The first step toward incorporating self, peer and group assessment in the grading process for music classes is to identify the faults of the procedure. Some commonly found faults are that the critique is uncritical in general, superficial, unengaged, focused on likes/dislikes not quality, focused on trivial problems, focused on content alone - missing out on style and structure, bias, unnecessarily harsh and mean-spirited, unconstructive, inconsistent, contradictory, inaccurate and unrelated to the requirements (Nilson, 2003, p. 35). These would all seem to be faults of the students, but in actuality they are faults of the system. The students are set up to judge each other but they may not want to cause a lowered grade, especially in the case of self assessment. They fear being honest because in some cases honesty can cause them to fail. A change needs to be made. If this fear is removed the students could assess themselves and their peers honestly. These results can then be used openly as assessment for learning or anonymously for assessment of learning.
Nilson believes that there are three basic problems with this process: “the intrusion of students' emotions into the evaluative process, their ignorance of professional expectations and standards for various types of work, and their laziness in studying the work and/or in writing up the feedback. Emotion, ignorance, and laziness are formidable barriers...” (Neilson, 2003, p. 35) that we must challenge and deconstruct to recreate this process and enable it to become a valued and respected. To address the first problem, distributing the student’s papers with no names on them would take the emotion completely out of the equation. Of course this only works with peer assessment and not self. This process would be more easily adapted for a more typical classroom setting. It could work in a music program if work from different bands was combined. For example, students could play and record a playing test at the beginning and end of the semester. Then give these audio files to a random student and have them judge the recording against a rubric. This process would yield the best results if each student evaluated several recordings.
To address ignorance, the second problem, rubrics would be most valuable. Although it can take some time, ignorance has the most straight forward solution: education. The problem is that the students are not used to grading themselves and others, especially not in music. It is not something that is typically done. Traditionally the instructor provides the only grade. The standards of various instructors can be used to create a valuable rubric. Some standards and expectations include improvement in many musical elements such as tone, pitch/intonation, dynamics, phrasing/line, articulation/pronunciation, breath support, range, expression, and rhythm/meter. If a rubric is made based on the improvement of these musical elements it would eliminate much of the ignorance on the subject of self, peer and group evaluation. The students who are doing the assessment would be experienced with these terms and would be able to provide an accurate interpretation of the two recordings. Because of music’s tendency to be ambiguous and up to interpretation students would be required to provide written feedback, not just a numbered grade.
The third barrier, laziness, would be the most difficult to attend to. Laziness is a flaw that we as teachers cannot easily change, or rid our students of. There has to be some sort of incentive in place to convince the students that this is worth-while. Students must understand that this is a reciprocal process; they are not only giving grades, but receiving them as well. In order for things to be fair, each student must provide a good quality and quantity of feedback. The first step to discourage laziness is to demonstrate the importance of the process. The second step is to monitor that the students are following through. Give guidelines for the amount of comments/critique the students must provide. When the students hand in their assessments check that they have given enough feedback to understand the numbered grade given.
Another problem with self, peer and group assessment that Nilson (2003) outlines is the questions the students are asked of themselves/their peers and their/peer work (p. 35). Typically the questions are developed by teachers. This can cause confusion or dishonest answers from the students. They may not be thinking about the questions in the same way that the teacher does. They may allow emotion to alter their answers of yes/no questions. To avoid this, the rubric should be developed by the students, with more discussion questions that require proof and feedback. Pulman’s (2010) research shows that
“Establishing individuals’ own personal attribute criteria, self-assessing these, formulating band-determined personal weaknesses, marking those of other band members, receiving marking feedback from the band, reflecting on these marks and comparing these with their self-assessments are activities which ... can provide valuable learning opportunities for every student.” (p. 412)
Nilson (2003) believes that the feedback provided by the student needs to be structured and guided by the rubrics rather than yes/no questions, because these do not provide any feedback. She provides several questions and tasks (none of which apply to music, but would be very useful in traditional classes) that provoke justification, explanation and genuine assessment that provides accurate feedback, void of emotional ties. Further, if students are asked to “...identify parts or features of the work...” (p. 36) answers may also be more truthful and accurate. All of these procedures will work best when coupled with an anonymous assessment process. Other questions that Nilson supplies ask the students to provide their personal reaction as oppose to judgement. Response and interpretation will also help to keep the assessment honest.
An important step in making adjustments to self, peer and group assessment is to examine what the students themselves think of the process and their understanding of how it works. In some studies the students have believed the process to be “... difficult because ... it was impossible to be objective when considering their own work...” and when considering peer assessment “... the students found it difficult to be critical when assessing... their peers.” (Vickerman, 2009, p. 222). Students also believe that they must not grade themselves too high as this may be perceived as rewarding themselves. They may also grade themselves higher than they deserve purely because they know their opinion will count as part of their grade. The fear or hopes for the end result can tamper with the assessment process, yielding inaccurate results. All of these things must be considered when developing the criteria for peer, self and group assessment so the students are able to provide the best, most honest and accurate feedback possible.
Students also have positive understandings of peer, self and group evaluation. They understand that the process can bring about positive change such as personal motivation to do better (as compared to peers), enlightenment, and new perspectives on how they learn individually and as a group. Additionally the students will learn to
“...take responsibility for their own learning and development, [treat] assessment as part of learning so that mistakes are seen as opportunities rather than failures, practice the transferable skills needed for life-long learning particularly related to evaluation skills, use external evaluation to provide a model for internal self-assessment of [their] own learning (metacognition), [and] encourage deep rather than surface learning” (Vicerman, 2009, p. 222).
By “... [knowing] which learning, teaching and assessment strategies work best for them...” (Vickerman, 2009, p. 223) the students will become better learners. Self, peer and group assessment all help the students discover how they learn.
In a study done by Vickerman (2009) “...55% of students agree or strongly agree that [their subject knowledge] had been enhanced as a direct result of involvement in the formative peer assessment process” (p. 226). To apply this to music classes and the analysis of others work, students will gain a better perspective of what good sound, tone, pitch/intonation, etc. equals. From here the students could peer assess and find ways to improve these aspects for themselves. By working with each other the students can look at things from a different vantage point and make discoveries they may not have made otherwise. The students will also gain a better understanding of the other instruments in the group/band which they can then apply to making a better sounding group.
Self, peer and group assessment, as with all forms of assessment, can be used in two ways: assessment for learning and assessment of learning. When focusing on music self, peer and group assessment is more often used as assessment for learning as music is usually a life-long journey and commitment. To use it as assessment of learning would be practical for students taking introductory courses, mandatory arts ed./band courses, or those who are simply giving the arts a try and are not sure that it is for them. When using group assessment, as in a master class (where students play for each other and provide feedback), students are able to give and receive feedback instantly. They can then take this feedback and apply it to their practice, aiming to improve their basic musical skills. Because the students will all be at a similar place in their studies (relative to the advanced position of the instructor) they will be in a position to provide important feedback and advice that is significant to what they are currently working on. This type of activity is eternally useful because as musicians we understand that there is always something to improve on, always skills to practice and techniques to advance.
Peer assessment can be particularly useful because each pair of ears will hear things differently. When assessing individually (as opposed to in a group) the students are able to focus on specific things that may have been missed in the confusion and disorder of group assessment. Students will typically focus on things that they have trouble with or have focused on in the past. With the insight given from several peer assessments a student is able to focus on several different aspects of their performance or they may be given several different perspectives on the same subject.
Self-assessment is different as it is difficult to recognize change and improvement when viewing our own product(s). When given guidelines and using a critical eye/ear, self-assessment can be the most valuable. Performers tend to judge themselves the hardest and if given the chance and the means they will most likely pick up on the things that need more work. The danger with self-assessment is that musicians tend to focus in on one minute and sometimes unimportant thing. They have a tendency to focus on flaws as flaws and not as things that need improvement. Musicians are all too often too harsh on themselves which can sometimes damage their ability to make improvements.
In music, as well as in other, subjects any of these three forms of assessment used alone can be hazardous and off-balance. But when used together they provide insight, perspective and valuable suggestions for ways to improve for the future. Self, peer and group assessment are often used at the end of term for assessment of learning to provide solid, empirical, concrete evaluation which is required by administration and useful to parents/guardians and students alike. However, these forms of assessment have more value as assessment for learning. When used in this way all worry that grades will be affected in an unprofessional way is eliminated. Students can be free to assess themselves and their peers honestly without worrying that feelings will be hurt or that their judgement will negatively affect someone’s grade. “The capacity to work effectively within a team is an attribute that is as prized in the music profession as it is in many other areas of human creativity” (Pulman, 2010, p. 397). This type of assessment will help to build confidence and trust within individuals and the group.
References
Bergee, M. & Cecconi-Roberts, L. (2002). Effects of Small-Group Peer Interaction on Self-Evaluation of Music Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 256-268.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer Learning and Assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 413-426.
Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap
between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 551-564.
Haas, A. L., Haas, R. W. & Wotruba, T. R. (1998). The Use of Self-Ratings and Peer Ratings to Evaluate Performances of Student Group Members. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 200-2009.
Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 51, 34-48.
Pulman, Mark. (2010). Assessing personal attributes in group rehearsal. Music Education Research, 12, 395-414.
Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to
deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 221-230.
No comments:
Post a Comment