Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Theory and Practice of Technology-Based Music Instruction$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Jay Dorfman

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199795581

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2020

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199795581.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 21 September 2021

Assessment and Technology-Based Music Instruction

Assessment and Technology-Based Music Instruction

Chapter:
Chapter 7 (p.142) Assessment and Technology-Based Music Instruction
Source:
Theory and Practice of Technology-Based Music Instruction
Author(s):

Jay Dorfman

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199795581.003.0010

Assessment is such an important cornerstone of the current educational landscape that it must be a part of discussion about any educational topic, including TBMI. To paraphrase Duke (2005), rather than thinking about assessment as the culmination of an educational cycle, teachers should embed assessment into every lesson, every activity, and our plans for everything that comes next. Duke stated, “The distinction between the assessments and the substance of instruction day to day should be diminished to the point that the day-to-day activities of instruction closely resemble the assessments themselves” (2005, p. 71). In a TBMI class, this is the scenario for which teachers should strive. Still, assessment remains a thorny issue for TBMI teachers because they are often unaccustomed to assessing the types of work that students do in TBMI classes, examples of which were seen in the sample lessons in chapter 6. Assessing what students do informs us about the extent to which they retain information and achieve learning objectives, the quality of that learning, and students’ abilities to apply conceptual understanding to both familiar and novel situations. If we do it for no other reason, assessing students tells us when they are ready to go on to the next bit of information, the next activity, or the next level of complexity of work. I observed Mr. U during a day trip to his school in a suburb in the northeast United States. Mr. U has been teaching music technology classes at the high school level for about 15 years–perhaps the longest of any teacher profiled in this book–and has been nationally recognized for his excellence in doing so. Over that time, he has gone through many changes of equipment, software, and course designs. He has developed a vast and sophisticated set of projects for his students, who can take level 1 and 2 music technology classes. Most of the assignments and requirements are housed on a website that Mr. U developed as part of a professional development project. His students clearly enjoy the music technology classes he teaches.

Keywords:   Auralia, Critical Response Process (Lerhman and Borstel), MacGAMUT, Practica Music, ProTools, electronic portfolios, professional development, project sharing, rubrics, successful versus good teaching (Fenstermacher & Richardson), topographical model of technology integration

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .