Annual Assessment Report to the College 2009-2010
College: MCCAMC
Department: MUSIC
Program: UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE PROGRAMS
Note: Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator and to the Associate Dean of your College by September 30, 2010.
You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
Liaison: DIANE ROSCETTI
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the program this year. Is assessment under the
oversight of one person or a committee?
Music Department assessment is currently under the oversight of one person (the dept. liaison), in conjunction with full and part-time faculty input. Our
intended plan for the ‘09/’10 academic year was to thoroughly assess all of our undergraduate and graduate SLOs, hand-in-hand with our strategic
planning initiatives we have been working on as part of our National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) reaccreditation process. Our goal was to
determine whether to refine, delete or add to our current published SLOs, concurrent with curricular revisions as requested by NASM. Included in our
planning has been master plans for the size and scope of our offerings, revised target enrollments, discussing what SLOs will truly reflect what we want our
grads to embody, and assessing relevancy of SLOs to new initiatives. Intended topics of discussion included entrepreneurial teaching skills, critical thinking
for students, and habits of mind which students need to develop in school, in order to positively affect their academic and professional success.
1b. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what was intended? If so, please describe any
modification to your assessment process and why it occurred.
The process deviated in terms of the final decisions/outcome being extended. The NASM Commission deferred our reaccreditation until we meet/prove
certain conditions of change, and we were given an extension until Oct. 1, 2010 to submit our responses and all required paperwork. Because working on
our SLO issues has been concurrent with this NASM process, we have not drawn final conclusion yet. Also, out of approximately 22 full-time faculty and 49
part-time faculty, only 5 full-time and 3 part-time responded to a survey distributed in February of 2010, to garner more specific input based on what each
person was teaching, or had experience teaching in the past.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an
additional SLO, report in the next chart below.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
All undergraduate and graduate SLOs as currently published were reviewed in the larger context of our national reaccreditation review process and
strategic planning process, but none were specifically measured. As described on page 1 of this report, our goal this year was not to measure any one or
two specific SLOs but to determine in totality where to delete, refine or add to our SLOs.
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
Discussions and a faculty survey were used in the process described above.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
In the process described above, the discussions started with the department chair and assistant chairs, then included full-time faculty in attendance at
faculty meetings, then more specific input was requested via a survey sent to all faculty (full and part-time) on the department listserv (approximately 22
full- time and 49 part-time)
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was
a cross-sectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Not Applicable
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
Data Analysis for the process used, though not yet fully completed, came mostly from responses to the faculty survey distributed. Faculty were given a link
to all current SLOs to make the survey simple and easy to respond to. They were asked to list what they normally teach and to indentify which current
outcomes best apply to that. Current course alignment charts address this well in many cases, but some of what we are now teaching in the curriculum
do not have SLOs that fit the intended outcomes of these courses.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were or will be used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of how the assessment results were or will be used.
The assessment results will be updated SLOs that more accurately reflect our revised target enrollments/size & scope of our offerings; highlighting changes
we are making, many in keeping with national trends. Relevancy and critical thinking are vital to our graduates, and our strategic planning has centered in
part on providing the opportunity for students to think more for themselves and take charge of their own learning. We are actively implementing needed
changes, in part from what we have learned the last few years from our collected assessment data.
At this point our process this year has garnered interest in adding at least one new SLO for all BA & BM degrees, involving the need for students to be able
to demonstrate professional competence in the execution of business processes and practices commonly employed within each option’s area of
specialization. This more accurately reflects new entrepreneurial curriculum we have, as well as Career Course revisions (required of all music majors) and
the general awareness students need as they prepare for the rapidly changing society and profession they are entering upon graduation.
We also are considering removing current SLOs regarding successful completion of capstones in BA & BM degrees, as some faculty feel that these are more
a program requirement than a Student Learning Outcome.
We have found that none of our current SLOs fit very well the intended outcomes of our pedagogy classes. This includes, as one example, String Pedagogy
and Strings Class – required of various BM and BA programs. This is true of the other instrumental and vocal areas as well.
We are also looking to possibly add a Student Learning Outcome more appropriate to the Music Therapy degree, stating specifically that students will be
able to plan research, based on appropriate music interventions for a wide variety of clinical populations.
Additionally, one of the jazz faculty expressed concern that none of the current SLOs accurately reflect required outcomes for jazz arranging classes, and we
are also considering being more specific with SLOs for Jazz Musicianship, to include arranging ability for combos including various instruments and rhythm
section, and in both traditional and contemporary styles.
Further, the NASM Commission would like us to be more specific in addressing SLOs for Performance Majors, showing focus on how students acquire the
rudimentary capability to create derivative or original music both extemporaneously and in written form. Our BM vocal program also needs to have a more
specific SLO regarding the language outcomes. Also, the Commission requests that we show more SLO rigor in composition, improvisation and conducting
in the Musicianship courses for all music majors.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
3. How do your assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan?
As described on page 1 of this report, our SLO assessment process this year was expressly designed to align with the strategic planning required of
us as part of our national reaccreditation process. We have had to make numerous curricular revisions and felt this was the best time to also
actively be sure our SLOs reflected our new initiatives.
4. Overall, if this year’s program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are needed in order to improve and support student
learning, please discuss here.
Our assessment activities this past year were already financially supported by reassigned time given by the provost’s office, and a small amount of
reassigned time given for assistant chair work, all of which was helpful. As we continue to review the effectiveness and comprehensive nature of
our governance system and procedures (as asked of us by NASM), we are trying to be more efficient in academic and administrative processes, to
use an improved curricular model designed in better alignment with the priorities of the MCCAMC. We are striving for meaningful change that is
logical in context of financial conditions impacting our institution at this time. The most obvious hindrance at this point is perhaps lack of
reassigned time for faculty to perform many committee duties and area coordination responsibilities, as faculty then tend to express feeling
burdened with heavy teaching loads and do not put much time into these extra activities. It is our hope that much of this was due to the furlough
situation this past year and that it will improve in the future when and if that situation ceases.
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
Not Applicable
6. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss. Not Applicable
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller