1

WM '

‘I
t
i

5

WW

W

x

142
659

 

THEovs

A

AD‘O

r-

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AN EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD
ASSESSMENT AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO DEMOGRAPHIC
FACTORS IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY GENERAL MUSIC
CLASSROOMS

presented by

Megan Rose Peppers

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Music Education
Music

 

 

W1 (A , 4143/6
Major Professor's Signature

6'/////0

Date

 

MSU is an Aﬂirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

I-O-I‘I-‘-I-‘I-O.

_ .‘_..-.-.-—uc‘ap.‘-a-un—nn-c-nu-

._n-_.-V-.-'-I.-.-.-.-I-I-.-I-O-I-.-.-'—lV I

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 ICIProj/AocaPresIClRCIDateDue.indd

 

 

AN EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ASSESSMENT AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS IN MICHIGAN
ELEMENTARY GENERAL MUSIC CLASSROOMS
By

Megan Rose Peppers

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC
Music Education

2010

ABSTRACT
AN EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD ASSESSMENT AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS IN MICHIGAN
ELEMENTARY GENERAL MUSIC CLASSROOMS
By
Megan Rose Peppers

The purpose of this research was to examine elementary music teachers’ attitudes
toward formal assessment: (1) Why do teachers use formal assessment in their
classrooms? (2) What do teachers view as challenges in implementing formal
assessment? (3) What is the relationship between attitudes toward challenges of formal
assessment and demographic factors? (4) What do teachers believe will improve their
formal assessment methods?

Surveys were sent to 232 elementary general music teachers in Michigan, and 100
of the returned surveys (43%) served as data for the study. Respondents agreed that the
primary purposes of assessment were instructional. They found the most challenging
aspects of assessment to be related to heavy teaching loads. Respondents with a greater
number of buildings or students, larger class sizes, or less contact time indicated more
difﬁculties when assessing. Respondents who received their last music education degree
20 or more years ago experienced greater difﬁculty in assessment-related tasks and had
more negative attitudes toward assessment. Those who had a moderate number of years
(10-19) since their last music education degree believed most strongly that they had not
been adequately prepared in college to assess. Respondents believed that the most

important ways to improve assessment would be to attend workshops, sharing sessions

and Observe other teachers within the region and district.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply grateful for my advisory committee and their guidance throughout my
Master’s degree program. Dr. Cynthia Taggart, thank you for adding depth to my studies
and for changing the way that I view my students’ learning potential. Dr. Kevin Bartig,
thank you for your detailed attention to my writing and sense of the “big picture” in this
document. Dr. Judy Palac, I appreciate your insight and sensitivity toward the needs of
today’s teachers. I am indebted to all of the Michigan teachers who took the time to
respond to my survey and offer meaningful comments toward the improvement of
assessment practices.

Thank you to my future in-laws, Paul and Janet Rosenberg, who helped to stuff
envelopes while visiting and offered constant support. Thank you to Stephen Paparo,
who helped me to troubleshoot calculations, and the many music education students that
have inspired me throughout my time here. Thank you to my parents, Karen and James
Peppers, and my large and loving family who supported me ﬁom a distance. Finally, I
owe a great deal of gratitude to Timothy Rosenberg, my ﬁancé, for his love, humor, and

cooking that sustained me throughout this process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Purpose and Problems .............................................................................. 10
Chapter 2: Related Research ............................................................................................. 11
Purpose of Assessment .................................................................................................. l 1
Challenges in Assessment ............................................................................................. 15
Demographic Variables and Their Relationship to Assessment ................................... 16
Suggestions for Improvement of Assessment ............................................................... 18
Use of Surveys ............................................................................................................... 19
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................... 22
Design ............................................................................................................................ 22
Sample ........................................................................................................................... 22
Survey Development ..................................................................................................... 23
Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 24
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 25
Chapter 4: Results and Interpretations .............................................................................. 27
Return Rate .................................................................................................................... 27
Demographics ................................................................................................................ 29
Teaching experience and education. ..................................................................... 29
Teaching setting. ................................................................................................... 33
Teaching load. ....................................................................................................... 36
Attitudes Toward the Purposes, Challenges, and Improvement for Assessment .......... 38
Means and standards deviations for the purposes of assessment. ......................... 38
Means and standard deviations for challenges of assessment. .............................. 42
Means and standard deviations for improving assessment. .................................. 47
Relationships Between Ordinal Demographic factors and Challenges Using Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefﬁcient ...................................................................... 49
Correlations for years of teaching experience and years since last music education
degree. ................................................................................................................... 50
Correlations for number of buildings. ................................................................... 51
Correlations for number of grade levels. ............................................................... 52
Correlations for number of classes. ....................................................................... 52
Correlation for number of students. ...................................................................... 54
Correlations for average class Size. ....................................................................... 55
Correlations for contact time. ................................................................................ 56
Correlations for number of in-service workshops attended. ................................. 57

iv

Differences Between Attitudes Toward Challenges According to Demographic FactorsS8

ANOVA for years of experience. .......................................................................... 58
ANOVA for years since last music education degree. .......................................... 59
Chapter 5: Implications and Recommendations ................................................................ 64
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 64
Implications ................................................................................................................... 70
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 73

APPENDIX A: ELEMENTARY GENERAL MUSIC ASSESSMENT PERCEPTIONS

SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX B: CONSENT LETTER ............................................................................... 82
APPENDIX C: REMINDER LETTER ............................................................................. 84
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 86

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Teaching Experience and Education .................................................................. 30
Table 2: Participants Grouped by Years of Teaching Experience .................................... 31
Table 3: All Degree Types ................................................................................................. 32
Table 4: F ull-T ime or Part-Time Split Responsibility Status ............................................ 33
Table 5: Number of Buildings and Grade Levels .............................................................. 34
Table 6: Whether or Not Grades Are Required ....................... ' .......................................... 36
Table 7: Teaching Load ..................................................................................................... 37
Table 8: Purposes of Assessment ....................................................................................... 39
Table 9: Challenges of Assessment ................................................................................... 42
Table 10: Negative Attitudes From Students, Parents, and Administration ..................... 44
Table 1 1: Improving Assessment ....................................................................................... 46
Table 12: Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Challenges ............. 50
Table 13: Relationship Between Years Since Last Music Education Degree and

Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 51
Table 14: Relationship Between Number of Buildings and Challenges ............................ 52
Table 15: Relationship Between Number of Grade Levels and Challenges ...................... 53
Table 16: Relationship Between Number of Classes and Challenges....... ........................ 53
Table 17: Relationship Between Number of Students and Challenges ............................. 54
Table 18: Relationship Between Average Class Size and Challenges .............................. 55
Table 19: Relationship Between Typical Contact Time and Challenges .......................... 56

Table 20: Relationship Between Number of In-Service Workshops Attended and
Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 57

Table 21: Differences in Means for Years of Experience and Challenges ........................ 59

Table 22: Differences in Means for Years Since Last Music Education Degree and
Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 60

Table 23: Diﬂerences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education
Degree and “There Is Not Enough Time to Maintain Records ” ...................................... 61

Table 24: Diﬂerences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education
Degree and “It Is Diﬂicult to Manage Behavior and Assess ” .......................................... 61

Table 25: Dijfkrences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education
Degree and “Assessment Dampens Creativity " ............................................................... 62

Table 26: Diﬂerences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education
Degree and “I Was Not Adequately Prepared in College ” .............................................. 63

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Distribution of Number of Buildings ................................................................. 34

Figure 2: Distribution and Number of Grade Levels ........................................................ 35

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Distribution of Number of Buildings ................................................................. 34

Figure 2: Distribution and Number of Grade Levels ........................................................ 35

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

The National Standards for Arts Education (1994) developed as a response to
music education’s need for a uniﬁed approach to curriculum, teaching processes, and
evaluation. The original document was an outgrowth of Goals 2000 legislation that
passed in 1994 and included arts education in the general curriculum as a basic subject
for the ﬁrst time. Though the standards are voluntary, educators have largely embraced
the National Standards as a guide for curriculum development, leading to arts education
reform at local and state levels (Brophy, 2000).

Additional publications have been designed to promote implementation of the
National Standards. The School Music Program: A New Vision (1994) provides content
and achievement standards for grades K—12. The Performance Standards for Music
Grades Pre K-12 (1996) includes assessment strategies and descriptions of typical
student responses, as well as criteria for labeling these responses as basic, proﬁcient, and
advanced.

The Michigan Arts Education Content Standards and Benchmarks (1996) reﬂect
the National Standards and related MENC publications. Like the National Standards, the
Michigan standards and benchmarks focus on performing, creating, analyzing, and
understanding the arts in relation to history and culture. The'National Standards provide
clear objectives and suggestions for assessment that have been adopted in the Michigan

standards and benchmarks.

Several authors have addressed the inﬂuence of the National Standards on
assessment in music education, including Boyle (1996), Brophy (2000), Campbell and
Scott-Kassner (2002), Niebur (2001), and Schuler (1996). According to Brophy, the
establishment of standards demands that teachers use formal, or written, assessments (p.
4). Examples of formal assessment tools include aptitude tests, achievement tests,
rubrics, rating scales, and written observations.

Despite the National Standards and subsequent publications’ suggested methods,
recent studies indicate that teachers often do not formally assess students. In a study of
elementary music classrooms in Michigan, Talley (2005) found that 41% of kindergarten
and 17% of fourth grade music classes were not formally assessed at all. This study will
examine teacher attitudes toward assessment, regardless of speciﬁc assessment methods
used. Assessment, as deﬁned in this study, will consist of judgments of student
achievement and aptitude and will be formal, meaning that the results of the assessment
will be documented in written form.

Because it provides information about student ability and achievement, formal
assessment is a necessary tool to inform and improve instruction (Brophy, 2000;
Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 2002; Colwell, 2002; Holster, 2005; MENC, 1996b). Shuler
(1996) identiﬁes the primary purpose of assessment: “The most important purpose of
assessment is to improve learning, which is often accomplished by improving
instruction” (p. 90). Assessment that is ongoing and interwoven with instruction can
maximize student learning (Farrell, 1997).

Assessment can be used to identify and teach to different levels of student needs

(Boyle, 1996; BrOphy, 2000; Taggart, 2002). Using evidence of student achievement,

teachers may allocate time for ﬁirther instruction of speciﬁc objectives (Holster, 2005)
and sequence instruction according to student development (Gordon, 2007). They may
also modify objectives to meet student needs (Elliot, 1995). In addition, measurement of
student ability and achievement can be compared to other students throughout time and
across geographiCal boundaries (Boyle, 1996).

Furthermore, assessment of student learning is a critical component of curriculum
alignment and evaluation. Curriculum alignment is measured to ensure that instructional
objectives are being assessed (Howell & Nolet, 2000; Shih, 1997). Shih (1997) deﬁnes
curriculum alignment measurement as the correlation between written curriculum,
including stated objectives; taught curriculum, or instruction; and tested curriculum, or
assessment (p. 4). Curriculum alignment measurement can be valuable for informing
instruction in all subject areas, and studies addressing alignment in music education have
increased since the publication of the National Standards (Shih, 1997).

Assessment also provides valuable information for curriculum evaluation (Boyle,
1992; Colwell, 2002; Elliot, 1995; Lehman, 1992; Shih, 1997; Shuler, 1996). The data
derived ﬁom a curriculum evaluation may be used to determine the rate and amount of
success the program has in achieving goals, inform school-based decision-making such as
scheduling, affect public opinion of the program, and inﬂuence governmental decisions
(Colwell, 2002; Lehman, 1992). Curriculum evaluation data may include evaluation of
faculty, teaching materials, equipment, and schedules (Lehman, 1992), as well as
descriptive data from observations and conversations with students (Elliot, 1995).
According to Lehman (1992), assessment of student learning and achievement is

probably the most heavily weighted contributor to curriculum evaluation.

In addition to affecting teacher decisions, assessment can be used to provide
feedback to students and parents (Brophy, 2000; Colwell, 2002; Holster, 2005; Taggart,
2002). This feedback, often in the form of grades (Shuler, 1996), has been found to
motivate students to achieve. Hill (1999) studied assessment practices in high school
band programs. He found that students viewed grades as “reward and/or punishment” (p.
146). However, he cautioned against using grades as extrinsic motivation and instead
proposed that music education focus on leaming process.

Taggart (2002) states that when used appropriately, information regarding student
achievement can aid in communication with students, parents, and administrators. She
says that, with appropriate assessment, “Music teachers would be able to talk to parents
and administrators in the same way that classroom teachers do, giving examples of
individual student’s musical growth and accomplishments so that the value of the music
program would be clear to all” (p. 9). The information derived from assessment can be
the basis for fruitful conversations regarding student achievement with parents and
administrators.

Furthermore, communication of student achievement can lead to increased
support of the program (Taggart, 2002) and validation of music education in the general
curriculum (Brophy, 2000; Holster, 2005; McClung 1996). Brophy (2000) claims,
“There is no better advocacy for a music program than consistent assessment and parental
reporting procedures” (p. 3). Additionally, comprehensive assessment and curriculum
evaluation can be used to inform politicians of the importance of a music education
program (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 2002), leading to increased funding and improved

policies.

Assessment can inform accountability in music education (Campbell & Scott-
Kassner, 2002). Accountability initiatives in music education have increased nationwide
as a result of general education reform since the 19803 (Brophy, 2000; Niebur, 2001).
Holster (2005) states, “In this era of high-stakes testing, what is tested is what is valued...
While the layperson may not understand the nuances of the discipline of music,
assessment is understood by the community at large” (p. 120). In sum, the use of
appropriate assessment practices can provide evidence of student achievement to
teachers, students, parents, and administrators, leading to improved instruction and
increased support for music education.

Despite the many beneﬁts of assessment, it has generally not been used to its
fullest potential in music education (Boyle, 1996; Gordon, 2007; Shuler, 1996). In a
study of music education assessment methods in Michigan, Talley (2005) observed that
teachers had positive views toward assessment, but found that most do not feel that they
use it enough and some do not use it at all. Boyle questions the practicality of
implementing assessment in current music education classrooms. “Can we make
assessment manageable? Do we have the personnel, time, and resources to do it
effectively? And, assuming that we can ﬁnd the time, personnel, and resources, what
about the quality of the information obtained?” (Boyle, p. 113). Current research shows
that many music educators share similar concerns (Hanzlik, 2001; Kotora, 20001; Niebur,
1997; Sirnanton, 2001; Talley, 2005).

There is a notable amount of resistance towards formal assessment in music
education. Talley (2005) found that some music teachers are unwilling to use assessment

in their classrooms. She quoted one respondent as saying, “It has been my experience

that formal assessment makes music just another subject to learn and not enjoy” (p. 61).
This comment implies a negative philosophical view of assessment. Kotora (2001)
studied a high school choral program in Ohio and found that a number of administration,
parents, and students view assessment as unnecessary in music classes.

Negative attitudes toward assessment often stem from a lack of knowledge
regarding its purpose. Many music teachers confuse assessment with grading (Shuler,
1996). Schuler (1996) explains, "This confusion between assessment and grading is
understandable because the most traditional classroom use of assessment data is to
generate report card grades” (p. 89). While assessment can be used to inform grades, its
primary purpose is to improve instruction (Boyle, 1996). Additionally, Niebur (1997)
found that teachers feel assessment suppresses creativity, and Talley (2005) found that
many elementary general music teachers believe that there are skills that cannot be
assessed in the music classroom. However, Boyle (1996) states that creative responses
can be assessed qualitatively during authentic classroom activities without interfering
with instruction (p. 114).

Institutional challenges in implementing assessment are widespread and identiﬁed
in many studies. Music educators are often burdened by large class Sizes (N iebur, 1997;
Shuler, 1996; Talley, 2005), large numbers of students overall (Niebur, 1997; Shuler,
1996), limited contact time (Kotora, 2001; Niebur, 1997; Shuler, 1996; Talley, 2005), and
a lack of time for record keeping (Kotora, 2001). Further, Kotora (2001) found that
teachers had trouble assessing large numbers of students while managing their behavior.

Student population migration also presents difﬁculty in measuring long-term student

progress (Shuler, 1996) and was identiﬁed as a challenge in Niebur’s (1997) study of four
elementary general music teachers.

Teachers may also harbor negative attitudes toward assessment due to a lack of
preparation. Kotora (2001) found that high school choral educators believe they are not
prepared to assess students in the music classroom and that they lack guidelines for
assessment. Shuler (1996) agrees, stating, “Even though teachers have used professional
publications, symposia, in-service conferences and Web sites to Share the results of some
of their innovations, there is still no centralized source teachers can turn to for examples
of ‘best practice’” (p. 94). Kotora also found that teachers lack guidelines for
assessment.

In a Canadian study of teacher attitudes regarding assessment, Hepworth-Osiowy
(2004) found similar difﬁculties to those in American schools, including a lack of
preparation through training, professional development, and resources. A signiﬁcant
factor that teachers felt prevented their personal effectiveness while assessing was the
lack of Canadian National Standards. However, in the United States, where there are
National Standards supplemented by clear objectives and publications geared towards
practical assessment, teachers fail to use assessment to its ﬁrllest potential.

In addition to institutional variables, demographic variables have been found to
inﬂuence the quality of assessment practices and teacher attitudes toward assessment.
Sirnanton (2001) studied high school band educators and their assessment practices in
relation to demographic variables. He found that best practice, including the use of
appropriate equipment and performance-based criteria, correlated negatively with band

size, as well as the band teacher’s education and experience. For instance, teachers with

smaller band sizes were 20% more likely to tape record student performances than
teachers with larger band Sizes (Sirnanton, p. 62). Simanton found that demographic
variables affect the quality of assessment and it is likely that they also inﬂuence teachers’
attitudes toward their assessment practices.

In a study of high school band teachers and their attitudes toward assessment,
Hanzlik (2001) found that teachers with the most and least experience had the most
positive attitudes toward assessment. He speculated that teachers with the least teaching
experience are often young teachers who have received college teaching preparation
more recently than their colleagues, since assessment is often emphasized in their
methods classes. Teachers with more experience may have the maturity to recognize the
importance of assessment in their classrooms, and have accumulated more strategies and
tools for effective assessment. Hanzlik’s and Sirnanton’s (2001) ﬁndings present a need
to ﬁrrther investigate the relationship between speciﬁc teacher demographic variables,
including educational background and teaching experiences, and their inﬂuence on
teacher attitudes toward their assessment practices.

Literature suggests that challenges in assessment should be addressed in a variety
of ways. Teachers must have a clear understanding of the values of assessment, what to
assess, how to prepare for assessment, and how to assess (Brophy, 2000). Teachers may
gain an understanding of the various aspects of assessment through teacher preparation
programs, professional development workshops, and teacher initiative to consult related
literature (Shuler, 1996).

Teachers must have positive philosophical views toward assessment if they are to

use it to its fullest beneﬁt. As previously mentioned, many teachers do not strongly

identify assessment as a valuable tool in their classroom, and some feel that it suppresses
creativity. Teachers must be educated in the purposes and values of assessment practice
in music classrooms. Shuler (1996) believes, “To bring busy music teachers around to
the idea of assessment, we need to present a pretty compelling case” (p. 91). He suggests
incorporating more training regarding values and methods of assessment in teacher
preparation and professional workshops.

Once teachers understand the general purposes of assessment, they must decide
which areas are important to assess and how to assess them. Shuler (1996) developed
assessment guidelines based on the following artistic processes: creating, performing, and
responding (p. 96). Brophy also suggests divisions based on performance, creativity, and
critical thinking, and assigns appropriate standards to each area. Next, teachers must
prepare to assess these areas. Brophy (2000) states, “Just as teachers must take time to
plan thorough and engaging lessons for general music students, similar planning and
thought are necessary to develop appropriate musical assessments” (p. 23). He suggests
preparatory steps for assessment, including selecting an objective, choosing criteria,
preparing assessment tools, planning record keeping, deciding on materials, and
communicating the assessment procedure to students.

Many teachers lack assessment strategies for use in their classrooms, which has
surfaced as a more pressing need since the release of the National Standards and its
varied learning objectives. Shuler (1996) says, “Not surprisingly, teachers need the most
help developing appropriate tasks in areas of the standards where they have the least
experience, such as music composition” (p. 94). Teacher preparation and professional

development workshops, including best practice sessions, are potential sources for

developing assessment strategies. Related literature also presents practical assessment
strategies and ideas for their implementation. For example, portfolios are valuable tools
for providing long-term, comprehensive student growth in music education (Brophy,
2000; Nierman, 1996; Shuler, 1996).

As teaching practices based on the National Standards develop, assessment
practices must change to accommodate them. As a result, ongoing studies of teacher
attitudes regarding formal assessment purposes, challenges, and improvements are
necessary to monitor the progress of assessment practices. Furthermore, information
regarding the educational background and teaching responsibilities of elementary general
music teachers is needed to identify their needs and provide appropriate solutions for

improving assessment practices.

Statement of Purpose and Problems

To improve music instruction, the purpose of this study is to examine elementary
general music teachers’ attitudes toward formal assessment. Speciﬁcally, why do
teachers use formal assessment in their classrooms? What do teachers view as challenges
in implementing formal assessment? What is the relationship between attitudes toward
challenges of formal assessment and demographic factors? What do teachers believe will

improve their formal assessment methods?

10

Chapter 2: Related Research

Few large-scale studies focus solely on teachers’ attitudes toward assessment in
elementary general music classrooms. Using descriptive methods, researchers have
examined attitudes regarding purposes and challenges in assessment. No one has
investigated relationships between attitudes toward challenges and demographic variables
in elementary general music classrooms, though there are related studies. Little research

has examined the ways in which teachers believe their assessment could be improved.

Purpose of Assessment

Talley (2005) studied assessment types used by 35 elementary general music
teachers in Michigan. She also investigated the applications of those assessments. A
survey questionnaire was the main source of data, with follow-up interviews conducted
as needed to clarify information. Talley found, “The surveys indicated that many of the
respondents did not ﬁequently assess their students, and some did not assess the students
at all” (p. 63). This was surprising considering respondents mostly indicated positive
attitudes towards assessment. The results may be further magniﬁed considering the low
return rate of 22%, and that the respondents who responded may have been more likely to
use assessment and therefore care enough about the subject to complete and return the
survey.

While the study mostly described assessment types and their uses, in the only

open-ended question, 31 respondents indicated their attitudes toward the purpose of

11

assessment. Talley represented recurring responses in the form of percentages. The most
common answer, indicated by 55% of respondents, was “to allow teachers to adapt
instruction” (p. 60). Likewise, a majority of the top scoring responses related to
instructional goals.

In addition to improving instruction, 19% of respondents speciﬁed that they used
assessment “to provide validation for the inclusion of music in the curriculum” and to
“communicate achievement to students and parents” (p. 60). Ten percent indicated that a
purpose of assessment is to “provide teacher accountability” (p. 60). Talley (2005) found
that 3% of the respondents did “not philosophically agree with assessment in general” (p.
60). An open response format was useful for identifying the most prescient attitudes that
teachers could think of at the time that they completed the survey. However, providing
respondents with a comprehensive list of common purposes identiﬁed in literature and
asking them to rate items using a continuous rating scale might be more helpful in
identifying how teachers feel about a range of ideas, rather than what comes to mind at
the moment.

It is notable that teachers expressed positive attitudes towards assessment yet did
not use it ﬁequently. Talley (2005) suggests, “A study investigating music teachers’
attitudes and philosophies toward assessment in general music would be informative” (p.
66). This study aims to further examine teachers’ attitudes toward the purposes of
assessment and challenges surrounding its implementation in efforts to improve
instruction.

Similar to Talley’s (2005) study of Michigan teachers, Hepworth-Osiowy (2004)

found that teachers in the Winnipeg Public Schools had positive views toward

12

assessment. In her study, Hepworth-Osiowy examined the assessment perspectives and
practices of 88 elementary general music teachers. Though her study was conducted in
Canada, where there are no national standards for music education, teachers voiced
concerns over the practical implementation of assessment, as was found in Talley’s study.

Various aspects of Hepworth-Osiowy’s (2004) methodology apply to this study.
As did Talley (2005), Hepworth-Osiowy used a survey to collect information. She
provided sets of contrasting statements to examine carefully teachers’ attitudes toward
assessment, including the following: “Assessment is an important part of my music
program” and “Music is a subject where assessment is not critical”; as well as, “I feel
conﬁdent that my assessment practices are well developed and meet the needs of my
students and overall program” and “I feel that there is room to improve my assessment
practices in my music program” (p. 122). The use of contrasting ideas decreased the
likelihood of misinterpreted responses. Respondents used a ﬁve-point Likert scale to
indicate agreement with the statements.

Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) found mostly high levels of agreement between
respondents regarding attitudes toward assessment. Seventy-one percent of respondents
agreed that assessment is important, and 79.0% disagreed that assessment is not critical
(p. 81). Nearly 74% of respondents agreed that there was room to improve their
assessment practices (p. 82), and 86.4% disagreed that there are “few or no beneﬁts for
both student and teachers who use assessment in the music program” (p. 82). By
providing statements and a Likert scale as opposed to open-ended response opportunities,
the researcher was able to observe signiﬁcant agreement among respondents’ attitudes

toward assessment.

13

Additionally, Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) asked respondents to select adjectives
that described their feelings towards assessment. The adjectives that were chosen the
most were as follows: “informative” (80.0%), “challenging” (78.4%), and “useful”
(77.3%). The least selected adjectives, with percentages of 1.0% and 0.0% respectively,
were “unnecessary” and “worthless” (p. 85). The selection of adjectives provided strong
support of the previous Likert ratings. The respondents did not indicate a signiﬁcant
level of agreement when asked if they felt conﬁdent about their assessment practices.
This led Hepworth-Osiowy to conclude, “It appears that most music teachers’ feelings
regarding conﬁdence in their music assessment practices are mixed and variable” (p. 82).
I will discuss how stratiﬁcation of data in relation to demographic variables may have
allowed the researcher to obtain clearer results.

As in Talley’s (2005) study, Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) included an open-ended
question about the purpose of assessment (p. 124). In her analysis, Talley quantiﬁed
common responses and presented them in perCentages. In contrast, Hepworth-Osiowy
chose to abandon the previously quantitative structure of her study and represent data
from open response questions in qualitative form. Many of the individual responses
given in the open-ended questions are comparable to Talley’s recurring themes and could
have been quantiﬁed, though Hepworth-Osiowy may not have been able to anticipate
these responses.

Further, Hepworth—Osiowy (2004) states, “[Most] said that assessment provides
students with valuable feedback, that it is a way to track individual progress, and it often
motivates student learning” (p. 93). Instead of stating the number of teachers that

provided these ideas, She supplemented her ﬁndings with single comments that supported

14

her summarization. She attributed each comment to sub-groups identiﬁed based on their
school division, further limiting the representative quality of the answer by conﬁning it to
a geographical area. Quantiﬁcation of the data could have led to more implications for

the results.

Challenges in Assessment

Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) asked respondents to list the factors that positively
and/or negatively affected their assessment practices. She concludes, “. . .When given the
opportunity to comment freely on assessment and how it relates to them as teachers, their
students, school divisions and overall music programs, many similar ideas resonated
throughout the written data” (p. 100). Again, the approach in this part of the study is
qualitative, so while the researcher acknowledges that responses were recurring, she does
not provide the number of responses that contributed to her conclusion.

Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) identiﬁed other limitations of her study in her
conclusions. By surveying only teachers in Winnipeg, the results did not represent rural
districts. The researcher alone conducted the content analysis, whereas analysis
triangulation could have improved reliability. Also, there were no follow-up interviews
to clarify qualitative responses. The researcher also admits that her personal relationship
with some respondents could have biased their responses.

Based on her ﬁndings, Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) suggests that further research be
conducted to identify factors that limit assessment practice and identify teacher needs in
the area of assessment. She speculates that the development of Canadian national

standards might unify teachers and provide more assessment materials. However,

15

although National Standards had existed for over a decade at the time of her study, Talley

(2005) found little uniﬁcation in assessment practices.

Demographic Variables and Their Relationship to Assessment

Assessment in music education is largely teacher-driven and therefore heavily
reliant on demographic variables. Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) states, “Educators are aware
that assessment is a personalized practice and recognize that an individual’s personal
beliefs will affect how they will assess” (p. 117). For this reason, it is crucial to examine
correlations between demographic factors and teachers’ attitudes toward challenges in
assessment.

In her study, Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) used demographic information to
represent the “average Winnipeg music teacher” (p. 107). Respondents were asked to
indicate personal information, including years of teaching experience, educational
background and institutional variables including number of students taught and contact
time. Hepworth-Osiowy felt that it was important to include this information in order to
provide non-music educators with context in order to better understand music educators’
views of assessment (p. 107). Hepworth-Osiowy attempted but did not ﬁnd a correlation
between beliefs regarding assessment and demographic variables, though additional
questions and a ranking system may have resulted in a signiﬁcant relationship.

Hanzlik (2002) studied Iowa band teachers and their attitudes regarding
assessment, as well as the correlation between their attitudes and demographic variables.
Participants were 154 teachers who responded to survey questionnaires. He used Iowa

High School Music Association classiﬁcations to categorize populations based on the

16

number of students. Next, he stratiﬁed the sample according to classiﬁcation and
randomized it for the purpose of generalization (p. 93). Hanzlik investigated
relationships between demographic variables and attitudes toward assessment, and found
a signiﬁcant relationship between years of teaching experience and attitude.

Hanzlik (2002) divided demographic information into personal and institutional
variables. The personal variables included gender, age, teaching experience, and
educational background of the population sample. The institutional variables were school
size, total class time, instructional support, and grading practice. Hanzlik used analysis
of co-variance to examine relationships between personal or institutional variables and
attitude toward assessment. Initially, there were no signiﬁcant relationships found
between any of the variables and attitude.

Hanzlik’s (2002) method for measuring attitude may have limited the validity and
reliability of the results. Using responses ﬁ‘orn a self-constructed survey of teacher
attitude toward assessment, Hanzlik reported that band teachers chose assessment over
instructional or administrative tasks slightly over 50% of the time. HOwever, in the
researcher-constructed survey, respondents were forced to choose assessment of student
learning in general over a speciﬁc instructional or administrative task. For instance,
teachers were asked to indicate whether it was more important to assess student learning
or to conduct the following activities: prepare music, rehearse the band, attend staff
development, discuss theoretical aspects of the music with students, or talk with parents
about their child’s development.

Since the focus of Hanzlik’s (2002) study is on assessment, he should have asked

the respondents to address speciﬁc assessment tasks using a continuous scale. In fact,

17

when the researcher consulted a panel of three experts to evaluate the survey, one
member strongly suggested that respondents rate their attitude toward assessment using a
Likert scale. Clearer relationships between demographic variables and attitude may have
resulted if participants were allowed more freedom of choice in their responses.

After ﬁnding no signiﬁcant relationships using analysis of variance, Hanzlik
(2002) used non-linear regression analysis and discovered a signiﬁcant relationship
between teaching experience and attitude. Using this technique, the author was able to
show that teachers with the most and least years of experience had the most positive
attitudes toward assessment. Overall, Hanzlik acknowledged that a Likert scale would
have provided more information than forcing choice amongst tasks. He also suggested
the use of interviews to gain more meaningful responses. The demographic variables
studied could be more comprehensive if other salient factors were included, such as the
correlation between attitude toward assessment and class size, since this was a signiﬁcant

relationship in Simanton’s (2001) ﬁndings.

Suggestions for Improvement of Assessment

In addition to suggesting further study of the challenges of assessment, Talley
(2005) suggests that researchers explore solutions for common problems. “It would also
be valuable if researchers would attempt to provide assessment solutions for the
perceived problems of too many students with too little instructional time” (p. 66). While
solutions are discussed in music education literature, there are few studies focusing on

improvement of assessment practices.

l8

Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) asked three open-ended response questions regarding
the improvement of assessment. First, she asked, “Describe or list any courses and/or
professional development experiences that address assessment in music education” (p.
124). Respondents listed many of the same regional conferences, and it was clear that
they found group sharing sessions to be especially effective. Next she asked, “Are there
any assessment tools and strategies that you would like to learn more about and/or
receive training in?” (p. 124). A common response was the need for tools that allow
music teachers to “assess quickly, easily, and effectively” (p. 92). A solution may be to
provide teachers with professional development offerings focusing in teachers’ common
areas of need for assessment.

Third, Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) asked, “List the factors that positively and/or
negatively affect your assessment practices” (p. 124). The author noted that only
negative answers were provided (p. 107). This observation has implications for dividing
the question so that teachers may identify challenges in assessment in one answer and
suggestions for improvement in another. Positive factors may include best practice
Sharing sessions and professional development workshops, as well as improved teaching
conditions, including smaller classes sizes and increased contact time. Various solutions
are proposed in the literature and will be examined in this study in efforts to improve

assessment practices.

Use of Surveys

The surveys used by Talley (2005), Hepworth-Osiowy (2004), and Hanzlik

(2002) have important differences in construction and response rates. In Michigan,

19

Talley sent 200 surveys and received 44 responses, a 26% return rate. In Texas, Hanzlik
also sent 200 surveys and received 154, a 77% return rate. Hepworth-Osiowy received
88 responses out of 190 surveys sent, a 46% response rate. It is noteworthy that each
researcher sent approximately 200 surveys but experienced radically different return
rates.

Talley (2005) speculated that her low return rate was due to the length of the
survey itself, which was six pages including four pages of open response questions.
Also, the survey required respondents to provide information detailing seven months of
assessment. However, Talley needed such comprehensive information to answer her
research questions.

In contrast, Hanzlik’s (2002) survey was three pages long and consisted of
checklists. He lacked appropriate and accurate information regarding teacher attitude,
which threatens the validity of his conclusions. This study will aim to achieve a higher
response rate by limiting open-ended responses in favor of Likert scales while providing

accurate, relevant information about teacher attitudes toward assessment.

Summary

The large-scale studies conducted by Talley (2005), Hepworth-Osiowy (2004),
and Hanzlik (2002) examine some aspects of music teachers’ attitudes toward
assessment. Talley found that while Michigan elementary general music teachers have a
positive attitude toward assessment, they are either not using it to its full beneﬁt, or are
not using it at all. She began to investigate teachers’ attitudes regarding the purposes of

assessment but acknowledged that more detailed research is needed.

20

Hepworth-Osiowy (2004) studied qualitative aspects of the challenges and
improvements to be made in elementary general music assessment practices, but
quantiﬁed information is needed to generalize results. Hanzlik (2002) began to examine
the relationship between high school music teacher attitude and demographic variables,
but his data collection methods could be improved upon to yield more signiﬁcant results.
Additional demographic variables could be included to address speciﬁc needs of
elementary general music teachers. Meaningﬁrl quantitative information regarding
teachers’ attitudes toward the purposes, challenges, and solutions for assessment, as well
as the relationship between challenges and demographic variables, are needed to improve

elementary general music assessment practices.

21

Chapter 3: Methodology

Design

I developed a survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) to examine teachers’
attitudes toward assessment based on demographic factors and descriptive information.
Surveys were sent to elementary general music teachers in the state of Michigan and the
responses served as data for the study. Once surveys were returned, I analyzed the
quantitative data statistically to determine how respondents viewed their assessment

practices and whether demographic factors were related to their attitudes.

Sample

The sample included all practicing public school elementary general music
teachers (n=232) who were members of the Michigan Music Educators Association
(MMEA). I obtained a list of elementary music teachers from MMEA and sent surveys
to everyone on the list. In the survey, respondents indicated the number of years during
which they had taught in public schools. They also identiﬁed grade levels taught and
whether they taught subjects in addition to elementary general music. If respondents had
not taught in public schools or did not teach general music, I eliminated them from the
study. Code numbers were assigned to each recipient to ensure conﬁdentiality and to
track returns. A reminder was sent to participants who had not returned their surveys

after two weeks.

22

Survey Development

The Elementary General Music Assessment Perceptions Survey (see Appendix A)
was used as the criterion measure to answer the research problems of this study. I
constructed the survey based on what I had learned from past surveys in similar studies
and on the nature of new research questions to be answered. The survey was divided into
sections to collect information regarding each research question.

In the ﬁrst section, I collected demographic information that was used to
determine correlations between demographics and attitudes toward challenges.
Respondents indicated personal factors, such as educational background, and institutional
variables, such as typical class size in respondents’ current teaching situations. Next,
participants indicated their levels of agreement with a variety of statements regarding the
purposes of assessment in their classrooms, challenges of using assessment, and ways in
which they felt their assessment methods could be improved. Finally, participants ranked
all statements for each section in order of importance.

Respondents had the option to provide additional statements or comments at the
end of each section. The use of short statements as opposed to open-ended response
questions made the survey easier to complete and encouraged a higher return rate. The
use of an evaluative measure encouraged accurate evaluation of attitudes, while ranking
forced teachers to select statements that they agreed with the most or least. I included
some contrasting statements to enhance the clarity of responses, including in the purposes
section, “Assessment is not a valuable tool in my classroom” and in the improvements

section, “My assessment methods do not require improvement” (see Appendix A).

23

I conducted a pilot study to increase the validity and reliability of the survey.
Participants were six Michigan State University graduate students who had varying
amounts of experience teaching elementary general music in public schools. Participants
completed the survey and offered comments regarding structure and content so that I
could improve the survey directions. It took the pilot study participants an average of 15

minutes to complete the survey.

Procedure

I obtained permission from the Michigan State University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) to conduct the study. After receiving permission, I sent a consent letter (see
Appendix B), survey, and self-addressed, stamped envelope containing a randomly
assigned code number on a slip of paper to each participant. The consent letter included
information about the study and emphasized to recipients that by completing and
returning the survey, they might contribute to improving instruction in elementary
general music. In an effort to encourage accurate, useful responses, I informed recipients
that their responses were conﬁdential and that participation in the study was completely
voluntary. I also told them that they could request a copy of the research ﬁndings.

Recipients were given two weeks to respond. After two weeks, recipients who
had not yet responded received a follow-up letter (see Appendix C) encouraging them to
participate, an additional copy of the survey, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope
containing the recipient’s code number. Again, recipients were given the same

information about the study, conﬁdentiality of responses, and voluntary nature of their

24

participation. The deadline was extended by two weeks and a drawing for a $50 gift
certiﬁcate to West Music was provided as additional incentive for completing the survey.
On the ﬁrst page of the survey, respondents provided demographic information by
ﬁlling in blanks. On the following pages, they responded to statements regarding the
following respectively: purposes of assessment, challenges of assessment, and
improvements for assessment. Respondents used a ﬁve-point Likert scale to indicate the
degree of agreement with each statement, and then ranked statements in order of
importance. On each of these pages, respondents could add statements that they felt
impacted their assessment practices using blanks at the end of each question. I also

provided space for comments.

Data Analysis

Data for each statement regarding the purposes, challenges, and improvement of
assessment were added and averaged to indicate a mean level of agreement for all
participants. These calculations were done for both Likert and rank numbers. I also
calculated the standard deviation to ﬁnd the variability of Likert responses.

Next, I entered demographic information regarding the following ordinal personal
or institutional variables: years of public school teaching experience, number of years
since their last music education degree was received, number of buildings in which they
taught, number of grade levels, number of classes, number of students, average class size,
typical class length in minutes, typical number of class meetings in one week, and the
number of in-service workshops attended in the past year. The typical class length and

typical number of class meetings in one week were multiplied to represent contact time.

25

I hypothesized that individual respondents’ ordinal demographic variables might
have a direct relationship with Likert indications regarding attitudes toward challenges.
For instance, teachers might have felt that large class sizes prevented them from using
assessment to its fullest potential. For this reason, I calculated correlations between
ordinal demographic items and attitudes toward challenges indicated by Likert numbers
using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefﬁcient formula.

I also entered demographic information regarding the following nominal variables: types
of degrees held, full-time or part—time teaching capacity, and whether their district
required grades. I hypothesized that having an advanced degree in music education,
teaching full-time as opposed to part-time, or being required to give grades might allow a
teacher to view factors such as class size as less challenging. The relationships between
nominal demographic items and attitudes toward challenges indicated by Likert numbers
were calculated using one-way analysis of variance for interval/ratio data and chi-square
test for nominal data. However, there was not sufﬁcient data to yield valid results for the
chi-square calculations.

Finally, I grouped the respondents by years of experienCe and years since their
last music education degree was received because these demographic variables could
possibly Show non-linear relationships. The groupings were organized by years of
teaching experience or years since last music education degree as follows: 0-9 years, 10-
19 years, and 20 or more years. I hypothesized that teachers with less, moderate, or more
experience might have different attitudes toward the challenges of assessment. The
Likert means of attitudes toward challenges for each group were compared using a one-

way analysis of variance.

26

Chapter 4: Results and Interpretations

Return Rate

After 232 surveys were sent, a total of 118 surveys were returned, resulting in a
return rate of 50%. Of these, 18 respondents did not meet the criteria for participation
because they did not currently teach public school elementary general music. Their
responses were not included in the calculations of results. Many of these respondents no
longer taught elementary general music due to reassignment to another content area or
grade level, retirement, unemployment, or relocation to another state. Others did not
qualify because they taught elementary music choir or band but not general music. Some
taught in private schools. One hundred responses (43%) were included, which is a
moderate return rate.

The return rate was more than twice as high as in Talley’s study, which was also
conducted in Michigan with participants selected from the MMEA list. Talley had a
return rate of 22% and she was only able to use 18% of the returned surveys in her
results. This low return rate could be attributed largely to survey length and demands.
Talley asked participants provide detailed descriptions of their assessment methods
throughout the school year, whereas the survey for this study only required that
respondents indicate their current attitudes toward assessment using Likert scale numbers
and rankings.

In this study, recipients may not have responded for many reasons. While 15% of

surveys returned were not usable due to the respondents not teaching public school

27

elementary general music, other recipients may have not returned surveys because they
knew that they did not meet the criteria for participation. Also, the surveys were sent in
late November and early December, which can be a busy time of the year due to grading,
performances, and personal commitments. The recipients may have felt that they did not
have time to complete the survey.

The use of formal assessment varies among and within districts. Some
respondents indicated that they did not use formal assessment at all. A couple of
respondents commented that they did not use formal assessments as a district choice, and
that they were hesitant to participate since they did not use them. Another respondent
completed the survey but commented that she used performances as a way to
communicate with the community instead of assessments. It is possible that teachers who
did not assess chose not to participate because they felt that they could not contribute
meaningful information or were embarrassed that they did not assess.

If teachers did not use or value formal assessment, it may have been difﬁcult to
answer what they felt the purposes, challenges, and improvement solutions for
assessments might be. A few respondents did not philosophically agree with using
assessment in the elementary general music classroom and did not answer any questions
pertaining to the purpose of assessment. It is unknown how many recipients did not
complete the survey because they did not use formal assessments either due to personal
philosophical decisions.

Additionally, some participants misinterpreted the term formal assessment. Two
respondents indicated that they kept written records of rhythm or pitch achievement, but

did not believe that they used formal assessments. A few others commented that the

28

written aspect of formal assessments referred to teachers assessing student writing. Many
recipients may have similarly misinterpreted the term and not responded. Others may
only have used informal assessment and not kept written records of students’ progress,

which could have deterred them from participating in this study.

Demographics

Tables 1 through 6 Show demographic information for respondents including
teaching experience and education, degrees held, teaching setting, and teaching load.
Respondents indicated this information by ﬁlling in blanks with numbers and letters
regarding their current teaching Situations. Many included comments in the margins to

clarify this information.

Teaching experience and education.

Table 1 shows years of teaching experience, number of years in present school,
number of years since last music education degree, and number of in-service workshops
attended. The respondent with the highest amount of teaching experience had 44 years,
while a few respondents had 0 prior years of teaching experience. The mean for teaching
experience was 14.60 years. The standard deviation was 10.00, which was a large
variance and means that the distribution was skewed to the right. Years of teaching
experience was not normally distributed across the sample of the study.

The respondent with the highest number of years teaching in his or her present

school had 35 years and the lowest was 0 years. The mean was 9.72 years. The standard

29

deviation was 8.43, which is also large in relation to the range and represents a
distribution that is skewed to the right. The highest number of years Since last music
education degree was 43 years and the lowest was 0. The mean was 15.85 years. The
standard deviation was 12.88, which again was large and means that the distribution was

also skewed to the right.

Table 1

Teaching Experience and Education

 

 

Demographic Range Standard Mean
Deviation
Years of teaching experience 0-44 10.00 14.60
Number of years in present school 0-35 8.43 9.72
Number of years since last music education degree 0-43 12.88 15.85
Number of in-service workshops attended 0-20 3.53 4.48

 

Respondents were grouped by number of years of teaching experience (see Table
2) for later calculations. Forty participants had 0 to 9 years, 27 had 10 to 19, and twenty-
six had more than 20 years of teaching experience. Respondents also were grouped by
number of years since they received their last music education degree (see Table 2).
Forty respondents had received their last degree within the past 9 years, thirteen in the
past 10 to 19 years, and thirty-three received their degree more than 20 years ago. The
groups were chosen to balance distribution of participants and number of years.

Since the surveys were completed before the halfway point of the year, many
respondents indicated years of experience, in present school, or years since the last music
education degree using decimals. New teachers commonly indicated that they had .3

years of experience, since they responded during the third month of a ten-month school

30

year. For this reason, the researcher rounded down to the nearest year so that new
teachers had 0 years of experience. When respondents did not indicate a decimal in their
responses, the researcher assumed that the number of years indicated referred to past
years not including the current school year. Unfortunately, it is not known how many
participants included the current year in their responses. The researcher could have
avoided this problem by asking participants to not include the present teaching year in

their responses.

Table 2

Participants Grouped by Years of Teaching Experience

 

 

Demographic 0-9 Years 10—19 Years 20+ Years
Years of teaching experience 40 27 26
Number of years Since last music 40 13 33
education degree

 

The highest number of in-service workshops attended was 20, the lowest was 0,
and the mean was 4.48 workshops (see Table 1). The standard deviation for the number
of workshops attended was 3.53, which means that the distribution is skewed to the right.
However, there was confusion over how to indicate in-service workshops. Many
respondents commented that they did not know if they should count a conference as one
or many workshops. Others were unsure if they should include only music-related
workshops. Considering the large range of time spent in workshops and discrepancies
over terminology, the researcher should have asked respondents to indicate the number of

hours devoted to in-service workshops speciﬁcally related to music education.

31

Table 3 Shows the types of degrees held in order ﬁ'om the most to least common
number of respondents. The most common degree was a Bachelor of Music Education,
held by 84 respondents, and the next most common was a Master of Music Education,
held by 32 respondents. Next, 24 respondents had a master’s degree in an area of
education besides music. Eleven respondents held a bachelor’s degree in another area of
music and 10 held a bachelor’s degree in another area of education. The next most
common response was 8 participants with a master’s degree in another area besides
music or education. Four respondents were in the process of completing a Master in
Music Education. Two participants had completed a master’s degree in music not related

to education while one was working on a master’s degree but not in music or education.

 

 

Table 3
All Degree Types
Degrees Held Respondents (#)

Bachelor in Music Education 84
Master in Music Education 32
Master in Education, not Music 24
Bachelor in Music, not Education 11
Bachelor in Education, not Music 10

Master in another area, not Music or Education
Master in Music Education in progress

Master in Music, not Education

Master in an area other than music in progress

r-‘N-bOO

 

There were some discrepancies when respondents indicated degree types. Some
surveys contained missing information for which respondents indicated a master’s degree
but not a bachelor’s degree, which is a prerequisite for a graduate degree. Also, 5

participants commented that they were working on master’s degrees but had not

32

completed them at the time of responding to the survey. It is unknown how many did not

report that they were pursuing another degree since this question was not asked directly.

Teaching setting.

Respondents were asked to describe various aspects of their teaching setting,
including full-time or part-time status, whether their district required grades, the number
of buildings in which they taught, and the number of grade levels they taught. Table 4
shows that 75% of respondents had full-time elementary general music teaching positions
whereas 25% did not. All respondents that taught grades levels in addition to pre-
kindergarten through sixth grade were included in the part-time or split-responsibility
category. While some of the respondents with part-time/split—responsibility duties
indicated exactly how much time they spent teaching each grade in additional comments,
respondents should have been directly asked how many minutes they typically spent

teaching each grade level.

Table 4

F ull-T ime or Part-Time/Split Responsibility Status

 

Demographic Respondents (%)

 

Full-time 75
Part-time or split responsibility 25

 

As shown in Table 5, respondents taught in a range of one to ﬁve buildings, with
a mean of 1.85. The standard deviation for number of buildings was .86. F orty-two

percent of respondents taught in two buildings, 39% percent taught in one building, 15%

33

taught in three, and 3% taught in four buildings (see Figure 1). A few respondents
commented that they had recently been assigned to new buildings. For this reason,
participants should have been asked how many years they had taught in their district in

addition to the number of years in their present schools.

Table 5

Number of Buildings and Grade Levels

 

 

Demographic Range Standard Mean
Deviation
Number of buildings 1-5 .86 1.85
Number of grades levels (K-6 only) 1-9 1.44 5.86

 

Figure 1
Distribution of Number of Buildings

Distribution of Respondents'
Number of Buildings (N =100)

 

 

 

 

Percentage of Respondents
OJ
C

l 2 3 4 5
Number of Buildings

34

Respondents taught every number of grade levels from pre-kindergarten through
sixth grade. The mean number of grade levels was 5.86 (see Table 5), which when
rounded to six was most commonly represented with either a pre-kindergarten through
fourth grade assignment or kindergarten through ﬁfth grade assignment. The standard

deviation for number of grade levels was 1.44.

Figure 2
Distribution and Number of Grade Levels

Distribution of Respondents'
Grade Levels (N = 100)

60-

49

504
4o-
30‘
20'
10' 9
0__-_,_-__-__I, ,

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of Grade Levels

 

 

 

The largest number of respondents (49%) taught six grade levels (see Figure 2).

Twenty-three percent of respondents taught seven grade levels, as pre-kindergarten

35

through ﬁfth grade placements and kindergarten through sixth grade positions were also
common. Nine percent of respondents taught ﬁve grade levels and 6% of respondents
taught eight grade levels. Five percent or fewer respondents taught each of the remaining
number of grade levels and most of these respondents held either part-time or split
appointment positions.

Table 6 shows that 78% percent of participants indicated that their district
required grades and 22% answered that they were not required. Some respondents
commented elsewhere in the survey that they were only expected to grade based on
participation and that this caused them some difﬁculty in completing this survey since
skill development seemed to be implied in some questions. Respondents should have
been asked whether they were required to grade based upon participation or skills as this

might affect their attitudes toward the purpose of assessment.

Table 6

Whether or Not Grades Are Required

 

 

 

Demographic Respondents (%)
Grades required 78
Grades not required 22
Teaching load.

Participants were asked to describe several aspects of their teaching load,
including the number of classes, overall number of students, average class size, and
typical contact time each week. Respondents indicated that they taught from 5 to 56

classes, with a mean of 24.47 classes (see Table 7). The standard deviation for number of

36

classes was 9.82. The overall number of students ranged from 100 to 1100, with a mean
of 547.96. The standard deviation for the number of students was 218.13.

Average class size ranged from 13 to 35 students with a mean of 24.87. The
standard deviation for average class size was 3.42. Contact time ranged from 28 minutes
per week to 225 minutes, with a mean of 61 .63. The standard deviation for contact time

was 26.75, which indicates a distribution that is skewed strongly to the right.

 

 

Table 7
Teaching Load
Demographic Range Standard Mean
Deviation

Number of classes 5-56 9.82 24.47
Number of students 100-1100 218.13 547.96
Average class size 13-35 3.42 24.87
Contact time 28-225 26.75 61.63

 

The number of classes, students, class size, and contact time could have been
affected by discrepancies in survey answers from respondents who had part-time or split
appointment positions. Respondents with part-time positions likely had fewer classes and
students. Also, it is possible that respondents who had split appointment positions
included non-elementary level classes and students in their answers.

Many respondents indicated a range for teaching load items in additional
comments. For example, many respondents had more contact time with upper grade
levels than with lower grade levels. Some participants who taught grades seven through
twelve offered separate answers for their elementary and secondary assignments,

allowing the researcher to record only answers related to elementary levels. However,

37

 

others did not make this distinction clear in their responses. The researcher used
discretion in many of these cases, either averaging the numbers or accepting one end of

the range when sufficient information was provided.

Attitudes Toward the Purposes, Challenges, and Improvement for Assessment

Respondents indicated their attitudes regarding the purpose, challenges, and
possible improvements for assessment. They used Likert scales that ranged from 1 being
least important to 5 being most important to evaluate several statements for each topic.
Next, they ranked all statements with 1 being the most important. I calculated means and

standard deviations for Likert ratings and rankings for each statement.

Means and standards deviations for the purposes of assessment.

Table 8 shows that the three most important reasons for assessment as indicated
by mean ranking were to “measure student progress over time” (3.12), “improve
instruction” (3.19), and “identify different levels of students’ needs” (3.59). Following
these ﬁrst three reasons, there was a large gap in importance until the next rating of 5.57.
On average, respondents indicated that the most valuable purpose of assessment was
instructional. The Likert means directly corresponded with these items and standard
deviations were each less than 1.10 points for all items, indicating that there was some

but not extreme disagreement among the respondents.

38

Table 8

Purposes of Assessment

 

 

Description Ranking Likert Likert Respondents
Means Means Standard (#)
Deviation
Measure student progress over 3.12 4.20 1.03 97
time
Improve instruction 3.19 4.19 1.09 96
Identify different levels of 3.59 4.13 1.07 97
students’ needs
Modify curriculum 5.57 3 .73 1.12 97
Communicate with parents 5.66 3.74 1.14 97
Validate music in general 6.24 3.77 1.27 97
education
Inform report card grades 6.36 3.76 1.15 97
Motivate students 6.70 3.09 1.38 96
Communicate with 7.21 3.45 1.22 97
administration
Communicate with community 9.33 2.88 1.41 97
Communicate with policy 9.49 3.02 1.36 97
makers
Compare student achievement 11.00 2.04 1.06 98
across districts
Assessment is not a valuable tool 12.03 1.89 1.25 97

in my classroom

 

Note. Ranking order is l to 10, with 1 being most important, and 10 being least important. Likert scale is 1
to 5, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.”

Next, the mean responses in order of importance were to “modify curriculum”

(5.57), “communicate with parents” (5.66), “validate music in general education” (6.24),

and “inform report card grades” (6.36). Again, the next highest purposes of assessment

primarily were instructional in nature. The ﬁfth most important reason, communicate

with parents, focuses on how assessment informs the community outside of the music

classroom beginning with parents. The Likert means for these items did not always

correspond with ranks but were within four hundredths of a point from each other,

meaning that they were believed to be equally important to teachers when they were not

39

forced to make choices through ranking. The standard deviations for these items ranged
from 1.12 to 1.27 points.

The following responses in order of decreasing importance in the mean rankings
were to “motivate students” (6.70), “communicate with administration” (7.21),
“communicate with community” (9.33), and “communicate with policy makers” (9.49).
The Likert means for these items differed as much as .57, with “communicate with
administration” being most important, and “communicate with community” being the
least important. The standard deviations for these items were higher than others and
range from 1.22 to 1.38. Some respondents commented that they found it difﬁcult to
rank items after the ﬁrst ﬁve, which could account for the discrepancy between the order
of ranking and Likert means for these items.

Additionally, philosophical viewpoints may have caused respondents to rank
these items differently, which was evident in the larger standard deviations. Many
respondents strongly agreed that teachers should use assessment to motivate students,
while others indicated that they disagreed. One respondent was concerned that sharing
information about assessment with younger students could interfere with their self-
efﬁcacy, so they probably would not use assessment to motivate students. Two
respondents commented that they used performances to communicate with community
more commonly than assessments. The use of performances in place of assessments for
the purpose of communicating with community could possibly account for the two-point
drop in ranking mean and the ﬁrst negative Likert mean score for “communicate with

community,” although this can only be speculated upon from the survey results.

40

Finally, the respondents ranked “compare student achievement across districts”
(11.00) and “assessment is not a valuable tool in my classroom” (12.03) as the least
important purposes of assessment. The Likert means corresponded with the rankings for
both statements. Since assessment practices and philosophies varied greatly across
districts, it is understandable that most teachers did not feel the purpose of assessment
was to compare student achievement across districts. Most respondents disagreed with
the statement, “Assessment is not a valuable tool in my classroom,” although 5
participants strongly agreed. Eight respondents indicated that the statement was not
applicable to their Situation, though it is unclear whether they had such strong feelings for
assessment that they dismissed the statement or that they were required to assess so they
could not agree with the statement.

Participants were allowed to add categories that they felt were important to
describe the purpose of assessment. Each of the 8 responses to this opportunity was
unique. Respondents added and strongly agreed with the following statements: “Provide

99 ‘6

a guide for student reﬂection, [Guide] formative assessments,” “[Guide] performance
assessments,” and “[Inform] efﬁcient rehearsal planning.” The following statements
were added and given a Likert rating of 4: “Determine emergent curriculum,”
“Incorporate technology,” and “[Inform] technology training.” One respondent indicated
with a Likert rating of three that the purpose of assessment is to “decide what to teach

next,” which may be interpreted as using assessment to inform instruction or possibly on

a larger level to guide curriculum.

4]

Means and standard deviations for challenges of assessment.

Table 9 shows that respondents ranked the top three challenges of assessment as
follows: “there is not enough class time” (2.61), “there is not enough time to maintain
records” (3.15), and “class sizes are too large” (3.81). The Likert means indicated a
different ordering for maintaining records (3.89) and lack of class time (3.82), though
only by .07 points. The standard deviation for these items ranged from 1.21 to 1.31.
There is a substantive gap in mean rankings following these ﬁrst three challenges. The
unanimity of rankings for the top three responses shows that on average, teachers feel

that excessive teaching loads prevent them ﬁ'om using assessment to its best potential.

Table 9

Challenges of Assessment

 

 

Description Ranking Likert Likert Number of
Mean Mean Standard Respondents
Deviation
There is not enough class time 2.61 3.82 1.24 99
There is not enough time to 3.15 3.89 1.31 99
maintain records
Class sizes are too large 3.81 3.43 1.21 98
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior 5.36 2.50 1.29 98
and assess
There is a lack of professional 5.34 3.14 1.38 97
development on assessment
There is too much population 5.78 2.87 1.30 99
migration
Many skills in music are not 6.53 2.29 1.24 98
assessable
I was not adequately prepared in 6.73 2.85 1.40 97
college
Assessment darnpens creativity 7.06 2.17 1.11 98

 

Note. Ranking order is 1 to 10, with 1 being most important, and 10 being least important. Likert scale is l
to 5, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.”

42

These challenges followed beginning with the most important: “it is difﬁth to
manage behavior and assess” (5.36), “there is a lack of professional development on
assessment” (5.34), “there is too much population migration” (5.78). The Likert means
did not correspond with the ordering of the rankings in this case, as professional
development (3.14) was more important than population migration (2.87), and behavior
management placed last (2.50) with a score indicating disagreement. However, the
difference between the top three and following three was clear in terms of Likert means.
The standard deviation for these items ranged from 1.21 to 1.38.

The next most highly ranked challenges were “many skills in music are not
assessable” (2.29), “I was not adequately prepared in college” (2.85), and “assessment
darnpens creativity” (2.17). The rankings and Likert means did not have the same order,
but all of the Likert scores were 2.29, 2.85, and 2.17 respectively, all indicating a
moderate disagreement with the statements. The standard deviations ranged from 1.11 to
1.40. Judging by the means for these three items, most respondents disagreed with
negative attitudes toward assessment and felt that they received adequate college
preparation for assessment.

Overall, respondents indicated that negative attitude from administration, parents,
and students did not prevent them from using assessment to its fullest potential (see Table
10). There were logistical problems with sorting the rankings for these remaining three
challenges for assessment due to an error in the construction of the survey. These three
items lacked individual cell borders, causing most respondents to indicate only one
number for the three statements. Since most respondents used only one number, the three

rankings used in some surveys were averaged. A few respondents indicated very

43

different rankings for negative attitude from administration versus parents versus
students. However, the ranking for the category corresponds to mean rankings of Likert
numbers, while revealing a gap between the negative attitude from students (2.41 ),
parents (1.92), and administration (1.66) when considering the ranking means

individually.

Table 10

Negative Attitudes From Students, Parents and Administration

 

 

Description Ranking Likert Likert Number of
Mean Mean Standard Respondents
Deviation
Negative attitude from students, 7.35 NA NA NA
parents, and administration
Negative attitude from students NA 2.41 1.30 97
Negative attitude from parents NA 1.92 1.11 97
Negative attitude from NA 1.66 1.03 97
administration

 

Note. Ranking order is l to 10, with 1 being most important, and 10 being least important. Likert scale is l
to 5, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.”

According to Likert means, respondents on average indicated that a negative
attitude from students was nearly .50 points higher than negative attitude from parents
and more important than the more highly ranked statement, “assessment darnpens
creativity” (2.17). The standard deviation for negative attitude from students was 1.30. It
should also be noted that 22 respondents chose to answer “not applicable” when using
Likert numbers to evaluate all three negative attitude statements. It is unclear whether
they answered this way because they did not notice a negative attitude due to lack of

assessments or whether there was a lack of observed behavior from them. Two

44

respondents commented on the latter, calling parents’ attitude “apathetic,” and quoting a
student as saying, “My parents don’t care what grade I get in music.”

Overall, the rankings for challenges had a much smaller range and more
discrepancies between the rankings and means than for the purposes of assessment. In
addition to the survey construction problem that caused most respondents to rank the
statements regarding negative attitude incorrectly, many of the respondents left other
ranks incomplete. There may have been too many items in this portion of the survey so
that respondents were unable to rank adequately or were unwilling to devote the time to
trying. Also, those respondents who did not use assessment in their classrooms for
philosophical reasons may have had difﬁculty evaluating statements that were not
applicable to their situations. While the mean ranking generally corresponded to Likert
means, I decided to not use them for further calculations due to their possible lack of
validity.

Respondents included ﬁve additional unique challenges in their optional
comments. Four respondents individually added and strongly agreed with these

9, 6‘

statements: “student absences [hinder assessment], [the] grading system for report
cards is limiting,” and “[tlrere is] no time to do report cards for all students.” Another
respondent commented with a Likert rating of 3 that the “room size is too small” and
students were in “close quarters.” If included in the survey, student absences and the
limitations of a report card grading system might have generated agreement in responses.

It is likely that the participant who lacked time to do report cards for all students faced

this challenge due to teaching load items that were already addressed in the survey,

45

though it would be beneﬁcial to know if teachers only used assessment for speciﬁc grade

 

 

levels.
Table 11
Improving Assessment
Description Ranking Likert Likert Respondents (#)
Mean Mean Standard
Deviation

Attending workshops on 4.72 3.95 1.09 99
developing assessment tools
Attending workshops on types 5.23 3.87 1.12 98
of assessment tools
Attending workshops on 5.40 3.92 1.08 98
assessing creative tasks
Attending workshops on 5.54 3.84 1.11 98
assessing performance skills
Observing other teachers 5.62 3.98 1.10 98
within the region
Attending sharing sessions 6.1 l 3.97 1.06 98
within the region
Attending workshops on 6.13 3.76 1.09 98
assessing critical thinking
Attending sharing sessions 7.85 3.59 1.06 98
within the district
Observing other teachers 7.81 3.45 1.42 98
within the district
Gaining experience in my 8.79 2.82 1.47 98
current teaching situation
Having time to read more 8.80 3.25 1.30 98
related literature
Gaining total teaching 9.49 2.79 1.45 97
experience
Taking additional college 10.69 2.76 1.36 98
classes
Pursuing an additional college 12.26 2.26 1.31 98
degree program
My assessment methods do 13.05 1.98 1.05 97

not require improvement

 

Note. Ranking order is 1 to 10, with 1 being most important, and 10 being least important. Likert scale is l
to 5, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.”

46

Means and standard deviations for improving assessment.

Overall, there was a high level of agreement in Likert means for statements
regarding the ways to improve assessment. Table 11 Shows that the highest ranking
means for improving assessment were the following: “attending workshops on
developing assessment” (4.72), “attending workshops on types of assessment tools”
(5.23), “attending workshops on assessing creative tasks” (5.40), attending workshops on
assessing performance skills” (5.54), “observing other teachers within the region” (5.62),
and “attending sharing sessions within the region” (6.11). These six statements ranged
from 3.84 to 3.98 in Likert means with a standard deviation range of 1.06 to 1.12. The
high level of agreement also condensed the rankings from 4.72 to 6.13. Most teachers
surveyed seem to agree that these suggestions would help improve their assessment
methods.

The following rankings were also positive in the Likert means: “attending
workshops on assessing critical thinking” (6.13), “attending sharing sessions within the
district” (7.85), and “observing other teachers within the district” (7.81). The Likert
means corresponded with the ranking means order and the standard deviation ranged
from 1.06 to 1.42 for observing other teachers within the district. A possible reason for
the higher standard deviation and lower ranking for observing and attending sharing
sessions within the district could be that respondents did not have these opportunities in
their own district. A couple of respondents commented on this, saying that they are the
only music teacher in their district so they would not be able to partake in these
opportunities. Many other respondents indicated a high level of agreement with these

suggestions for improvement.

47

The next most important suggestions for improvement were ranked as follows:
“gaining experience in my current teaching situation” (8.79), “having time to read more
related literature” (8.80), and “gaining total teaching experience” (9.49). According to
the Likert means, having time to read more related literature (3 .25) was rated somewhat
positively while gaining experience in the current teaching situation (2.82) and gaining
total teaching experience (2.79) were rated somewhat negatively. The standard deviation
was highest for these items, ranging from 1.30 to 1.45 and indicating a larger variance in
respondents’ answers.

The remaining three statements were ranked as follows: “taking additional college
classes” (10.69), “pursuing an additional college degree program” (12.26), and “my
assessment methods do not require improvement” (13.05). As in the purposes section,
the statement indicating a negative attitude towards assessment received the lowest
ranking mean and Likert mean. Only three respondents strongly agreed that they did not
need to improve their assessment methods, while 34 respondents strongly disagreed with
this statement. The standard deviation for this item was 1.05.

On average, respondents indicated that pursuing college classes and a degree
program were unimportant solutions for improving their assessment practices. Yet, the
data in the challenges section contradicts this when the statement, “I was not adequately
prepared in college” had a Likert mean of 2.85 and standard deviation of 1.40. Given the
relatively high standard deviation, it appears that some felt adequately prepared, but
others felt that they were not. Some respondents may not have felt the need to improve
assessment methods by attending college, while some may not have felt that attending

college will improve their assessment methods. Overall, respondents had the most

48

positive views of workshops, observations of other teachers, and sharing sessions as ways
to improve their assessment practices. It should be noted that in-service workshops are
often a more economical opportunity than pursuing a college degree, since they are
considerably less expensive and a much more limited commitment in terms of time and
energy.

Two participants added suggestions with which they strongly agreed for the
improvement of assessment. The ﬁrst commented, “having clear standards in place on
which students need to be assessed,” and the second added, “having access to computer
program for scoring assessments and grading.” The ﬁrst respondent’s comment could
prepare teachers to compare student achievement across districts, which was ranked very
low as a purpose of assessment. The second comment related to other respondents’
comments about technology becoming a pressing issue in assessments. The use of
technology may have ranked high for other respondents, had it been included in this

survey Since computer-based grading systems are becoming more common.

Relationships Between Ordinal Demographic factors and Challenges Using Pearson

Product Moment Correlation Coefﬁcient

The relationships between ordinal demographic factors and challenges as indicated by
Likert scale numbers were calculated using the Pearson product moment correlation
coefﬁcient formula. The relationship, or r, was statistically signiﬁcant when it was
greater than .30. The factors examined in this section were years of teaching experience,

years since the last music education degree was received, number of buildings, number of

49

grade levels, number of classes, number of students, average class size, typical contact

time, and number of in—service workshops attended.

Table 12

Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Challenges

 

 

Challenge r
Class sizes are too large 0.10
There is not enough class time 0.05
There is not enough time to maintain records 0.12
There is too much population migration -0.06
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess 0.21
Many skills in music are not assessable 0.24
Assessment darnpens creativity 0.07
Negative attitude towards assessment from administration -0.01
Negative attitude towards assessment from parents -0.00
Negative attitude towards assessment from students -0.06
I was not adequately prepared in college 0.06
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.21

 

r< .30

Correlations for years of teaching experience and years since last music

education degree.

There were no signiﬁcant relationships between years of teaching experience and
challenges (see Table 12) or between number of years since last music education degree
and challenges (see Table 13). Years of teaching experience and number of years Since
the last music education degree were not related to any of the attitudes toward challenges
in assessment. However, the relationship between years of teaching experience and the
belief that many skills are not assessable approached signiﬁcance, as did the relationship

between the number of years since the last music education degree, and beliefs that there

50

is a lack of time to maintain assessment records, many skills in music are not assessable,

and assessment darnpens creativity.

Table 13

Relationship Between Years Since Last Music Education Degree and Challenges

 

 

Challenge r
Class sizes are too large 0.11
There is not enough class time 0.10
There is not enough time to maintain records 0.28
There is too much population migration -0.06
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess 0.20
Many skills in music are not assessable 0.27
Assessment darnpens creativity 0.25
Negative attitude towards assessment from administration 0.05
Negative attitude towards assessment from parents 0.05
Negative attitude towards assessment ﬁom students 0.05
I was not adequately prepared in college 0.17
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.05

 

r< .30

Correlations for number of buildings.

Next, I calculated the relationship between teaching setting items, including
number of buildings (see Table 14) and number of grade levels, and attitudes toward
challenges. There was a signiﬁcant positive correlation between respondents’ number of
buildings and those who indicated that there was too much population migration (r = .32)
to allow for meaningful assessment. Respondents who taught in more buildings felt that
population migration was a larger challenge than those who taught in less buildings.
Since they taught in more buildings, these respondents may have come into contact with
more students and witnessed more population migration. There was no Si gniﬁcant

correlation between number of buildings and any other challenges.

51

Table 14

Relationship Between Number of Buildings and Challenges

 

 

Challenge r
Class sizes are too large 0.12
There is not enough class time 0.22
There is not enough time to maintain records -0.01
There is too much population migration 0.32*
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess 0.02
Many skills in music are not assessable 0.05
Assessment darnpens creativity 0.04
Negative attitude towards assessment from administration 0.08
Negative attitude towards assessment ﬁ'om parents -0.02
Negative attitude towards assessment from students 0.07
I was not adequately prepared in college -0.09
There is a lack of professional development on assessment 0.14

 

*r > .30

Correlations for number of grade levels.

There were no signiﬁcant correlations between number of grade levels taught and
attitudes toward challenges (see Table 15). Number of grade levels taught does not seem

to be related to teacher attitudes toward challenges of assessment.

Correlations for number of classes.

The relationship between teaching load items, including number of classes,
number of students, average class size, and contact time was calculated with all attitudes
toward challenges. There were no signiﬁcant correlations between number of classes and
challenges (see Table 16). This may be attributed to the discrepancies in the data for
number of classes as discussed earlier. It is unclear whether these numbers were accurate
since the survey did not clarify this item as the number of elementary general music

classes. However, the relationship between the number of classes taught and the belief

52

that there is too much population migration to allow for assessment approached statistical

signiﬁcance.

Table 15

Relationship Between Number of Grade Levels and Challenges

 

 

 

 

 

Challenge r
Class sizes are too large -0.01
There is not enough class time 0.12
There is not enough time to maintain records 0.03
There is too much population migration 0.15
It is difficult to manage behavior and assess -0.01
Many skills in music are not assessable -0.13
Assessment darnpens creativity -0.02
Negative attitude towards assessment from administration -0.04
Negative attitude towards assessment from parents -0.03
Negative attitude towards assessment from students 0.01
I was not adequately prepared in college 0.04
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.12
r < .30
Table 16
Relationship Between Number of Classes and Challenges
Challenge r

Class sizes are too large 0.08
There is not enough class time 0.16
There is not enough time to maintain records 0.01
There is too much population migration 0.26
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess -0.07
Many skills in music are not assessable 0.05
Assessment darnpens creativity 0.03
Negative attitude towards assessment ﬁom administration 0.08
Negative attitude towards assessment from parents 0.08
Negative attitude towards assessment from students -0.06
I was not adequately prepared in college 0.08
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.18

 

r< .30

53

Correlation for number of students.

There was a signiﬁcant relationship between larger numbers of students taught
and the belief that there was too much population migration to allow for meaningful
assessment (r = .39, see Table 17). As I hypothesized when discussing the positive
relationship between number of buildings and population migration, respondents who
taught more students felt that there was too much population migration to allow for
effective assessment. Since they came into contact with more students, these respondents
had probably seen more students leave and enter their district. Districts with larger class
sizes also may have had more transient populations. Teachers who had larger class sizes
also tended to feel that these large class sizes were an impediment to effective

assessment, although this relationship was not statistically signiﬁcant.

Table 17

Relationship Between Number of Students and Challenges

 

 

Challenge r
Class sizes are too large 0.26
There is not enough class time 0.23
There is not enough time to maintain records 0.07
There is too much population migration 0.39*
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess 0.07
Many skills in music are not assessable 0.09
Assessment darnpens creativity 0.11
Negative attitude towards assessment from administration 0.03
Negative attitude towards assessment ﬁom parents 0.00
Negative attitude towards assessment ﬁ'om students 0.04
I was not adequately prepared in college -0.05
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.03

 

*r > .30

54

Correlations for average class size.

There was a signiﬁcant positive relationship between respondents with larger
average class sizes and those who indicated that class sizes were too large to allow for
appropriate assessment (r = .34, see Table 18). It is understandable that respondents with
larger class sizes felt that class size hindered assessment. Over 60% of respondents
indicated that their average class size was 25 students or more. There were no signiﬁcant
relationships between average class size and any other challenges, though many of these
challenges relate to class size, including lack of class time, lack of time to maintain
records, and difﬁculty managing behavior while assessing. However, the relationship
between class size and the belief that population migration impeded assessment

approached signiﬁcance.

Table 18

Relationship Between Average Class Size and Challenges

 

 

Challenge r

Class sizes are too large 0.34*
There is not enough class time -0.01
There is not enough time to maintain records -0.07
There is too much population migration 0.25

It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess -0.01
Many skills in music are not assessable -0.07
Assessment darnpens creativity -0.13
Negative attitude towards assessment from administration -0.01
Negative attitude towards assessment from parents -0.03
Negative attitude towards assessment from students -0.14
I was not adequately prepared in college -0. l 8
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.20

 

*r > .30

55

Correlations for contact time.

There was a signiﬁcant negative relationship between respondents with more
contact time and those who believed that there is not enough class time to assess (r = -.37,
see Table 19). The negative nature of this relationship shows that respondents with more
contact time did not feel that class time prevents assessment, whereas those with less
contact time did not feel that there is enough class time to assess. Although there were no
other signiﬁcant relationships to report for contact time, many of the relationships
regarding contact time were negative, including the relationship between larger class
sizes and time to maintain records (r = -.15). AS with the previous demographic, teachers
with limited class time may feel that there is not enough class time to assess. Thirty-nine

respondents typically taught their classes for 50 minutes or less each week.

Table 19

Relationship Between Typical Contact Time and Challenges

 

 

Challenge r

Class sizes are too large -0.07
There is not enough class time -0.37*
There is not enough time to maintain records -0.15
There is too much population migration -0.15
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess -0.01
Many skills in music are not assessable 0.01
Assessment darnpens creativity 0.07
Negative attitude towards assessment from administration -0.00
Negative attitude towards assessment from parents 0.18
Negative attitude towards assessment from students 0.19

I was not adequately prepared in college -0.06
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.00

 

r> .30

56

Correlations for number of in-service workshops attended.

There were no signiﬁcant relationships between the number of in-service
workshops attended in the past year and attitudes toward challenges (see Table 20).
Although no Single relationship was signiﬁcant, all but one of the relationships were
negative, implying that respondents who attended more in-service workshops viewed
assessment as less challenging in general. As discussed earlier, there was a survey
construction problem when respondents indicated the number of in-service workshops
attended. There was confusion concerning whether to count conferences as one or many
workshops, varying lengths of workshops, and uncertainty as to whether to indicate non-
music or only music-related workshops. Finding meaningful relationships would have
been more likely had respondents been asked to indicate the number of hours spent in

music education in-service workshops rather than the number of workshops attended.

Table 20

Relationship Between Number of In-Service Workshops Attended and Challenges

 

 

Challenge r

Class sizes are too large -0.16
There is not enough class time 0.05

There is not enough time to maintain records -0.03
There is too much population migration -0.08
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior and assess -0.07
Many skills in music are not assessable -0. 12
Assessment darnpens creativity -0.08
Negative attitude towards assessment ﬁ'om administration -0.20
Negative attitude towards assessment from parents -0.15
Negative attitude towards assessment from students -0.22
I was not adequately prepared in college 012
There is a lack of professional development on assessment -0.24

 

r<.30

57

Differences Between Attitudes Toward Challenges According to Demographic

Factors

A one-way analysis of variance was used to determine differences between Likert
means for challenges when grouping participants by years of experience and years since
last music education degree. Alpha was set at .05. Participants were grouped by low (0-
9 years), moderate (10-19 years), and high (20 or more years) amounts of teaching
experience or years since last music education degree. There were 40 participants with
low numbers of years of teaching experience, 27 with moderate, and 26 with high
numbers of years. There were 45 participants with a low number of years since the last

music education degree, 14 with moderate numbers, and 37 with high numbers.

AN OVA for years of experience.

There were no signiﬁcant differences between Likert means for challenges when
participants were grouped by years of experience (see Table 21). The relationship
between years of experience and the belief that there is a lack of professional
development approached signiﬁcance (p = .07) but did not reach it. While teaching
experience was found to affect participants’ attitudes toward assessment in previous
studies, in this particular sample respondents’ attitudes toward assessment seem to be
more dependent on other factors, including teaching setting, teaching load, and

educational background.

58

Table 21

Diﬂerences in Means for Years of Experience and Challenges

 

 

 

Variable df SS MS F p

Class sizes are too large 2 1.22 .611 .42 .66
There is not enough class time 2 .61 .30 .20 .82
There is not enough time to maintain 2 1.82 .91 .53 .59
records
There is too much population migration 2 3.88 1.94 1.15 .32
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior while 2 3.06 1.53 .92 .40
assessing
Many skills in music are not assessable 2 1.51 .75 .49 .62
Assessment darnpens creativity 2 .06 .03 .02 .98
Negative attitude towards assessment 2 .75 .38 .34 .71
from administration
Negative attitude towards assessment 2 .34 .17 .13 .88
ﬁ'om parents
Negative attitude towards assessment 2 1.36 .68 .40 .67
ﬁ'om students
Lack of preparation in college 2 2.89 1.44 .74 .48
Lack of professional development on 2 9.99 4.99 2.69 .07
assessment

p > .05

AN OVA for years since last music education degree.

There were signiﬁcant differences between varying numbers of years since last
music education degree and mean indication of challenges using Likert scale numbers
(see Table 22). According to Likert means, respondents with 20 or more years Since their
last music education degree believed most strongly that there is not enough time to
maintain records (see Table 23). The Likert means for these groups were 4.29 for those
with the most time since their last music education degree, 4.21 for those with 10 to 19
years since receiving a music education degree, and 3.34 for those with 0 to 9 years since

their last music education degree (see Table 23). These results indicate that teachers who

59

have more years since their last music education degree tend to believe that their ability
to use assessment to its fullest potential is limited by the amount of time it takes to

maintain records.

Table 22

Dzﬂerences in Means for Years Since Last Music Education Degree and

 

 

 

Challenges

Variable df SS MS F p
Class sizes are too large 2 .55 .27 .20 .82
There is not enough class time 2 4.4 2.2 1.47 .23
There is not enough time to maintain 2 19.10 9.55 6.17 .00*
records
There is too much population 2 .72 .36 .20 .82
migration
It is difﬁcult to manage behavior 2 16.15 8.08 5.80 .00*
while assessing
Many skills in music are not 2 8.09 4.05 2.93 .06
assessable
Assessment darnpens creativity 2 9.09 4.54 4.33 .02*
Negative attitude towards assessment 2 .78 .39 .40 .67
from administration
Negative attitude towards assessment 2 1.62 .81 .69 .51
from parents
Negative attitude towards assessment 2 6.68 3.34 2.23 .12
ﬁ'om students
Lack of preparation in college 2 13.20 6.60 3.68 .03*
Lack of professional development on 2 1.06 .53 .28 .76
assessment

*p S .05

There were also signiﬁcant differences between these groups and their level of
agreement with whether it is difﬁcult to manage behavior while assessing (p = .00).
Respondents with the most years since their last music education degree and those with

moderate numbers of years indicated slight disagreement with this statement, with Likert

60

means of 2.80 and 2.71 respectively (see Table 24). Respondents with the least teaching
experience indicated a substantially lower level of disagreement. While all groups
disagreed with this statement, respondents with the least years since their last music
education degree indicated the strongest level of disagreement that behavior management
is a challenge that prevents them from assessing. The relationship between years since
last music education degree and the belief that many skills in music are not assessable

approached signiﬁcance (p = .06) but did not reach it.

Table 23
Diﬁhrences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education

Degree and “There Is Not Enough Time to Maintain Recor ”

 

 

 

Number of Years Likert Mean Responses (#)
0-9 3.34 41
10-19 4.21 14
20+ 4.29 35
Table 24

Diﬂerences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education

Degree and “It Is Dzﬂicult to Manage Behavior and Assess ”

 

 

Number Of Years Likert Mean Responses (#)
0-9 1.93 41
10-19 2.71 14
20+ 2.80 35

 

Additionally, there was a signiﬁcant difference concerning the belief that
assessment darnpens creativity according to the number of years since the last music

education degree. When indicating their level of agreement with assessment dampening

61

creativity, respondents with the most years since their last music education degree had a
mean of 2.49 on the Likert scale, respondents with a moderate number of years had a
mean of 1.85, and those with the lowest number of years had a mean of 1.82 (see Table
25). Again, the group with the most years since receiving a music education degree
believed that the dampening of creativity was a greater impediment to assessment than
those who had more recent music education degrees. Teachers who have recently
received music education degrees may view it as less challenging because they have been

educated more recently on assessment techniques.

Table 25
Diﬂ'erences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education

Degree and “Assessment Dampens Creativity ”

 

 

Number of Years Likert Mean Responses (#)
0-9 1.82 39
10-19 1.85 13
20+ 2.49 35

 

Respondents with moderate numbers of years since their last music education
degree found a lack of preparation in college to be more challenging than other groups
with a mean of 3.53 on the Likert scale (see Table 26). Respondents with the most years
had a Likert mean of 3.00 and those with the lowest number of years had a Likert mean
of 2.45. The moderate group agreed with the statement and the low group disagreed,
suggesting that music education programs in the past 9 years may have placed more
emphasis on assessment. Also, the information on assessment in music education degree

programs from 10 to 19 years ago may not beneﬁt teachers this late in their careers,

62

possibly due to changing instructional styles or increasing demands for assessment. The
group with the highest level of years likely had more experience that may have caused

them to have a neutral average response towards this challenge.

Table 26

Diﬂerences Between Mean Likert Scores for Years Since Last Music Education

Degree and “I Was Not Adequately Prepared in College ”

 

 

Number of Years Likert Mean Responses (#)
0-9 2.45 40
10-19 3.53 13
20+ 3.00 31

 

Overall, the analysis of variance calculations showed that respondents with the
highest number of years since their last music education degree agreed more strongly
with challenges to assessment than respondents with the least number of years. The only
exception was that the group with a moderate number of years since their last music

education degree agreed most strongly that they were not adequately prepared to assess in

college.

63

Chapter 5: Implications and Recommendations

Summary

The purpose of this study was to examine elementary general music teachers’
attitudes toward formal assessment. Attitudes regarding the purposes, challenges, and
suggested improvements of assessment were gathered through a survey completed by
Michigan elementary general music teachers. The survey responses were analyzed and
results were discussed.

Respondents agreed on average that the primary purpose of assessment is to
improve instruction. The most highly valued purposes indicated by respondents are
supported by current literature. These include measuring student progress over time,

' improving instruction, identifying different levels of students’ needs (Boyle, 1996;
Brophy, 2000; Elliot, 1995; Gordon, 2007; Holster, 2005; Taggart, 2002) and modifying
curriculum (Boyle, 1992; Colwell, 2002; Elliot 1995; Howell & Nolet, 2000; Lehman,
1992; Shih, 1997, Shuler, 1996).

Respondents’ use of assessment to provide feedback to parents also reﬂected the
views of music education authors who have written about the use of assessment in music
classrooms (Brophy, 2000; Colwell, 2002; Holster, 2005; Taggart, 2002). Respondents
positively indicated that they use assessment to inform report card grades, which is
another form of feedback (Shuler, 1996). However, although the same literature
(Brophy, 2000; Colwell, 2002; Holster, 2005; Taggart, 2002) states that assessment can

be used to communicate with students, respondents indicated a somewhat neutral

64

response to the belief that the purpose of assessment is to motivate students. Perhaps
some teachers do not share assessments with their students because they believe that it
may negatively affect their development or because they do not use formal assessment in
their classrooms.

Respondents do not generally use' assessment to compare student achievement
across districts as was suggested by Boyle (1992). This may be attributed to a lack of
clear standards and assessment methods. Though the National Standards and Michigan
Benchmarks provide clear objectives and suggestions for assessment, they do not propose
common assessment methods.

Respondents agreed with related literature that assessment should be used to
validate music in general education (Brophy, 2000; Holster, 2005; McClung 1996).
However, they disagreed that the purpose of assessment is to communicate with the
community or with policy makers, though many believe that the use of assessment as a
reporting tool can lead to increased support ﬁ'om decision makers (Brophy, 2000;
Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 2002; Holster 2005; Niebur, 2001). There was a relatively
high level of disagreement between participants about whether the purpose of assessment
is to communicate with community. Though respondents indicated varying opinions
regarding the purposes of assessment, most strongly agreed that assessment was a
valuable tool in their classrooms.

Participants agreed that the most challenging aspects of assessment were related
to heavy teaching loads. Respondents’ highest rated items supported those cited in
literature and included a lack of class time (Kotora, 2001; Niebur, 1997; Shuler, 1996;

Talley, 2005), not enough time to maintain records (Kotora, 2001), and large class sizes

65

(Niebur, 1997; Shuler, 1996; Talley, 2005). They also agreed slightly that there was a
lack of professional development on assessment, as found in Hepworth-Osiowy’s (2004)
study of elementary music teachers in Canada.

The participants’ attitudes toward the challenges of assessment sometimes
differed from previous research ﬁndings. Respondents believed that it was possible to
assess and manage behavior at the same time, unlike in Kotora’s (2001) study of high
school choral educators, though his participants likely had larger class sizes. They also
overall did not believe that population rrrigration was a signiﬁcant hindrance to
assessment, while elementary teachers in Niebur’s (1997) study did. They did not view
their assessment practices to be impeded by a negative attitude from students, parents, or
administration. However, a couple of respondents commented that parent attitudes
towards assessment in music were apathetic, which supports Kotora’s ﬁndings.

Respondents generally felt that their college education prepared them to assess,
unlike the elementary general music teachers in Hepworth-Osiowy’s (2004) study.
Respondents in this study also felt that the use of assessment does not dampen creativity
and disagreed that skills in music are not assessable as found in Niebur’s (1997) study.
However, some respondents harbored negative attitudes towards assessment. These
respondents indicated confusion between assessment and grading that Schuler (1996)
identiﬁes as a common misconception, since assessment was traditionally used to inform
report card grades.

Participants positively evaluated most suggested improvements for assessment.
They were most positive that attending workshops on developing a variety of assessment

tools, assessing creative tasks and assessing performances skills would enhance their

66

assessment practices. They also believed observing other teachers within the region,
attending sharing sessions within the region, attending workshops on assessing critical
thinking, attending sharing sessions within the district, and observing other teachers
within the district would improve assessment practice. Many respondents agreed
strongly with observing and Sharing within the district but some disagreed because they
believed that these options were not logistically possible, since they were the only music
teacher in their district. Respondents also Slightly agreed that their assessment methods
could be improved if they had more time to read related literature.

Participants disagreed that their assessment methods could beneﬁt from gaining
total teaching experience, taking additional college classes, or pursuing an additional
college degree. Respondents’ reluctance to improve their assessment methods by
attending college could have been attributed to the high cost of college classes in
comparison to workshops or perhaps many respondents believed that they had sufﬁcient
education, though only 32 respondents indicated that their highest held degree was a
Master’s in Music Education. Most participants believed that their assessment methods
could be improved.

Several signiﬁcant relationships between demographics and challenges were
observed. In general, respondents who taught in a greater number of buildings believed
that there was too much population migration to use assessment to its fullest potential.
These respondents might have come in contact with more students and witnessed more
population migration than those who taught in a smaller number of buildings. A
signiﬁcant relationship was also observed when respondents with larger numbers of

students agreed more strongly with the same challenge.

67

Similarly, participants who had larger class sizes felt that class sizes were too
large to assess students effectively. This supported Simanton’s (2001) ﬁnding that high
school band teachers with smaller band sizes were more likely to use better assessment
practices. Respondents in this study who had less contact time believed that there was
not enough class time to assess.

There were no correlations between teaching experience, years since the last
music education degree was received, grade levels taught, number of classes, or nmnber
of in-service workshops attended and attitudes regarding any of the speciﬁc challenges to
assessment. Unfortunately, survey construction errors could have led to inaccurate
responses for the number of classes and number of in-service workshops. Years of
teaching experience and years since the last music education degree were later
reexamined through one-way analysis of variance.

Participants were categorized by years of teaching experience and years since
their last music education degree to determine if there was a signiﬁcant difference
between low, moderate, or high numbers of years and attitudes toward challenges as was
found in previous studies. Hanzlik (2001) found that high school band teachers with the
most and least teaching experience had the most positive attitudes toward assessment,
while Sirnanton (2001) found that high school band teachers with more experience were
more likely to use better assessment practices. For this reason, it was hypothesized in
this study that respondents with the least and most years of experience would view
challenges as less difﬁcult than those with moderate years of experience. There was no
signiﬁcant relationship between years of experience and attitudes toward challenges to

assessment. Michigan elementary general music teachers’ attitudes regarding assessment

68

seemed to be more dependent on other factors, including teaching setting, teaching load,
and educational background.

There were sigriﬁcant relationships observed between respondents’ years since
their last music education degree and certain challenges. On average, participants with
more years agreed most strongly that there is not enough time to maintain records, while
those with a moderate number of years agreed less, and those with the least years agreed
the least. Likewise, participants with high numbers of years felt signiﬁcantly more that it
was difﬁcult to manage behavior while assessing, whereas those with moderate numbers
of years viewed managing behavior as a smaller impediment, and those with the least
years believed it to be the smallest impediment.

F urtherrnore, participants with more years since their last music education degree
believed the most strongly that assessment darnpens creativity, participants with
moderate numbers of years believed this less, and participants with the least years
believed this the least. Overall, participants with more years since their most recent
music education degree found challenges in assessment to be more daunting than those
with fewer years.

A difference in the order of groups was observed when respondents were asked to
indicate whether they believed that they had been adequately prepared to assess in
college. On average, participants with moderate numbers of years believed that they had
been prepared the least, while those with the greatest number of years gave a neutral
response, and those with the least years believed that they had been prepared well. These
results suggest that information on assessment in music education degree programs from

10 to 19 years ago might not beneﬁt teachers later in their careers, possibly due to

69

changing instructional beliefs and practices or increased demands for assessment. There
were no signiﬁcant relationships observed between years since the last music education

degree was received and other challenges.

Implications

The ﬁndings of this study can inform music teachers’ assessment practices,
collegiate music teacher preparation programs, and in-service offerings for music
educators. As in Talley’s (2005) study, the results show that teachers value assessment as
a critical component of instruction. Furthermore, participants identiﬁed challenges to
assessment that could be addressed through appropriate and accessible teacher education.
Participants’ attitudes toward suggested improvements for their assessment practices
could be used to generate viable solutions that should be considered by collegiate and
public school ofﬁcials.

Most teachers surveyed recognize assessment as a critical component of
instruction, yet it is unclear in which ways they use assessment to inform instruction.
Most teachers’ assessment practices could likely beneﬁt from reexarnining what they feel
are the purposes of assessment in their classroom, what objectives they assess, and the
ways in which they assess them (Schuler, 1996; Brophy, 2000). As previously discussed,
Brophy (2000) suggests using similar processes to plan assessment as when planning
instruction. Since they are interrelated, teachers should conceive assessment as an
informer of instruction.

Some respondents commented that they believed formal assessments referred to

grades or evaluating students’ written work. These respondents did not understand that

70

assessment could be naturalistic and authentic. This misunderstanding could be corrected
if teachers were provided with more information regarding ongoing formal assessments
and their value in improving classroom instruction.

Respondents indicated collectively that excessive teaching loads prevented them
from using assessment to its fullest potential. Some indicated more difﬁculties when
maintaining records than others. There clearly is a need for workshops that present time-
efﬁcient assessment methods and record-keeping strategies. Teachers should also be
encouraged and given opportunities to see their colleagues using assessment successfully.

Additionally, results indicated that many teachers do not use assessment to
communicate with their communities or policy makers. Two respondents commented
that they used performances instead of assessment to communicate with the community.
While performances do provide opportunities to showcase student achievement,
assessments can supply additional evidence of learning. For instance, a teacher may ﬁnd
that at the beginning of the year, 20% of her students are able to match pitch while at the
end of the year, 80% are able to match pitch. This information could positively inﬂuence
community and policy makers’ support of music programs.

Respondents with more years since their last music education degree was received
found assessment to be more challenging than others did and indicated more negative
views towards assessment. They also felt that they were not adequately prepared to
assess in college. Due to these negative views, teachers with more years since their last
music education degree may have more philosophical challenges such as recognizing the

purposes of assessment. Colleges should offer classes and workshops that focus on

71

current assessment practices and their values, which could especially beneﬁt teachers
who have been out of college for more than ten years.

Participants indicated that there is a lack of professional development on
assessment and identiﬁed various in-service workshops as the most important solutions
for improving assessment. The results Show that there is a high demand for workshops
on developing different types of assessments tools, as well as assessing creative tasks and
performance skills. State conference planners should also include sessions on assessment
as an integral part of every state conference. In addition administrators should plan
sessions on assessment for in-service days throughout the academic year.

Respondents agreed that observing other teachers and attending sharing sessions
within the district and region as well as having time to read more related literature could
improve their assessment methods. These options are economical when compared to
attending college classes or even in-service workshops. Since teachers with fewer years
since their last music education degree felt that assessment was less challenging than
others and had more positive views towards using it, they might serve as models for best
practice. Administrators should consider facilitating teaching observations and sharing
sessions as valid opportunities for improving music instruction and assessment practices
within their districts.

Music education degree programs should present the purposes and use of
assessment as an integral part of the instructional process. Future teachers should be
exposed to a variety of assessment methods in a classroom setting and observe record-
keeping strategies. They should also be required to demonstrate assessment techniques

and use data from formal assessments to recognize and teach to individual students’

72

needs. In order to use assessment effectively amidst various teaching responsibilities,
future teachers need to have a strong foundation regarding the purposes of assessment
and have practical experience in using it.

There are general trends in the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward
assessment and teacher education, teaching load, or teaching setting. However, attitudes
toward assessment are unique for each teacher and should be examined further by
collegiate and public school ofﬁcials when deciding course offerings. Ofﬁcials should
inquire about teachers’ assessment-related needs using surveys similar to the one used in
this study, since it was developed based on current research and related literature.
Overall, Michigan elementary music teachers value assessment and need more tools to
implement it effectively, especially when faced with heavy teaching loads, difﬁcult

teaching settings, and a lack of adequate education.

Recommendations

Future studies regarding elementary general music are needed to improve teacher
attitudes and formal assessment practices. Studies concerning music teachers’ attitudes
regarding the purposes, challenges, and improvements for assessment should be
conducted for additional grade levels and in other states. Although there have been
studies regarding the purposes of assessment in other states, there have not been any
concerning teachers’ attitudes toward challenges or suggested improvements for
assessment.

If replicated with improved survey construction, this study could provide more

accurate data regarding beliefs about assessment practices in elementary general music.

73

The survey for this study could not be placed online because of MMEA’S policy not to
provide e-mail information for its members. If the survey had been online, some
construction errors might have been avoided, since respondents could be forced to
complete each item before submitting a page. Respondents would have had to indicate a
rank for each item, resulting in more complete data. Also, the missing data for degree
types could have been avoided online if respondents had to indicate a bachelor’s degree
before a master’s degree. It is not known whether having the survey online would have
resulted in a higher return rate.

The relationship between nominal demographic variables and teachers’ attitudes
toward challenges remains to be examined. In this study, these variables included types
of degrees held, full-time or part-time teaching capacity, and whether the district required
grades. There was not enough data to generate valid results for these relationships.

Talley (2005) studied the types of assessment used by Michigan teachers but the
ways in which teachers use formal assessment to inform instruction are still unknown, as
is the degree to which their instruction is informed by assessment. Also, in what ways do
teachers use assessment to evaluate, modify, and align curriculum? How common are
each of these processes in music programs and to what extent is assessment used to guide
them? It would be beneﬁcial to know how and to what degree assessment is used to
inform a variety of instructional purposes.

Future studies could answer additional questions such as the relationship between
purposes or improvements and demographic factors. Respondents with more years since
their last music education degree indicated more negative attitudes toward assessment

challenges than those with fewer years. The relationship between teachers’ attitudes

74

toward the purposes of assessment and their demographic background might reveal
information that is useful for designing degree programs and workshops speciﬁcally
geared towards teachers’ needs. Likewise, an examination of the relationship between
teachers’ attitudes toward suggested improvements for assessment and demographic
information could also allow colleges and administration to meet teachers’ needs.

Some teachers indicated that they use performances in place of assessments to
communicate with community. The effectiveness of using performances to communicate
with parents, community, and policy makers should be investigated. It would be
beneﬁcial to know what kind of information the community takes from observing
elementary music performances and how it affects their perception of music programs in
general. It also would be useful to describe the types of performances that take place
with elementary students in general music programs.

Questions remain to be answered regarding the effect of grade levels taught on
teachers’ attitudes toward purposes and challenges of assessment. Do teachers feel it is
equally important to use assessment at all grade levels? Do the grade levels taught
impact the degree to which assessment is used, including formal and informal methods?
Do teachers face more challenges when using assessment at speciﬁc grade levels?
Assessment is a valuable tool for informing instruction for all students, including early
childhood, and future research should address whether it is used differently for different
age groups.

Additional investigation concerning the types of professional development and
collegiate programs that teachers desire could allow them to develop more effective

assessment strategies. As the role of technology in assessment increases, how are

75

districts and colleges preparing teachers to use online grading tools? Can technology be
made to be compatible with the nature of assessment in music classrooms, which is often
embedded in classroom activities and requires portable record keeping systems? It would
be beneﬁcial to know how many music teachers’ assessment practices are affected by a
lack of resources as the role of technology is increasing.

There is a lack of related research regarding ways to improve formal assessment
practices. A comprehensive examination of teachers’ attitudes regarding collegiate and
professional development opportunities could identify areas of needs more clearly and
dramatically improve accessibility of offerings related to assessment. A survey could be
developed like the one used in this study based on recent research studies and related
literature to more fully examine teachers’ assessment-related needs.

Music teachers have only recently begun to indicate their attitudes toward the
purposes, challenges, and improvements for formal assessment through the research
literature. Their opinions should be used to develop meaningful collegiate and
professional development offerings. The continued examination of teachers’ attitudes is
critical to developing assessment methods that will transfer to improved instruction and

increased student learning.

76

APPENDIX A: ELEMENTARY GENERAL MUSIC ASSESSMENT

PERCEP’I' IONS SURVEY

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1. Please answer the following:
a. Total number of years of public school teaching music experience:
b. Number of years teaching in your present school: __
c. Degrees held (please check or indicate number):
__ Bachelors in Music Education
__ Bachelors in an area other than Music Ed. Specify major:
Masters in Music Education
__ Masters in an area other than Music Ed. Specify major:

(I. Year in which last music education degree was received:

 

e. In what capacity do you teach music? Full-time Part-time
f. How many buildings do you teach music in?

g. What grades do you teach?

 

h. How many classes do you teach? __

i. Number of students serviced each year: __

j. Average class size:

k. Typical class length in minutes: __

1. Typical number of class meetings in one week:

m. Do you teach subjects in addition to elementary general music?

If so, please describe the grade levels and area:

 

77

n. Time spent each week directing extracurricular activities in nrinutes:

o. Are grades required in your school/district? (Y es/N o)

 

p. Number of in-service workshops attended in the past year:

PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT

2. Using a scale of 1-5, with 5 being “strongly agree,” 1 being “strongly disagree,”
and NA being “not applicable,” CIRCLE a number to indicate why you feel it is
important to use formal (written) assessment in your classroom. Use the column

on the left to RANK each item with 1 having the highest importance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank SD SA
Measure student progress over time NA 1 2 3 4
Identify different levels of students’ needs NA 1 2 3 4
Motivate students NA 1 2 3 4
Improve instruction NA 1 2 3 4
Modify curriculum NA 1 2 3 4
Inform report card grades NA 1 2 3 4

 

Compare student achievement across districts NA 1 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communicate with parents NA 1 2 3 4
Communicate with administration NA 1 2 3 4
Communicate with policy makers NA 1 2 3 4
Communicate with community NA 1 2 3 4
Validate music in general education NA 1 2 3 4
Assessment is not a valuable tool in my NA 1 2 3 4
classroom.

 

 

78

 

Other:

NA

1

2345

 

 

 

Other:

 

NA

1

2345

 

Additional comments (optional):

 

 

REMINDER: DID YOU CIRCLE AND RANK?

CHALLENGES OF ASSESSMENT

3. Using a scale of 1-5, with 5 being “strongly agree,” 1 being “strongly disagree,”

and NA being “not applicable,” CIRCLE a number to indicate the extent to

which you believe each item creates challenges for you when assessing students.

Use the column on the left to RANK each item with 1 having the highest level of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

importance.
Rank SD SA
Class sizes are too large. NA 1 2 3 4 5
There is not enough class time. NA 1 2 3 4 5
There is not enough time to maintain records. NA 1 2 3 4 5
There is too much population migration. NA 1 2 3 4 5
It is difficult to manage behavior and assess. NA 1 2 3 4 5
Many skills in music are not assessable. NA 1 2 3 4 5
Assessment darnpens creativity. NA 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

Negative attitude toward assessment from:

 

 

79

 

 

 

 

4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administration NA 1 2 3 4
Parents NA 1 2 3 4
Students NA 1 2 3 4
I was not adequately prepared in college. NA 1 2 3 4
There is a lack of professional development on NA 1 2 3 4
assessment.

Other: NA 1 2 3 4
Other: NA 1 2 3 4

 

Additional comments (optional):

 

 

REMINDER: DID YOU CIRCLE AND RANK?

IMPROVING ASSESSMENT

Using a scale of 1-5, with 5 being “strongly agree,” 1 being “strongly disagree,”

and NA being “not applicable,” CIRCLE to indicate how you feel each item

would be most useful to improve your assessment methods. Use the column on

the left to RANK each item with 1 having the highest level of importance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank SD SA
Gaining total teaching experience. NA 1 2 3 4 5
Gaining experience in my current teaching NA 1 2 3 4 5
situation.

Attending workshops on developing NA 1 2 3 4 5
assessment tools.
Attending workshops on types of assessment NA 1 2 3 4 5

 

80

 

 

 

tools.

 

 

Attending workshops on assessing NA 1
performance skills.

Attending workshops on assessing creative NA 1
tasks.

 

Attending workshops on assessing critical NA I
thinking.

 

Attending sharing sessions within the district. NA 1

 

Attending sharing sessions within the region. NA 1

 

Observing other teachers within the district. NA 1

 

Observing other teachers within the region. NA 1

 

 

 

 

 

Taking additional college classes. NA 1
Pursuing an additional college degree NA 1
program.

Having time to read more related literature. NA 1
My assessment methods do not require NA 1
improvement.

Other NA 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional comments (optional):

 

 

REMINDER: DID YOU CIRCLE AND RANK?

81

APPENDIX B: CONSENT LETTER

An Examination of Teachers’ Perceptions of Assessment and the Relationship to
Demographic Factors in Michigan Elementary General Music Classrooms

November 5, 2009
Dear Music Teacher:

In an effort to improve elementary general music education, you are being asked to
participate in a research study of teacher perceptions of assessment. The attached survey
questionnaire will provide data for my Masters thesis project at Michigan State
University. Speciﬁcally, I am examining teacher perceptions of the purposes and
challenges of assessment and how they relate to demographic factors, and what teachers
feel will improve their assessment methods.

You are being asked to complete a survey questionnaire developed using literature and
current research regarding assessment. This survey will take about ﬁfteen minutes of
your time. You will not directly beneﬁt from your participation in this study. However,
your participation will contribute to the understanding of how assessment methods are
perceived and how they may be improved in elementary general music education. You
will be provided with a copy of the research ﬁndings at your request.

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your survey
data will be coded by number and stored in a secure location. The results of this study
may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identity of the
participants will remain anonymous. Participation in this study is completely voluntary.
You may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain parts
of the survey or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of
beneﬁts.

You may indicate your voluntary agreement to participating by completing and returning
this questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. Please mail the
completed survey by November 23. If you have any questions regarding how to
participate in this study, please contact Dr. Cynthia Taggart, Ph. D., by phone at 517-432-
9678 or by e-mail at taggartc@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns about
your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or would
like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish,
the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180,
Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

82

I appreciate your time and assistance in understanding elementary general music
teachers’ perceptions of assessment. Your participation will contribute to improved
music education.

Sincerely,

Megan Peppers
Masters in Music Education student, Michigan State University
Peppersl @msu.edu

83

APPENDIX C: REMINDER LETTER

When you return your survey, your name will be entered into a drawing
to receive a $50 gift certiﬁcate to West Music.

December 5, 2009
Dear Music Teacher:

In an effort to improve elementary general music education, would you reconsider your
decision to participate in a research study of teacher perceptions of assessment? Surveys
were sent to two hundred participants but the return rate is low. The return rate must be
higher to obtain results that are representative of the total population of Michigan
elementary music teachers. By participating in this study, you will be able to indicate
your perceptions of the purposes and challenges of assessment, and what you feel would
allow you to improve your assessment methods. The results of this study will be used to
inform academic and professional communities about music teachers' perceptions of
assessment and potential solutions. You will be provided with a copy of the research
ﬁndings at your request.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to participate at
all, or you may refuse to participate in certain parts of the survey or discontinue your
participation at any time without penalty or loss of beneﬁts. This survey will take about
ﬁfteen minutes of your time. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Your survey data will be coded by number and stored in a secure
location. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional
meetings, but the identity of the participants will remain anonymous. The validity of the
survey results depends on answers that accurately convey your perceptions of assessment.

You may indicate your voluntary agreement to participating by completing and returning
this questionnaire in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. Please mail the
completed survey by December 21. If you have any questions regarding how to
participate in this study, please contact Dr. Cynthia Taggart, Ph. D., by phone at 517-432-
9678 or by e-mail at taggartc@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns about
your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or would
like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish,
the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180,
Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

I appreciate your time and assistance in understanding elementary general music
teachers’ perceptions of assessment. Your participation will contribute to improved
practices in music education.

84

Sincerely,

Megan Peppers
Masters in Music Education student, Michigan State University
Peppers l @msu.edu

85

REFERENCES

Aiming for excellence: the impact of the standards movement on music education.
(1996). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Boyle, J. D. (1992). Evaluation of music ability. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of
research on music teaching and learning (Chapter 16). New York: Schirmer.

Boyle, J .D. (1996). The National Standards: Some implications for assessment. In Aiming
for Excellence (pp. 109-1 15). Reston, VA: MENC.

Brophy, T. S. (2000). Assessing the developing child musician: A guide for general music
teachers. Chicago: GIA Publications.

Campbell, P. S. & Scott-Kassner, C. (2002). Music in childhood: from preschool
through the elementary grades. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.

Colwell, R. (2002). Assessment’s potential in music education. In R. Colwell & C.
Richardson (Eds), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning
(Chapter 60). New York: Oxford.

Elliot, D. J. (1995). Music matters. New York: Oxford.

Farrell, S. R. (1997). Tools for powerful student evaluation. Fort Lauderdale, FL:
Meredith Music Publications.

Gordon, B. E. (2007). Learning sequences in music. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Hanzlik, T. (2001). An examination of Iowa high school instrumental band director’s

assessment practices and attitudes towards assessment. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62(03), 955.

Hepworth-Osiowy, K. (2004). Assessment in elementary music education: Perspectives
and practices of teachers in Winnipeg public schools. Masters Abstracts
International, 42(06), 1951.

Hill, K.W. (1999). A descriptive study of assessment procedures, assessment attitudes,
and grading policies in selected public high school band performance classrooms
in Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06), 1954.

Holster, K. (2005). “Why assess music?” In Spotlight on General Music: Teaching
Toward the Standards. (p. 120-122). Reston, VA: MENC.

Howell, K. W. & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: teaching and decision

86

 

Making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kotora, E. J., Jr. (2001). Assessment practices in the choral music classroom: A survey
of Ohio high school choral music teachers and college choral methods teachers.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12), 4102.

Lehman, P. (1992). Curriculum and program evaluation. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook
of research on music teaching and learning (Chapter 18). New York: Schirmer.

McClung, A. C. (1996). A descriptive study of learning assessment and grading practices
in the high school choral music performance classroom. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 5 7(08), 3437.

Michigan Arts Education Content Standards and Benchmarks. (1996). Michigan
Department of Education. Retrieved December 5, 2008 from
http://www.michigan.gov/mde

National Standards for Arts Education. (1994). Reston, VA: MENC.

Niebur, L. (1997). Standards, assessment and stories of practice in general music.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(03), 791 .

Niebur, L. (2001). Incorporating assessment and the National Standards for Music
Education into everyday teaching. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellin Press.

Nierman, G. E. (1996). Can portfolios be practical for performance assessment? In
Spotlight on assessment in music education (pp. 49-51). Reston, VA: MENC.

Patten, M. L. (2007). Understanding research methods. Los Angeles: Pyrczak
Publishing.

Performance standards for music: strategies and benchmarks for assessing progress
Toward the National Standards, Grades Pre K-IZ. (1996). Reston, VA: MENC.

Shih, T. —T. (1997). Curriculum alignment of general music in central Texas: An
investigation of the relationship between the essential elements, classroom
instruction, and student assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(07),
2580.

Shuler, S. C. (1996). The effects of the National Standards on assessment (and vice
versa). In Aiming for Excellence. (pp. 81-108). Reston, VA: MENC.

Sirnanton, E. G. (2001). Assessment and grading practices among high school band
teachers in the United States: A descriptive study. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61 (09).

87

Taggart, C. C. (2002). Measurement in the music classroom: Identifying our students’
educational needs. Michigan Music Educator, 40(01), 9-13.

Talley, K. E. (2005). An investigation of the frequency, methods, objectives, and
applications of assessment in Michigan elementary general music classrooms.

Masters Abstracts International, 44(02), April 2006.

The school music program: A new vision. (1994). Reston, VA: Music Educators National
Conference.

88

 

llllllll

Ill“llllllllllllllllllll

93 03063 7635

312

 

l
l
I
'l
I
Il
l
l
I
I'll
II
II
I
L
l
I'-