Music Annual Assessment Report AY17-18

Music Annual Assessment Report AY17-18 Summary Across activities that dealt with students technical performances and knowledge of music theory, students performed strongly, with students doing relatively weaker in aspects of Theory II. In Primary Lessons, students stage presence was especially strong. As well as learning about student performance, focusing on the varied assessment approaches in the Music Department this past year helped to illustrate the many ways assessments of student learning is already built into the programs, like the existing rubric for individual lessons and juries, that will continue to provide helpful information. While the assessment of Ensembles didn t yield a significant amount of information, it allowed the department to discuss ways to have external faculty adequately provide feedback to the various Ensembles. I. Major Degree Programs Music BA Contemporary, Urban, and Popular Music BMus Composition and Production BMus Music Technology BS Music Composition for the Screen MFA II. Program Outcomes Assessed AY17-18 Music BA Discuss the analytical tools of music and use them to create expressive and coherent performances in a range of styles. Fluently read and write traditional music notation. Demonstrate mastery of technical skills and stylistic practices in their primary idiom and apply them in solo and ensemble performances. Composition BMUS Program Outcomes Create original or arranged/transcribed music works and performance material for acoustic and/or electronic forces that meet or surpass the professional standards within the field in regard to theoretical and technical fluency Identify, analyze, emulate, and artistically elaborate on compositional systems from different historical periods, with an emphasis on 20 th - and 21 st -century compositional techniques. Contemporary, Urban and Popular Music, BMus Demonstrate, through musical performance, a mastery of a wide repertoire of popular music styles, and a practical familiarity with the essential genres that serve as historical

2 and artistic precedent; apply the experiences gained through transcription, analysis, reproduction and performance to their own artistic vision. Collaborate in the development of a commercially marketable and original band, which produces a cohesive repertoire of original music, generates professional-quality recorded product and creates a live show worthy of an industry showcase. Universal Learning Outcomes Assessed Career Readiness Collaboration Creativity Critical and Analytical Thinking III. Assessment 1: Theory I (32-1120) and Theory II (32-2121): Music BA Method In Fall 2017, Final Exams for Theory I and Theory II were aggregated so that each question matched their respective course outcomes, with special attention in the analysis of the results given to the program outcomes of analytical tools of music and fluently reading and writing traditional music notation. The Theory I Final Exam featured 12 questions, some multi-part. The Theory II Final Exam featured five sections, each with multi-part tasks. 24 students took the Theory I exam, and 40 students took the Theory II exam. Results Theory I Final Exam Average Score (Scale of 1) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.905 0.905 0.819 0.829 0.746 0.714 0.887 0.688 Figure 1. Theory 1 Final Exams, Aggregated by Course Outcomes. N= 24

3 Outcomes, Relative Ranking 1) Identify and construct isolated root position and inverted major, minor, augmented, and diminished triads 1) Identify and construct diatronic triad types in major and minor 2) Learn principles and skills of voice leading including harmonizing a melody 3) Notate or interpret chords with respect to key using Roman numeral notation 4) Notate or interpret chords using leadsheet notation including slashes for inversions 5) Identify, construct, and notate cadential, arpeggiating, passing, and neighbor (pedal) six-four chords 6) Understand and analyze musical phrases on two levels according to a standard phrase model using both Roman numerals and symbols reflecting chord function 7) Refer to theoretical aspects of music such as harmonies, textures, notation and matters of form using accepted terminology Average Score (Scale of 1).905.905.887.829.819.746.714.688

4 Theory II Final Exam Average Score (Scale of 1) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Figure 2. Theory II Final Exams, Aggregated by Course Outcomes. N= 38 Outcome 1) Be able to notate or interpret chords with respect to key using Roman numeral notation 1) Four-part writing in SATB style using good voice leading principles 2) inverted triads, seventh chords, inverted seventh chords and their figured bass symbols 3) Be able to notate suspensions, inverted triads and seventh chords using Roman numerals 3) Identify, construct and notate cadential, arpeggiating, passing and neighbor (pedal) six-four chords 4) tonality (how chords relate to one another and to the prevailing key), diatonic harmony, including root movement, harmonic function, and sequence Average Score (Scale of 1).7975.7975.7857.7739.7739.7523

5 5) Be able to identify and use non-harmonic (non-chord) tones such as passing, neighbor, appoggiatura, escape tone, suspension, pedal tones, or anticipations 5) Phrase structure: motive, phrase, period, antecedent/consequent, strophic, binary, ternary, and sentence forms 5) Modulation and pivot chords including chromatic modulation.6500.6500.6500 IV. Assessment 2: Composition III (32-3211): Composition BMus: Method The instructor, and Acting Coordinator of the Composition program, worked with an external faculty member to develop a rubric (see Appendix A) to assess students final projects in Composition III. The rubric focused on the criteria of Structure, Melody, Harmony, Counterpoint, Rhythm and meter, Timbral Development, Texture, Orchestration, and Score Preparation. The instructor and two external faculty members then used the rubric to individually assess the work of all 13 students in the course. Results 4.00 Composition III Final Projects Average Score (Scale of 1 to 4) 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00

6 Figure 3. Composition III Student Performance. N= 13. Strongest Areas of Performance 1. Texture: The sections of the piece (or entire piece) presents a logical development of textures or different densities 2. Melody: Shows proficiency in melodic creation, with melodies organized into recognizable figures, motives, phrases and/or periods Relative Weakest Areas of Performance 1. Timbral Development: Uses extended techniques, microtonality; imaginatively explores various registers of instruments 2. Harmony: Demonstrates logical organization of harmonic motion with various degrees of tension and release caused by cohesive use of chords, cadences and climaxes-and skillful control of harmonic rhythm Widest Range of Scores (based on standard deviation) 1. Structure: Shows thoughtfulness in creating a composition with structural integrity in which elements recur, transform and contrast 2. Timbral Development: Uses extended techniques, microtonality; imaginatively explores various registers of instruments Narrowest Range of Scores (based on standard deviation) 1. Melody: Shows proficiency in melodic creation, with melodies organized into recognizable figures, motives, phrases and/or periods 2. Counterpoint: Uses well-constructed, well-balanced and audible contrapuntal textures within a tonal or non-tonal environment. V. Assessment 3: Primary Lessons (32-*771): Music BA Method To assess students technical performance abilities in the Music BA, a rubric developed by the department was used to assess individual performances in Primary Lessons: Instrument, through jury reviews by external faculty during SP18. The rubric includes ten criteria, separated into four categories (technique, musicality, musical accuracy, and performance) and a scale of 1 to 5 (see Appendix B for rubric). Each student was assessed by one to three faculty. During SP18, the performances of 71 students. In Primary Lessons: Voice, panels of three faculty assessed each student s performance on a rubric with five criteria and a scale of 1 to 4. 69 voice students were assessed. Results

7 On students instrument performances, faculty noted students doing especially well with tone, feel, and chord choices. Calls for improvement often dealt with addressing the changes more and the need for individual students to develop stronger practice habits. On vocal performance, faculty often praised students self-presentation and style. The most consistent challenges were breathing, intonation, and demonstrating emotional investment in the songs. Music Lessons: Instrument Juries Average Score (Scale of 5) 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 3.890 3.885 4.138 3.833 3.922 4.148 3.921 3.868 3.810 4.430 1 Figure 4. Music Lessons, Instrument Jury Performance by Criteria, N= 71

8 Music Lessons: Instrument Jury By Category 5 4.5 4 Technique Musicality Musical Accuracy Performance Etiquette Average Score (Scale of 5) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Figure 5. Music Lessons, Instrument Performance by Criteria Category, N= 71 4 Primary Lessons: Voice Jury Performance Average Score (Scale of 4) 3.5 3 2.5 2 Presence Interpretation/Style Intonation/Musical Accuracy Breath Control/Placement Phrasing/Diction 1.5 1 Figure 6. Music Lessons, Voice Performance by Criteria, N= 69 VI. Assessment 3: CUP BMus, Style and Techniques Ensembles (32-1890)

9 Method External faculty observed performances by the different bands/ensembles and rated the performances based on a rubric created by the department. The rubric consisted of the program outcomes under consideration as well as additional criteria used to help learn about the program. Six groups were assessed. The criteria included 1. Demonstrate, through musical performance, a wide repertoire of popular music styles, and a practical familiarity with the essential genres that serve as historical and artistic precedent. 2. Accurately and expressively demonstrate aspects of tempo, timing, feel, tuning, tone, volume, and group dynamics. 3. Create logical improvisations/solos that display knowledge of chord/scale relationships and stylistic conventions. Results 5 4.5 4 Style and Techniques Ensembles Performances Wide Repertoire Tempo, Timing, Feel, Tuning, Tone, Volume, and Group Dynamics Logical Improvisations/Solos Averge Score 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Figure 7. Style and Techniques Ensembles Performance. N= 6 Additionally, one reviewer commented that more time with the band could be spent on logical improvisations/solos. Moving Forward Through the assessment process, it became clear that with the small number of ensemble groups, it will be helpful to revise the rubric to encourage more qualitative comments

from the reviewer as they will likely be more helpful than a small number of numerical scores. 10

i Appendix A. Comp III Rubric Student s name Name of composition Instrumentation Name of evaluator Class/instructor Date of performance Columbia College Chicago Composition Program Evaluation Form Structure Shows thoughtfulness in creating a composition with structural integrity in which elements recur, transform, and contrast Melody Shows proficiency in melodic creation, with melodies organized into recognizable figures, motives, phrases and/or periods Harmony Demonstrates logical organization of harmonic motion with various degrees of tension and release caused by cohesive use of chords, cadences and climaxes-and skillful control of harmonic rhythm Counterpoint Uses well-constructed, well-balanced and audible contrapuntal rhythmic or metric drive and/or variation Rhythm and meter Demonstrates a strong sense of rhythmic control characterized by rhythmic or metric drive and/or variation Timbral Development Uses extended techniques, microtonality; imaginatively explores various registers of instruments Texture The sections of the piece (or entire piece) presents a logical development of textures of different densities Orchestration Displays idiomatic and/or imaginative combination of instruments and/or voices Score preparation Presents a score that meets professional standards, facilitates performance, demonstrate clarity and simplicity and displays appropriate use of graphic n/a 1 2 3 4

ii elements Provide additional remarks. Comment on student s strengths and weaknesses and other elements you deem relevant and helpful.

Appendix B: Instrument Jury Sheet Columbia College Chicago Music Department April/May 2018 Primary Lessons Spring 2018 Jury Evaluation Sheet Candidate: Evaluator: Daterrime:t/ /2. 7 / ; Y Score System: 5 - Excellent. Clearly outstanding in accomplishment. 4 - Good. Substantial accomplishment. 3 - Acceptable. Average accomplishment. 2 - Deficient in specific, identifiable ways that outweigh strong points. 1 - Unprepared/poor Indicate scores below (score all performance components) Technique Tone quality Resonance, projection Posture Musicality Phrasing Sense of music style and form Musical Accuracy Pitch Rhythm Articulation Dynamics Performance Etiquette Stage presence Comments / Altrr1L I /)uo ' (. -..,,. '1 KuJt.