scholarly journals Standards in the studio : how are the National Standards for Music Education implemented within the collegiate low brass studio?

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Frederickson
Keyword(s):  
Music Education ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Low Brass

Assessment in Music Classes in China

2019 ◽  
pp. 338-357
Author(s):  
Dennis Ping-Cheng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Music Education ◽  
National Curriculum ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Education Assessment ◽  
Music Assessment ◽  
Chinese Music ◽  
Curriculum Guidelines ◽  
Valid Assessment

This chapter outlines the historical background and current development of music education assessment in China. Following the revision of the national curriculum guidelines in 2011, the chapter analyzes (1) the value of the national standards at different school levels, (2) how the national standards affect teachers and schools, and (3) how much the teachers read/follow the guidelines in China. This chapter investigates and examines how assessment policy and practice are used in Chinese music classrooms from elementary, middle, and high schools. Furthermore, it discusses how local music teachers assess their music students and the effectiveness of the national curriculum guidelines used in music classes. The author determines that the current practice of music assessment at all school levels in China is too basic and not diversified. Designing a valid assessment that allows students at all levels to demonstrate their learning outcomes seems to be necessary for music education in China.

Accountability Concerns

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay Dorfman
Keyword(s):  
Music Education ◽  
Music Educators ◽  
Music Instruction ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Music Listening ◽  
Educational Culture ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Music Educators National Conference ◽  
Music Standards ◽  
Teachers And Students

With the advent of technology-based music instruction, we are at an important juncture in terms of standards and accountability. To date, there are no sets of standards that directly address the ways in which TBMI teachers and students work, and therefore there is a lack of clarity as to how we are accountable to the larger educational culture. Several sets of standards exist that come close; they address either the musical or the technological portions of TBMI, but not both. Others address teachers’ roles or students’ roles, but not both. In this chapter, we will examine relevant sets of standards and explore how they imply accountability for TBMI teachers and students. In 1994, the Music Educators National Conference (now the National Association for Music Education) released a document outlining the National Standards for Music Education, in coordination with similar standards in theater, art, and dance. The nine music standards from 1994 were the following: Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines. Reading and notating music. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music. Evaluating music and music performances. Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts. Understanding music in relation to history and culture. The NAfME standards suggest curricula that are distributed among performance, musical creativity, and connections between music and context. These are noble goals for which teachers should strive. The NAfME standards are widely accepted, and many teachers refer to them as benchmarks to assess the completeness of curriculum. In no way do the NAfME standards suggest that musical learning should be achieved through technology, nor do they contain suggestions about how students should meet any of them. In this way, the shapers of the NAfME standards are to be commended because the standards are flexible enough that they can be addressed in ways teachers see fit. Therefore, the standards passively suggest that technology-based music instruction is as valid a means of music learning as are other forms.

scholarly journals Teaching Under Pressure

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Sklar
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Music Education ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Instrumental Music ◽  
Music Educators ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Community Music ◽  
School Site ◽  
Music School

<p>The purpose of this comparative case study was to investigate, explore, and describe the methods and practices of secondary instrumental music education in a public school setting. Two sites, a Rhode Island public school and a Rhode Island community music school, were chosen for observation. Two major ensembles, a jazz band and a concert band, were observed at each site on four different occasions. Observations were organized by the National Standards of Music Education, although the study did not focus on whether or not the programs “met” the standards. Data was also placed into the category of non-musical factors. Observations and analysis found that the non-musical factors, and themes that emerged from those factors, were the largest noticeable difference between the two sites. These factors also contributed to the disparity in the two sites abilities to address the standards. Non-musical factors such as scheduling and interruptions were the major issues facing the public school site, including split rehearsal times between ensembles and missed rehearsals due to assemblies. Both sites had significant gaps in their addressing of the standards, although the community music school met more of the standards. This may just be a result of the increase in time spent in rehearsal. This research opens the questions of whether or not the constraints facing public school music educators are hindering their ability to fully educate their students. Research can also be performed to gauge the perceptions that secondary instrumental music educators have on the standards.</p>

Comparison of the National Standards for Music Education and Elementary Music Specialists' Use of Class Time

2002 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn K. Orman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Music Education ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Elementary Music ◽  
General Music ◽  
Class Time ◽  
Music Specialists ◽  
Elementary General Music

The purpose of this study was to examine use of class time in elementary general music classes in relation to the nine voluntary National Standards for Music Education. Elementary music specialists (N = 30) were videotaped teaching students in Grades 1 through 6. Use of class time was analyzed separately for teacher and student according to activity and the focus of the activity. Overall, results indicated that elementary music specialists spent class time on all nine standards; however, less time was devoted to those standards that required creative or artistic decision-making skills from the students. Congruent with previous research, teachers in this study spent the majority of class time (46.36%) engaged in talking. Additional results showed that students spent the majority of class time (57.07%) in passive roles.

Curriculum and Assessment for Students with Special Needs

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice M. Hammel ◽  
Ryan M. Hourigan
Keyword(s):  
Music Education ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Music Educators ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Learning Differences ◽  
Students With Special Needs ◽  
Philosophy Of Music ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Music Classroom ◽  
The Individual

Every successful music educator has a curriculum that contains a scope (overarching goals) and sequence (how we will achieve our goals and in what order) that are critical to reaching meaningful educational goals within the music classroom. Walker and Soltis (2004) state: “Working with the curriculum is an integral part of all teachers’ daily lives”. When specific curricula are not mandated (by the state, or federal government), most music educators use a set of standards or guidelines to devise a scope and sequence for classroom teaching (i.e., the National Standards). It is important as music educators to consider their curriculum when preparing to teach all students, not just students with learning challenges. This is what separates an educator from a therapist or a service provider. The questions that we will address in this chapter include: How do music educators maintain a focus on their own curricular goals while adapting that same curriculum to the individual needs of students? And how do we assess and reflect on these goals to make adjustments in our curriculum? These are difficult questions to answer. In fact, this has been a challenge for teachers since the inclusion of students with special needs began following the passage of P.L. 94–142 more than 35 years ago. Walker and Soltis explain, “While many teachers supported the goal, many were offended that rigid regulations were imposed on them without their consent”. All these issues require a thoughtful and sequential approach when preparing, presenting, and assessing instruction in the music classroom. However, the stronger the underlying curricular focus is, the easier it will be to adapt and modify your existing curriculum to individualize instruction for students who have learning differences. Your specific curriculum, if not mandated by your state or school system, will be a result of your philosophy of music education. Even when utilizing prescribed curricula, your choices in scope and sequence will reflect your values in the classroom. These same values will be reflected in the choices you make in modifying your curricula for students with special needs.

20 Years of the MENC Biennial Conference

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-28
Author(s):  
Joshua Palkki ◽  
Daniel J. Albert ◽  
Stuart Chapman Hill ◽  
Ryan D. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Music Education ◽  
Music Educators ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Coding Scheme ◽  
Biennial Conference ◽  
Large Ensembles ◽  
National Music ◽  
Choral Teachers

The purpose of this study was to investigate the content and intended audiences for educational sessions offered at MENC biennial conferences in order to illuminate trends and topics in professional development. The researchers performed a content analysis of each session ( N = 2,593) using program booklets from conferences between 1988 and 2008, creating a coding scheme with separate codes for audience focus and session content. After establishing sufficient interjudge agreement, the researchers coded all educational sessions offered at the conferences from 1988 to 2008. Results indicated that the number of sessions targeted at specific audiences (e.g., choral teachers only) remained small relative to those targeting broader audiences. Content coding revealed large increases in the number of sessions focused on technology and a slight decrease in the number of sessions focused on traditional large ensembles. Session content sometimes followed professional trends (e.g., the inception of the National Standards in 1994) but did not reflect increased attention in the profession to topics such as creativity and students with exceptionalities. These findings have important implications for those planning state and national music education conferences and for music educators who attend these professional development events.

Classroom Teachers' and Music Specialists' Perceived Ability to Implement the National Standards for Music Education

1999 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J. Byo
Keyword(s):  
Music Education ◽  
Teacher Perceptions ◽  
Music Teachers ◽  
National Standards ◽  
General Educators ◽  
Classroom Teachers ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Public Elementary Schools ◽  
Music Specialists ◽  
Grade Classroom

This study was designed as an examination of teacher perceptions about factors affecting the successful teaching of the National Standards for Music Education. Subjects of the study were music specialists and fourth-grade classroom teachers—or generalists—from public elementary schools throughout Florida. A survey was administered to both groups to determine opinions regarding the feasibility of implementing each of the nine National Standards for Music Education (singing, playing instruments, improvising, composing/arranging, reading/notating, listening/analyzing, evaluating, understanding music as it relates to other subjects, and understanding musk as it relates to history and culture) by rating seven items (contact time, resources, assistance, ability, training, interest, responsibility, and level of assistance). Results indicated that, with respect to all seven items, music specialists are considerably more amenable to the implementation of all nine standards than are general educators. Certain standards are more feasible for both music teachers and generalists to integrate, whereas others should be solely implemented by music teachers. Music specialists are less dependent on the assistance of generalists, but the generalists need the assistance of music specialists to successfully implement most standards. Both groups expressed a concern about the lack of time and resources to effectively teach what is required by most standards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document