
“distinguish” Mozart’s piano concerto
from his opera, “The Marriage of
Figaro.”
40% cannot distinguish between them.
Describe formal structures used in music of the Western European tradition;
Assessment Method
Results
Students were asked to describe the
sections of sonata-allegro form.
80 %, 12 out of 15, recognized names of the
three sections, exposition, development, and
recapitulation.
20%, 3 out of 15, responded incorrectly
3
Identify aurally musical themes and compositions from the great works of the Western
tradition
Assessment Method
17 Students took an online Style Quiz
covering the Middle Ages, Renaissance,
Baroque and Classical periods and
submitted the results as a requirement
for this class. (Reference Norton Online
Listening Lab, Style Quiz 1, see
attached)
Results (out of 17 students responding)
30%, 5 of 17 students responded with a perfect
score of 75/75.
30%, 5 of 17, earned a grade of A with a less
than a perfect score.
24%, 4 of 17, earned a grade of B.
12%, 2 of 17, earned a grade of C.
6%, 1 of 17, took the Style Quiz and earned an
F.
4 students did not submit the required Style
Quiz.
2 students (relatives) will be submitting late
because they were confused.
4
Listen to and discuss various styles of music;
Assessment Method
Results
a. Students were asked if they had a. 100%, 15 out of 15, responded that they had
listened to the first movement of a listened to the piano concerto.
Mozart piano concerto that was required
for this class.
b. 93%, 14 out of 15, responded that they had
b. Students were asked if they had listened to the opera selection. 7%, one
listened to the opera selection from student, did not listen.
Mozart’s “The Marriage of Figaro.”
5
Evaluate [how] historical events [movements] that influenced [elements of] musical
development, in Western culture;
Assessment Method
Results
This SLO has not been evaluated during
this term because of an emphasis on
listening to music and defining terms
used to write about music.
Unable to evaluate this SLO: The three
Riverside faculty members who discussed this
SLO have agreed that historical movements,
such as the following should be included:
[RCC faculty edited this SLO
informally to more accurately reflect the
intent.]
1. Beethoven and the French Revolution
2. The Enlightenment and the Classical Period
3. World War I and the 20th century
6
Compare the music of various style periods;
Assessment Method
Results
Similar to SLO # 1, this SLO asks for a
comparison. Students were asked to
compare the Baroque period opera
example and the Classical period opera
example
53% of students were able to compare the two
periods through the use of opera as an example
of the music of the two periods.
40% reported that they were not able to
compare the two style periods without further
study.
7
Describe music from listening utilizing musical terminology;
Assessment Method
Results
Students were asked to describe music
from the Baroque or the Classical period 53% of students were able to complete a
description of the music based on their
from the perspective of timbre.
accurate
understanding
of
musical
terminology, specifically timbre.
33% of students, 5 of 15, did not demonstrate
that they knew what timbre was.
13%, two students, did not respond
8
Attend an approved concert of live music and critique it using terminology learned
throughout the semester; and
Assessment Method
Results
Students in all sections of MUS 19 are
required to write two concert reports
during the term of their class.
9
Unable to access this SLO because there is no
rubric for evaluating the concert reports. The
RCC faculty who discussed this assessment
questioned the validity of this requirement as
an SLO. Their initial reaction is that this is a
method of instruction and evaluation, but not a
measurable outcome since all that is really
required is “attendance” and a written “report.”
Describe the basic elements of music (melody, rhythm, harmony, etc.) and apply them to
music of all styles.
Assessment Method
Similar to SLO # 7—students were
asked to define
chamber music
Allegro
Results
85% of students got those two questions
correct.
chamber music –67% correct
Allegro—73% correct
form
rhythm
melody
form—87% correct
rhythm—60% correct
melody—80% correct
Unable to assess the ability to “Apply”
these terms to music of all styles at this
Recommendation: create audio files for the
post-test to assess recognition of these terms
time.
when listening to music.
SUMMARY, CHALLENGES, AND TOPICS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION:
Challenges: MUS 19 presents challenges, especially in the development of listening
skills, that must be reviewed and discussed regularly. Online students must read
lecture materials and follow interactive listening guides or written listening guides on
their own. The continuing challenge in the online sections (and in face-to-face
sections) is to determine the quality of the listening experiences and to accurately
measure the musical perceptions that students are able to develop on their own
from listening without aural interaction with the instructor. Technology continues to
offer improvements from semester to semester in access to listening for students.
Listening Resources: Extensive use of the Norton Online Listening Lab (Norton
OLL) has resulted in improved listening experiences as reported by the students in
the Spring 2010 class. The required Style Quiz 1 and Style Quiz 2 contain audio
tracks and questions that change each time a student accesses the Quiz. (See SLO #
3 above) Students have Listening Identification Quizzes, the Style Quizzes, and
concept Quizzes available for individual pieces that are studied in this class and for
major style periods by genre, such as Romantic Opera.
Distinguishing between Selections: This Assessment Report demonstrates that
students are listening to the examples, but they do not respond positively when
asked if they can “distinguish” one listening example from another. The post-test will
attempt to test those listening skill using audio files instead of student perceptions
of their capabilities.
Rubric for Concert Reports: The RCC faculty who discussed this Assessment,
determined that a rubric with specific guidelines for content within the Concert
Reports should be developed. The possibility of a single concert experience for each
class, as a common experience for that class, should be considered in future
planning to further strengthen the concert experience. SLO # 8 should be eliminated
or clarified so that it can be assessed.
Historic Movements: Other improvements discussed by faculty include agreeing on
specific historical events or movements related to the development of music that
students in this class should be able to evaluate. SLO # 5 should be edited for
clarity.
Aesthetic Judgment and the Role of the Performer: Finally, the RCC faculty
discussed the lack of an SLO that asked students to demonstrate an understanding
of aesthetic differences. One way to accomplish this critical element in listening to
music might be to evaluate performances from several recordings of the same
selection for the purpose of helping students make good judgments when they are
purchasing music downloads and otherwise selecting music for their personal
collections. The role of the performer in the interpretation of music was also
discussed as a potential direction for the content of this course for the future.
MUS 20
Peter Curtis
Assessment Plan: MUS 20 Great Composers and Masterpieces of Music to 1820
by Peter Curtis • November 30, 2008
On the first day of class we will give students a quiz that assesses:

A. their ability to recognize and name great composers and their works in
the European classical tradition up to 1820.

B. their ability to identify great composers and their works aurally
according to historical style periods in music.

C. their ability to distinguish historical style periods in music by listening to
music of great composers.
On the final exam students will be asked questions that assess their knowledge of
the same areas. At the end of the semester, two or more faculty members who
teach music history courses will meet to assess the results of the first quiz and the
final exam.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
A. Recognize and name great composers and their works in the European classical
tradition up to 1820.
B. Discuss the contributions of these great composers to the history of music.
C. Identify great composers and their works aurally according to historical style
periods in music.
D. Distinguish historical style periods in music by listening to music of great
composers.
E. Compare and contrast the Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, and Classic periods in
music history.
Dates:
Week 1: Students take the assessment quiz
Week 16: Students take the final exam
Following week 16 faculty members will meet and discuss the results of the
assessment and the final, and examine what changes, if any, should be made.
MUS 21
Peter Curtis
Assessment Plan: MUS 21 Great Composers and Masterpieces of Music After
1820
by Peter Curtis • November 30, 2008
On the first day of class we will provide a quiz that asks students to demonstrate:

A. the ability to recognize and name great composers and their works in
the European classical tradition after 1820.

B. the ability to identify great composers and their works aurally according
to historical style periods in music.

C. the ability to distinguish historical style periods in music by listening to
music of great composers.

D. the ability to compare and contrast music of the 19th, 20th and 21st
centuries.
On the final exam students will demonstrate:

A. the ability to recognize and name great composers and their works in
the European classical tradition after 1820.

B. the ability to discuss the contributions of these great composers to the
history of music.

C. the ability to identify great composers and their works aurally according
to historical style periods in music.

D. the ability to distinguish historical style periods in music by listening to
music of great composers.

E. the ability to compare and contrast music of the 19th, 20th and 21st
centuries.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
A. Recognize and name great composers and their works in the European classical
tradition since 1820.
B. Discuss the contributions of these great composers to the history of music.
C. Identify great composers and their works aurally according to historical style
periods in music.
D. Distinguish historical style periods in music by listening to music of great
composers.
E. Compare and contrast music of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.
Dates:
Week one: Faculty will provide the incoming students with the assessment quiz.
Week sixteen: Faculty will give students the final exam.
After week sixteen: Faculty will meet to discuss the results and assess what changes,
if any, should be made
MUS 22
Steven Schmidt
Assessment Results: MUS 22 42703 Survey of Music Literature
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • June 12, 2011
SLO Assessed
Recognize musical styles in Western music through listening and score study.
Assessment Results
Post-test
Rating
Pre-test
MUS 22 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Qualifiers
 When listening to music compositions or viewing musical scores, students always
Excellent
4%
27%
recognized a composition’s musical style and could correctly place it in one Western
European music’s major historical periods.
 When listening to music compositions or viewing musical scores, students often
Good
34%
35%
recognized a composition’s musical style and could correctly place it in one Western
European music’s major historical periods most of the time.
 When listening to music compositions or viewing musical scores, students sometimes
Fair
19%
27%
recognized a composition’s musical style and could correctly place it in one Western
European music’s major historical periods some of the time.
 When listening to music compositions or viewing musical scores, students rarely
Poor
35%
11%
recognized a composition’s musical style and could not correctly place it in one
Western European music’s major historical periods most of the time.
Unacceptable
8%
0%
 When listening to music compositions or viewing musical scores, students could not
recognize a composition’s musical style and could not correctly place it in one Western
European music’s major historical periods.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 22 some students could recognize a Western European
composition’s musical style and could correctly place it in one Western
European music’s major historical periods most of the time, but many could
not. As expected, by the end of the semester, most students could recognize
a Western European composition’s musical style and could correctly place it in
one Western European music’s major historical periods most, if not all of the
time.
Discussion
At the conclusion of the semester, Dr. Liu and I discussed the results of this
assessment and noted that improvements could be made to the assessment
tool. Changes such as including a larger number of examples that contain
more subtle differences between examples would yield more accurate and
detailed results.
We also noted that more cumulative score and listing identification testing (as
opposed to era-by-era testing) would improve student success in this area.
Assessment Plan: MUS 22 Survey of Music Literature
by Steven Schmidt • November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first class meeting, ask students to demonstrate knowledge of the major
historical periods of Western European music by completing a short listening
identification survey. At the end of the semester, ask students to complete the
same survey. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching music
history will meet to discuss the results and implement any changes needed to
improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students complete listening identification survey.
Week #16: Students complete listening identification survey.
Following Week #16: Faculty meet & discuss results.
Student Learning Outcome to be Assessed
Recognize styles of the major historical periods in Western European music through
listening.
Sample assessment tool:
Listening identification survey:
Play 15 short (30”) excerpts from Western European music compositions of the
Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and 20th Century eras. Have
students identify the following:
1. Most likely era
2. Most likely instrumentation
3. Most likely country of origin
4. Possible composer
Assessment Results: MUS 22 Survey of Music Literature
Compiled by Steven Schmidt • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
Recognize musical styles from the major historical periods in Western European
music through listening.
Assessment Results
Post-test
Rating
Pre-test
MUS 22 (SPRING 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Qualifiers
 When listening to music compositions, students always recognized a composition’s
Excellent
0%
22%
musical style and could correctly place it in one Western European music’s major
historical periods.
 When listening to music compositions, students often recognized a composition’s musical style
Good
4%
33%
and could correctly place it in one Western European music’s major historical periods most of the
time.
 When listening to music compositions, students sometimes recognized a composition’s musical
Fair
33%
28%
style and could correctly place it in one Western European music’s major historical periods some of
the time.
 When listening to music compositions, students rarely recognized a composition’s musical style
Poor
44%
17%
and could not correctly place it in one Western European music’s major historical periods most
of the time.
 When listening to music compositions, students could not recognize a composition’s
Unacceptable
19%
0%
musical style and could not correctly place it in one Western European music’s major
historical periods.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 22 most students could not recognize a Western European
composition’s musical style and could not correctly place it in one Western
European music’s major historical periods. As expected, by the end of the semester,
most students could recognize a Western European composition’s musical style and
could correctly place it in one Western European music’s major historical periods.
On April 6, 2010, Dr. Liu and I discussed the results of this assessment as well as the
impact of current teaching strategies and textbook choices on other course SLOs.
We agreed that finding the ideal balance of listening, score study and written work
would improve student success. We touched upon homework grading methods,
listening activities and textbook options and discussed what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, we will continue to research textbook/listening
materials, teaching methods and equivalent courses at other institutions in
preparation for the next offering of MUS 22 (Spring 2011.)
MUS 25
Charles Richard
Assessment Results: MUS 25: Jazz Appreciation
Compiled by Charles Richard  December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#2 Identify elements of jazz, such as improvisation, swing feel, interpretation, 2
feel, 4 feel, vocalistic affectations by instrumentalists, elements of the blues.
on 12/15/11
Question on exam: Match the blues with its characteristics for the City Blues and
Country Blues, 37 responses. After discussion with faculty members Charlie Richard
and Jasminka Knecht it was agreed that the results were excellent, though
assessment will be an ongoing process and we’ll strive to have 100% of the students
receive an excellent rating.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify elements of jazz, such
Excellent
% of
Students
86
as improvisation, swing feel, interpretation, 2 feel, 4 feel, vocalistic
affectations by instrumentalists, elements of the blues.
13
Students were able to identify elements of jazz, such as
Good
improvisation, swing feel, interpretation, 2 feel, 4 feel, vocalistic
affectations by instrumentalists, elements of the blues.
Students were only occasionally able to identify elements of jazz,
Fair
0
such as improvisation, swing feel, interpretation, 2 feel, 4 feel,
vocalistic affectations by instrumentalists, elements of the blues.
Students were seldom able to identify elements of jazz, such as
Poor
0
improvisation, swing feel, interpretation, 2 feel, 4 feel, vocalistic
affectations by instrumentalists, elements of the blues.
Unacceptable
No response, task not attempted
0
Assessment Results: MUS 25: Jazz Appreciation
Compiled by Charles Richard  June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#1 Understand key elements of music, including rhythm,
harmony, instrumentation and form.
Question on exam: What was the standard instrumentation of the big bands? 27
responses. After discussion with faculty members Charlie Richard and Jasminka
Knecht, it was agreed that the results were excellent, perhaps introducing the
elements of music earlier in the class would be more effective. Assessment will be an
ongoing process and we’ll strive to have 100% of the students receive an excellent
rating.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
77
Excellent
Students were consistently able to understand key elements of
music
18
Good
Fair
Students were able to understand key elements of music
Students were only occasionally able to understand key elements
0
of music
Poor
Students were seldom able to understand key elements of music
0
Unacceptable
No response, task not attempted
3
Assessment Plan: MUS 25 Jazz Appreciation
by Charles Richard • November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
Give a pretest at the beginning of a session to Jazz Appreciation classes. The pretest
will contain questions used in exams and quizzes. Those answers will be compared
to student answers found in the session’s exams and quizzes. All of the questions
will be identified with the SLOs they address. At the conclusion of the session,
faculty involved in teaching the courses will then meet to discuss the results and
implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
First week, pretest will be given
Last week, Final Exams
After exams are graded, faculty will meet to discuss results and a plan for
improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz
Recognize key figures and recordings in Jazz aurally
Analyze and identify different styles of jazz
Identify elements of jazz
Question:
Supply the title and artist to the following song.
Starts with a non-jazzy sounding introduction with piano and bass. Then the song
begins at a moderate tempo, with the bass playing the melody. The piano answers
at first and then the horns do, always a two note answer. The first solo is a long and
soulful trumpet solo. The next solo is a busier one and by the tenor saxophone. The
next solo is by the alto saxophone. Next the horns play the two note motive while
the piano slowly warms up into a solo. The melody returns, again played by the bass
with a two note answer by the horns.
(SLOs: Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz
Recognize key figures and recordings in Jazz aurally)
Question:
Who recorded the single most critically acclaimed album in jazz and what was the
title?
(SLOs: Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz)
Question:
Match the following.
Column preview
Miles Davis 1st Great Quintet
Miles Davis 2nd Great Quintet

M. Davis, John Coltrane, Wynton Kelly, Paul Chambers & Jimmy Cobb,
sometimes with the addition of Cannonball Adderley.

b. Free form pianist, hard luck career, literally damages pianos during
performance

Miles Davis 3rd Great Quintet

c. M. Davis, Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Tony Williams & Ron Carter

Gunther Schuller

d. Miles Davis, Bill Evans, Marcus Miller, Mike Stearn, Al Foster

Cecil Taylor

Third Stream Jazz composer, noted jazz historian and author
(SLOs: Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz)
Question:
Essay answer in your own words of 150 or more. How was Bop music an ending of
Jazz as a Popular music?
(SLOs: Analyze and identify different styles of jazz)
Assessment Results: MUS 25: Jazz Appreciation
Compiled by Charles Richard  April 15, 2010
SLO Assessed: Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz
Assessment Results
MUS 25 (Spring 2010): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
test
test
Excellent
14%
76%
Good
0%
12%
Fair
10%
0%
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to Identify key figures and recordings in
Jazz
Students were consistently able to Identify key figures and recordings in
Jazz
Students were able to Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz
Poor
45%
0%
Students were seldom able to Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz
Unacceptable
31%
12%
Students were not able to Identify key figures and recordings in Jazz
SLO Assessed: Recognize key figures and recordings in Jazz aurally
Assessment Results
MUS 25 (Spring 2010): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
test
test
Excellent
0%
33%
Good
29%
14%
Fair
0%
52%
Poor
13%
0%
Unacceptable
58%
0%
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to Recognize key figures and recordings in
Jazz aurally
Students were frequently able to Recognize key figures and recordings in
Jazz aurally
Students were occasionally able to Recognize key figures and recordings in
Jazz aurally
Students were seldom able to Recognize key figures and recordings in Jazz
aurally
Left the question blank
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 25 most students could not identify key figures and recordings
in jazz or recognize key figures or recordings in jazz aurally. By the completion of
the course all students improved substantially and most students were able to do
excellent or good.
On April 15, 2010 Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this assessment
and the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We
agreed that while the majority of students were succeeding there was room for
students to improve. Many of the students who received “poor” or “unacceptable”
ratings in the post-test did not finish all the assignments and/or assessments. As a
result of our discussions, we have concluded that students will be given more
reminders of the importance of completing their assignments for their preparation
for exams.
MUS 26
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 26 Film Music Appreciation
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Understand the timeline of cinema from 1927 to the present and relate film
music to the trends of cultural popularity of the times.
Assessment Results
MUS 26 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were able to understand the timeline of cinema in great detail using
Excellent
2%
48%
specific examples
Students were able to understand the timeline of cinema in some detail using
Good
18%
23%
specific examples
Students were able to understand the timeline of cinema in some detail but were
Fair
9%
22%
unable to give examples
Students were able to understand the timeline of cinema but could not give
Poor
31%
7%
examples
Unacceptable
40%
0%
Students were not able discuss the functions of film music at all
A pre – test was given in the first week of the term. The same exact test was given
as a study guide to the final exam.
Evaluation
Since MUS 26 requires no pre requisite, some students have limited knowledge of
the specific vocabulary used in the film music industry. The term and concept of the
functions of film music was new to most of the class. This evaluation proved that as
well and showed the improvement throughout the term.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were not able to understand the timeline of cinema.
After the term, all the students were able to understand the timeline of cinema and
most could discuss it using examples .
We discussed different activities that might
be added/changed to the course to improve student success even more.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time throughout the
class discussing the timeline of cinema.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 26 Film Music Appreciation
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Describe the functions of Film Music and the ways that music is used to enhance a film's
impact.
Assessment Results
MUS 26 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were able discuss the functions of film music in great detail using specific
Excellent
5%
56%
examples
Students were able discuss the functions of film music in some detail using specific
Good
24%
18%
examples
Students were able discuss the functions of film music in some detail but were unable
Fair
12%
15%
to give examples
Students were able discuss the idea of the functions of film music but could not give
Poor
17%
11%
Unacceptable
42%
0%
examples
Students were not able discuss the functions of film music at all
A pre – test was given in the first week of the term. The same exact test was given
as a study guide to the final exam.
Evaluation
Since MUS 26 requires no pre requisite, some students have limited
knowledge of the specific vocabulary used in the film music industry. The
term and concept of the functions of film music was new to most of the class.
This evaluation proved that as well and showed the improvement throughout
the term.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were aware of the concept of the “functions”
of film music but were not familiar with the vocabulary . After the term, all
the students were able to identify the concepts of the functions of film music
and most could discuss it using examples .
We discussed different activities
that might be added/changed to the course to improve student success even
more.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time throughout
the class discussing the different functions.
Assessment Plan: MUS 26 Film Music Appreciation
By Donald T. Foster • December 8, 2008
Plan for Assessment
A pretest will be given at the beginning of each term/course taught for Film Music
Appreciation. The pretest will contain questions used in the Midterm and Final, as
well as the check-up quizzes given throughout the semester. Students’ responses to
this pretest will be kept. Questions on the pretest will model specific Student
Learning Outcomes that are addressed in the Course Outline of Record. During the
semester, as the questions arise on a future exam, responses will be compared to
the original pretest. Relevant faculty for MUS26 will meet to discuss the results and
implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Sample Assessment Dates
Winter 09 (6-week online class)
Week 1 (January 3rd-January 9th): pretest given to all MUS 26 students
Week 6 (February 13th-February 15th): Final Exam is given
February 18th: Music Discipline Meeting (Faculty to meet and analyze results)
Spring 09 (16-week face-to-face class)
Week 1 (February 17th-February 24th): pretest given to all MUS 26 students
Week 8 (April 6th-April 11th): Midterm Examination is given (may contain pretest
questions)
Week 16 (June 4th-June 10th): Final Exam is given (will contain pretest questions)
June 16th: Music Discipline Meeting (Faculty to meet and analyze results)
Student Learning Outcomes
The following SLOs will be assessed in this pretest/posttest exercise:

Describe the functions of film music and the way that music is used to
enhance a film's impact.

Understand the timeline of cinema from 1927 to the present and relate
film music to the trends of cultural popularity of the times.

Discuss the impact of film music on a film by viewing recognized cinematic
masterpieces.

Compare and contrast film music styles with other styles of music.

Identify recognized "great composers" of film music and their distinctive
styles.

Identify basic operational aspects and terms associated with the film
industry.
Sample Questions

Essay question: List five (5) of the twelve (12) “Functions of Film Music”
and either give a specific example from a film that employs this technique,
or come up with a scenario that might be used to show this technique.
o SLOs assessed (#1, #3)


Essay question: Discuss the pros and the cons of the controversial film
The Birth of a Nation. Why would some consider it a landmark
achievement, while others decry it as exploitive, racist, and inaccurate?
o SLOs assessed (#1, #2, #3, #6)


Definitions of terms (multiple choice): ADR, click track, copyist,
orchestrator, outs, window code, MIDI, contractor, cue sheets, answer print,
doubling, cartage, dubbing, foley art, director, producer, supervisor,
composer
o SLOs assessed (#2, #6)


Composer/Film Identification: Identify both the composer and the title
of a film via multiple choice, when shown a 1-minute clip. Examples of
clips to be shown: Bride of Frankenstein, Ben-Hur, Gone With the Wind,
Casablanca, To Kill a Mockingbird, Jurassic Park, The Shawshank
Redemption, Rocky, Rudy, Titanic, The Godfather, E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial,
The Lord of the Rings
o SLOs assessed (#2, #3, #4, #5)


Film Music Function Analysis: Identify the Functions of Film Music, via
multiple choice, when shown key clips from key films. Film clips will
show, for example, music “Reflecting Emotion” (Schindler’s List), “Reflecting
Comedy” (Airplane!), “Slowing Down a Scene That is Going Fast” (Edward
Scissorhands), “Mirroring a Time and Place” (Elizabeth), and “Providing
Tension” (Jaws)
o SLOs assessed (#1, #3, #6)
Assessment Results: MUS 26 Film Music Appreciation
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Identify recognized "great composers" of Film Music and their distinctive styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 26 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were able to identify all twenty "great composers" of Film Music and
Excellent
1%
6%
their distinctive styles.
Students were able to identify between seventeen and nineteen "great composers"
Good
27%
68%
of Film Music and their distinctive styles.
Students were able to identify between thirteen and sixteen "great composers" of
Fair
4%
14%
Film Music and their distinctive styles.
Students able to identify between ten and twelve "great composers" of Film Music
Poor
9%
12%
and their distinctive styles.
Students able to identify less than ten "great composers" of Film Music and
Unacceptable
69%
0%
their distinctive styles.
A pre – test was given in the first week of the term. The same exact test was given
as a study guide to the final exam.
Evaluation
Since MUS 26 requires no pre requisite, some students have limited
knowledge of film composers, and some students have no knowledge. Very
few have a great deal of knowledge regarding film music composers. Most
can recognize the current most famous names. This evaluation proved that as
well as showed the improvement throughout the term.
On April 12, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that the students were able to successfully indentify some of the
composers at the beginning of the term, but more then half of the names
were foreign to them. After the term, all the students were able to identify
more than half the composers and their styles.
We discussed different
activities that might be added/changed to the course to improve student
success even more.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add even more examples to
lessons and the practice tests to help the students identify the composers that
are less main stream.
MUS 27
MUS 28
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 28 Riverside Community Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Collaborate with other players in a section to create an ensemble sound.
Assessment Results
MUS 28 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to collaborate with other players in a section to create
Excellent
90%
100%
an ensemble sound.
Students were usually able to collaborate with other players in a section to create
Good
0%
0%
an ensemble sound.
Students were sometimes able to collaborate with other players in a section to
Fair
0%
0%
create an ensemble sound.
Students were occasionally able to collaborate with other players in a section to
Poor
0%
0%
Unacceptable
0%
0%
create an ensemble sound.
Students were never able to perform varied works of classical orchestral literature
The rehearsal recordings of three contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In all three cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 95% of the students were able to collaborate with
other players in a section to create an ensemble sound.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 100% were able to collaborate
with other players in a section to create an ensemble sound.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 28 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to collaborate with other
players in a section to create an ensemble sound.
On December 10, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At
the end of the term we agreed that all students were able to collaborate with other
players in a section to create an ensemble sound.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current process seems to
be working and we will re evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 28 Riverside Community Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Perform varied works of classical orchestral literature.
Assessment Results
MUS 28 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to perform varied works of
Excellent
90%
100%
classical orchestral literature.
Students were usually able to perform varied works of
Good
0%
0%
classical orchestral literature.
Students were sometimes able to perform varied works of
Fair
0%
0%
classical orchestral literature.
Students were occasionally able to perform varied works of
Poor
0%
0%
classical orchestral literature.
Unaccepta
0%
0%
Students were never able to perform varied works of classical
ble
orchestral literature
The rehearsal recordings of three contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In all three cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 95% of the students were able to properly
demonstrate musical leadership. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, 100% were successful in demonstrating musical leadership.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 28 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate musical
leadership.
On June 10, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At the
end of the term we agreed that all students were able to perform varied works of
classical orchestra literature. As a result of our discussions, I have determined that
the current process seems to be working and we will re evaluate the assessment
process again at a later date.
Assessment Plan: MUS 28 Riverside Community Symphony
By Kevin Mayse • November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed on the final concert. These
rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concert. At the conclusion of
the term, recordings of the concert and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Perform varied works for classical orchestral literature.
Demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
Collaborate with other players in a section to create an ensemble sound
Assessment Results: MUS 28 Riverside Community Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
Assessment Results
MUS 28 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
90%
95%
Good
5%
0%
Fair
5%
5%
Poor
0%
0%
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
Students were usually able to demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
Students were never able to demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly
demonstrate musical leadership. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, 95% were successful in demonstrating musical leadership.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 28 is contingent on a successful audition, most
students have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high
level. The question is how they combine their technical ability and their
ability to demonstrate musical leadership.
On April 12, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
At the end of the term we agreed that most students were able to
demonstrate musical leadership within the ensemble. There were a few
students that still struggled with the concept. As a result of our discussions, I
have determined that I need to spend more time with the musicians with the
least ability and make sure they understand the concept of consistent musical
leadership.
MUS 29
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 29 Concert Choir
Compiled by John Byun • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Interpret expressive choral music.
Assessment Results
MUS 29 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to interpret expressive choral
Excellent
15%
85%
music.
Students were usually able to interpret expressive choral
Good
50%
15%
music.
Students were sometimes able to interpret expressive choral
Fair
20%
0%
music.
Students were occasionally able to interpret expressive choral
Poor
10%
0%
music.
Students were never able to interpret expressive choral
Unaccepta
5%
0%
music.
ble
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
interpret expressive choral music. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 29 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to distinguish and analyze choral
music performance skills
On December 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to interpret expressive choral music but
there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and
most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style. We discussed
different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to improve student
success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate the correct music performance skills, including correct balance, blend,
diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
Assessment Results: MUS 29 Concert Choir
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Evaluate choral music of all musical styles and periods and be able to perform this
literature with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Assessment Results
MUS 29 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
15%
85%
Good
50%
15%
Fair
20%
0%
Poor
10%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to evaluate choral music and perform various styles.

 Students were usually able to evaluate choral music and perform various styles.

 Students were sometimes able to evaluate choral music and perform various styles.

 Students were occasionally able to evaluate choral music and perform various styles.

 Students were never able to evaluate choral music and perform various styles.

Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
properly distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills. In contrast, I would
say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their
interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 29 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to distinguish and analyze choral music
performance skills
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to successfully distinguish and analyze choral
music performance skills, but there were times when there was inappropriate
phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on
the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate the correct music performance skills, including correct balance, blend,
diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
Assessment Plan for MUS 29 Concert Choir
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through a major
minor choral work or oratorio and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same scores and then record them again. At the end
of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any
changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through choral scores.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills, including correct balance,
blend, diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
Evaluate choral music of all musical styles and periods and be able to perform this
literature with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Interpret expressive choral music.
Evaluate, perform, and discuss the diversity of music in other languages and from
other cultures.
Assessment Results: MUS 29 Concert Choir
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills, including correct balance,
blend, diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
Assessment Results
MUS 29 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance
Excellent
15%
85%
skills.
 Students were usually able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance
Good
50%
15%
skills.
 Students were sometimes able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance
Fair
20%
0%
skills.
 Students were occasionally able to distinguish and analyze choral music
Poor
10%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
performance skills.
 Students were never able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
properly distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills. In contrast, I would
say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their
interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 29 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to distinguish and analyze choral music
performance skills
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to successfully distinguish and analyze choral
music performance skills, but there were times when there was inappropriate
phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on
the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate the correct music performance skills, including correct balance, blend,
diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
MUS 30
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 30 Class Voice
Compiled by John Byun • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Review a variety of song literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
Assessment Results
MUS 30 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to Review a variety of song
literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
Excellent
25%
70%
Students were usually able to Review a variety of song
Good
20%
25%
literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
Students were sometimes able to Review a variety of song
literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
Fair
45%
5%
Students were occasionally able to Review a variety of song
literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
Poor
5%
0%
Students were never able to Review a variety of song
Unaccepta
literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
5%
0%
ble
One song was evaluated. The rehearsal recording of the song was compared to the
final recording of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in
the rehearsal recording, less than 30% of the students were able to review a variety
of song literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 70% were
successful and able to review a variety of song literature to include both sacred and
secular genres.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 30 is open to novice students, most students do not have
the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level.
On December 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were not able demonstrate the necessary skills to
develop a free, coordinated vocal tone, but there were times when there was some
free, coordinated vocal tone production. We discussed different aural skills activities
and what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly apply the
necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated vocal tone.
Assessment Results: MUS 30 Class Voice
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Identify and demonstrate the principles of proper diction.
Assessment Results
MUS 30 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
25%
70%
Good
20%
25%
Fair
45%
5%
Poor
5%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to identify and demonstrate proper diction.

 Students were usually able to identify and demonstrate proper diction.

 Students were sometimes able to identify and demonstrate proper diction.

 Students were occasionally able to identify and demonstrate proper diction.

 Students were never able to identify and demonstrate proper diction.

One song was evaluated. The rehearsal recording of the song was compared to the
final recording of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in
the rehearsal recording, less than 30% of the students were able to apply the
necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated vocal tone.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 70% were
successful in their vocal technique.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 30 is open to novice students, most students do not have
the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were not able demonstrate the necessary skills to develop
a free, coordinated vocal tone, but there were times when there was some free,
coordinated vocal tone production. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly apply the
necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated vocal tone.
Assessment Plan for MUS 30
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to learn song and sing through
the piece with out much instruction. At the end of the semester, students will sing
through the same song after some voice instruction and then record them again. At
the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement
any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through selected song.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Apply the necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated vocal tone with increased
range, volume, and flexibility.
Identify and demonstrate the principles of proper diction.
Review a variety of song literature to include both sacred and secular genres.
Discuss the underlying concepts of expressive singing, including correct posture,
stage presence and proper breathing techniques.
Analyze and compare musical style periods and representative literature in those
styles.
Evaluate and solve problems inherent in public solo singing, including stage fright
and maintaining confidence under stress.
Assessment Results: MUS 30 Class Voice
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Apply the necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated vocal tone with increased
range, volume, and flexibility.
Assessment Results
MUS 30 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to apply the necessary skills to develop a free,
Excellent
25%
70%
coordinated vocal tone.
 Students were usually able to apply the necessary skills to develop a free,
Good
20%
25%
coordinated vocal tone.
 Students were sometimes able to apply the necessary skills to develop a free,
Fair
45%
5%
coordinated vocal tone.
 Students were occasionally able to apply the necessary skills to develop a free,
Poor
5%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
coordinated vocal tone.
 Students were never able to apply the necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated
vocal tone.
One song was evaluated. The rehearsal recording of the song was compared to the
final recording of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in
the rehearsal recording, less than 30% of the students were able to apply the
necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated vocal tone.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 70% were
successful in their vocal technique.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 30 is open to novice students, most students do not have
the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were not able demonstrate the necessary skills to develop
a free, coordinated vocal tone, but there were times when there was some free,
coordinated vocal tone production. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly apply the
necessary skills to develop a free, coordinated vocal tone.
MUS 31
John Byun
Assessment Plan for MUS 31
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through a major
minor choral work or oratorio and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same scores and then record them again. At the end
of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any
changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through choral scores.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills, including correct balance,
blend, diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
Evaluate choral music of all musical styles and periods and be able to perform this
literature with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Interpret expressive choral music.
Evaluate, perform, and discuss the diversity of music in other languages and from
other cultures.
RCCD Student Learning Outcomes Assessment – Results
nstructor Name:
Instructor Position:
Dina Humble
Associate Professor, Music – RCC Norco
Department:
Arts, Humanities and World Languages
Phone:
(951) 372-7165
Email:
Dina.Humble@rcc.edu
Term:
Fall, 2008
Class Number:
Section Number:
MUS 31
37455
SLO’s Measured:

Demonstrate proper vocal technique, including posture and breathing
appropriate for a college choir.

Recognize and distinguish balance, blend, diction, and intonation.

Review a variety of song literature to include both sacred and secular
genres.

Evaluate and perform a variety of choral literature, including the music of
other cultures.
SLO’s Explained:
The SLO’s listed above can be divided into two categories. The first two relate to
basic vocal technique and the second two relate to the review and performance of
standard choral literature. There are certain basic elements of singing that need to
be present in order for the performance of vocal music to be successful.
SLO Assessment Method:
Auditions of every student were performed at the beginning of the semester.
Audition sheets contained a rubric by which the students were scored in basic
categories. The posttest consisted of a content analysis of the DVD recording of the
final performance.
SLO Measurement Criteria:
Students were given a pretest (audition) in the following categories: Pitch Accuracy
(Intonation), Size Of Voice, Personal Communication, Vocal Technique, and Overall
Vocal Quality.
SLO Assessment Results:
Over the course of the semester, students demonstrated many benchmarks and
improvements in all scored categories.
Students in the Norco Choir (Music 31) performed in a final concert on December
11, 2008. The concert was recorded on DVD and analyzed shortly after. By the end
of the course, all students showed a dramatic improvement in all categories.
Students in this course come to the choir with varying levels of vocal technique and
literature experience. Some students at the basic level showed improvement of
900%, while more advanced students were able to move into more advanced levels
of vocal technique and performance.
Content Analysis of DVD: All students were able to accomplish the course SLO’s
listed above. They all performed with proper vocal technique. All demonstrated
proper breathing and posture. Based on the complexities of the variety of music
performed, all students were able to demonstrate the ability to balance, blend,
diction and intonation. Additionally, a variety of vocal literature was performed. (See
attached program) Literature from both sacred and secular genres as well as music
from other cultures was performed with great success.
Based on the initial auditions, students surpassed expectations. They improved
greatly and were successful with their final performance.
Changed Due To Results:
Based on the results of the assessment, I feel confident that students are learning
basic vocal technique and are successful in the performance of a variety of choral
literature. Results from the content analysis show that students have accomplished
the SLO’s above. Based on the results, I will continue to have high expectations and
broaden their performance experiences so that they may achieve the highest
percentage of improvement possible.
MUS 32
I-Ching Tsai
Assessment Results: MUS 32 Class Piano
Compiled by I-Ching Tsai • December 15, 2011
SLOs ASSESSED:
I. Play major and minor scales and arpeggios, hands together, with increasing
speed and accuracy.
II. Interpret at sight increasingly difficult pieces, hymns, and/or accompaniment
with challenging musical notations and symbols
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Total # of
EXCELLENT
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
33
14
1
0
students per
group
Group A
52
Group B
22
17
5
0
0
Group C
17
10
6
1
0
Rating
Grading Rubric
Notes are consistently accurate. The beat is
Excellent
secure and the rhythms are accurate.
An occasional inaccurate note is played, but
does not detract from overall performance. The
beat is secure and the rhythms are mostly
Good
accurate. There are a few duration errors, but
these do not detract from the overall
performance.
A few inaccurate notes are played, detracting
somewhat from the overall performance. The
Fair
beat is somewhat erratic. Some rhythms are
accurate. Frequent or repeated duration errors.
Rhythm problems occasionally detract from the
overall performance.
Wrong notes consistently detract from the
performance. The beat is usually erratic and
Poor
rhythms are seldom accurate detracting
significantly from the overall performance.
EVALUATION:
Dr. Peter Curtis and I discussed the results of this assessment. This Assessment
report shows that students are able to reach the achievement levels desired by the
music faculty with careful class-by-class monitoring and very specific guidance
throughout the semester by qualified music faculty.
A clearer and more specific course description narrative in the schedule of classes
for the beginner group will assist students in enrolling in the appropriate level of
piano course they need and create a more uniform class that will help improve
teaching and learning in the course. Changes will be implemented the next time this
course is offered.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 32 Class Piano
Compiled by I-Ching Tsai • June 15, 2011
THE ASSESSMENT PLAN:
Choose a particular SLO from this course to assess. All instructors teaching sections
of this course will be asked to participate. A written and/or performing assignment
which enables students to demonstrate their achievement of this SLO will be used. A
grading rubric to measure student learning success will be developed. The
information is collected anonymously; faculty will review assessment results against
rubric; analyze results to consider the implications of gathered information and
provide comments with what has been learned that might help improve teaching
and learning in the course.
SLO TO BE ASSESSED:
Perform repertoire pieces of increasing difficulty with pitch and rhythmic accuracy.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTION:
Group A: Perform French Canadian Round (student part, no transposition required)
from Elyse Mach’s Contemporary Class Piano, 7th edition, 2011, p.59.
Group B: Transpose at the keyboard “Beautiful Brown Eyes” to D Major (3/4 time,
simple rhythm, alternating-hand chord accompanying throughout the song, written
in G major.)
Group C: Transpose at the keyboard “Barcarolle” to A Major (6/8 time, left-hand
arpeggiated accompaniment pattern, written in E Major.)
THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT:
Assessment was administered by participating instructors to their sections between
the 15th and 16th weeks of the semester. Prior to that time, assessment instructions,
grading rubric, and results form were distributed. Once these forms were collected,
results were compared against rubric and analyzed to consider the implications of
gathered information, leading to the collaborative preparation of summary report
among instructors with what has been learned so that improvement of teaching and
learning for the course can be formulated.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Total # of
EXCELLENT
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
35
23
0
0
students/group
Group
A
58
Group
7
4
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
B
Group
C
GRADING RUBRIC
Note
EXCELLENT
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
Notes are
An occasional
A few inaccurate
Wrong notes
inaccurate note
notes are
consistently
is played, but
played,
detract from the
does not detract
detracting
performance.
from overall
somewhat from
performance.
the overall
accuracy consistently
accurate.
performance.
Rhythm
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
secure and the
secure and the
somewhat
usually erratic
rhythms are
rhythms are
erratic. Some
and rhythms are
accurate.
mostly accurate.
rhythms are
seldom accurate
There are a few
accurate.
detracting
duration errors,
Frequent or
significantly
but these do not repeated
from the overall
detract from the
duration errors.
performance.
overall
Rhythm
performance.
problems
occasionally
detract from the
overall
performance.
Discussion of strengths and what needs to be improved:
Participating instructors in this assessment (N. Townsend, I.Tsai) reviewed assessment
results, analyzed results to consider the implications of gathered information and
provided comments with what has been learned that might help improve teaching
and learning in the course. By splitting the beginner group from advanced
(continuing) students has indeed allowed instructors to spend more time with each
group, thus achieving positive results. A clearer and more specific course description
narrative in the schedule of classes for the beginner group will assist students in
enrolling in the appropriate level of piano course they need and create a more
uniform class that will help improve teaching and learning in the course.
Plan to be implemented to make the improvement:
The course description in the schedule of classes for all sections of Class Piano (MUS
32) for beginners only should be changed to:
“The above section is intended for 1st semester students only, who have no previous
piano playing experience. Additional hours to be arranged.”
Changes to be implemented the next time this course is offered.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 32 Class Piano
Compiled by I-Ching Tsai • Spring 2010
ASSESSMENT PLAN:
Choose a particular SLO from this course to assess. All instructors teaching sections
of this course will be asked to participate. A written and/or performing assignment
which enables students to demonstrate their achievement of this SLO will be used. A
grading rubric to measure student learning success will be developed. The
information is collected anonymously; assess (assignment) results against rubric;
analyze results to consider the implications of gathered information and prepare
summary report with what has been learned that might help improve teaching and
learning in the course with section instructors.
SLO TO BE ASSESSED: Transpose melodies and harmonies to other keys.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTION:
Group A: Write/transpose the following simple melody to A Major (see next page).
Then perform it. (The simple melody is 4 measures long, written in common time, D
major, grand staff, both hands playing in parallel motion, with quarter and half notes
only.)
Group B: Transpose at the keyboard “Beautiful Brown Eyes” to D Major (3/4 time,
simple rhythm, alternating-hand chord accompanying throughout the song, written
in G major.)
Group C: Transpose at the keyboard “Barcarolle” to A Major (6/8 time, left-hand
arpeggiated accompaniment pattern, written in E Major.)

The actual assessment:
Assessment was administered by participating instructors to their sections between
the 15th and 16th weeks of the semester. Prior to that time, assessment instructions,
grading rubric, and results form were distributed. Once these forms were collected,
results were compared against rubric and analyzed to consider the implications of
gathered information, leading to the collaborative preparation of summary report
among instructors with what has been learned so that improvement of teaching and
learning for the course can be formulated.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Total # of
EXCELLENT
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
ABSENT
67
55
6
1
0
5
20
12
4
1
1
2
13
11
0
0
0
2
students/group
Group
A
Group
B
Group
C
GRADING RUBRIC
EXCELLENT
Note
Notes are
GOOD
An occasional
AVERAGE
A few inaccurate
POOR
Wrong notes
accuracy consistently
accurate.
inaccurate note
notes are
consistently
is played, but
played,
detract from the
does not detract
detracting
performance.
from overall
somewhat from
performance.
the overall
performance.
Rhythm
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
secure and the
secure and the
somewhat
usually erratic
rhythms are
rhythms are
erratic. Some
and rhythms are
accurate.
mostly accurate.
rhythms are
seldom accurate
There are a few
accurate.
detracting
duration errors,
Frequent or
significantly
but these do not repeated
from the overall
detract from the
duration errors.
performance.
overall
Rhythm
performance.
problems
occasionally
detract from the
overall
performance.

Discussion of what needs to be improved:
After reviewing the results of the assessment activities for MUS 32, instructors (J.
Knecht, N. Townsend, I.Tsai) discussed strengths as well as possible ways to improve
method of teaching. The conclusion is that by splitting the beginner group from
advanced (continuing) students would allow instructors to spend more time with
each group.

Plan to be implemented to make the improvement:
Sections of Class Piano (MUS 32) would be divided into two types: (1) for beginners
only, and (2) for continuing (advanced) students. Changes to be implemented
starting Spring semester of 2010.
MUS 33
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 33 Vocal Jazz Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate proper microphone technique.
Assessment Results
MUS 33 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
35%
95%
Good
45%
5%
Fair
10%
0%
Poor
5%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to demonstrate proper microphone technique.

 Students were usually able to demonstrate proper microphone technique.

 Students were sometimes able to demonstrate proper microphone technique.

 Students were occasionally able to demonstrate proper microphone technique.


Students were never able to demonstrate proper microphone technique.

Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within the jazz genre. In contrast, I would
say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their vocal
technique.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 33 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate appropriate vocal
technique within the jazz genre.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within
the jazz genre, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or
articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style.
We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
appropriate vocal technique within the jazz genre.
Assessment Plan for MUS 33
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five jazz charts and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester, students will
sing through the same four to five jazz charts and then record them again. At the
end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any
changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed

Demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within the jazz genre.

Aurally recognize and demonstrate swing style.

Compose an improvisational vocal solo.
Assessment Results: MUS 33 Vocal Jazz Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within the jazz genre.
Assessment Results
MUS 33 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within the
Excellent
35%
95%
jazz genre.
 Students were usually able to demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within the
Good
45%
5%
Fair
10%
0%
Poor
5%
0%
jazz genre.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within
the jazz genre.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within
the jazz genre.
Unacceptable
5%
0%
Students were never able to demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within the jazz
genre.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within the jazz genre. In contrast, I would
say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their vocal
technique.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 33 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate appropriate vocal
technique within the jazz genre.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able demonstrate appropriate vocal technique within
the jazz genre, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or
articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style.
We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
appropriate vocal technique within the jazz genre.
MUS 34
John Byun
Assessment Plan for MUS 34
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five jazz charts and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester, students will
sing through the same four to five jazz charts and then record them again. At the
end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any
changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Demonstrate effective techniques of small group vocal jazz performance.
Develop a presentation that is musically excellent and entertaining to the audience.
Analyze and develop all aspects of performance skills, such as tone production,
balance, and blend.
Evaluate commercial/jazz choral styles, and perform in a stylistically correct manner.
Assessment Results: MUS 34 Vocal Jazz Lab
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate effective techniques of small group vocal jazz performance.
Assessment Results
MUS 34 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to demonstrate effective techniques of small group vocal
Excellent
30%
85%
jazz performance.
 Students were usually able to demonstrate effective techniques of small group vocal
Good
35%
15%
jazz performance.
 Students were sometimes able to demonstrate effective techniques of small group
Fair
25%
0%
vocal jazz performance.
 Students were occasionally able to demonstrate effective techniques of small group
Poor
5%
0%
vocal jazz performance.
 Students were never able to demonstrate effective techniques of small group vocal
Unacceptable
5%
0%
jazz performance.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
demonstrate effective techniques of small group vocal jazz performance. In contrast, I
would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their
vocal technique.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 34 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate effective techniques of
small group vocal jazz performance.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able demonstrate effective techniques of small group
vocal jazz performance, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing
and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the
musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
effective techniques of small group vocal jazz performance.
MUS 35
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 35 Vocal Music Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Recall and perform literature written for small classical and madrigal vocal groups.
Assessment Results
MUS 35 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
35%
95%
Good
40%
5%
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to recall and perform literature written for small groups.

 Students were usually able to recall and perform literature written for small groups.

 Students were sometimes able to recall and perform literature written for small
Fair
15%
0%
groups.

 Students were occasionally able to recall and perform literature written for small
Poor
5%
0%
groups.

Unacceptable
5%
0%
 Students were never able to recall and perform literature written for small groups.

Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
demonstrate appropriate small group technique within the classical and madrigal styles.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were
successful in their technique.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 35 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate appropriate small
group technique within the classical and madrigal styles.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able demonstrate appropriate small group technique
within the classical and madrigal styles, but there were times when there was
inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone
quality based on the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
appropriate small group technique within the classical and madrigal styles.
Assessment Plan for MUS 35
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five choral pieces in quartets and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same four to five choral pieces in quartets and then
record them again. At the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the
recordings and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through choral pieces.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed
1. Recall and perform literature written for small classical and madrigal vocal
groups.
2. Demonstrate appropriate small group technique within the classical and madrigal
styles.
3. Demonstrate appropriate performance technique of the classical and madrigal
small group vocal styles.
Assessment Results: MUS 35 Vocal Music Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate appropriate small group technique within the classical and madrigal
styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 35 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students were always able to demonstrate appropriate small group technique within
Excellent
35%
95%
the classical and madrigal styles.
 Students were usually able to demonstrate appropriate small group technique
Good
40%
5%
within the classical and madrigal styles.
 Students were sometimes able to appropriate small group technique within the
Fair
15%
0%
classical and madrigal styles.
 Students were occasionally able to demonstrate appropriate small group technique
Poor
5%
0%
within the classical and madrigal styles.
 Students were never able to demonstrate appropriate small group technique within
Unacceptable
5%
0%
the classical and madrigal styles.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
demonstrate appropriate small group technique within the classical and madrigal styles.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were
successful in their technique.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 35 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate appropriate small
group technique within the classical and madrigal styles.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able demonstrate appropriate small group technique
within the classical and madrigal styles, but there were times when there was
inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone
quality based on the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
appropriate small group technique within the classical and madrigal styles.
MUS 36
Kevin Mayse
__________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 36 Instrumental Chamber Ensembles
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Sightread chamber music literature in different styles, including, but
not limited to, music from the Western European historical periods.
Assessment Results
MUS 36 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to sightread chamber music literature in different
styles, including, but not limited to, music from the Western European
Excellent
70%
100%
historical periods.
Students were usually able to sightread chamber music literature in different
Good
25%
0%
styles, including, but not limited to, music from the Western European
historical periods.
Students were sometimes able to sightread chamber music literature in different
Fair
5%
0%
styles, including, but not limited to, music from the Western European
historical periods.
Students were occasionally able to collaborate with other players to create an
Poor
0%
0%
ensemble sound.
.
Students were never able to collaborate with other players to create an ensemble
Unacceptable
0%
0%
sound.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to
the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, more than 70% of the students
were able to sightread chamber music literature in different styles,
including, but not limited to, music from the Western European
historical periods.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 100% were able
to sightread chamber music literature in different styles, including, but
not limited to, music from the Western European historical periods.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 36 is contingent on a successful audition, most
students have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly
high level. The question is how they combine their technical ability and
their ability to sightread chamber music literature in different styles,
including, but not limited to, music from the Western European
historical periods.
On December 10, 2011 John Byun and I discussed the results of this
assessment. At the end of the term we agreed that all students were
able to collaborate with other players to create an ensemble sound.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current
process seems to be working and we will re evaluate the assessment
process again at a later date.
__________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 36 Instrumental Chamber Ensembles
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Collaborate with other players to create an ensemble sound.
Assessment Results
MUS 36 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-
Post-
test
test
Excellent 70%
100%
Qualifiers
Students were always able to collaborate with other
players to create an ensemble sound.
Students were usually able to collaborate with other
Good
25%
0%
players to create an ensemble sound.
Students were sometimes able to collaborate with
Fair
5%
0%
other players to create an ensemble sound.
Students were occasionally able to collaborate with
Poor
Unaccep
table
0%
0%
other players to create an ensemble sound.
.
Students were never able to collaborate with other
0%
0%
players to create an ensemble sound.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to
the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, more than 70% of the students
were able to collaborate with other players to create an ensemble
sound.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 100% were
successful in collaborate with other players to create an ensemble
sound.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 36 is contingent on a successful audition, most
students have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly
high level. The question is how they combine their technical ability and
their ability to collaborate with other players to create an ensemble
sound
On June 10, 2011 John Byun and I discussed the results of this
assessment. At the end of the term we agreed that all students were
able to collaborate with other players to create an ensemble sound.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current
process seems to be working and we will re evaluate the assessment
process again at a later date.
Assessment Plan for Music 36
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
different ensembles sight-reading literature to be performed on the final concert.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concert. At the
conclusion of the term, recordings of the concert and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Perform varied works for chamber ensemble in various styles.
Demonstrate musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Collaborate with other players to create an ensemble sound.
Assessment Results: MUS 36 Instrumental Chamber Ensembles
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Assessment Results
MUS 36 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
90%
100%
Good
5%
0%
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Students were usually able to demonstrate musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate musical leadership within a small
Fair
5%
0%
ensemble.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate musical leadership within a small
Poor
0%
0%
Unacceptable
0%
0%
ensemble.
Students were never able to demonstrate musical leadership within a small ensemble.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly
demonstrate musical leadership. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, 100% were successful in demonstrating musical leadership.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 36 is contingent on a successful audition, most
students have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high
level. The question is how they combine their technical ability and their
ability to demonstrate musical leadership.
On April 12, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
At the end of the term we agreed that all students were able to demonstrate
musical leadership within the small ensemble. As a result of our discussions, I
have determined that the current process seems to be working and we will re
evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
MUS 37
Peter Curtis
Assessment Results: MUS 37 Class Guitar
SLO Assessed
1. Demonstrate an ability to perform with the guitar using basic chording,
chord patterns, fingering, some melodic playing, and tuning techniques.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
The student is consistently effective in demonstrating
an ability to perform with the guitar using basic
Exemplary
chording, chord patterns, fingering, some melodic
playing, and tuning techniques.
54%
The student is generally effective in demonstrating an
29%
ability to perform with the guitar using basic chording,
Accomplished
chord patterns, fingering, some melodic playing, and
tuning techniques.
The student is inconsistent and/or only somewhat
17%
effective in demonstrating an ability to perform with
Developing
the guitar using basic chording, chord patterns,
fingering, some melodic playing, and tuning
techniques.
The student demonstrates an unsatisfactory level in
demonstrating the ability to perform with the guitar
Unsatisfactory
using basic chording, chord patterns, fingering, some
melodic playing, and tuning techniques.
I discussed these results with my colleague, Jasminka Knecht, on December 15th,
2011. We agreed that these results were fairly typical for an introductory class in an
instrument. Clearly, the majority of the class are succeeding in mastering this SLO. I
will continue using these same methods, with some refinements, in future semesters.
Assessment Results: MUS 37 Class Guitar
by Peter Curtis • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed:
Demonstrate some knowledge of the guitar’s history, development, major figures
and use in a variety of genres.
Assessment Results
In the pre-test, only 14% of students tested demonstrated some knowledge of the
guitar's history, development, major figures and use in a variety of genres. On the
post-test 100% of students tested demonstrated some knowledge of those areas.
MUS 37 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
14%
100%
Students demonstrated
some knowledge of the
guitar's history,
development, major
figures and use in a
variety of genres.
Evaluation:
Upon entering MUS 37 most students were not able to answer any questions
correctly on the quiz that I gave them about the guitar’s history, development, major
figures and use in a number of genres. Toward the end of the class, all of the
students were able to demonstrate some knowledge of those areas on a quiz. On
Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, I discussed these results with Kevin Mayse. Though he was
complimentary about the results, I suggested that perhaps the post-test would give
a more accurate assessment in the future if it were not based on a multiple choice
question.
Assessment Plan: MUS 37 Class Guitar
by Peter Curtis • 2009
On the first day of class we will ask students to demonstrate:

the ability to play simple chords on the guitar

the ability to read simple melodies on the guitar

the ability to tune the guitar

the ability to recognize music fundamentals necessary for guitar
performance

performance of a simple piece on the guitar
Faculty members will fill out a form assessing the students’ abilities in the
aforementioned areas.
On the final exam have the students:

Demonstrate the ability to play simple chords on the guitar

Demonstrate the ability to read simple melodies on the guitar

Demonstrate the ability to tune the guitar

Demonstrate the ability to recognize music fundamentals necessary for
guitar performance

Perform a simple piece.
Faculty members will fill out a form assessing the students’ abilities in the
aforementioned areas.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:

Demonstrate an ability to perform with the guitar using basic chording,
chord patterns, fingering, some melodic playing, and tuning techniques.

Distinguish and analyze music fundamentals necessary for guitar
performance with an emphasis on music notation.

Practice independently while learning songs and guitar technique.

Demonstrate proper guitar maintenance.

Demonstrate some knowledge of the guitar’s history, development, major
figures and use in a variety of genres.
Dates:
Week one: faculty will complete the entrance assessment evaluation.
Week sixteen: faculty will complete exit assessment evaluation.
Following week sixteen: faculty will meet to discuss the results of the assessments
and address what changes, if any need to be made.
Assessment Results: MUS 37 Class Guitar
by Peter Curtis • April, 10th, 2010
SLO Assessed:
Distinguish and analyze music fundamentals necessary for guitar performance
with an emphasis on music notation.
Assessment Results
MUS 37 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students consistently were able to distinguish chord symbols as applied to guitar
Excellent
0%
46.6%
performance
 Students consistently were able to distinguish music notation as applied to guitar
performance
 Students were frequently able to distinguish chord symbols as applied to guitar
Good
0%
16.6%
performance
 Students were frequently able to distinguish music notation as applied to guitar
performance
 Students were able to distinguish chord symbols as applied to guitar performance a
Fair
0%
10%
slim majority of the time.
 Students were able to distinguish music notation as applied to guitar performance a
slim majority of the time
 Students were seldom able to distinguish chord symbols as applied to guitar
Poor
3%
10%
performance
 Students were seldom able to distinguish music notation as applied to guitar
performance
Unacceptable
97%
16.6%
 Students were not able distinguish chord symbols as applied to guitar performance
 Students were not able to distinguish music notation as applied to guitar
performance
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 37 most students did not understand music fundamentals necessary for
guitar performance. By the course’s end the majority of students had a good understanding
of music fundamentals and notation necessary for guitar performance.
On April 2nd, 2010, Patrick Read and I discussed the results of this assessment and the
impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We agreed that the
majority of the time the students that did not excel either stopped attending without
dropping the course or missed important examinations and quizzes. No students who
completed all the assignments and assessments had a poor or unacceptable rating in the
post-test course SLOs or in their final course grade.
As a result of our discussions, we decided to more frequently remind students of the
importance of completing all the assignments and to give students more opportunities to
do make up grades for missed assignments and assessments.
MUS 38
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 38 Beginning Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
1. Demonstrate proficient performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Assessment Results
MUS 38 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on an
Excellent
65%
90%
instrument or voice.
Students were usually able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on an
Good
35%
10%
instrument or voice.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on an
Fair
0%
0%
instrument or voice.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on
Poor
0%
0%
Unacceptable
0%
0%
an instrument or voice.
Students were never able to demonstrate improved technical skill on an
instrument or voice.
Students were evaluated at both their audition (at the beginning of the term) and
their jury (final exam)
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 38 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate proficient
performance skills on an instrument or voice.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to demonstrate proficient performance
skills on an instrument or voice but there were times when the skills were not
evident. We discussed different skills and activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time communicating
with the individual instructors.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 38 Beginning Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate improved technical skill on an instrument or voice.
Assessment Results
MUS 38 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-
Post-
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to demonstrate improved
technical skill on an instrument or voice.
Excellent
65%
90%
Students were usually able to demonstrate improved
Good
35%
10%
technical skill on an instrument or voice.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate improved
technical skill on an instrument or voice.
Fair
0%
0%
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate improved
Poor
0%
0%
Unaccepta
Students were never able to demonstrate improved technical
0%
ble
technical skill on an instrument or voice.
0%
skill on an instrument or voice.
Students were evaluated at both their audition (at the beginning of the term) and
their jury (final exam)
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 38 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate improved
technical skill on an instrument or voice.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to demonstrate improved technical skill on an
instrument or voice, but there were times when the improvement was not evident.
We discussed different skills and activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time communicating
with the individual instructors.
Assessment Plan for Music 38
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the audition process, the students will be asked to perform musical examples
consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
At the end of the term (during the jury examination) students will be asked to
perform musical examples consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
After the jury examination, faculty involved in teaching applied music will meet to
discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Demonstrate proficient performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Demonstrate improved technical skill on an instrument or voice.
MUS 39
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 39 Intermediate Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Analyze and critique music concerts.
Assessment Results
MUS 39 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
NA
97%
Good
NA
0%
Fair
NA
0%
Poor
NA
0%
Unacceptable
NA
3%
Qualifiers
Analyze and critique music concerts.
Students did not analyze and critique music concert
A jury examination is a requirement for this class and therefore this would be a
pass/fail portion of the class
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 39 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is if they are being prepared to analyze and critique music concerts.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were prepared to analyze and critique music
concerts.
but there were a few that were not. We discussed the many different reasons a
student might not be prepared for this task.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time communicating
with the individual students.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 39 Intermediate Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Perform a jury before a faculty committee.
Assessment Results
MUS 39 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were able to perform a jury before a faculty
committee
Excellent
NA
97%
Good
NA
0%
Fair
NA
0%
Poor
NA
0%
Students were never able to perform a jury before a faculty
Unaccepta
NA
3%
committee
ble
A jury examination is a requirement for this class and therefore this would be a
pass/fail portion of the class
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 39 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is if they are being prepared to perform a jury before a faculty committee.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were prepared to perform a jury before a faculty
committee, but there were a few that were not. We discussed the many different
reasons a student might not be prepared.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time communicating
with the individual instructors.
Assessment Plan for Music 39
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the audition process, the students will be asked to perform musical examples
consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
At the end of the term (during the jury examination) students will be asked to
perform musical examples consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
After the jury examination, faculty involved in teaching applied music will meet to
discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Demonstrate solo performance skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
professional music fields.
Perform a jury before a faculty committee.
Apply and formulate efficient practice techniques.
Assessment Results: MUS 39 Intermediate Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate solo performance skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
professional music fields.
Assessment Results
MUS 39 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to demonstrate solo performance
Excellent
35%
65%
skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
professional music fields.
Students were usually able to demonstrate solo performance
Good
40%
35%
skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
professional music fields.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate solo
Fair
15%
0%
performance skills required for transfer as music majors
and/or for professional music fields.
Poor
5%
0%
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate solo
performance skills required for transfer as music majors
and/or for professional music fields.
Students were never able to demonstrate solo performance
Unaccepta
5%
0%
skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
ble
professional music fields.
During the audition process, the students will be asked to perform musical examples
consisting of (but not limited to) the following; Scales, Arpeggios, Exercises, Etudes,
Repertoire.
At the end of the term (during the jury examination) students were asked to perform
musical examples consisting of (but not limited to) the following; Scales, Arpeggios,
Exercises, Etudes, Repertoire.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 39 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate their
performance skills
During finals week, Rich Chasin, Marty Rhees and Jack Krumbien and I discussed the
results of this assessment. We agreed that most students were able to successfully
demonstrate solo performance skills appropriate for transfer students, but there
were times when there was inconsistent playing throughout the class. We discussed
different teaching techniques and what might be added/changed to improve student
success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to put together a consistent plan for
all studios to use as a guideline.
MUS 40
Steven Schmidt2/13/2012 7:54:00 AM
MUS 41
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 41 Chamber Singers
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Evaluate and perform music from other cultures as exhibited in vocal chamber
music.
Assessment Results
MUS 41 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to evaluate and perform music from other
Excellent
45%
95%
cultures.
Students were usually able to evaluate and perform music from other
Good
30%
5%
cultures.
Students were sometimes able to evaluate and perform music from other
Fair
15%
0%
cultures.
Students were occasionally able to evaluate and perform music from other
Poor
5%
0%
cultures.
Students were never able to evaluate and perform music from other
Unacceptable
5%
0%
cultures.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
interpret expressive vocal chamber music. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 41 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to interpret expressive vocal chamber
music.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to interpret expressive vocal chamber music, but
there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and
most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style. We discussed
different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to improve student
success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly interpret
expressive vocal chamber music.
Assessment Plan for MUS 41
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five choral pieces and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester, students will
sing through the same four to five choral pieces and then record them again. At
the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement
any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through choral pieces.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed
Distinguish, analyze, and create vocal chamber music performance skills, including
correct
balance, blend, diction, tone production, rhythm, pitch accuracy, and small
ensemble coordination.
Interpret expressive vocal chamber music.
Assessment Results: MUS 41 Chamber Singers
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Interpret expressive vocal chamber music.
Assessment Results
MUS 41 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
45%
95%
Good
30%
5%
Fair
15%
0%
Poor
5%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
Qualifiers
Students were always able to interpret expressive vocal chamber music.
Students were usually able to interpret expressive vocal chamber music.
Students were sometimes able to interpret expressive vocal chamber music.
Students were occasionally able to interpret expressive vocal chamber music.
Students were never able to interpret expressive vocal chamber music.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
interpret expressive vocal chamber music. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 41 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to interpret expressive vocal chamber
music.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to interpret expressive vocal chamber music, but
there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and
most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style. We discussed
different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to improve student
success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly interpret
expressive vocal chamber music.
MUS 42
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 42 Wind Ensemble
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Experience the importance of a group performance to their development as a
musician.
Assessment Results
MUS 42 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to experience the importance of a group performance
Excellent
90%
95%
to their development as a musician.
Students were usually able to experience the importance of a group performance
Good
10%
5%
to their development as a musician.
Students were sometimes able to experience the importance of a group
Fair
0%
0%
Poor
%
0%
performance to their development as a musician.
Students were occasionally able to experience the importance of a group
performance to their development as a musician.
Students were never able to apply musicianship skills to a large ensemble
Unacceptable
%
0%
experience.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able
to experience the importance of a group performance to their development as a
musician.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 95% were able to
experience the importance of a group performance to their development as a
musician.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 42 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to experience the
importance of a group performance to their development as a musician.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to successfully experience the importance
of a group performance to their development as a musician.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current process seems to
be working and we will re evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 42 Wind Ensemble
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Apply musicianship skills to a large ensemble experience.
Assessment Results
MUS 42 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to apply musicianship skills to a
Excellent
85%
95%
large ensemble experience.
Students were usually able to apply musicianship skills to a
large ensemble experience.
Good
10%
5%
Students were sometimes able to apply musicianship skills to
a large ensemble experience.
Fair
5%
0%
Students were occasionally able to apply musicianship skills
to a large ensemble experience.
Poor
%
0%
Students were never able to apply musicianship skills to a
Unaccepta
%
ble
0%
large ensemble experience.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, more than 80% of the students were able
to properly apply musicianship skills to a large ensemble experience.. In contrast, I
would say in the performance recording, more than 95% were successful in applying
musicianship skills to a large ensemble experience.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 42 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to apply musicianship
skills to a large ensemble experience.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to successfully apply musicianship skills to a
large ensemble experience.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current process seems to
be working and we will re evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
Assessment Plan for Music 42
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed on the mid term or final concert.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concerts. At the
conclusion of the term, recordings of the concerts and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a musical score within the context of various
musical styles.
Apply musicianship skills to a large ensemble experience.
Demonstrate increased technical skills on individual instruments.
Experience the importance of a group performance to their development as a
musician.
Assessment Results: MUS 42 Wind Ensemble
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Interpret their own individual parts of a musical score within the context of various
musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 42 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
 Students were always able to interpret their individual parts
Excellent
35%
95%
within the correct style.
 Students were usually able to interpret their individual parts
Good
40%
5%
within the correct style.
 Students were sometimes able to interpret their individual
Fair
15%
0%
parts within the correct style.
 Students were occasionally able to interpret their individual
Poor
5%
0%
parts within the correct style.
 Students were never able to interpret their individual parts
Unaccepta
5%
ble
0%
within the correct style.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
properly interpret their parts within the proper style. In contrast, I would say in the
performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 42 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to interpret their
individual part within the context of various musical styles.
On April 12, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to successfully interpret their individual part
within the correct style, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing
and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the
musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate the correct musical styles.
MUS 43
Peter Curtis
Assessment Results: MUS 43: Jazz Improvisation and Theory
Compiled by Peter Curtis • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Demonstrate appropriate performance practices for different styles of jazz,
including: be-bop, modal, hard-bop and fusion.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
The student is consistently effective in demonstrating
Exemplary
appropriate performance practices for different styles
of jazz, including: be-bop, modal, hard-bop and fusion.
71%
The student is generally effective in demonstrating
24%
Accomplishe
appropriate performance practices for different styles
d
of jazz, including: be-bop, modal, hard-bop and fusion.
The student is inconsistent and/or only somewhat
5%
effective in demonstrating appropriate performance
Developing
practices for different styles of jazz, including: be-bop,
modal, hard-bop and fusion.
The student demonstrates an unsatisfactory level in
Unsatisfactor
demonstrating appropriate performance practices for
y
different styles of jazz, including: be-bop, modal, hardbop and fusion.
I discussed these results with my colleague, Jasminka Knecht, On December, 15th,
2011. These assessments are based on the midterm and final performance exams.
She felt that they demonstrate that the majority of students have mastered the SLO
being assessed. In future semesters I will continue utilizing the same methods, with
some refinements, to maintain student success.
Assessment Results: MUS 43: Jazz Improvisation and Theory
Compiled by Peter Curtis • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed:
Demonstrate the ability to analyze, learn, and perform standard jazz literature.
Assessment Results
MUS 43 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Excellent
0%
81%
·
Students were thoroughly able to analyze standard ja
·
Students showed a good ability to analyze standard ja
Good
Fair
1%
6.3%
·
Students showed some ability to analyze standard jaz
Poor
16%
6.3%
·
Students were barely able to analyze standard jazz lite
Unacceptable
79%
6.3%
·
Students were not able to analyze standard jazz litera
Evaluation:
Upon entering MUS 43 most students could not analyze standard jazz literature.
Though some of them could learn and perform it, their inability to analyze it limited
them in those areas.
On Tuesday, June 14th, 2011 I discussed these results with Kevin Mayse. I explained
to him that the pre-test was one where students had to do a harmonic analysis of a
piece of jazz literature. While this pretest accurately assessed the students’ ability to
analyze standard jazz literature, it could not thoroughly assess their abilities to
perform and learn it. While it is true that a student can perform and learn music
much more effectively if he can analyze it, Kevin suggested that I ought to
reevaluate the pretest so that it actively represent the entire SLO. I agreed with this
and will do so in the future.
Assessment Plan: MUS 43: Jazz Improvisation and Theory
April, 10th, 2010
Within the first two weeks of class the instructor will evaluate the students’ ability to:
A. perform standard jazz literature.
B. analyze jazz and popular music chord symbols
C. analyze, transcribe and perform recorded improvised solos.
D. demonstrate appropriate performance practices for different styles of jazz,
including: be-bop, modal, hard-bop and fusion.
The students will be reassessed at the end of semester on the same areas.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
Analyze, learn, and perform standard jazz literature.
Analyze, transcribe and perform recorded improvised solos.
Analyze jazz and popular music chord symbols.
Demonstrate appropriate performance practices for different styles of jazz, including:
be-bop, modal, hard-bop and fusion.
Dates:
Week one: Faculty members will fill out an entrance form assessing students’
abilities.
Week sixteen: Faculty will fill out an exit form assessing students’ abilities.
After week sixteen: faculty members who teach jazz performance classes will meet to
discuss the results and what could potentially be improved.
Assessment Results: MUS 43: Jazz Improvisation and Theory
Compiled by Peter Curtis • April, 10th, 2010
SLO Assessed:
Analyze, practice and interpret jazz and popular music chord symbols.
Assessment Results
MUS 43 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
0%
50%
Good
4%
33.3%
Fair
4%
5.5%
Poor
9%
5.5%
Unacceptable
83%
5.5%
Qualifiers
 Students were consistently able to analyze and interpret jazz and popular music
chord symbols
 Students were frequently able to analyze and interpret jazz and popular music chord
symbols
 Students were able to analyze and interpret jazz and popular music chord symbols a
slim majority of the time.
 Students were seldom able to analyze and interpret jazz and popular music chord
symbols
 Students were not able to analyze and interpret jazz and popular music chord
symbols
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 43 most students could not analyze, interpret and practice jazz
and popular music chord symbols. By the course’s end the majority of students
could.
On April 9nd, 2010, Charles Richard and I discussed the results of this assessment
and the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We
agreed that while the majority of students were succeeding there was room for
students to improve.
As a result of our discussions, I have concluded that students should be quizzed
more frequently and receive more homework assignments to help them with
practice the materials being taught.
MUS 44
Charles Richard
Assessment Results: MUS 44: Jazz Ensemble
Compiled by Charlie Richard • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#3 Demonstrate artistic performances of varied works of standard jazz band
literature fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group available in any
given semester on 12/15/11
On December 5, 2011 the Jazz Ensemble performed in concert on campus with
guest artist, Jeff Hellmer. The concert was recorded. 31 students performed. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
Kevin Mayse, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success, and the
rest were making great progress. The assessment will be an ongoing process though
with the goal of having all students producing exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Students were consistently able to demonstrate artistic
performances of varied works of standard jazz band literature.
64
25
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to demonstrate artistic performances of varied
works of standard jazz band literature.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate artistic
9
performances of varied works of standard jazz band literature.
Students were seldom able to demonstrate artistic performances
of varied works of standard jazz band literature.
0
Assessment Results: MUS 44: Jazz Ensemble
Compiled by Charlie Richard • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#2 Demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
on 6/15/11
On May 14, 2011 the Jazz Ensemble performed at the RCC Jazz Festival. The event
was recorded. After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members
Charlie Richard and Kevin Mayse, it was agreed that the results were excellent,
though assessment will be an ongoing process.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Exemplary
Students were consistently able to demonstrate instrumental
100
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz
0
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate instrumental
0
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz
Students were seldom able to demonstrate instrumental
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz
0
Assessment Plan for MUS 44
Jazz Ensemble
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
Audition students at the beginning of the semester for chair placement and make a
written record. Sight-read repertoire in the first week of rehearsals and make an
audio recording. The results will be compared to the results of the concert at the
end of the semester. The criteria will all be related to the course outline of record
SLOs. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching the courses will
then meet to discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve
student success.
Dates
First week, audition students individually
First week, sight-read repertoire and make an audio recording.s
Last week, culminating experience concert performance.
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Perform at sight, literature for jazz ensemble on a first read through.
Demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Assessment Results: MUS 44: Jazz Ensemble
Charles Richard
May 11, 2010
SLO Assessed: Perform at sight, literature for jazz ensemble on a first read through.
Assessment Results
MUS 25 (Spring 2010): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-
Post-
test
test
Qualifiers
Excellent
0%
16%
Students were able to perform on a first read through literature for jazz
ensemble on a first read-through with no errors
Students were able to perform on a first read through literature for jazz
Fair
66%
73%
ensemble on a first read-through with errors but continue and not get
lost
Poor
33%
10%
Students were unable to perform on a first read through literature for jazz
ensemble on a first read-through without errors and getting lost
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 44 most students could not perform at sight, literature for jazz
ensemble on a first read through, as demonstrated by listening to a rehearsal
recorded on 2/19/2010. By the completion of the course all students improved
substantially and most students were able to do excellent or fair, as demonstrated
by listening to a rehearsal on 5/10//2010
On May 11, 2010 Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this assessment and
the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We agreed
that while the majority of students were succeeding there was room for students to
improve. As a result of our discussions, we have concluded that the ensemble
should sight-read music more often.
SLO Assessed: Demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles
of jazz.
Assessment Results
MUS 25 (Spring 2010): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
test
test
Excellent
50%
100%
Good
20%
0%
Fair
30%
0%
Poor
0%
0%
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Students were frequently able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Students were seldom able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Students were never able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 44 half of the students could not demonstrate instrumental
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz on a first rehearsal of our music as
demonstrated by listening to a rehearsal recorded on 2/19/2010. By the completion
of the course all students improved substantially and all students were able to do
so, as demonstrated by listening to a concert recorded on 25/8/2010.
On May 11, 2010 Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this assessment and
the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We agreed
that the rate of improvement was perfect. Many of the students who received
“good” or “fair” ratings in the pre-test were new to the ensemble.
MUS 45
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 45 Marching Band Woodwind Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Collaborate with other players in the woodwind section to create an ensemble
sound appropriate to the marching band setting.
Assessment Results
MUS 45 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
Excellent
20%
85%
articulation & rhythm.
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
12%
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and
Fair
18%
3%
intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Unaccepta
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and
1%
ble
0%
intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Evaluation – SLO #3 is a combination of SLOs #1 and #2
Upon entering MUS 45, most woodwind students understand how to play, albeit at
varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band camp, they
are learning to work more consistently within their woodwind sections and by the
first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the overall scheme
of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge
of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced.
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within the
context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected, by the end
of the semester, most students are actually having fun collaborating and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / video recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling at a high level. It was
exciting to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one
through the 123rd Tournament of Roses Parade preparations!
Assessment Plan for Music 45 Marching Band Woodwind Methods
Gary Locke
March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
woodwind section sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates

First two weeks, sight-read show music and make audio recording

Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
 Last week, create DVD of final performance
 Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for
improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results: MUS 45 Marching Band Woodwind Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
o
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 45 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 45, most woodwind students understand how to play,
albeit at varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of
band camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their
woodwind sections and by the first performance, they have figured out how
their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things
begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is
introduced. (see SLO #2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results
MUS 45 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 46
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 46 Marching Band Brass Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Memorize warm-up exercises / tuning patterns for rehearsal, both static and while
on the move.
Assessment Results
MUS 46 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
85%
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
12%
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Poor
9%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Evaluation
Uniformity is the basis of all judging. The sooner the students can learn / commit to
memory the warm-up exercises & etudes, the sooner they have the chance of
excelling musically – presenting a ‘unified’ and uniform sound. Upon entering MUS
46, most brass students understand how to play, albeit at varying levels of musical
ability and technique/style. By the end of band camp, they are learning to work
more consistently within their brass sections and by the first performance, they have
figured out how their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just
when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the
move’ is introduced.
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within the
context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected, by the end
of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have become
experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the process’ and
‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and agreed that we
were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting to see
the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one through the 123rd
Tournament of Roses Parade preparations!
Assessment Plan for Music 46 Marching Band Brass Methods
Gary Locke
March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the brass
section sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show performance.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second two weeks,
marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the term, a DVD
of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and evaluated. At
this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are needed to
help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results: MUS 46 Marching Band Brass Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
o
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 46 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 46, most brass students understand how to play, albeit at
varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band
camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their brass sections
and by the first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to
the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape
musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO
#2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results
MUS 46 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 47
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 47 Marching Band Percussion Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Memorize warm-up exercises and percussion rudiments (battery) and scales
(mallets) for outdoor rehearsals.
Assessment Results
MUS 47 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
90%
Students always demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
7%
Students often demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
19%
3%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality
of sound.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students rarely demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate tempo control, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Evaluation
Uniformity is the basis of all judging. The sooner the percussion students can learn
/ commit to memory the exercises & etudes, the sooner they have the chance of
excelling musically – presenting a ‘unified’ and uniform sound. Upon entering MUS
47, most percussion students understand how to play, albeit at varying levels of
musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band camp, they are learning to
work more consistently within their percussion sections and by the first performance,
they have figured out how their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of
course, just when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it all
‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO #2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within the
context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected, by the end
of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have become
experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the process’ and
‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and agreed that we
were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and excelling at a high level. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one through the
123rd Tournament of Roses Parade preparation!
Assessment Plan for Music 47
Marching Band Percussion Methods
Gary Locke
March 8, 2016
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
percussion ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read percussion show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score - on a percussion instrument within the context of various musical styles, while marching in the band.
Demonstrate correct methods of marching in a band while playing a percussion
instrument.
Assessment Results: MUS 47 Marching Band Percussion Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 47 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students often demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 47, most percussion students understand how to play,
albeit at varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of
band camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their
percussion sections and by the first performance, they have figured out how
their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things
begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is
introduced. (see SLO #2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate correct methods of marching in a band while playing a percussion
instrument (simultaneous demand.)
Assessment Results
MUS 47 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play, often at break-neck speeds – while
wearing a drum! - is a very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as
well as memorizing complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes,
changes of direction and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 48
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 48 Marching Band
Compiled by Gary Locke • June 8, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Travel and perform in a variety of settings, including international tours, televised
events, national and state-level conferences and festivals, local community functions
and local public schools.
Assessment Results
MUS 48 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
45%
90%
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and
intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought
or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and
Good
35%
9%
intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity
of articulation & rhythm.
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and
Fair
15%
1%
intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical
thought or expressive playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
Poor
5%
0%
articulation & rhythm.
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and
intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Unaccepta
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and
0%
ble
0%
intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought
or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 48, all students understand how to play, albeit at varying levels
of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of the first few weeks, they are
learning to work more consistently within their sections and by the first
performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the overall scheme of
things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge of
‘touring’ is introduced. Planning ahead, learning to create a budget, discussing
cultural differences, manners, potential language barriers, exchange rates, foreign
currency, airline travel protocol, packing - all things related to being ‘on the road’
are introduced, discussed, analyzed and used to inform/educate/motivate.
By mid-semester, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within the
context of a large indoor ensemble, in various musical styles. As expected, by the
end of the semester, all student musicians are actually having fun and have become
above-average entertainers! James Rocillo, and I discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the
results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and agreed that we were
quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
Assessment Plan: MUS 48 Marching Band
by Gary Locke • March 26, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read the field show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score, within the context of a marching
band, in various musical styles.
Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results: MUS 48 Marching Band
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 48 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 48, most students understand how to play, albeit at
varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band
camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their sections and by
the first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the
overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape
musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO
#2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results
MUS 48 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and its an ongoing project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 49
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 49 Percussion Ensemble (Indoor Competitive
Marching)
Compiled by Gary Locke • May 11, 2011
SLO Assessed
1. Demonstrate correct methods of marching, maneuvering and body movement
while playing an instrument in the indoor marching percussion ensemble.
Assessment Results
MUS 49 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
Excellent
50%
90%
articulation & rhythm.
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and
intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought
or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and
Good
45%
10%
intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity
of articulation & rhythm.
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and
Fair
5%
0%
intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical
thought or expressive playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
Poor
0%
0%
articulation & rhythm.
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and
intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Unaccepta
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and
0%
ble
0%
intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought
or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 49, an audition-only competitive ensemble, all students
understand how to play, albeit at varying levels of musical ability and
technique/style. By the end of early weekend camps, they are learning to work
more consistently within their sections and by the first performance, they have
figured out how their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just
when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the
move’ is introduced. (see SLO #2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within the
context of a large indoor ensemble, in various musical styles. As expected, by the
end of the semester, all student musicians are actually having fun and have become
experienced indoor entertainers! James Rocillo, Sean Vega and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
3. Experience the importance of a competitive group performance to their
development as an indoor marching percussionist/musician.
Assessment Results
MUS 49 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-
Post-
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual
vocabulary of drill/staging/body/equipment.
Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual
Excellent
50%
95%
responsibilities as relates to drill or staging. Breaks & flaws
are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a
superior manner.
Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary
of drill/staging/body/equipment.
Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual
Good
50%
5%
responsibilities as relates to drill or staging. Breaks and flaws
are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a
superior manner.
Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual
Fair
0%
0%
vocabulary of drill/staging/body/equipment.
Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual
responsibilities as relates to drill or staging. Breaks and flaws
still occur but recovery is evident.
Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in
a superior manner.
Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual
vocabulary of drill/staging/body/equipment.
Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual
Poor
0%
0%
responsibilities as relates to drill or staging. Breaks and flaws
are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied
vocabulary of drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unaccepta
Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual
0%
ble
0%
responsibilities as relates to drill or staging. Breaks are
constant and recovery is nonexistent.
Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Competitive Indoor Drum Line is a unique learning experience that involves a
demonstration of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march/dance and play – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing complex
movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction and varied
body/instrument angles, not to mention great physical conditioning!
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching/dancing and playing)
with James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the visual
effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an on-going
project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary percussion concepts and excelling at a very high level. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru earning
the WGI Silver Medal (2nd in the nation) in the world class at the Winter Guard
International Championships!
Assessment Plan: MUS 49 Percussion Ensemble (Indoor Competitive Marching)
by Gary Locke • March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
indoor marching percussion ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed in
the final indoor show performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived.
During the second two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the
conclusion of the term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read percussion show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a marching
band, in various musical styles.
Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
MUS 50
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 50 Master Chorale
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Evaluate major choral works of different musical styles and periods, and be able to
perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Assessment Results
MUS 50 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to evaluate major choral works of different styles
Excellent
30%
90%
and perform with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Students were usually able to evaluate major choral works of different styles
Good
25%
10%
and perform with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Students were sometimes able to evaluate major choral works of different
Fair
35%
0%
styles and perform with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Students were occasionally able evaluate major choral works of different
Poor
5%
0%
styles and perform with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Students were never able to evaluate major choral works of different styles
Unacceptable
5%
0%
and perform with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills. In contrast, I would say in the
performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 50 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to distinguish and analyze choral music
performance skills.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to distinguish and analyze choral music
performance skills, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and
or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical
style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed
to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly distinguish
and analyze choral music performance skills.
Assessment Plan for MUS 50
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five choral pieces and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester, students will
sing through the same four to five choral pieces and then record them again. At
the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement
any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through choral pieces.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed

Distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills, including correct
balance, blend, diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.

Evaluate choral music of all musical styles and periods and be able to
perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.

Evaluate, perform, and discuss the diversity of music in other languages
and from other cultures.
Assessment Results: MUS 50 Master Chorale
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills, including correct balance,
blend, diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
Assessment Results
MUS 50 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance
Excellent
30%
90%
Good
25%
10%
skills.
Students were usually able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills.
Students were sometimes able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance
Fair
35%
0%
skills.
Students were occasionally able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance
Poor
5%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
skills.
Students were never able to distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills. In contrast, I would say in the
performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 50 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to distinguish and analyze choral music
performance skills.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to distinguish and analyze choral music
performance skills, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and
or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical
style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed
to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly distinguish
and analyze choral music performance skills.
MUS 51
John Byun
Assessment Plan for MUS 51
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five men’s choral pieces and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same four to five choral pieces and then record them
again. At the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and
implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through men’s choral literature.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed
Review a variety of men’s ensemble literature to include both sacred and secular
genres.
Demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive singing, including correct
posture, stage presence and proper breathing techniques.
Evaluate and discuss the aesthetic characteristics of men’s ensemble literature.
Assessment Results: MUS 51 Men’s Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive singing, including correct
posture, stage presence and proper breathing techniques.
Assessment Results
MUS 51 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive
Excellent
30%
90%
singing.
Students were usually able to demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive
Good
30%
10%
singing.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive
Fair
20%
0%
singing.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive
Poor
10%
0%
singing.
Students were never able to demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive
Unacceptable
10%
0%
singing.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive singing.
In contrast, I would say
in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 51 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate the underlying
concepts of expressive singing.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to demonstrate the underlying concepts of
expressive singing, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and
or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical
style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed
to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
the underlying concepts of expressive singing.
MUS 52
Jasminka Knecht
Assessment Results: MUS 52 Recital Performance
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Prepare a program, program notes or other materials related to the recital repertoire
in cooperation with the instructor or recital coordinator
Assessment Results
# of
Rating
Qualifiers
students
Students always prepared program, program notes or
Excellent
5
other materials related to the recital repertoire in
cooperation with the instructor or recital coordinator
Students usually prepared program, program notes or
Good
0
other materials related to the recital repertoire in
cooperation with the instructor or recital coordinator
Students sometimes prepared program, program notes
Fair
0
or other materials related to the recital repertoire in
cooperation with the instructor or recital coordinator
Students occasionally prepared program, program
notes or other materials related to the recital
Poor
0
repertoire in cooperation with the instructor or recital
coordinator
Students never prepared program, program notes or
Unacceptable
0
other materials related to the recital repertoire in
cooperation with the instructor or recital coordinator
Evaluation
On June 15, 2011, Charlie Richard and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that all students completed the SLOs above and this was expected in this
class since students enrolling in MUS 52 are most serious and advanced music
students.
As a result, we will continue to have high expectations and work with
students in preparation for the recital.
Assessment Plan
MUS 52
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the Jury exam, one semester prior to taking MUS 52, ask students to demonstrate playing
advanced repertoire for their performance medium.
At the end of the semester, the students will present a recital of 20-25 minutes and perform
advanced repertoire for their performance medium.
Following the recital, faculty involved in teaching MUS 52 course will meet to discuss the results and
implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
Perform advanced repertoire for their performance medium.
Plan and execute a recital of 20-25 minutes using piano accompaniment, if appropriate, and/or
chamber group accompaniment, if appropriate.
Dates
Week 16 (semester prior to taking MUS 52 class): Jury Exam
Any week towards the end of the semester: Recital
Any week following the Recital: Faculty meet and discuss the results.
Assessment Results: MUS 52 Recital Performance
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • April 15, 2010
SLO Assessed
Perform advanced repertoire for their performance medium.
Plan and execute a recital of 20-25 minutes using piano accompaniment, if
appropriate, and/or chamber group accompaniment, if appropriate.
Assessment Results
MUS 52 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Excellent
0%
100%
Students were always able to perform advanced repertoire
Good
67%
0%
Students were usually able to perform advanced repertoire
Fair
33%
0%
Students were sometimes able to perform advanced repertoire
Poor
0%
0%
Students were occasionally able to perform advanced repertoire
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students were never able to perform advanced repertoire
Evaluation
We only had three student enrolled in this class and during the audition they
performed advanced repertoire for their performance medium.
On April 15, 2010, Charlie Richard and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that students showed improvement and completed the SLOs above. As
a result, we will continue to have high expectations and broaden students’ repertoire
and technique.
MUS 53
Jasminka Knecht
Assessment Results: MUS 53 Keyboard Proficiency
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • June 15, 2013
SLO Assessed
1. Perform with appropriate tempo, pitch and rhythmic accuracy, fluent use of the
pedal, legato touch, good tone quality, and appropriate performance practices of a
prepared instrumental or vocal accompaniment.
Assessment Results
# of
Rating
Qualifiers
students
The student is consistently effective in performing with
appropriate tempo, pitch and rhythmic accuracy, fluent use
Excellent
of the pedal, legato touch, good tone quality, and
appropriate performance practices of a prepared
instrumental or vocal accompaniment
The student is generally effective in performing with
appropriate tempo, pitch and rhythmic accuracy, fluent use
Good
of the pedal, legato touch, good tone quality, and
appropriate performance practices of a prepared
instrumental or vocal accompaniment.
The student is inconsistent and/or only somewhat effective
in performing with appropriate tempo, pitch and rhythmic
Fair
0
accuracy, fluent use of the pedal, legato touch, good tone
quality, and appropriate performance practices of a
prepared instrumental or vocal accompaniment
The student is unprepared and does not perform with
appropriate tempo, pitch and rhythmic accuracy, fluent use
Poor
0
of the pedal, legato touch, good tone quality, and
appropriate performance practices of a prepared
instrumental or vocal accompaniment
2. Perform solo repertoire pieces at performance level that is the equivalent of the
level of difficulty of Chopin’s easier Preludes; a Sonatine, by Clementi featuring
Alberti bass, or a more extended selection from Children’s Pieces, Op. 27 by
Kabalevsky.
Assessment Results
# of
Rating
Qualifiers
students
The student is consistently effective in performing the
pitches and rhythms accurately and performing with
Excellent
appropriate and/or characteristic expression for the cultural
style or genre of the piece, following the markings in the
score.
The student is generally effective in performing the pitches
Good
and rhythms accurately and performing with appropriate
and/or characteristic expression for the cultural style or
genre of the piece, following the markings in the score.
The student is inconsistent and/or only somewhat effective
in performing the pitches and rhythms accurately and
Fair
0
performing with appropriate and/or characteristic
expression for the cultural style or genre of the piece,
following the markings in the score.
The student demonstrates beginning level of performance.
Wrong notes consistently detract from the performance, the
Poor
0
beat is usually erratic and rhythms are seldom accurate.
The student rarely performs with expression and style.
Evaluation
On June 15, 2011, Judy Johansen, Dr. Jeanette Wong, Sylvia Ho, Joel Paat, Kim Amin
and I discussed the results of this assessment. We agreed that many students are
not completing the SLO above. Instructors are aware that some of their students
are attending concerts but they are not submitting reports.
As a result, the
instructors will discuss this requirement with their students and how to submit
concert reports and enforce that policy.
Assessment Results: MUS 53 Keyboard Proficiency
Compiled by I-Ching Tsai • December 15, 2011
SLOs ASSESSED:
IV. Perform with appropriate tempo, pitch and rhythmic accuracy, fluent use of
the pedal, legato touch, good tone quality, and appropriate performance
practices of harmonized melodies at the keyboard with primary, secondary, and
V/V chords using various accompaniment styles;
V. Demonstrate all major and minor scales and arpeggios at least with the
tempo, quarter note equals 92, four octaves, ascending and descending, hands
together.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
No. of students
Rating
Grading Rubric
(total:1)
Excellent
1
Notes are consistently accurate. The beat is
secure and the rhythms are accurate.
An occasional inaccurate note is played, but
does not detract from overall performance. The
beat is secure and the rhythms are mostly
Good
0
accurate. There are a few duration errors, but
these do not detract from the overall
performance.
A few inaccurate notes are played, detracting
somewhat from the overall performance. The
beat is somewhat erratic. Some rhythms are
Fair
0
accurate. Frequent or repeated duration errors.
Rhythm problems occasionally detract from the
overall performance.
Wrong notes consistently detract from the
performance. The beat is usually erratic and
Poor
0
rhythms are seldom accurate detracting
significantly from the overall performance.
EVALUATION:
Dr. Peter Curtis and I discussed the results of this assessment. This Assessment
report shows that students are able to reach the achievement levels desired by the
music faculty with careful class-by-class monitoring and very specific guidance
throughout the semester by qualified music faculty.
Assessment Results: MUS 53 Keyboard Proficiency
Compiled by I-Ching Tsai • June 15, 2011
No students from MUS 53 were assessed this semester.
PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT:
Choose a particular SLO from this course to assess. All instructors teaching sections
of this course will be asked to participate. A written and/or performing assignment
which enables students to demonstrate their achievement of this SLO will be used. A
grading rubric to measure student learning success will be developed. The
information is collected anonymously; faculty will review assessment results against
rubric; analyze results to consider the implications of gathered information and
provide comments with what has been learned that might help improve teaching
and learning in the course.
DATES:
During last few weeks of semester.
SLOs TO BE ASSESSED:
I. Perform with appropriate tempo, pitch and rhythmic accuracy, fluent use of the
pedal, legato touch, good tone quality, and appropriate performance practices of a
prepared instrumental or vocal accompaniment.
II. Perform solo repertoire pieces at performance level that is the equivalent of the
level of difficulty of Chopin’s easier Preludes; a Sonatine, by Clementi featuring
Alberti bass, or a more extended selection from Children’s Pieces, Op. 27 by
Kabalevsky.
THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT:
Assessment was administered by participating instructors to their sections between
the 15th and 16th weeks of the semester. Prior to that time, assessment instructions,
grading rubric, and results form were distributed. Once these forms were collected,
results were compared against rubric and analyzed to consider the implications of
gathered information, leading to the collaborative preparation of summary report
among instructors with what has been learned so that improvement of teaching and
learning for the course can be formulated. For the Spring 2011 semester, no
students from MUS 53 participated in the assessment activity.
GRADING RUBRIC
Note
EXCELLENT
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
Notes are
An occasional
A few inaccurate
Wrong notes
inaccurate note
notes are
consistently
is played, but
played,
detract from the
does not detract
detracting
performance.
from overall
somewhat from
performance.
the overall
accuracy consistently
accurate.
performance.
Rhythm
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
secure and the
secure and the
somewhat
usually erratic
rhythms are
rhythms are
erratic. Some
and rhythms are
accurate.
mostly accurate.
rhythms are
seldom accurate
There are a few
accurate.
detracting
duration errors,
Frequent or
significantly
but these do not repeated
from the overall
detract from the
duration errors.
performance.
overall
Rhythm
performance.
problems
occasionally
detract from the
overall
performance.
Assessment Results: MUS 53: Keyboard Proficiency
I-Ching Tsai
May 11, 2010

The assessment plan:
Choose a particular SLO from this course to assess. All instructors teaching sections
of this course will be asked to participate. A written and/or performing assignment
which enables students to demonstrate their achievement of this SLO will be used. A
grading rubric to measure student learning success will be developed. The
information is collected anonymously; assess (assignment) results against rubric;
analyze results to consider the implications of gathered information and prepare
summary report with what has been learned that might help improve teaching and
learning in the course with section instructors.
SLO TO BE ASSESSED: Transpose melodies and harmonies to other keys.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTION:
Transpose at the keyboard America, America the Beautiful, and Star-Spangled
Banner to various keys, including the major keys of F, G, A, B, B-flat, and C (versions
of these patriotic songs to be determined by the instructor).

The actual assessment:
Assessment was administered by participating instructors to their sections between
the 15th and 16th weeks of the semester. Prior to that time, assessment instructions,
grading rubric, and results form were distributed. Once these forms were collected,
results were compared against rubric and analyzed to consider the implications of
gathered information, leading to the collaborative preparation of summary report
among instructors with what has been learned so that improvement of teaching and
learning for the course can be formulated.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Total # of
EXCELLENT
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
ABSENT
5
0
0
0
0
students
5
GRADING RUBRIC
EXCELLENT
Note
Notes are
accuracy consistently
accurate.
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
An occasional
A few inaccurate
Wrong notes
inaccurate note
notes are
consistently
is played, but
played,
detract from the
does not detract
detracting
performance.
from overall
somewhat from
performance.
the overall
performance.
Rhythm
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
The beat is
secure and the
secure and the
somewhat
usually erratic
rhythms are
rhythms are
erratic. Some
and rhythms are
accurate.
mostly accurate.
rhythms are
seldom accurate
There are a few
accurate.
detracting
duration errors,
Frequent or
significantly
but these do not repeated
from the overall
detract from the
duration errors.
overall
Rhythm
performance.
problems
occasionally
detract from the
overall
performance.
performance.

Discussion of what needs to be improved:
After reviewing the results of the assessment activities for MUS 53, instructors (J.
Knecht, N. Townsend, I.Tsai) discussed strengths as well as possible ways to improve
method of teaching. The conclusion is that by splitting the beginner group from
advanced (continuing) students would allow instructors to spend more time with
each group.

Plan to be implemented to make the improvement:
Sections of keyboard proficiency (MUS 53) will follow the improvement plans for
Class Piano (MUS 32), consisting in division into a group for beginners only, and a
second one for continuing (advanced) students. Changes to be implemented starting
Spring semester of 2010.
MUS 54
Charles Richard
Assessment Results: MUS 54: Community Jazz Ensemble
Compiled by Charlie Richard • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#4 Demonstrate performance as a public relations group in the state, local
community and public schools within the College District.
on 12/15/11
On December 5, 2011 the Community Jazz Ensemble performed in concert on
campus with guest artist, Jeff Hellmer. The concert was recorded. 19 students
performed. After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie
Richard and Kevin Mayse, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving
success. The assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having
all students continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate performance as a
Exemplary
% of
Students
100
public relations group in the state, local community and public
schools within the College District
Students were able to demonstrate performance as a public
Accomplished
0
relations group in the state, local community and public schools
within the College District
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate performance
Developing
0
as a public relations group in the state, local community and
public schools within the College District
Students were seldom able to demonstrate performance as a
Beginning
public relations group in the state, local community and public
schools within the College District
0
Assessment Results: MUS 54: Community Jazz Ensemble
Compiled by Charlie Richard • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#1 Demonstrate the performance of jazz literature in a musical organization.
on 6/15/11
On May 14, 2011 the Community Jazz Ensemble performed at the RCC Jazz Festival.
The event was recorded. After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty
members Charlie Richard and Kevin Mayse, it was apparent the majority of students
are achieving success. The assessment will be an ongoing process though with the
goal of having all students continue to produce exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the performance of
% of
Students
100
jazz literature in a musical organization.
0
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to demonstrate the performance of jazz
literature in a musical organization
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the
0
performance of jazz literature in a musical organization
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the performance of
jazz literature in a musical organization
0
Assessment Plan for MUS 54
Community Jazz Ensemble
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
Audition students at the beginning of the semester for chair placement and make a
written record. Sight-read repertoire in the first week of rehearsals and make an
audio recording. The results will be compared to the results of the concert at the
end of the semester. The criteria will all be related to the course outline of record
SLOs. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching the courses will
then meet to discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve
student success.
Dates
First week, audition students individually
First week, sight-read repertoire and make an audio recordings.
Last week, culminating experience concert performance.
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Demonstrate artistic performances of varied works of standard jazz band literature
fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group available in any given semester.
Demonstrate disciplines and methods of performance in a musical ensemble
required for performing jazz repertoire.
Assessment Results: MUS 54: Community Jazz Ensemble
Charles Richard
May 11, 2010
SLO Assessed: Demonstrate artistic performances of varied works of standard jazz
band literature fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group available in any
given semester.
Assessment Results
Rating
Posttest
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate artistic performances of
Excellent
100%
varied works of standard jazz band literature fitted to the size and
instrumentation of the group available in any given semester.
Students were frequently able to demonstrate artistic performances of
Fair
0%
varied works of standard jazz band literature fitted to the size and
instrumentation of the group available in any given semester.
Students were seldom able to demonstrate artistic performances of varied
Poor
0%
works of standard jazz band literature fitted to the size and
instrumentation of the group available in any given semester.
Evaluation
By listening to a recording of the ensemble from a concert recorded on 5/8/2010, it
was apparent that the students were able to consistently perform artistically on
varied works of standard jazz band literature.
On May 11, 2010 Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this assessment and
the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We agreed
the class is quite successful for the time being and the current strategies seem to be
working well.
SLO Assessed: Demonstrate disciplines and methods of performance in a musical
ensemble required for performing jazz repertoire.
Assessment Results
Rating
Post-
Qualifiers
test
Students were consistently able to demonstrate disciplines and methods of
Excellent
100%
performance in a musical ensemble required for performing jazz
repertoire
Good
0%
Students were frequently able to demonstrate disciplines and methods of
performance in a musical ensemble required for performing jazz
repertoire
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate disciplines and methods of
Fair
0%
performance in a musical ensemble required for performing jazz
repertoire
Students were seldom able to demonstrate disciplines and methods of
Poor
0%
performance in a musical ensemble required for performing jazz
repertoire appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Unacceptable
0%
Students were never able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Evaluation
By listening to a recording of the ensemble from a concert recorded on 5/8/2010, it
was apparent that the students were consistently able to demonstrate instrumental
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
On May 11, 2010 Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this assessment and
the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We agreed
the class is quite successful for the time being and the current strategies seem to be
working well.
MUS 55
MUS 56
Kevin Mayse
Assessment Plan for Music 56: Summer Concert Band
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of
the ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed on the mid term or
final concert. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the
concerts. At the conclusion of the term, recordings of the concerts and first
rehearsals will be compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss
the results and decide if any changes are needed to help the students
achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed
Demonstrate the skills and techniques necessary to perform technical
passages found in wind band literature.
Sightread band music skillfully.
Distinguish and apply the styles and performance practices that are
appropriate for the performance of a variety of band literature.
Apply ensemble skills necessary to play in tune and blend and balance within
a large ensemble.
MUS 57
MUS 58
MUS 59
Gary Locke
Assessment Plan for Music 59 Winter Marching Band Clinic
Gary Locke
March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of
the ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the
second two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the
conclusion of the term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals
will be compared and evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results
and decide if any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band
literature appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including
the demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
MUS 60
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 60 Summer Marching Band Clinic
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
1. To familiarize the students new to marching band with requirements of this
medium, including the memorization of warm-up exercises and tuning patterns for
rehearsals.
Assessment Results
MUS 60 (SUM 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
45%
85%
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
35%
9%
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
15%
6%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
4%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Evaluation
Music 60 is Band Camp, sometimes referred to as ‘boot camp’ for marching band –
designed to prepare the students for the fall performance season. Upon entering
MUS 60, all students understand how to play, albeit at varying levels of musical
ability and technique/style. Most of them have been fairly inactive all summer, so
this intensive two-week ‘clinic’ is a shock to the system! By the end of the first few
week, they are learning to work more consistently within their large-sized sections
and by the opening week of the semester, they are on their to figuring out how
their ‘exercise / warm-up book’ fits in to the overall lesson plan of repetition for
improvement – both musically & visually.
Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it
all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (See SLO #2) Without question, the group makes
amazing progress, but often times it’s not fully realized – or rewarding - until
midway through the first month of working together.
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate correct techniques for marching in the contemporary ‘field show’
context, as well as the more traditional parade block format.
Assessment Results
MUS 60 (SUM 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
20%
75%
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is
effortless.
Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
20%
Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and
quick.
Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as
relates to drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
1%
Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
1%
Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates
to drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration of
musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Band Camp is the time for planting these
ideas, often using a variety of techniques to demonstrate, challenge & motivate.
There’s a lot of ‘modeling of behavior,’ imitation, repetition & skill building.
Requiring young, often inexperienced students to march and play – often at breakneck speeds, is a very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as
memorizing complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of
direction and varied body/instrument angles. Music 60 is the time to introduce
everything and it’s always a bit overwhelming. Often times, real progress is not
observed until much later in the season.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the visual
effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an on-going
project.
SLO Assessed
3. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score (or visual program) within
the context of a contemporary marching band, in various musical and/or visual
styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 60 (SUM 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-
Post-
test
test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Excellent
20%
75%
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Good
40%
20%
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Fair
20%
3%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
Poor
10%
1%
rhythm.
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation
& rhythm.
Unacceptable
10%
1%
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Evaluation
By the end of band camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their
sections and by the opening of the fall season, they have figured out how their part
fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take
shape musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO
#2)
By mid-season, the goal is to have the student-performers fully capable of
interpreting their part of a musical score/pageantry sequence, within the context of
a large marching band, in various musical/movement styles. Band camp is the time
for introducing the tools to reach that goal. The long-range goal, by the end of the
semester, is to have a class (band) filled with competent students who are actually
having fun and have become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I
discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating
process and agreed that we were quite pleased with the ‘signs’ of improvement in
the 220-member ensemble. ‘Real’ achievement comes later.
We agreed that students were being introduced to a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting to see
the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one (band camp)
through the 123rd Tournament of Roses Parade preparations!
Assessment Plan for Music 60 Summer Marching Band Clinic
Gary Locke
March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first week of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the ensemble
sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show performance. These
rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second week, marching will be
added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the term, a DVD of the final
performances and first rehearsals will be compared and evaluated. At this time,
faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are needed to help the
students achieve success.
Dates
First week, sight-read show music and make audio recording
Second week, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Ending activity: create a DVD of final rehearsals
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a marching
band, in various musical styles.
Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
MUS 61
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 61 Auxiliary Marching Units
Compiled by Gary Locke • June 8, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate basic dance techniques, including proper stretching and warm-ups,
“across the floor” combinations, learning to jazz run and different types of body
movement in various styles to match the theme of the INDOOR competitive show.
(Fall = outdoor; Spring = Fantasia!)
Assessment Results
MUS 61 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always demonstrate methods & techniques
Excellent
60%
90%
reflecting the highest degree of physical and mental
development.
Students always demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body
that sets new standards.
Students always demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at
an advanced level.
Students often demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting
the highest degree of physical and mental development.
Students often demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body
Good
35%
10%
that sets new standards.
Students often demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at
an advanced level.
Students sometimes demonstrate methods & techniques
reflecting the highest degree of physical and mental
development.
Fair
5%
0%
Students sometimes demonstrate vocabulary of
equipment/body that sets new standards.
Students sometimes demonstrate meaningful visual
musicality at an advanced level.
Students rarely demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting
the highest degree of physical and mental development.
Students rarely demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body
Poor
0%
0%
that sets new standards.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful visual musicality at
an advanced level.
Students could not demonstrate methods & techniques
reflecting the highest degree of physical and mental
development.
Unaccepta
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate vocabulary of
ble
equipment/body that sets new standards.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful visual musicality
at an advanced level.
Evaluation
Upon entering SPR Music 61, an audition-only competitive group, all students
understand how to do move (dance,) albeit at varying levels of technique/style and
visual musicality. By the end of the first month, they are learning to work more
consistently within their sections and by the first performance, they have figured out
how their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things
begin to take shape from a physical standpoint, the challenge of doing it in a
precise manner, while being expressive, comes into play.
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of the visual presentation, within
the context of an elite indoor winter color guard, in various musical styles. As
expected, by the end of the semester, all performers are actually having fun and
have become experienced INDOOR entertainers! Sheila Locke, Tim Mikan and I
discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / videotaping / evaluating
protocol and agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the group
– ending the season ranked 5th in the nation at the Winter Guard International
Championships at the University of Dayton, Ohio!
Assessment Plan: MUS 61 Auxiliary Marching Units
by Gary Locke • March 8, 2011
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the color
guard ensemble learning flag/dance routines to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be video taped and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, begin work on field show flag work/choreography and make video
recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of the visual presentation - with a
flag/rifle/saber/prop - within the context of various musical styles, while
marching/dancing with the marching band.
Demonstrate correct methods of marching/moving/dancing in a marching band
while performing their flag/dance routine.
Assessment Results: MUS 61 Auxiliary Marching Units
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of the visual presentation – with a
flag/rifle/saber/prop - within the context of various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 61 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest degree
of physical and mental development.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new
standards.
 Students always demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
 Students often demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest degree of
Good
52%
17%
physical and mental development.
 Students often demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new standards.
 Students often demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
 Students sometimes demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest
degree of physical and mental development.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new
standards.
 Students sometimes demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
 Students rarely demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest degree of
Poor
9%
0%
physical and mental development.
 Students rarely demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new standards.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
 Students could not demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest
degree of physical and mental development.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new
standards.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 61, most students understand how to do flag work, albeit
at varying levels of technique/style and visual musicality. By the end of band
camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their sections and by
the first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the
overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape
musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO
#2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of the visual presentation,
within the context of a large color guard, in various musical styles. As
expected, by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun
and have become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I
discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording /
evaluating process and agreed that we were quite pleased with the
improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate correct methods of marching/moving/dancing in a marching band
wile performing their flag/dance routine (simultaneous demand.)
Assessment Results
MUS 61 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is
effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and
quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
Poor
10%
0%
drill/staging/body/equipment.
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is
attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Color Guard is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration of
visual musicality, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and ‘twirl’ – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied flag/body angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 62
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 62 Woodwind Techniques for Marching Band
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Lead the collaboration with other players in the woodwind section to create an
ensemble sound appropriate to the contemporary marching band setting.
Assessment Results
MUS 62 (SUM 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
30%
85%
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
62%
12%
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
8%
3%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Poor
0%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 62, the woodwind students understand how to play, usually at
high levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band camp, they
are learning to work more consistently within their large-sized woodwind sections
and by the first performance, they are demonstrating how their part fits in to the
overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically,
the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO #3)
By mid-season, they have become leaders in the collaborative effort & are adept at
interpreting their part of a musical score, within the context of a large marching
band, in various musical styles. As expected, by the end of the semester, most
students are actually having fun and have become experienced outdoor entertainers!
James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching /
recording / evaluating process and agreed that we were quite pleased with the
improvement of the class.
We agreed that students have learned a multitude of ‘state of the art,’ contemporary
marching band concepts and are excelling. It was exciting to see the growth of the
students, musically and visually, from day one through the 123rd Tournament of
Roses Parade preparations!
Assessment Plan for Music 62 -
Marching Band Woodwind Methods
Gary Locke
March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
woodwind section sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a marching
band, in various musical styles.
Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results: MUS 62 Marching Band Woodwind Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
o
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 62 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 62, most woodwind students understand how to play,
albeit at varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of
band camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their
woodwind sections and by the first performance, they have figured out how
their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things
begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is
introduced. (see SLO #2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results
MUS 62 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 63
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 63 Brass Techniques for Marching Band
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Collaborate with other players in the brass section to create an ensemble sound
appropriate to the contemporary marching band setting.
Assessment Results
MUS 63 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
30%
85%
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
62%
12%
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
8%
3%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
0%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 63, the brass students understand how to play, usually at high
levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band camp, they are
learning to work more consistently within their large-sized brass sections and by the
first performance, they are demonstrating how their part fits in to the overall scheme
of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge
of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO #3)
By mid-season, they have become leaders in the collaborative effort & are adept at
interpreting their part of a musical score, within the context of a large marching
band,
in various musical styles. As expected, by the end of the semester,
these students are actually having fun and have become experienced outdoor
entertainers! James Rocillo
and I discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the
teaching / recording / evaluating process and agreed that we were quite pleased
with the improvement of the class.
We agreed that students have learned a multitude of ‘state of the art,’ contemporary
marching band concepts and are excelling. It was exciting to see the growth of the
students, musically and visually, from day one through the 123rd Tournament of
Roses Parade preparations!
Assessment Plan for Music 63 Marching Band Brass Methods
Gary Locke
March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the brass
section sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show performance.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second two weeks,
marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the term, a DVD
of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and evaluated. At
this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are needed to
help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a marching
band, in various musical styles.
Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results: MUS 63 Marching Band Brass Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
o
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 63 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 63, most brass students understand how to play, albeit at
varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band
camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their brass sections
and by the first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to
the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape
musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO
#2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results
MUS 63 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
20%
80%
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 64
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 64 Percussion Techniques for Marching Band
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Apply advanced musicianship skills, on percussion instruments, to a large
ensemble experience.
Assessment Results
MUS 64 (FALL 20011) SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
50%
85%
Students always demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
40%
15%
Students often demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
0%
0%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality
of sound.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students rarely demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
0%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate tempo control, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 64, advanced percussion students understand how to play,
usually at high levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band
camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their percussion sections
and by the first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the
overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically,
the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced and these mature
performers lead the way.
By mid-season, they have become leaders in the collaborative effort & are adept at
interpreting their part of a musical score, within the context of a large contemporary
marching band, in various musical styles. As expected, by the end of the semester,
these advanced students are actually having fun and have become experienced
outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of
the teaching / recording / evaluating process and agreed that we were quite pleased
with the outstanding achievement of the drum line.
We agreed that students have learned a multitude of ‘state of the art,’ contemporary
marching band percussion concepts and are excelling. It was exciting to see the
growth
of the students, musically and visually, from day one through the
preparations for the
123rd Tournament of Roses Parade!
Assessment Plan for Music 64
Marching Band Percussion Methods
Gary Locke
March 8, 2016
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
percussion ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read percussion show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score - on a percussion instrument within the context of various musical styles, while marching in the band.
Demonstrate correct methods of marching in a band while playing a percussion
instrument.
Assessment Results: MUS 64 Marching Band Percussion Methods
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
o
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 64 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students often demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate tempo control, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tuning and blend & balance = quality of
sound.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 64, most percussion students understand how to play,
albeit at varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of
band camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their
percussion sections and by the first performance, they have figured out how
their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things
begin to take shape musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is
introduced. (see SLO #2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate correct methods of marching in a band while playing a percussion
instrument (simultaneous demand.)
Assessment Results
MUS 64 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
Unacceptable
10%
0%
drill/staging/body/equipment.
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play, often at break-neck speeds – while
wearing a drum! - is a very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as
well as memorizing complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes,
changes of direction and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 65
Roger Duffer/Jasminka Knecht
Assessment Results: MUS 65 Basic Musicianship
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
1. Perform simple melodies at sight.
Assessment Results
MUS 65 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN NUMBER OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Excellent
Qualifiers
% of Students
All notes are sung accurately with correct solfege syllables.
10
Rhythm is performed accurately. The exercise is sung in a
consistent tempo with no starts or stops.
There are only a few wrong pitches and/or wrong solfege
Good
11
syllables or rhythms. There is one break in a fairly consistent
tempo.
Fair
Poor
There are several wrong pitches and/or wrong solfege syllables
or rhythm.
6
There are several stops and starts.
About half of the pitches and/or solfege syllables or rhythm
0
are incorrect. There are over 4 stops and starts.
Unacceptab
There are numerous wrong pitches and /or solfege syllables
le
and/or rhythm. There are numerous stops and starts.
0
SLO Assessed
2. Identify intervals, chords and simple chord progressions from aural examples.
Assessment Results
MUS 65 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN NUMBERS OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Qualifiers
# of Students
The student can identify and write properly all pitches and/or
5
rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
The student can identify and write properly most pitches
7
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
The student can identify and write properly some pitches
10
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
The student can identify and write properly a few pitches
5
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
Unacceptab
The student cannot identify and write properly most pitches
le
and/or rhythms in melodic or rhythmic dictations.
0
Assessment Plan
MUS 65
May 13, 2010
Plan for the Assessment
During the first class meeting, give students Entrance Exam and ask them to match pitches
at sight when reading musical scores.
At the end of the semester (during Final Exam), ask students the same question.
Following the Final Exam, faculty involved in teaching music theory will meet to discuss the
results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
Match pitches at sight when reading musical scores.
Dates
Week 1: Entrance Exam
Week 16: Final Exam
Following Week 16: Faculty meet and discuss the results.
MUS 66
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 66 Advanced Auxiliary Marching Units
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Demonstrate advanced methods of marching & maneuvering in a band while
performing with a prop, i.e. flag, rifle and/or saber – including dance steps, the glide
step, spatial awareness, alignment of internals & distance and location on the ‘grid.’
Assessment Results
MUS 66 (FALL 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
50%
80%
Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is
effortless.
Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
50%
20%
Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident
and quick.
Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
Fair
0%
0%
Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as
relates to line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is
evident.
Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
0%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is
attempted.
Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates
to line and form (staging.) Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Color Guard is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration of visual
musicality, athleticism and artistry. These experienced students are able march and
‘twirl’ – often at break-neck speeds - a very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness
is key, as well as memorizing complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes,
changes of direction and varied flag/body angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and spinning) with
James Rocillo, we agreed that these advanced students are quite amazing! Of
course, we’ll continue to work on emphasizing ‘intervals,’ the distance between
performers on the field – to maximize the visual effect of the presentation.
Consistency in this area is key and it’s an on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and excelling. It was exciting to see the
growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru the preparations
for the 123rd Tournament of Roses Parade!
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting to see
the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru the Rose
Parade!
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting to see
the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru the Rose
Parade!
Assessment Results: MUS 66 Auxiliary Marching Units
Compiled by Gary Locke • June 8, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Memorize warm-up exercises for INDOOR (spring = Fantasia!) rehearsals and
illustrate correct procedures and protocols for rehearsals, performances and
sectional rehearsals.
Assessment Results
MUS 66 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-
Post-
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always demonstrate methods & techniques
reflecting the highest degree of physical and mental
development.
Excellent
60%
90%
Students always demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body
that sets new standards.
Students always demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at
an advanced level.
Students often demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting
the highest degree of physical and mental development.
Students often demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body
Good
35%
10%
that sets new standards.
Students often demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at
an advanced level.
Students sometimes demonstrate methods & techniques
Fair
5%
0%
reflecting the highest degree of physical and mental
development.
Students sometimes demonstrate vocabulary of
equipment/body that sets new standards.
Students sometimes demonstrate meaningful visual
musicality at an advanced level.
Students rarely demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting
the highest degree of physical and mental development.
Students rarely demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body
Poor
0%
0%
that sets new standards.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful visual musicality at
an advanced level.
Students could not demonstrate methods & techniques
reflecting the highest degree of physical and mental
development.
Unaccepta
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate vocabulary of
ble
equipment/body that sets new standards.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful visual musicality
at an advanced level.
Evaluation
Upon entering SPRING Music 66, an audition-only competitive group, students
understand how to do flag work, albeit at varying levels of technique/style and
visual musicality. By the end of the first month, they are learning to work more
consistently within their sections and by the first performance, they have figured out
how their part fits in to the overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things
begin to take shape from a physical standpoint, the challenge of doing it in a
precise manner, while being expressive, comes in to play.
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of the visual presentation, within
the context of an elite indoor winter color guard, in various musical styles. As
expected, by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and
have become experienced INDOOR entertainers! Sheila Locke, Tim Mikan and I
discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / videotaping / evaluating
protocol and agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the group
– ending the season ranked 5th in the nation at the Winter Guard International
Championships, held at the University of Dayton, Ohio!
Assessment Plan: MUS 66 Auxiliary Marching Units
by Gary Locke • May 8, 2011
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the color
guard ensemble learning flag/dance routines to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be video taped and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, begin work on field show flag work/choreography and make video
recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of the visual presentation - with a
flag/rifle/saber/prop - within the context of various musical styles, while
marching/dancing with the marching band.
Demonstrate correct methods of marching/moving/dancing in a marching band
while performing their flag/dance routine.
Assessment Results: MUS 61 Auxiliary Marching Units
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of the visual presentation – with a
flag/rifle/saber/prop - within the context of various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 66 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest degree
of physical and mental development.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new
standards.
 Students always demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
 Students often demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest degree of
Good
52%
17%
physical and mental development.
 Students often demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new standards.
 Students often demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest
degree of physical and mental development.
 Students sometimes demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new
standards.
 Students sometimes demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
 Students rarely demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest degree of
Poor
9%
0%
physical and mental development.
 Students rarely demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new standards.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
 Students could not demonstrate methods & techniques reflecting the highest
degree of physical and mental development.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate vocabulary of equipment/body that sets new
standards.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful visual musicality at an advanced level.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 66, most students understand how to do flag work, albeit
at varying levels of technique/style and visual musicality. By the end of band
camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their sections and by
the first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the
overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape
musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO
#2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of the visual presentation,
within the context of a large color guard, in various musical styles. As
expected, by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun
and have become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I
discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording /
evaluating process and agreed that we were quite pleased with the
improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate correct methods of marching/moving/dancing in a marching band
while performing their flag/dance routine (simultaneous demand.)
Assessment Results
MUS 61 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is
effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
Good
40%
17%
drill/staging/body/equipment.
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and
quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is
attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
line and form (staging.) Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Color Guard is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration of
visual musicality, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and ‘twirl’ – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied flag/body angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 67
Kevin Mayse
Assessment Plan for Music 67
Community Chamber Ensembles
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
different ensembles sight-reading literature to be performed on the final concert.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concert. At the
conclusion of the term, recordings of the concert and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Apply the principles of good performance in chamber music at an advanced
level.
Demonstrate individual initiative and musical leadership in a collaborative
learning environment.
Develop individual and ensemble instrumental techniques at an advanced
level.
MUS 68
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 68 Community Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Demonstrate individual instrumental techniques at an advanced level.
Assessment Results
MUS 68 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate individual instrumental techniques at
Excellent
90%
95%
an advanced level.
Students were usually able to demonstrate individual instrumental techniques at
an advanced level.
Good
5%
0%
.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate individual instrumental techniques
Fair
5%
5%
at an advanced level.
.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate individual instrumental
Poor
0%
0%
techniques at an advanced level.
Students were never able to rehearse and present artistic performances of
Unacceptable
0%
0%
advanced works of classical orchestral literature.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly
demonstrate individual instrumental techniques at an advanced level.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 95% were able to
demonstrate individual instrumental techniques at an advanced level.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 68 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate individual
instrumental techniques at an advanced level.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At the
end of the term we agreed that most students were able to demonstrate individual
instrumental techniques at an advanced level.
There were a few students that still struggled with the concept. As a result of our
discussions, I have determined that I need to spend more time with the musicians
with the least ability.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 68 Community Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Rehearse and present artistic performances of advanced works of classical orchestral
literature.
Assessment Results
MUS 68 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to rehearse and present artistic
performances of advanced works of classical orchestral
Excellent
90%
95%
literature.
Students were usually able to rehearse and present artistic
performances of advanced works of classical orchestral
Good
5%
0%
literature.
.
Students were sometimes able to rehearse and present
artistic performances of advanced works of classical
Fair
5%
5%
orchestral literature.
.
Students were occasionally able to rehearse and present
artistic performances of advanced works of classical
Poor
0%
0%
orchestral literature.
Students were never able to rehearse and present artistic
performances of advanced works of classical orchestral
Unaccepta
0%
ble
0%
literature.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly rehearse
and present artistic performances of advanced works of classical orchestral literature.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 95% were successful in
Rehearsing and presenting artistic performances of advanced works of classical
orchestral literature.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 68 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to rehearse and present
artistic performances of advanced works of classical orchestral literature.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At the
end of the term we agreed that most students were able to rehearse and present
artistic performances of advanced works of classical orchestral literature.
There were a few students that still struggled with the concept. As a result of our
discussions, I have determined that I need to spend more time with the musicians
with the least ability.
Assessment Plan for Music 68
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed on the final concert. These
rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concert. At the conclusion of
the term, recordings of the concert and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Rehearse and present artistic performances of advanced works of classical orchestral
literature.
Develop individual initiative and musical leadership within a section of a large
ensemble.
Demonstrate individual instrumental technique at an advanced level.
Rehearse and present artistic performances of advanced works of classical orchestral
literature.
Assessment Results: MUS 68 Community Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate musical leadership within an ensemble.
Assessment Results
MUS 68 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to demonstrate initiative and
Excellent
90%
95%
musical leadership within a section.
Good
5%
0%
Students were usually able to demonstrate initiative and
musical leadership within a section.
.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate initiative and
musical leadership within a section.
Fair
5%
5%
.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate musical
Poor
0%
0%
leadership initiative and musical leadership within a section.
Students were never able to demonstrate initiative and
Unaccepta
0%
0%
musical leadership within a section.
ble
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly
demonstrate musical leadership. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, 95% were successful in demonstrating musical leadership.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 68 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate musical
leadership.
On April 12, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At the
end of the term we agreed that most students were able to demonstrate musical
leadership within the ensemble. There were a few students that still struggled with
the concept. As a result of our discussions, I have determined that I need to spend
more time with the musicians with the least ability and make sure they understand
the concept of consistent musical leadership.
MUS 69
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 69 Festival Choir
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Further distinguish and analyze advanced large-scale choral works.
Assessment Results
MUS 69 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to further distinguish and analyze advanced
Excellent
45%
90%
large scale choral works.
Students were usually able to further distinguish and analyze advanced large
Good
30%
10%
scale choral works.
Students were sometimes able further distinguish and analyze advanced
Fair
15%
0%
large scale choral works.
Students were occasionally able to further distinguish and analyze advanced
Poor
5%
0%
large scale choral works.
Students were never able to further distinguish and analyze advanced large
Unacceptable
5%
0%
scale choral works.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
evaluate complex choral music of different musical styles and periods, and be able to
perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.In contrast, I would say in
the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 69 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to evaluate complex choral music of
different musical styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with
sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able evaluate complex choral music of different
musical styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity,
accuracy, and artistry, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing
and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the
musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly evaluate
complex choral music of different musical styles and periods, and be able to perform
this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.
Assessment Plan for MUS 69
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through a major
minor choral work or oratorio and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same scores and then record them again. At the end
of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any
changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Further distinguish and analyze advanced large-scale choral works.
Evaluate complex choral music of different musical styles and periods, and be able
to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.
Interpret technically difficult choral music.
Further discuss and evaluate the diversity of music of other languages and from
other cultures.
Assessment Results: MUS 69 Festival Choir
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Evaluate complex choral music of different musical styles and periods, and be able
to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.
Assessment Results
MUS 69 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to evaluate complex choral music of different musical
Excellent
45%
90%
styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and
artistry.
Students were usually able to evaluate complex choral music of different musical
Good
30%
10%
styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy,
and artistry.
Students were sometimes able to evaluate complex choral music of different musical
Fair
15%
0%
styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy,
and artistry.
Students were occasionally able to evaluate complex choral music of different
Poor
5%
0%
musical styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity,
accuracy, and artistry.
Students were never able to evaluate complex choral music of different musical
Unacceptable
5%
0%
styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and
artistry.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
evaluate complex choral music of different musical styles and periods, and be able to
perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.In contrast, I would say in
the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 69 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to evaluate complex choral music of
different musical styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with
sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able evaluate complex choral music of different
musical styles and periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity,
accuracy, and artistry, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing
and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the
musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly evaluate
complex choral music of different musical styles and periods, and be able to perform
this literature with sensitivity, accuracy, and artistry.
MUS 71
John Byun
Assessment Plan for MUS 71
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through a major
minor choral work or oratorio and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same scores and then record them again. At the end
of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any
changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through choral scores.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Distinguish and analyze choral music performance skills, including correct balance,
blend, diction, tone production, and pitch accuracy.
Evaluate choral music of all musical styles and periods and be able to perform this
literature with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Interpret expressive choral music.
Evaluate, perform, and discuss the diversity of music in other languages and from
other cultures.
MUS 72
I-Ching Tsai
ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR MUS 72
PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT:
Choose a particular SLO from this course to assess. All instructors teaching
sections of this course will be asked to participate. A written and/or
performing assignment which enables students to demonstrate their
achievement of this SLO will be used. A grading rubric to measure student
learning success will be developed. The information is collected
anonymously; assess (assignment) results against rubric; analyze results to
consider the implications of gathered information and prepare summary
report with what has been learned that might help improve teaching and
learning in the course with section instructors.
DATE:
During last 4 class sessions.
SLO TO BE ASSESSED:

Transpose melodies and harmonies to other keys.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTION:
Group A: Write/transpose the following simple melody to A Major. Then
perform it. (The simple melody is 4 measures long, written in common time,
D major, grand staff, both hands playing in parallel motion, with quarter and
half notes only.)
Group B: Transpose at the keyboard “Beautiful Brown Eyes” to D Major (3/4
time, simple rhythm, alternating-hand chord accompanying throughout the
song, written in G major.)
Group C: Transpose at the keyboard “Barcarolle” to A Major (6/8 time, lefthand arpeggiated accompaniment pattern, written in E Major.)
MUS 73
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 73 Vocal Jazz Singers
Compiled by John Byun • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Diagram chord structure within vocal jazz literature.
Assessment Results
MUS 73 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to diagram chord structure
Excellent
45%
95%
within vocal jazz literature.
Students were usually able to diagram chord structure within
Good
30%
5%
vocal jazz literature.
Students were sometimes able to diagram chord structure
Fair
15%
0%
within vocal jazz literature.
Students were occasionally able to diagram chord structure
Poor
5%
0%
within vocal jazz literature.
Students were never able to diagram chord structure within
Unaccepta
5%
0%
vocal jazz literature.
ble
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able
diagram chord structure within vocal jazz literature. In contrast, I would say in the
performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 73 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to diagram chord structure within
vocal jazz literature.
On December 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to diagram chord structure within vocal
jazz literature, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or
articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style.
We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz technique.
Assessment Results: MUS 73 Vocal Jazz Singers
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Discuss and demonstrate swing style.
Assessment Results
MUS 73 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
45%
95%
Good
30%
5%
Fair
15%
0%
Poor
5%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
Qualifiers
Students were always able to discuss and demonstrate swing style.
Students were usually able to discuss and demonstrate swing style.
Students were sometimes able to discuss and demonstrate swing style.
Students were occasionally able to discuss and demonstrate swing style.
Students were never able to discuss and demonstrate swing style.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able
demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz technique. In contrast, I would say in
the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 73 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate appropriate advanced
vocal jazz technique.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz
technique, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or
articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style.
We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
appropriate advanced vocal jazz technique.
Assessment Plan for MUS 73
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five advanced jazz charts and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same four to five jazz charts and then record them
again. At the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and
implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz technique.
Discuss and demonstrate swing style.
Diagram chord structure within vocal jazz literature.
Compose an advanced improvisational vocal solo.
Further demonstrate appropriate stage presence and movements.
Further demonstrate appropriate stage presence and movements.
Assessment Results: MUS 73 Vocal Jazz Singers
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz technique.
Assessment Results
MUS 73 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz
Excellent
45%
95%
technique.
Students were usually able to demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz
Good
30%
5%
technique.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz
Fair
15%
0%
technique.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz
Poor
5%
0%
technique.
Students were never able to demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz
Unacceptable
5%
0%
technique.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able
demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz technique. In contrast, I would say in
the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 73 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate appropriate advanced
vocal jazz technique.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to demonstrate appropriate advanced vocal jazz
technique, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or
articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style.
We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly demonstrate
appropriate advanced vocal jazz technique.
MUS 75
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 75 Advanced Vocal Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Discuss the vast amount of materials available.
Assessment Results
MUS 75 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to discuss the vast amount of
Excellent
50%
95%
materials available.
Students were usually able to discuss the vast amount of
Good
30%
5%
materials available.
Students were sometimes able to discuss the vast amount of
Fair
15%
0%
materials available.
Students were occasionally able to discuss the vast amount
Poor
5%
0%
of materials available.
Students were never able to discuss the vast amount of
Unaccepta
0%
0%
materials available.
ble
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
discuss the vast amount of materials available. In contrast, I would say in the
performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 75 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to discuss the vast amount of
materials available.
On December 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to discuss the vast amount of materials
available, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or
articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style.
We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly distinguish
and perform complex literature written for advanced small vocal groups.
Assessment Results: MUS 75 Advanced Vocal Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Interpret and develop expressive singing and performance skills.
Assessment Results
MUS 75 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to interpret and develop expressive singing and
Excellent
50%
95%
performance skills.
Students were usually able to interpret and develop expressive singing and
Good
30%
5%
performance skills.
Students were sometimes able to interpret and develop expressive singing
Fair
15%
0%
Poor
5%
0%
and performance skills.
Students were occasionally able to interpret and develop expressive singing
and performance skills.
Students were never able to interpret and develop expressive singing and
Unacceptable
0%
0%
performance skills.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
distinguish and perform complex literature written for advanced small vocal groups. In
contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful
in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 75 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to distinguish and perform complex
literature written for advanced small vocal groups.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to distinguish and perform complex literature
written for advanced small vocal groups, but there were times when there was
inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone
quality based on the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly distinguish
and perform complex literature written for advanced small vocal groups.
Assessment Plan for MUS 75
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five madrigals and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester, students will
sing through the same songs and then record them again. At the end of the
semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any changes
needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Distinguish and perform complex literature written for advanced small vocal groups.
Interpret and develop expressive singing and performance skills.
Discuss the vast amount of materials available.
Assessment Results: MUS 75 Advanced Vocal Ensemble
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Distinguish and perform complex literature written for advanced small vocal groups.
Assessment Results
MUS 75 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Excellent
50%
95%
Students were always able to distinguish and perform complex literature written for
advanced small vocal groups.
Students were usually able to distinguish and perform complex literature written for
Good
30%
5%
advanced small vocal groups.
Students were sometimes able to distinguish and perform complex literature written
Fair
15%
0%
for advanced small vocal groups.
Students were occasionally able to distinguish and perform complex literature
Poor
5%
0%
written for advanced small vocal groups.
Students were never able to distinguish and perform complex literature written for
Unacceptable
0%
0%
advanced small vocal groups.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
distinguish and perform complex literature written for advanced small vocal groups. In
contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful
in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 75 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to distinguish and perform complex
literature written for advanced small vocal groups.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to distinguish and perform complex literature
written for advanced small vocal groups, but there were times when there was
inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone
quality based on the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly distinguish
and perform complex literature written for advanced small vocal groups.
MUS 76
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 76 Advanced Instrumental Chamber Ensembles
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Analyze music literature at an advanced level for small instrumental
ensembles.
Assessment Results
MUS 76 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to analyze music literature at an advanced level for
Excellent
90%
100%
small instrumental ensembles.
Students were usually able to analyze music literature at an advanced level for
Good
5%
0%
small instrumental ensembles.
Students were sometimes able to analyze music literature at an advanced level for
Fair
5%
0%
Poor
0%
0%
small instrumental ensembles.
Students were occasionally able to analyze music literature at an advanced level
for small instrumental ensembles.
Students were never able to collaborate with other players to create an ensemble
Unacceptable
0%
0%
sound.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly analyze
music literature at an advanced level for small instrumental ensembles.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 100% were able to analyze
music literature at an advanced level for small instrumental ensembles.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 76 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to analyze music
literature at an advanced level for small instrumental ensembles.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At
the end of the term we agreed that all students were able to analyze music
literature at an advanced level for small instrumental ensembles.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current process seems to
be working and we will re evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 76 Advanced Instrumental Chamber Ensembles
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Collaborate with other players to create an ensemble sound.
Assessment Results
MUS 76 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to collaborate with other players
Excellent
90%
100%
to create an ensemble sound.
Students were usually able to collaborate with other players
Good
5%
0%
to create an ensemble sound.
Students were sometimes able to collaborate with other
Fair
5%
0%
players to create an ensemble sound.
Students were occasionally able to collaborate with other
Poor
0%
0%
players to create an ensemble sound.
Students were never able to collaborate with other players to
Unaccepta
0%
0%
create an ensemble sound.
ble
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly
collaborate with other players to create an ensemble sound.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 100% were successful in
collaborating with other players to create an ensemble sound.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 76 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to collaborate with other
players to create an ensemble sound.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At the
end of the term we agreed that all students were able to collaborate with other
players to create an ensemble sound.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current process seems to
be working and we will re evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
Assessment Plan for Music 76
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
different ensembles sight-reading literature to be performed on the final concert.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concert. At the
conclusion of the term, recordings of the concert and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Perform varied works for chamber ensemble in various styles.
Demonstrate musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Collaborate with other players to create an ensemble sound.
Assessment Results: MUS 76 Advanced Instrumental Chamber Ensembles
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate advanced musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Assessment Results
MUS 76 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to demonstrate advanced musical
Excellent
90%
100%
leadership within a small ensemble.
Students were usually able to demonstrate advanced musical
Good
5%
0%
leadership within a small ensemble.
Fair
5%
0%
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate advanced
musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate advanced
Poor
0%
0%
musical leadership within a small ensemble.
Students were never able to demonstrate advanced musical
Unaccepta
0%
ble
0%
leadership within a small ensemble.
The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were compared to the final
concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would estimate that in the
rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able to properly
demonstrate musical leadership. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, 100% were successful in demonstrating musical leadership.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 76 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate musical
leadership.
On April 12, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. At the
end of the term we agreed that all students were able to demonstrate musical
leadership within the small ensemble. As a result of our discussions, I have
determined that the current process seems to be working and we will re evaluate
the assessment process again at a later date.
MUS 77
Peter Curtis
Assessment Results: MUS 77 Guitar Ensemble
by Peter Curtis  June 15, 2011
SLOs Assessed:
Demonstrate the ability to perform classical guitar music in an ensemble.
Assessment Results
MUS 77 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Excellent
20%
65%
Students fluently demonstrated the ability to perform clas
ensemble
Good
10%
20%
Students demonstrated the ability to perform classical gui
ensemble at an intermediate level
Fair
20%
15%
Students demonstrated some ability to perform classical g
ensemble
Poor
35%
0%
Students demonstrated limited ability to perform classical
ensemble.
Unacceptable
15%
0%
Students could not perform classical guitar music in an en
Evaluation:
In order to measure students’ ability to master this SLO, I listened to them try to
perform a piece at the start of the semester, and compared that with a recording of
them playing the same piece at the end of the semester. As expected, the
differences were stark. The students’ abilities to perform in the ensemble were quite
limited at the start and were very good by the end. On Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, I
discussed the results of this assessment with Kevin Mayse. One way in which he
suggested that I could improve this type of assessment is by always recording the
students early in the semester and comparing that recording with one made at the
end. I told him that I have done that in the past and will make sure to do so in the
future so that their growth can be more objectively documented.
Assessment Plan: MUS 77 Guitar Ensemble
by Peter Curtis  April, 10th, 2010
On the first day of class we will ask students to demonstrate:

A. the ability to sight read classical guitar music written in standard
western notation.

B. the ability to perform ensemble repertoire using appropriate classical
guitar technique.

C. fluent control of tone color, dynamics, blend and sound production.
On the final exam students will:
A. Demonstrate the ability to perform classical guitar music in an ensemble.
B. Sight read classical guitar music written in standard western notation.
C. Perform ensemble repertoire using appropriate classical guitar technique.
D. Demonstrate fluent control of tone color, dynamics, blend and sound production.
E. Play a variety of styles of music for classical guitar ensemble
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
A. the ability to perform classical guitar music in an ensemble.
B. the ability to sight read classical guitar music written in standard western notation.
C. the ability to perform ensemble repertoire using appropriate classical guitar
technique.
D. the ability to play with fluent control of tone color, dynamics, blend and sound
production.
E. the ability to play a variety of styles of music for classical guitar ensemble
Dates:
Week one: Faculty members will fill out the entrance assessment forms based on
student performance and knowledge.
Week sixteen: Faculty members will fill out the exit assessment forms based on
student performance and knowledge.
After Week sixteen: Guitar faculty members will meet to assess the results of the
entrance and exit assessments and discuss what changes, if any, should be
implemented.
Assessment Results: MUS 77 Guitar Ensemble
by Peter Curtis
April, 10th, 2010
SLOs Assessed:
Demonstrate the ability to perform classical guitar music in an ensemble.
Practice, apply and demonstrate the ability to read classical guitar music written
in standard western notation.
Practice and demonstrate the ability to perform ensemble repertoire using
appropriate classical guitar technique.
Demonstrate fluent control of tone color, dynamics, blend and sound
production.
Assessment Results
MUS 37 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students fluently demonstrated the ability to perform classical guitar music in an
ensemble
 Students fluently demonstrated the ability to read classical guitar music written in
Excellent
0%
35%
standard, western notation
 Students fluently demonstrated the ability to perform ensemble repertoire using
appropriate classical guitar technique.
 Students fluently demonstrated control of tone, color, dynamics, blend and sound
production
 Students demonstrated the ability to perform classical guitar music in an ensemble
at an intermediate level
Good
3%
50%
 Students demonstrated the ability to read classical guitar music written in standard,
western notation at an intermediate level
 Students demonstrated the ability to perform ensemble repertoire using appropriate
classical guitar technique at an intermediate level
 Students demonstrated control of tone, color, dynamics, blend and sound
production at an intermediate level.
 Students demonstrated some ability to perform classical guitar music in an
ensemble
 Students demonstrated some ability to read classical guitar music written in
Fair
7%
10%
standard, western notation.
 Students demonstrated some ability to perform ensemble repertoire using
appropriate classical guitar technique
 Students demonstrated some control of tone, color, dynamics, blend and sound
production some of the time.
 Students demonstrated limited ability to perform classical guitar music in an
ensemble.
 Students demonstrated limited ability to read classical guitar music written in
Poor
50%
5%
standard, western notation.
 Students demonstrated limited ability to perform ensemble repertoire using
appropriate classical guitar technique
 Students demonstrated limited control of tone, color, dynamics, blend and sound
production.
 Students could not perform classical guitar music in an ensemble.
 Students could not demonstrated appropriate classical guitar technique.
Unacceptable
19%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate the ability to perform ensemble repertoire using
appropriate classical guitar technique
 Students could not demonstrate control of tone, color, dynamics, blend and sound.
Assessment and Evaluation
In order to measure student’s progress throughout the course, I made recordings of the
students trying to perform guitar ensemble music early in the course and at the final recital.
The differences in the recordings were stark. In the recordings of the first rehearsal,
students were not able to play more than a few bars of music without having to stop or
getting lost. This was due to their inability to sight read classical guitar music written and
standard notation and their lack of practice of that music as individuals and as an ensemble.
Their ability to play with control of tone color, dynamics, blend and sound production was
also sorely lacking.
In contrast, the recordings of the group at the end of the semester demonstrated a
complete transformation. The students performed classical guitar music for ensemble
written in standard western notation at a high level. As a result of having practiced
throughout the semester, the students were able to demonstrate appropriate technique,
tone color, dynamics, blend and sound production. In addition, the student’s performed
contrasting repertoire that demonstrated their ability to play a variety of styles.
On April 2nd, 2010, Patrick Read and I discussed the results of this assessment and the
impact of current teaching strategies on course SLO’s. We agreed that some students who
join Guitar Ensemble after having only taken one semester of class guitar might feel that
they could be better prepared.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to create an intermediate class between Class
Guitar and Guitar Ensemble. The goal for this class is to help prepare students for the
reading and technique that guitar ensemble requires.
MUS 78
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 78 Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Document practice time spent in preparation for lessons.
Assessment Results
MUS 38 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to document practice time spent in preparation for
Excellent
95%
100%
lessons.
Students were usually able to document practice time spent in preparation for
Good
5%
0%
lessons.
Students were sometimes able to document practice time spent in preparation for
lessons.
Fair
0%
0%
Students were occasionally able to document practice time spent in preparation
Poor
0%
0%
for lessons.
Students were never able to demonstrate proficient intermediary performance
Unacceptable
0%
0%
skills on an instrument or voice.
Students were evaluated at both their audition (at the beginning of the term) and
their jury (final exam)
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 78 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to document practice
time spent in preparation for lessons.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to document practice time spent in
preparation for lessons.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time communicating
with the individual students.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 78 Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate proficient intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Assessment Results
MUS 38 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to demonstrate proficient
intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Excellent
65%
90%
Students were usually able to demonstrate proficient
Good
35%
10%
intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate proficient
intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Fair
0%
0%
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate proficient
Poor
0%
0%
intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Unaccepta
0%
0%
Students were never able to demonstrate proficient
ble
intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Students were evaluated at both their audition (at the beginning of the term) and
their jury (final exam)
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 78 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate proficient
intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to demonstrate proficient intermediary
performance skills on an instrument or voice., but there were times when the
improvement was not evident. We discussed different skills and activities and what
might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to spend more time communicating
with the individual instructors.
Assessment Plan for Music 78
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the audition process, the students will be asked to perform musical examples
consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
At the end of the term (during the jury examination) students will be asked to
perform musical examples consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
After the jury examination, faculty involved in teaching applied music will meet to
discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Demonstrate proficient intermediary performance skills on an instrument or voice.
Demonstrate improved intermediary technical skill on an instrument or voice.
MUS 79
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 79 Intermediate Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Analyze and critique music concerts.
Assessment Results
MUS 39 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
90%
100%
Good
NA
0%
Fair
NA
0%
Poor
10%
0%
Unacceptable
NA
0%
Qualifiers
Students were able to analyze and critique music concerts.
Students were unable to analyze and critique music concerts.
A jury examination is a requirement for this class and therefore this would be a
pass/fail portion of the class
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 79 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is if they are being prepared to analyze and critique music concerts.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were prepared to analyze and critique music
concerts.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current process seems to
be working and we will re evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 79 Intermediate Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Perform advanced repertoire on a jury before a faculty committee.
Assessment Results
MUS 39 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were able to perform advanced repertoire on a jury
before a faculty committee.
Excellent
NA
100%
Good
NA
0%
Fair
NA
0%
Poor
NA
0%
Students were never able to perform advanced repertoire on
Unaccepta
NA
0%
a jury before a faculty committee.
ble
A jury examination is a requirement for this class and therefore this would be a
pass/fail portion of the class
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 79 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is if they are being prepared to perform advanced repertoire on a jury before a
faculty committee.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that all students were prepared to perform advanced repertoire on a jury
before a faculty committee.
As a result of our discussions, I have determined that the current process seems to
be working and we will re evaluate the assessment process again at a later date.
Assessment Plan for Music 79
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the audition process, the students will be asked to perform musical examples
consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
At the end of the term (during the jury examination) students will be asked to
perform musical examples consisting of (but not limited to) the following;
-Scales
-Arpeggios
-Exercises
-Etudes
-Repertoire
After the jury examination, faculty involved in teaching applied music will meet to
discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Demonstrate advanced solo performance skills required for transfer as music majors
and/or for professional music fields.
Perform advanced repertoire on a jury before a faculty committee.
Apply and formulate efficient advanced practice techniques.
Assessment Results: MUS 79 Advanced Applied Music
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate solo performance skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
professional music fields.
Assessment Results
MUS 79 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to demonstrate solo performance
Excellent
35%
65%
skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
professional music fields.
Students were usually able to demonstrate solo performance
Good
40%
35%
skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
professional music fields.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate solo
Fair
15%
0%
performance skills required for transfer as music majors
and/or for professional music fields.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate solo
Poor
5%
0%
performance skills required for transfer as music majors
and/or for professional music fields.
Students were never able to demonstrate solo performance
Unaccepta
5%
0%
skills required for transfer as music majors and/or for
ble
professional music fields.
During the audition process, the students will be asked to perform musical examples
consisting of (but not limited to) the following; Scales, Arpeggios, Exercises, Etudes,
Repertoire.
At the end of the term (during the jury examination) students were asked to perform
musical examples consisting of (but not limited to) the following; Scales, Arpeggios,
Exercises, Etudes, Repertoire.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 79 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate their
performance skills
During finals week, Rich Chasin, Marty Rhees and Jack Krumbien and I discussed the
results of this assessment. We agreed that most students were able to successfully
demonstrate solo performance skills appropriate for transfer students, but there
were times when there was inconsistent playing throughout the class. We discussed
different teaching techniques and what might be added/changed to improve student
success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to put together a consistent plan for
all studios to use as a guideline.
MUS 80
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 80 Master Singers
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Interpret and develop expressive singing and performance skills.
Assessment Results
MUS 80 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to interpret and develop expressive singing and
Excellent
35%
90%
performance skills.
Students were usually able to interpret and develop expressive singing and
Good
30%
10%
performance skills.
Students were sometimes able to interpret and develop expressive singing
Fair
25%
0%
and performance skills.
Students were occasionally able to interpret and develop expressive singing
Poor
5%
0%
and performance skills.
Students were never able to interpret and develop expressive singing and
Unacceptable
5%
0%
performance skills.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform the works of various composers. In
contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful
in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 80 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to compare the vocal tone colors
needed to perform the works of various composers.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to compare the vocal tone colors needed to
perform the works of various composers, but there were times when there was
inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone
quality based on the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly compare
the vocal tone colors needed to perform the works of various composers.
Assessment Plan for MUS 80
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five choral pieces and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester, students will
sing through the same scores and then record them again. At the end of the
semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement any changes
needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Name the major composers and their most important works.
Discuss the meaning of the words, especially as they relate to the musical setting.
Apply the skills from Music 50 to the new literature.
Compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform the works of various composers.
Evaluate the overall performance as it relates to today’s society.
Assessment Results: MUS 80 Master Singers
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform the works of various composers.
Assessment Results
MUS 80 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform the
Excellent
35%
90%
works of various composers.
Students were usually able to compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform the
Good
30%
10%
works of various composers.
Students were sometimes able to compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform
Fair
25%
0%
the works of various composers.
Students were occasionally able to compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform
Poor
5%
0%
the works of various composers.
Students were never able to compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform the
Unacceptable
5%
0%
works of various composers.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
compare the vocal tone colors needed to perform the works of various composers. In
contrast, I would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful
in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 80 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to compare the vocal tone colors
needed to perform the works of various composers.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to compare the vocal tone colors needed to
perform the works of various composers, but there were times when there was
inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone
quality based on the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and
what might be added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly compare
the vocal tone colors needed to perform the works of various composers.
MUS 81
John Byun
Assessment Results: MUS 81 Consort Singers
Compiled by John Byun • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Interpret technically difficult choral music.
Assessment Results
MUS 81 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to interpret technically difficult
Excellent
35%
90%
choral music.
Students were usually able to interpret technically difficult
Good
30%
10%
choral music.
Students were sometimes able to interpret technically difficult
choral music.
Fair
25%
0%
Students were occasionally able to interpret technically
difficult choral music.
Poor
5%
0%
Students were never able to interpret technically difficult
Unaccepta
choral music.
5%
0%
ble
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
Interpret technically difficult choral music. In contrast, I would say in the
performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 81 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability Interpret technically difficult choral
music.
On December 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to interpret technically difficult choral
music, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or
articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style.
We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly further
distinguish and analyze advanced choral music performance skills.
Assessment Results: MUS 81 Consort Singers
Compiled by John Byun • June 10, 2011
SLO Assessed
Evaluate complex chamber choral music of different musical styles and
periods, and be able to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy and
artistry.
Assessment Results
MUS 81 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
35%
90%
Good
30%
10%
Qualifiers
Students were always able to evaluate complex chamber choral music.
Students were usually able to evaluate complex chamber choral music.
Students were sometimes able to evaluate complex chamber choral music.
Fair
25%
0%
Poor
5%
0%
Unacceptable
5%
0%
Students were occasionally able to evaluate complex chamber choral music.
Students were never able to evaluate complex chamber choral music.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting
pieces were compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In
both cases, I would estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40%
of the students were able to further distinguish and analyze advanced choral
music performance skills. In contrast, I would say in the performance
recording, more than 90% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 81 is contingent on a successful audition, most
students have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question
is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to further
distinguish and analyze advanced choral music performance skills.
On June 10, 2011, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this
assessment. We agreed that most students were able to further distinguish
and analyze advanced choral music performance skills, but there were times
when there was inappropriate phrasing and or articulation and most evident,
inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style. We discussed different
aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to improve student
success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component
to most rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that
properly further distinguish and analyze advanced choral music performance
skills.
Assessment Plan for MUS 81
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five advanced choral scores and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester,
students will sing through the same four to five choral scores and then record them
again. At the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and
implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Further distinguish and analyze advanced choral music performance skills, including
correct balance, blend, and tone production for different styles, rhythm, pitch, and
ensemble coordination.
Evaluate complex chamber choral music of different musical styles and periods, and
be able to perform this literature with sensitivity, accuracy and artistry.
Interpret technically difficult choral music.
Further discuss and evaluate the diversity of music from other cultures.
Assessment Results: MUS 81 Consort Singers
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Further distinguish and analyze advanced choral music performance skills, including
correct balance, blend, and tone production for different styles, rhythm, pitch, and
ensemble coordination.
Assessment Results
MUS 81 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to further distinguish and analyze advanced choral music
Excellent
35%
90%
Good
30%
10%
performance skills.
Students were usually able to further distinguish and analyze advanced choral music
performance skills.
Students were sometimes able to further distinguish and analyze advanced choral
Fair
25%
0%
music performance skills.
Students were occasionally able to further distinguish and analyze advanced choral
Poor
5%
0%
music performance skills.
Students were never able to further distinguish and analyze advanced choral music
Unacceptable
5%
0%
performance skills.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
further distinguish and analyze advanced choral music performance skills. In contrast, I
would say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their
interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 81 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to further distinguish and analyze
advanced choral music performance skills.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to further distinguish and analyze advanced
choral music performance skills, but there were times when there was inappropriate
phrasing and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on
the musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly further
distinguish and analyze advanced choral music performance skills.
MUS 82
Kevin Mayse
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 82 Wind Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Demonstrate characteristic sounds on their instruments.
Assessment Results
MUS 82 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate characteristic sounds on their
Excellent
95%
100%
instruments.
Students were usually able to demonstrate characteristic sounds on their
Good
5%
0%
instruments.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate characteristic sounds on their
Fair
0%
0%
Poor
0%
0%
instruments.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate characteristic sounds on their
instruments.
Students were never able to interpret literature written for the contemporary wind
Unacceptable
0%
0%
symphony.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, more than 90% of the students were able
to demonstrate characteristic sounds on their instruments.
In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 100% were successful in
demonstrating characteristic sounds on their instruments.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 82 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at an advanced level. The
question is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to demonstrate
characteristic sounds on their instruments.
On December 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment.
We agreed that most students were able to demonstrate characteristic sounds on
their instruments.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate the characteristic sounds.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Results: MUS 82 Wind Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Interpret literature written for the contemporary wind symphony.
Assessment Results
MUS 82 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students were always able to interpret literature written for
the contemporary wind symphony.
Excellent
75%
100%
Students were usually able to interpret literature written for
the contemporary wind symphony.
Good
25%
0%
Fair
0%
0%
Students were sometimes able to interpret literature written
for the contemporary wind symphony.
Students were occasionally able to interpret literature written
Poor
0%
0%
for the contemporary wind symphony.
Students were never able to interpret literature written for
Unaccepta
the contemporary wind symphony.
0%
0%
ble
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, more than 70% of the students were able
to properly interpret literature written for the contemporary wind symphony.
. In contrast, I would say in the performance recording, 100% were successful in
their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 82 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at an advanced level. The
question is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to interpret
literature written for the contemporary wind symphony.
On June 10, 2011, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to successfully interpret literature written for
the contemporary wind symphony.
, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing and or articulation
and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the musical style. We
discussed different aural skills activities and what might be added/changed to
improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate the correct musical styles.
Assessment Plan for Music 82
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed on the mid term or final concert.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concerts. At the
conclusion of the term, recordings of the concerts and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Perform musically within an ensemble.
Interpret literature written for the contemporary wind symphony.
Demonstrate characteristic sounds on their instruments.
Relate proper performance practice with its appropriate style.
Assessment Results: MUS 82 Wind Symphony
Compiled by Kevin Mayse • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Interpret their own individual parts of a musical score at an advanced level, within
the context of various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 82 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
 Students were always able to interpret their individual parts
Excellent
75%
100%
within the correct style.
 Students were usually able to interpret their individual parts
Good
25%
0%
within the correct style.
 Students were sometimes able to interpret their individual
Fair
0%
0%
parts within the correct style.
 Students were occasionally able to interpret their individual
Poor
0%
0%
Unaccepta
0%
0%
parts within the correct style.
 Students were never able to interpret their individual parts
ble
within the correct style.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, more than 70% of the students were able
to properly interpret their parts within the proper style. In contrast, I would say in
the performance recording, 100% were successful in their interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 82 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to play their instrument at an advanced level. The
question is how they combine their technical ability and their ability to interpret
their individual part within the context of various musical styles.
On April 12, 2010, John Byun and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to successfully interpret their individual part
within the correct style, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing
and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the
musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly
demonstrate the correct musical styles.
MUS 83
John Byun
Assessment Plan for MUS 83
January 20, 2009
Plan for Assessment
During the first week of class meeting, ask students to sight read through four to
five choral scores and record the rehearsal. At the end of the semester, students will
sing through the same four to five choral scores and then record them again. At
the end of the semester, faculty member will listen to the recordings and implement
any changes needed to improve student success.
Dates
Week #1: Students read through jazz charts.
Week #16: Students record choral pieces at concert.
Following Week #16: Faculty will meet.
Course Student Learning Outcomes
Further distinguish and analyze vocal chamber music skills, including correct balance,
blend, diction, intonation, and vocal technique.
Review a variety of complex vocal chamber literature to include both sacred and
secular genres.
Further demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive singing, including correct
posture, stage presence and proper breathing techniques.
Interpret and discuss the aesthetic characteristics of vocal chamber literature.
Assessment Results: MUS 83 Advanced Chamber Choir
Compiled by John Byun • April 10, 2010
SLO Assessed
Further demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive singing, including correct
posture, stage presence and proper breathing techniques.
Assessment Results
MUS 83 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to further demonstrate the underlying concepts of
Excellent
40%
95%
expressive singing.
Students were usually able to further demonstrate the underlying concepts of
Good
35%
5%
expressive singing.
Students were sometimes able to further demonstrate the underlying concepts of
Fair
20%
0%
expressive singing.
Students were occasionally able to further demonstrate the underlying concepts of
Poor
5%
0%
expressive singing.
Students were never able to further demonstrate the underlying concepts of
Unacceptable
0%
0%
expressive singing.
Two pieces were evaluated. The rehearsal recordings of two contrasting pieces were
compared to the final concert of the same compositions. In both cases, I would
estimate that in the rehearsal recording, less than 40% of the students were able to
further demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive singing. In contrast, I would
say in the performance recording, more than 90% were successful in their
interpretation.
Evaluation
Since enrollment of MUS 83 is contingent on a successful audition, most students
have the technical ability to sing at a fairly high level. The question is how they
combine their technical ability and their ability to further demonstrate the underlying
concepts of expressive singing.
On April 12, 2010, Kevin Mayse and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that most students were able to further demonstrate the underlying concepts
of expressive singing, but there were times when there was inappropriate phrasing
and or articulation and most evident, inappropriate tone quality based on the
musical style. We discussed different aural skills activities and what might be
added/changed to improve student success.
As a result of our discussions, I have decided to add a listening component to most
rehearsals and a series of listening homework assignments that properly further
demonstrate the underlying concepts of expressive singing.
MUS 84
Charles Richard
Assessment Results: MUS 84 Jazz Orchestra
Compiled by Charlie Richard • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#3 Identify and study Third Stream music.
on 12/15/11
On December 5, 2011 the Jazz Orchestra performed in concert on campus with
guest artist, Jeff Hellmer. The concert was recorded. The ensemble performed
“Summer Festival” by C Richard, a challenging jazz orchestra piece with elements of
third stream style jazz. 31 students performed. After reviewing the CD of the
performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and Kevin Mayse, it was apparent
the majority of students are achieving success. The assessment will be an ongoing
process though with the goal of having all students continuing to produce an
exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify and perform Third
% of
Students
100
Stream music.
0
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to identify and perform Third Stream music.
Students were only occasionally able to identify and perform Third
0
Stream music.
Students were seldom able to identify and perform Third Stream
music.
0
Assessment Results: MUS 84 Jazz Orchestra
Compiled by Charlie Richard • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#1 Demonstrate the performance of demanding literature written for the
contemporary Jazz Orchestra. on 6/15/11
On May 14, 2011 the Jazz Orchestra performed at the RCC Jazz Festival. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
Kevin Mayse, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the performance of
% of
Students
100
demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
0
Accomplished
Students were able to demonstrate the performance of demanding
literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the
Developing
0
performance of demanding literature written for the
contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
Beginning
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the performance of
demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
0
Assessment Plan for MUS 84
Jazz Orchestra
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
Audition students at the beginning of the semester for chair placement and make a
written record. Sight-read repertoire in the first week of rehearsals and make an
audio recording. The results will be compared to the results of the concert at the
end of the semester. The criteria will all be related to the course outline of record
SLOs. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching the courses will
then meet to discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve
student success.
Dates
First week, audition students individually
First week, sight-read repertoire and make an audio recordings.
Last week, culminating experience concert performance.
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Identify and analyze the performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
Identify and study Third Stream music.
Identify and study improvisation techniques appropriate for Third Stream music.
Assessment Results: MUS 84: Jazz Orchestra
Charles Richard
May 11, 2010
SLO Assessed: Identify and analyze the performance practice necessary for a
contemporary jazz performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Posttest
Excellent
100%
Fair
0%
Poor
0%
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify and analyze the performance
practice necessary for a contemporary jazz performance.
Students were frequently able to identify and analyze the performance
practice necessary for a contemporary jazz performance.
Students were seldom able to identify and analyze the performance
practice necessary for a contemporary jazz performance.
Evaluation
By listening to a recording of the ensemble from a concert recorded on 5/8/2010, it
was apparent that the students were able to consistently identify and analyze the
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz performance.
On May 11, 2010 Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this assessment and
the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We agreed
the class is quite successful for the time being and the current strategies seem to be
working well.
MUS 85
Kevin Mayse
Assessment Plan for Music 85
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
different ensembles sight-reading literature to be performed on the final concert.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concert. At the
conclusion of the term, recordings of the concert and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed
Perform standard music literature for the small instrumental ensemble.
Analyze standard music literature for small instrumental ensemble through listening
and score examination.
Apply musicianship skills to a small ensemble experience.
Demonstrate standard rehearsal decorum for small chamber ensembles.
Demonstrate collaborative learning skills through musical activities
Perform standard music literature for the small instrumental ensemble.
Analyze standard music literature for small instrumental ensemble through listening
and score examination.
Apply musicianship skills to a small ensemble experience.
Demonstrate standard rehearsal decorum for small chamber ensembles.
Demonstrate collaborative learning skills through musical activities
MUS 86
Kevin Mayse
Assessment Plan for Music 86
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed on the mid term or final concert.
These rehearsals will be recorded and archived until after the concerts. At the
conclusion of the term, recordings of the concerts and first rehearsals will be
compared and evaluated. At this time faculty will discuss the results and decide if
any changes are needed to help the students achieve success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed
Demonstrate standard rehearsal decorum for large instrumental ensembles.
Perform standard music literature for the large instrumental ensemble.
Apply musicianship skills to a large ensemble experience.
Sight-read music literature for large instrumental ensembles in different styles,
including, but not limited to, music from the Western European historical periods.
Demonstrate increased technical skills on individual instruments.
Explain the importance of ensemble performance.
MUS 88
Gary Locke
Assessment Results: MUS 88 Pageantry Ensemble (Marching Band)
Compiled by Gary Locke • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
3. Participate in the creation, rehearsal and performance of new works for the
contemporary marching band.
Assessment Results
MUS 88 (FALL 2011: SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
50%
80%
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Good
50%
20%
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
0%
0%
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
0%
0%
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Unacceptable
0%
0%
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 88, advanced students understand how to play, usually at high
levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band camp, they are
learning to work more consistently within their sections and by the first
performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the overall scheme of
things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge of
doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced.
By mid-season, they have become leaders in the collaborative effort & are adept at
interpreting their part of a musical score, within the context of a large marching
band, in various musical styles. As expected, by the end of the semester, these
advanced students are actually having fun and have become experienced outdoor
entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the process’ and ‘the results’ of the
teaching / recording / evaluating process and agreed that we were quite pleased
with the improvement of the class.
We agreed that students have learned a multitude of ‘state of the art,’ contemporary
marching band percussion concepts and are excelling. It was exciting to see the
growth
of the students, musically and visually, from day one through the
preparations for the
123rd Tournament of Roses Parade!
Assessment Results: MUS 88 Pageantry Ensemble (Marching Band / Pep Band)
Compiled by Gary Locke • June 8, 2011
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 88 (SPRING 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Pre-
Post-
Rating
Qualifiers
test
test
Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and
Excellent
20%
80%
intonation.
Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought
or expressive playing.
Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
Good
52%
17%
articulation & rhythm.
Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and
intonation.
Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity
of articulation & rhythm.
Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and
Fair
18%
3%
intonation.
Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical
thought or expressive playing.
Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of
articulation & rhythm.
Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and
Poor
9%
0%
intonation.
Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or
expressive playing.
Unaccepta
1%
0%
Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of
ble
articulation & rhythm.
Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and
intonation.
Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought
or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering SPRING Music 88, most students understand how to play, albeit at
varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of the first month,
they are learning to work more consistently within their sections and by the first
performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the overall scheme of
things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape musically, the challenge of
doing it all precisely & with expression.
By mid-semester, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within the
context of a medium-sized PEP band, in various musical styles. As expected, by the
end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have become
experienced & versatile entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the process’ and
‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating protocol and agreed that we
were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
Assessment Plan: MUS 88 Pageantry Ensemble (Marching Band / Pep Band)
by Gary Locke • March 27, 2009
Plan for the Assessment
During the first two weeks of classes, rehearsals will consist of members of the
ensemble sight-reading literature to be performed in the final field show
performance. These rehearsals will be recorded and archived. During the second
two weeks, marching will be added and a DVD created. At the conclusion of the
term, a DVD of the final performances and first rehearsals will be compared and
evaluated. At this time, faculty will discuss the results and decide if any changes are
needed to help the students achieve success.
Dates
First two weeks, sight-read show music and make audio recording
Second two weeks, learn corresponding drill and make video recording
Last week, create DVD of final performance
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed
Interpret their own individual part of a music score within the context of a marching
band, in various musical styles.
Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results: MUS 88 Pageantry Ensemble (Marching Band)
Compiled by Gary Locke • April 6, 2010
o
SLO Assessed
1. Interpret their own individual part of a musical score, within the context of a
marching band, in various musical styles.
Assessment Results
MUS 88 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students always demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Good
52%
17%
 Students often demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
 Students often demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students often demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students sometimes demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation &
rhythm.
Fair
18%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students sometimes demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive
playing.
 Students rarely demonstrated note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Poor
9%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students rarely demonstrated meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
 Students could not demonstrate note accuracy, uniformity of articulation & rhythm.
Unacceptable
1%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate proper tone quality and intonation.
 Students could not demonstrate meaningful musical thought or expressive playing.
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 88, most students understand how to play, albeit at
varying levels of musical ability and technique/style. By the end of band
camp, they are learning to work more consistently within their sections and by
the first performance, they have figured out how their part fits in to the
overall scheme of things. Of course, just when things begin to take shape
musically, the challenge of doing it all ‘on the move’ is introduced. (see SLO
#2)
By mid-season, they are able to interpret their part of a musical score, within
the context of a large marching band, in various musical styles. As expected,
by the end of the semester, most students are actually having fun and have
become experienced outdoor entertainers! James Rocillo and I discussed ‘the
process’ and ‘the results’ of the teaching / recording / evaluating process and
agreed that we were quite pleased with the improvement of the class.
SLO Assessed
2. Participate in artistic performances of varied works of marching band literature
appropriate to the size and instrumentation of the group, including the
demonstration of the simultaneous demand of marching and playing.
Assessment Results
MUS 88 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Excellent
20%
80%
 Students always demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks & flaws are virtually non-existent and recovery is effortless.
 Students always demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students often demonstrated a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Good
40%
17%
 Students often demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are infrequent and recovery is evident and quick.
 Students often demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
Fair
20%
3%
 Students sometimes demonstrated a broad and varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
 Students sometimes demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws still occur but recovery is evident.
 Students sometimes demonstrated concentration and skills in a superior manner.
 Students rarely demonstrated note a broad & varied visual vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Poor
10%
0%
 Students rarely demonstrated uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks and flaws are still frequent and recovery is attempted.
 Students rarely demonstrated concentration and skills.
 Students could not demonstrate a broad and varied vocabulary of
drill/staging/body/equipment.
Unacceptable
10%
0%
 Students could not demonstrate uniformity in individual responsibilities as relates to
drill or staging. Breaks are constant and recovery is nonexistent.
 Students could not demonstrate concentration and skills.
Evaluation
Marching Band is a unique learning experience that involves a demonstration
of musicianship, athleticism and artistry. Requiring young, often
inexperienced students to march and play – often at break-neck speeds, is a
very challenging endeavor. Spatial awareness is key, as well as memorizing
complex movements utilizing ever-changing step sizes, changes of direction
and varied body/instrument angles.
While discussing the ‘simultaneous demand’ topic (marching and playing) with
James Rocillo, we agreed on the need to continue to work on emphasizing
‘intervals,’ the distance between performers on the field – to maximize the
visual effect of the presentation. Consistency in this area is key and it’s an
on-going project.
We agreed that students were learning a multitude of ‘state of the art,’
contemporary marching band concepts and generally excelling. It was exciting
to see the growth of the students, musically and visually, from day one thru
the Rose Parade!
MUS 89
Peter Curtis
Assessment Results: MUS 89: Music of Multicultural America
December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Describe the historical experience and musical traditions of five broad
constituent groups (Native Americans, European Americans, African Americans,
Chicano/Latino Americans, and Asian Americans).
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
44%
Exemplary
The student is consistently effective in describing the
historical experience and musical traditions of five
broad constituent groups (Native Americans, European
Americans, African Americans, Chicano/Latino
Americans, and Asian Americans).
The student is generally effective in describing the
historical experience and musical traditions of five
broad constituent groups (Native Americans, European
Accomplished
Americans, African Americans, Chicano/Latino
Americans, and Asian Americans).
The student is inconsistent in describing the historical
experience and musical traditions of five broad
constituent groups (Native Americans, European
Developing
Americans, African Americans, Chicano/Latino
Americans, and Asian Americans).
51%
The student demonstrates an unsatisfactory level in
5%
describing the historical experience and musical
traditions of five broad constituent groups (Native
Americans, European Americans, African Americans,
Unsatisfactory
Chicano/Latino Americans, and Asian Americans).
I discussed these results with my colleague, Jasminka Knecht, on December 15h,
2011. While she felt that the majority of students were succeeding in mastering this
SLO, she shared my concern that 5 percent of the students were producing
unsatisfactory work. I attribute this result primarily to inadequate preparation in
english writing skills. The poor grades had more to do with the students’ inability to
write then their understanding of the material. In future, I will try to improve this by
encouraging all students to take advantage of the writing tutors on campus. While I
help students a great deal with their writing, I think that I could offer students the
opportunity to submit a rough draft on assignments first so that they have the
opportunity to improve their work before they are graded on it.
Assessment Results: MUS 89: Music of Multicultural America
Compiled by Peter Curtis
 June 11, 2011
SLO Assessed:
Recognize the influence of the social values of a given culture on its music.
Assessment Results
MUS 89 (Spring 2011): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Excellent
0%
45%
Students were able to recognize the influence of the socia
culture on its music extremely well.
Good
7%
40%
Students were able to recognize the influence of the socia
culture on its music quite well.
Fair
5%
Students were able to recognize the influence of the socia
culture on its music passably well.
Poor
4%
Students were barely able to recognize the influence of th
given culture on its music.
Unacceptable
89%
10%
Students were not able to recognize the influence of the s
culture on its music.
Evaluation:
Upon entering MUS 89 the vast majority of students could not recognize the
influence of the social values of a given culture on its music. By the course’s end the
vast majority of students could.
On Tuesday, June 14th, 2011, I discussed the results of this assessment with Kevin
Mayse. He thought that the success rate was high. One way that I thought of to
improve this assessment in future semesters is to have more questions on both the
pre and final test that focus on this SLO.
Assessment Plan: MUS 89: Music of Multicultural America
by Peter Curtis  April, 10th, 2010
On the first day of class we will give students a quiz that assesses their ability to:
A. identify musical styles from a variety of Western and non-Western cultures
B. describe the historical experience and musical traditions of five broad constituent
groups (Native Americans, European Americans, African Americans,
Chicano/Latino Americans, and Asian Americans).
C. compare and contrast the repertoire of those groups.
D. recognize the influence of social values of a given culture on its music.
On the final exam students will be asked questions that assess their knowledge of
the same areas. At the end of the semester, two or more faculty members who
teach music appreciation courses will meet to assess the results of the first quiz and
the final exam.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
A. Identify musical styles from a variety of Western and non-Western cultures.
B. Describe the historical experience and musical traditions of five broad constituent
groups (Native Americans, European Americans, African Americans,
Chicano/Latino Americans, and Asian Americans).
C. Describe how each ethnic group's musical traditions mirror the various patterns
of that group's assimilation or isolation in relation to mainstream American
culture.
D. Compare and contrast this repertoire.
E. Examine and discuss the relationships of musical expression to other forms of
artistic expression, and to culture generally.
F. Recognize the influence of social values of a given culture on its music.
Dates:
Week 1: Students take the assessment quiz
Week 16: Students take the final exam
Following week 16 faculty members will meet and discuss the results of the
assessment and the final, and examine what changes, if any, should be made.
Assessment Results: MUS 89: Music of Multicultural America
by Peter Curtis
April, 10th, 2010
SLO Assessed:
Identify musical styles from a variety of Western and non-Western cultures.
Assessment Results
MUS 43 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
0%
21.4%
Good
0%
21.4%
Qualifiers
 Students were consistently able to identify musical styles from western cultures
 Students overwhelmingly were able to musical styles from non-western cultures
 Students were consistently able to identify musical styles from western cultures
 Students were frequently able to musical styles from non-western cultures
 Students were able to identify musical styles from western cultures a slim majority of
Fair
6%
21.4%
the time.
 Students were able to identify musical styles from non-western cultures a slim
majority of the time.
 Students were seldom able to identify musical styles from western cultures
Poor
12.5%
21.4%
 Students were seldom able to identify musical styles from non-western cultures

Unacceptable
50%
14.2%
 Students were not able able to identify musical styles from western cultures
 Students were not able able to identify musical styles from non-western cultures
Evaluation
Upon entering MUS 89 most students could not identify musical styles from a
variety of Western and non-Western cultures. By the course’s end the majority of
students could.
On April 9nd, 2010, Charles Richard and I discussed the results of this assessment
and the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We
agreed that while the majority of students were succeeding there was room for
students to improve. Many of the students who got “poor” or “unacceptable” ratings
in the post-test did not finish all the assignments and/or assessments.
As a result of our discussions, I have concluded that students should be reminded
more frequently of the importance of completing all assignments and that students
should be dropped if they have missed a certain number of assignments and/or
assessments. In addition, students should be allowed more opportunities to make
up grades and demonstrate mastery of SLOs by doing extra credit assignments.
MUS 92
I-Ching Tsai
ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR MUS 92
PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT:
Choose a particular SLO from this course to assess. All instructors teaching sections
of this course will be asked to participate. A written and/or performing assignment
which enables students to demonstrate their achievement of this SLO will be used. A
grading rubric to measure student learning success will be developed. The
information is collected anonymously; assess (assignment) results against rubric;
analyze results to consider the implications of gathered information and prepare
summary report with what has been learned that might help improve teaching and
learning in the course with section instructors.
DATE:
During last 4 class sessions.
SLO TO BE ASSESSED:

Play chord progressions in three major keys using I, IV, V chords.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTION:
Please perform the following progression using I, IV, and V chords in the assigned
keys.
MUS 93
Rick Shaw/Charles Richard
Assessment Plan for MUS 93
The Business of Music
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
Give a pretest at the beginning of a session. The pretest will contain questions used
in and exams and quizzes. Those answers will be compared to student answers
found in the session’s exams and quizzes. All of the questions will be identified with
the SLOs they address. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching
the courses will then meet to discuss the results and implement any changes
needed to improve student success.
Dates
First week, pretest will be given.
Last week, Final Exams.
After exams are graded, faculty will meet to discuss results and a plan for
improvement.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Analyze the roles of people in key positions in the music business
Explain the legalities of contracts, trademarks, and copyrights.
Question 1. What is the role of an agent or artist manager?
Question 2. What is the role of the contractor?
Question 2. What is the difference between a copyright and a trademark?
Assessment Results: MUS 93 The Business of Music
Rick Shaw • April 28, 2010
SLO Assessed
Each student was to answer two key questions regarding the music business:
1. What is the role of the contractor?
2. What is the difference between a copyright and a trademark?
Assessment Results
MUS 3 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Excellent
0%
81%
Both questions answered correctly
Satisfactory
33%
19%
One question answered correctly
Poor
67%
0%
No questions answered correctly
Evaluation
As each student is unfamiliar with the various aspects of the music business it was
expected that there would be many incorrect answers for the two questions. The
difficulty in teaching these two concepts is making the unknown terms
understandable to the students while giving them practical knowledge so they can
apply the skills learned in the class to the real world of the music business.
Discussing the results of the assessment and the goals of the class with Charlie
Richard we agreed that a variety of information sources should be used to reinforce
the studentsʼ command of the subject. The main text for the course, Donald
Passmanʼs All You Need To Know About The Music Business, was supplemented
with articles from the Internet from reputable music business sources.
Topic
Source
Title
Excellent
Musicians Union Local 47
How to File a Contract
Satisfactory
Google Books
Muse Blows a Fuse
Poor
GMG Music Center
Careers in Music:
Film Scoring
URL
http://www.promusic47.org/contractstor
y.htm
http://bit.ly/bPpbTI
http://gmgmusiccenter.com/FilmScoring
.aspx
Assessment Results: MUS 93 The Business of Music
Rick Shaw • April 28, 2010
Topic
Source
Trademarks
United States Patent and
and
Trademark Office
Copyrights
Title
Trademark Basics
URL
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basic
s/index.jsp
Results
Each student demonstrated a strong understanding of the two questions after the
lecture from various sources and class discussion, as reflected in the increase in the
post–test scores.
MUS 94
Charles Richard
Assessment Results: MUS 94: Community Jazz Orchestra
Compiled by Charlie Richard
December 15, 2011
#3 Identify and analyze performances of ”Third Stream” music.
on 12/15/11
On December 5, 2011 the Community Jazz Orchestra performed in concert on
campus with guest artist, Jeff Hellmer. The concert was recorded. The ensemble
performed “Turning Corners” by C Richard, a challenging jazz orchestra piece with
elements of third stream style jazz. 19 students performed. After reviewing the CD of
the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and Kevin Mayse, it was
apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The assessment will be an
ongoing process though with the goal of having all students continuing to produce
an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify and analyze
% of
Students
100
performances of ”Third Stream” music.
0
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to identify and analyze performances of ”Third
Stream” music.
Students were only occasionally able to identify and analyze
performances of ”Third Stream” music.
Students were seldom able to identify and analyze performances
of ”Third Stream” music.
0
Assessment Results: MUS 94: Community Jazz Orchestra
Compiled by Charlie Richard
June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#2 Identify and analyze the performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance. on 6/15/11
On May 14, 2011 the Community Jazz Orchestra performed at the RCC Jazz Festival.
The event was recorded. After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty
members Charlie Richard and Kevin Mayse, it was apparent the majority of students
are achieving success. The assessment will be an ongoing process though with the
goal of having all students continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Students were consistently able to identify and analyze the
Exemplary
100
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
0
Accomplished
Students were able to identify and analyze the performance
practice necessary for a contemporary jazz performance.
Students were only occasionally able to identify and analyze the
Developing
0
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
Students were seldom able to identify and analyze the
Beginning
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
0
Assessment Plan for MUS 94
Community Jazz Orchestra
November 30, 2008
Plan for Assessment
Audition students at the beginning of the semester for chair placement and make a
written record. Sight-read repertoire in the first week of rehearsals and make an
audio recording. The results will be compared to the results of the concert at the
end of the semester. The criteria will all be related to the course outline of record
SLOs. At the conclusion of the session, faculty involved in teaching the courses will
then meet to discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve
student success.
Dates
First week, audition students individually
First week, sight-read repertoire and make an audio recordings.
Last week, culminating experience concert performance.
Faculty in the area will meet and discuss results and plans for improvement.
Student Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:
Perform demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra with a
minimum of rehearsal.
Quickly identify and analyze the performance practice necessary for a contemporary
jazz performance.
Assessment Results: MUS 94: Community Jazz Orchestra
Charles Richard
May 11, 2010
SLO Assessed: Perform demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz
Orchestra with a minimum of rehearsal.
Assessment Results
Rating
Posttest
Excellent
100%
Fair
0%
Poor
0%
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able perform demanding literature written for
the contemporary Jazz Orchestra with a minimum of rehearsal.
Students were frequently able to perform demanding literature written for
the contemporary Jazz Orchestra with a minimum of rehearsal.
Students were seldom able to perform demanding literature written for the
contemporary Jazz Orchestra with a minimum of rehearsal.
Evaluation
By listening to a recording of the ensemble from a concert recorded on 5/8/2010, it
was apparent that the students were able to consistently perform demanding
literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra with a minimum of rehearsal.
On May 11, 2010 Jasminka Knecht and I discussed the results of this assessment and
the impact of current teaching strategies on this and other course SLOs. We agreed
the class is quite successful for the time being and the current strategies seem to be
working well.
MUS 95
Mayse
MUS 200
MUS P12
Jasminka Knecht
Assessment Results: MUS P12 Intermediate Applied Piano
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Analyze and critique music concerts.
Assessment Results
# of
Rating
Qualifiers
students
Excellent
6
Students analyzed and critiqued 6 hours of concerts
Good
0
Students analyzed and critiqued 5 hours of concerts
Fair
3
Students analyzed and critiqued 4 hours of concerts
Poor
1
Students analyzed and critiqued 3 hours of concerts
Unacceptable
8
Students analyzed and critiqued 2 or less hours of concerts
Evaluation
On June 15, 2011, Judy Johansen, Dr. Jeanette Wong, Sylvia Ho, Joel Paat, Kim Amin
and I discussed the results of this assessment. We agreed that many students are
not completing the SLO above. Instructors are aware that many of their students
are attending concerts but they are not submitting reports.
As a result, the
instructors will discuss this requirement with their students and how to submit
concert reports and enforce that policy.
Assessment Plan
MUS P-12
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the auditions, ask students to demonstrate playing:
• scales/modes, arpeggios, and/or etudes
• repertoire
• sight reading
At the end of the semester (during Jury Exam), ask students to demonstrate playing:
• scales/modes, arpeggios, and/or etudes
• repertoire
• sight reading
Following the Jury Exam, faculty involved in teaching MUS P-12 course will meet to discuss the results
and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
Demonstrate proficient performance skills on piano.
Perform exercises, scales, and other technique as determined by the instructor.
Perform for a faculty-reviewed jury according to the guidelines set by the faculty.
Dates
Week 1: Auditions
Week 16: Jury Exam
Week 16 (following the Jury Exam): Faculty meet and discuss the results.
Assessment Results: MUS P-12 Intermediate Applied Piano
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • April 15, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate proficient performance skills on the piano.
Perform exercises, scales, and other technique as determined by the instructor.
Perform for a faculty-reviewed jury according to the guidelines set by the faculty.
Assessment Results
MUS P-12 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on the piano.
Students were always able to perform exercises, scales, and other technique as
Excellent
30%
65%
determined by the instructor.
Students were always able to perform for a faculty-reviewed jury according to the
guidelines set by the faculty
Students were usually able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on the piano.
Students were usually able to perform exercises, scales, and other technique as
Good
50%
35%
determined by the instructor.
Students were usually able to perform for a faculty-reviewed jury according to the
guidelines set by the faculty
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on the
Fair
10%
0%
piano.
Students were sometimes able to perform exercises, scales, and other technique as
determined by the instructor.
Students were sometimes able to perform for a faculty-reviewed jury according to the
guidelines set by the faculty
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on the
piano.
Poor
5%
0%
Students were occasionally able to perform exercises, scales, and other technique as
determined by the instructor.
Students were occasionally able to perform for a faculty-reviewed jury according to
the guidelines set by the faculty
Students were never able to demonstrate proficient performance skills on the piano.
Students were never able to perform exercises, scales, and other technique as
Unacceptable
5%
0%
determined by the instructor.
Students were never able to perform for a faculty-reviewed jury according to the
guidelines set by the faculty
Evaluation
Since enrollment of students in this class is contingent on a successful audition,
most students can demonstrate playing scales/modes, arpeggios, and/or etudes,
repertoire, and sight reading on the piano.
As expected, by the end of the
semester most students performed at the jury and demonstrated proficient
performance skills at the piano.
On December 14, 2009, Judy Johansen, Dr. Jeanette Wong, Sylvia Ho, Joel Paat, Kim
Amin and I discussed the results of this assessment. We agreed that students
showed improvement and completed the SLOs above. As a result, we will continue
to have high expectations and broaden their repertoire and technique. We will work
with students on effective practice techniques and work more on sight reading. In
order to help with the performance anxiety, we will continue offering two
performance opportunities at the end of the semester: performance class (not open
to the public) and public recital.
MUS P28
Mayse
MUS P36
Jasminka Knecht
Assessment Results: MUS P-36 Piano Chamber Ensemble
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate improved technical and sight reading skills on the piano.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
The student is consistently effective in sight reading
with no errors in rhythm/note accuracy, articulation,
Exemplary
dynamics, tempo. Student’s technique is fully
integrated into an artistically satisfying performance.
40
The student is generally effective in sight reading
40
with a few errors but mostly stable consistency in
Accomplished
rhythm/note accuracy, articulation, dynamics, tempo.
Student applies appropriate technique most of the
time.
The student is inconsistent and/or only somewhat
20
effective in sight reading: some errors in
Developing
rhythm/note accuracy, articulation, dynamics, tempo.
Student seldom exhibits appropriate technique.
The student demonstrates beginning level of sight
0
reading: no consistency in rhythm/note accuracy,
Beginning
articulation, dynamics, tempo. Student demonstrates
poor technique.
Other
No response, task not attempted
0
On December 12, 2011, Judy Johansen, Sylvia Ho, Jeanette Wong and I discussed
the results of this assessment. We agreed that majority of the students
demonstrated improved technical and sight reading skills on the piano. A few
students were either not adequately prepared or nervous. We agreed that we need
to keep emphasizing the importance of sight reading and technique in every lesson
and Piano Ensemble Class. I will continue to require students to sight read at the
beginning of every Piano Ensemble Class.
Assessment Results: MUS P-36 Piano Chamber Ensemble
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
Perform in a recital.
Assessment Results
Rating
% of students
Qualifiers
Excellent
90%
Student’s performance was excellent.
Good
4%
Student’s performance was good.
Average
6%
Student’s performance was average.
Poor
0%
Student’s performance was poor.
Unacceptable
0%
Student did not perform in the recital.
Evaluation
On May 23, 2011, Joel Paat and I discussed the results of this assessment. We
agreed that all students performed in the recital and majority of students’
performances were excellent. A few students were either not adequately prepared
or nervous. We agreed that performing in a recital with an ensemble partner builds
confidence for future solo performances. The recital was recorded so students can
learn from their performances. We agreed that making recordings available to
students right after the recital is a great tool to review all aspects of students’
performance.
Assessment Plan
MUS P-36
November 30, 2008
Plan for the Assessment
During the auditions ask students to demonstrate playing piano repertoire appropriate to their level
and demonstrate performance practices appropriate for the styles studied.
At the end of the semester during Final Performance Class, ask students to demonstrate playing
piano ensemble repertoire appropriate to their level and demonstrate performance practices relevant
for the styles performed.
Following the Final Performance Class, faculty involved in teaching MUS P-36 course will meet to
discuss the results and implement any changes needed to improve student success.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
Perform piano ensemble repertoire.
Performance practices appropriate for the styles studied.
Dates
Week 1: Auditions
Week 15: Final Performance Class
Week 16 (following the Final Performance Class): Faculty meet and discuss the results.
Assessment Results: MUS P-36 Piano Chamber Ensemble
Compiled by Jasminka Knecht • April 15, 2010
SLO Assessed
Demonstrate proficient ensemble and performance skills on the piano.
Assessment Results
MUS P-36 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Excellent
27%
93%
Good
50%
7%
Fair
11%
0%
Poor
8%
0%
Unacceptable
4%
0%
Qualifiers
Students were always able to demonstrate proficient ensemble and performance skills
on the piano.
Students were usually able to demonstrate proficient ensemble and performance skills
on the piano.
Students were sometimes able to demonstrate proficient ensemble and performance
skills on the piano.
Students were occasionally able to demonstrate proficient ensemble and performance
skills on the piano.
Students were never able to demonstrate proficient ensemble and performance skills
on the piano.
Evaluation
During the auditions students were asked to demonstrate proficient ensemble and
performance skills on the piano. Students in this course come to the ensemble with
varying levels of piano experience and some students never participated in an
ensemble. As expected, by the end of the semester most students were able to
demonstrate both, proficient ensemble and performance skills on the piano.
On December 2, 2009, Judy Johansen, Dr. Jeanette Wong and I discussed the results
of this assessment. We agreed that most students were able to demonstrate
proficient ensemble and performance skills, but there were students who still need
to work on tone quality, and/or sight reading and/or ensemble skills.
As a result of our discussions, I will require students to work on sight reading and
technique at the beginning of each class, before they start their rehearsals. I will
practice with students effective rehearsal techniques and engage in reflective
analysis of the ensemble's performance. Students need to match styles of playing
and expression together, which requires intense reflective analysis of their own and
each other’s playing.
MUS P44
James Rocillo/Charles Richard
Assessment Results: MUS P-44 Jazz Lab Band
Compiled by Charles Richard • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#2 Demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
on 12/15/11
On November 30, 2011 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside
campus. There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded.
After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Exemplary
Students were consistently able to demonstrate instrumental
100
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz
0
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate instrumental
0
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz
Students were seldom able to demonstrate instrumental
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz
Assessment Results: MUS P-44 Jazz Lab Band
Compiled by Charles Richard • June 15, 2011
0
SLO Assessed
#1 Demonstrate the ability to perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for
jazz ensemble.
on 6/15/11
On May 26, 2011 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside campus.
There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the ability to
Exemplary
perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz
ensemble.
% of
Students
100
0
Accomplished
Students were able to demonstrate the ability to perform
beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz ensemble.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the ability to
Developing
0
perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz
ensemble.
Beginning
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the ability to perform
beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz ensemble.
Assessment Results: MUS P-44 Jazz Lab Band
Compiled by Charles Richard • May 17, 2010
0
SLO Assessed
#1 Demonstrate the ability to perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for
jazz ensemble.
on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside campus.
There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the ability to
Exemplary
100
perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz
ensemble.
0
Accomplished
Students were able to demonstrate the ability to perform
beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz ensemble.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the ability to
Developing
0
perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz
ensemble.
Beginning
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the ability to perform
0
beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz ensemble.
SLO Assessed
#2 Demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside campus.
There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate instrumental
% of
Students
100
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
0
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to demonstrate instrumental techniques
appropriate for various styles of jazz. for jazz ensemble.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate instrumental
0
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
Students were seldom able to demonstrate instrumental
techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
0
SLO Assessed
#3 Demonstrate the ability to artistically perform varied works of beginning and
intermediate jazz literature fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group
available in any given semester. on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside campus.
There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving great progress.
The assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all
students continuing to progress to go on and produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the ability to
Exemplary
27
artistically perform varied works of beginning and intermediate
jazz literature.
Students were able to demonstrate the ability to artistically
Accomplished
29
perform varied works of beginning and intermediate jazz
literature.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the ability to
Developing
27
artistically perform varied works of beginning and intermediate
jazz literature.
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the ability to artistically
Beginning
0
perform varied works of beginning and intermediate jazz
literature.
SLO Assessed
#4 Demonstrate the ability to create, rehearse and perform new works for jazz
ensemble.
on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside campus.
There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the ability to
% of
Students
100
create, rehearse and perform new works for jazz ensemble
Students were able to demonstrate the ability to create, rehearse
0
and perform new works for jazz ensemble
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the ability to
0
create, rehearse and perform new works for jazz ensemble
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the ability to create,
rehearse and perform new works for jazz ensemble
0
Assessment Plan - MUS. P 44 - Jazz Lab Band
Within the first two weeks of class the instructor will evaluate the students’ ability to:
A. perform instrumental parts representative of or similar to what is found in
beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz ensemble
B. demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
C. demonstrate appropriate ensemble technique
On the final exam students will:
A. perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz ensemble.
B. demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
C. participate in an artistic performance of varied works of beginning and
intermediate jazz literature fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group
available in any given semester.
E. demonstrate appropriate ensemble technique.
F. improvise in an appropriate manner for contemporary jazz.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
A. perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz orchestra.
B. demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
C. identify Third Stream Music.
D. participate in artistic performances of varied works of beginning and intermediate
jazz literature fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group available in any
given semester.
E. participate in the creation, rehearsals, and performance of new works for jazz
orchestra.
F. demonstrate appropriate ensemble technique.
G. improvise in an appropriate manner for contemporary jazz.
Dates:
Week one: Faculty members will fill out an entrance form assessing students’
abilities.
Week sixteen: Faculty will fill out an exit form assessing students’ abilities.
After week sixteen: faculty members who teach jazz performance ensembles will
meet to discuss the results and what could potentially be improved.
MUS P77
Peter Curtis
Assessment Results: MUS P77 Advanced Guitar Ensemble
Compiled by Peter Curtis • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
2. Demonstrate the ability to perform the more difficult parts in guitar
ensemble repertoire using appropriate classical guitar technique.
Assessment Results
% of
Rating
Qualifiers
Students
The student is consistently effective in demonstrating
the ability to perform the more difficult parts in guitar
Exemplary
ensemble repertoire using appropriate classical guitar
technique.
50%
The student is generally effective in demonstrating the
ability to perform the more difficult parts in guitar
ensemble repertoire using appropriate classical guitar
Accomplished
technique.
The student is inconsistent and/or only somewhat
effective in demonstrating the ability to perform the
more difficult parts in guitar ensemble repertoire using
Developing
appropriate classical guitar technique.
The student demonstrates an unsatisfactory level in
Unsatisfactory
demonstrating the ability to perform the more difficult
50%
parts in guitar ensemble repertoire using appropriate
classical guitar technique.
I discussed these results with my colleague, Jasminka Knecht, On Decembr, 15th
2011. She felt that the results were very strong and I agreed. I will continue to use
the same pedagogical methods, with some refinements, to help future students. A
video of the students’ performance can be found at the following website:
http://opencampus.rcc.edu/groups/liveoncampusconcertseries/weblog/07ec3/12_7_11
_guitar_ensemble.html
Assessment Results: MUS P77 Advanced Guitar Ensemble
Compiled by Peter Curtis • June 15, 2011
SLOs Assessed:
Demonstrate the ability to perform classical guitar ensemble music in all positions at
an advanced technical level.
Evaluation:
This semester there was only one student enrolled in this class. As the class acts
concomitantly with and as a continuation of MUS 77, I used the same means of
evaluating it as I did for that class.
In order to measure student’s ability to master this SLO, I listened to her try to
perform a piece with the rest of the ensemble at the start of the semester, and
compared that with a recording of her playing the same piece with the ensemble at
the end of the semester. As expected, the differences were stark. The improvement
was great. In addition, I monitored her growth throughout the class. On Tuesday,
June 14th, 2011, I discussed the results of this assessment with Kevin Mayse. One
way in which he suggested that I could improve this type of assessment is by always
recording the students early in the semester and comparing that recording with one
made at the end. I told him that I have done that in the past and will make sure to
do so in the future so that their growth can be more objectively documented.
Assessment Plan - Advanced Guitar Ensemble: MUS P77
On the first day of class we will ask students to demonstrate:

A. the ability to perform classical guitar music in all positions at an
advanced technical level.

B. the ability to sight-read classical guitar music in all positions, in
alternate tunings at an advanced level.

C. performing the more difficult parts in guitar ensemble repertoire using
appropriate classical guitar technique.

D. knowledge of and ability to perform advanced and alternate techniques
for classical guitar.
On the final exam students will demonstrate:

A. the ability to perform classical guitar music in all positions at an
advanced technical level.

B. the ability to sigh-tread classical guitar music in all position, in alternate
tunings at an advanced level.

C. performing the more difficult parts in guitar ensemble repertoire using
appropriate classical guitar technique.

D. knowledge of and ability to perform advanced and alternate techniques
for classical guitar.

E. the ability to perform a wide variety of styles of music from different
historical periods for guitar ensemble with appropriate performance

practice techniques.
Student Learning Outcomes:
A. Demonstrate the ability to perform classical guitar music in all positions at an
advanced technical level.
B. Sightread classical guitar music in all position, in alternate tunings at an advanced
level.
C. Perform the more difficult parts in guitar ensemble repertoire using appropriate
classical guitar technique.
D. Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to perform advanced and alternate
techniques for classical guitar.
E. Demonstrate the ability to perform a wide variety of styles of music from different
historical periods for guitar ensemble with appropriate performance practice
techniques.
Dates:
Week one: Faculty members will fill out the entrance assessment forms based on
student performance and knowledge.
Week sixteen: Faculty members will fill out the exit assessment forms based on
student performance and knowledge.
After Week sixteen: Guitar faculty members will meet to assess the results of the
entrance and exit assessments and discuss what changes, if any, should be
implemented.
Assessment Results: MUS P77 Advanced Guitar Ensemble
by Peter Curtis
April, 10th, 2010
SLOs Assessed:
Demonstrate the ability to perform classical guitar ensemble music in all
positions at an advanced level.
Assessment Results
MUS 37 (FALL 2009): SLO ASSESSMENT RESULTS (IN PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS)
Rating
Pre-test
Post-test
Qualifiers
 Students always demonstrated the ability to perform classical guitar ensemble music
Excellent
0%
100%
Good
33.3%
0%
Fair
33.3%
0%
Poor
0
0%
Unacceptable
33.3%
0%
in all positions at an advanced level.
 Students usually demonstrated the ability to perform classical guitar ensemble music
in all positions at an advanced level.
 Students sometimes demonstrated the ability to perform classical guitar ensemble
music in all positions at an advanced level.
 Students occasionally demonstrated the ability to perform classical guitar ensemble
music in all positions at an advanced level.
 Students never demonstrated the ability to perform classical guitar ensemble music
in all positions at an advanced level.
Assessment and Evaluation
In order to measure student’s progress throughout the course, I made recordings of the
students trying to perform guitar ensemble music early in the course and at the final recital.
Though most of these students have experience playing in a guitar ensemble before taking
the course the difference in their playing from the beginning to the end of the semester
was dramatic. In the recordings of the first rehearsal, only one third of the students could
play their parts, another, third could get some of their parts and the last third couldn’t play
their parts.
In contrast, the recordings of the group at the end of the semester demonstrated a
complete transformation. The students fluently performed classical guitar music for
ensemble in all positions at an advanced level. On April 2nd, 2010, Patrick Read and I
discussed the results of this assessment and the impact of current teaching strategies on
course SLO’s. We realized that some students had not taken MUS 77 the maximum amount
of times before taking this class and were, therefore, at a disadvantage upon entering the
course due to their relative lack of experience and training.
As a result of our discussions, we decided to strongly encourage students to take MUS 77
the maximum amount of times before enrolling in this class.
MUS P84
James Rocillo/Charles Richard
Assessment Results: MUS P-44 Jazz Lab Orchestra
Compiled by Charles Richard • December 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#2 Identify and analyze the performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
on 12/15/11
On November 30, 2011 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside
campus. There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded.
After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify and analyze the
Exemplary
% of
Students
100
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
0
Accomplished
Students were able to identify and analyze the performance
practice necessary for a contemporary jazz performance.
Students were only occasionally able to identify and analyze the
Developing
0
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
Students were seldom able to identify and analyze the
Beginning
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
Assessment Results: MUS P-44 Jazz Lab Orchestra
0
Compiled by Charles Richard • June 15, 2011
SLO Assessed
#1 Demonstrate the performance of demanding literature written for the
contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
on 6/15/11
On May 26, 2011 the Jazz Lab Band performed in concert on the Riverside campus.
There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded. After
reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Exemplary
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the performance of
100
demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
0
Accomplished
Students were able to demonstrate the performance of demanding
literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the
Developing
0
performance of demanding literature written for the
contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
Beginning
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the performance of
demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
Assessment Results: MUS P-44 Jazz Lab Orchestra
Compiled by Charles Richard • May 17, 2010
0
SLO Assessed
#1 Demonstrate the performance of demanding literature written for the
contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Orchestra performed in concert on the Riverside
campus. There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded.
After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
% of
Students
Exemplary
Students were consistently able to demonstrate the performance of
100
demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
0
Accomplished
Students were able to demonstrate the performance of demanding
literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
Students were only occasionally able to demonstrate the
Developing
0
performance of demanding literature written for the
contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
Beginning
Students were seldom able to demonstrate the performance of
0
demanding literature written for the contemporary Jazz Orchestra.
SLO Assessed
#2 Identify and analyze the performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Orchestra performed in concert on the Riverside
campus. There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded.
After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success. The
assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all students
continuing to produce an exemplary performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify and analyze the
Exemplary
% of
Students
100
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
0
Accomplished
Students were able to identify and analyze the performance
practice necessary for a contemporary jazz performance.
Students were only occasionally able to identify and analyze the
Developing
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
0
Students were seldom able to identify and analyze the
Beginning
0
performance practice necessary for a contemporary jazz
performance.
SLO Assessed
#3 Identify and study Third Stream music.
on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Orchestra performed in concert on the Riverside
campus. There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded.
After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving success with
elements of third stream jazz. The assessment will be an ongoing process though
with the goal of having all students continuing to produce an exemplary
performance.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify and study Third Stream
% of
Students
100
music.
0
Accomplished
Developing
Beginning
Students were able to identify and study Third Stream music.
Students were only occasionally able to identify and study Third
0
Stream music.
Students were seldom able to identify and study Third Stream
0
music.
SLO Assessed
#4 Identify and study improvisation techniques appropriate for Third Stream music.
on 5/17/10
On May 24, 2010 the Jazz Lab Orchestra performed in concert on the Riverside
campus. There were 36 members of the ensemble and the concert was recorded.
After reviewing the CD of the performance with faculty members Charlie Richard and
James Rocillo, it was apparent the majority of students are achieving great progress.
The assessment will be an ongoing process though with the goal of having all
students continuing to progress to go on and produce an exemplary performance.
There is much work left to be done, but that is expected at this level.
Assessment Results
Rating
Exemplary
Qualifiers
Students were consistently able to identify and study improvisation
% of
Students
13
techniques appropriate for Third Stream music
22
Accomplished
Students were able to identify and study improvisation techniques
appropriate for Third Stream music.
Developing
Beginning
Students were only occasionally able to identify and study
27
improvisation techniques appropriate for Third Stream music
Students were seldom able to identify and study improvisation
36
techniques appropriate for Third Stream music
Assessment Plan - MUS. P 84 - Jazz Lab Orchestra
Within the first two weeks of class the instructor will evaluate the students’ ability to:
A. perform instrumental parts representative of or similar to what is found in
beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz orchestra.
B. demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
C. demonstrate appropriate ensemble technique
On the final exam students will:
A. perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz orchestra.
B. demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
C. identify Third Stream Music.
D. participate in an artistic performance of varied works of beginning and
intermediate jazz literature fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group
available in any given semester.
E. demonstrate appropriate ensemble technique.
F. improvise in an appropriate manner for contemporary jazz.
Student Learning Outcomes to be assessed:
A. perform beginning and intermediate jazz literature for jazz orchestra.
B. demonstrate instrumental techniques appropriate for various styles of jazz.
C. identify Third Stream Music.
D. perform artistic performances of varied works of beginning and intermediate jazz
literature fitted to the size and instrumentation of the group available in any given
semester.
E. participate in the creation, rehearsals, and performance of new works for jazz
orchestra.
F. demonstrate appropriate ensemble technique.
G. improvise in an appropriate manner for contemporary jazz.
Dates:
Week one: Faculty members will fill out an entracne form assessing students’
abilities.
Week sixteen: Faculty will fill out an exit form assessing students’ abilities.
After week sixteen: faculty members who teach jazz performance ensembles will
meet to discuss the results and what could potentially be improved.
2/13/2012 7:54:00 AM
2/13/2012 7:54:00 AM
2/13/2012 7:54:00 AM
2/13/2012 7:54:00 AM
2/13/2012 7:54:00 AM