Annual Assessment Report to the College 2008‐2009 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. 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: Our intended plan was to assess one undergraduate SLO for all Bachelor of Music Students, and one graduate SLO for all Master of Arts and Master of Music Students. This process was under the oversight of one person (Dept. Assessment Liaison), initially in conjunction with all music full‐time faculty, and ultimately in conjunction with the faculty involved in teaching the courses where the SLOs were assessed. This year we used courses from both fall and spring semesters. Faculty involved first worked with the department liaison in projecting assessment plans/tools/collection of work samples etc. at the beginning of their courses. Upon conclusion of their courses these same faculty confirmed their assessment process, the outcomes of their data, and how they plan to use that data to lead to meaningful course and programmatic improvements in the future. 1b. Implementation and Modifications: There was very little deviation from the intended process, except a few of the full‐time faculty initially involved did not report final outcomes. Also, the department liaison tried to involve part‐time faculty as appropriate, but was unable for the most part to engage participation from that segment of the faculty. 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? Undergraduate SLO #2 for all Bachelor of Music Students: “All BM Students will possess a basic knowledge of music history through the present time, paired with an acquaintance with repertories beyond the area of specialization.” 2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO? Assessment instruments used in the courses include pre‐testing and post‐testing, class lecture performances, class presentations, service learning community project feasibility studies, & reflective writing assignments showing what students perceive they can do with what they learned and what habits of mind they have come to know associated with this SLO, that will positively affect their academic and professional success. 2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: Several years ago the music department faculty determined which courses should be used to best assess each SLO. The courses we used this year were from that list. The final courses finishing the entire process (projection as well as final collection and use of data) were: MUS 403, Vocal Literature, taught by Deanna Murray in the fall, enrollment of 28; MUS 409, Chamber Music Literature, taught by Diane Roscetti in the fall, enrollment of 16; MUS 411, History of Performance Practice, taught by Diane Roscetti in the spring, enrollment of 18; MUS 434/L, String Masterclass, taught by Diane Roscetti in the spring, enrollment of 22. Students in these courses were by and large undergraduate students; however, some graduate students were enrolled in the 400 level courses as well. 2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: This SLO was assessed longitudinally with the same students in each course using the methods described in 2b. March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller 2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Data analysis involved comparison of the student learning and perceptions at various points during the courses, as determined by the assessment instruments used. While many of the students did seem to progress satisfactorily, some students in general seem ill‐prepared to think for themselves, beyond being spoon‐fed the material. However, based on that observation, some exciting changes for future course revisions have emerged, with better coordination of programmatic efforts. 2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: In MUS 403, Vocal Literature, Deanna Murray implemented a new component to help meet the SLO objective. This involved using Art Songs from Non‐Western Cultures, and presenting a live class performance with singers performing art songs in Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Armenian. Professor Murray used data gathered after the recital to develop a new research assignment for this class, so that future classes will perform but also choose a language to research from the repertoire presented in the recital. They will write a brief paper on this repertoire and will be required to identify artists who sing the music, biographies of composers and where the music can be found. Similarly, Professor Roscetti added a performance component to her MUS 411 course, History of Performance Practice, where students from all performance areas had to present a convincing paper/interpretive performance/presentation for each period of music studied, sharing specifics on repertoire the other students were not familiar with. In MUS 409, Chamber Music Literature, students learned repertoire beyond their area of specialization and then had to write a mock grant proposal to present this material in a public venue. They had to think about how to attract an audience based on this wider knowledge of all repertoire and its possible place in enhancing today’s society. MUS 434/L, String Masterclass, was taught in a similar fashion. While a large number of students felt initially uncomfortable being asked to do more than just answer questions on a test, most of them ultimately responded with effort and enthusiasm. For the future, we are hoping that these courses, and the outcomes of these assessment activities, become more of a vehicle to the awareness students need for their professional success in the specific social times they find themselves in. We are gearing our courses to more uniformly include how this knowledge can be used to make the music relevant to the fabric of funding and life the students enter after graduation. We are hoping to gear this student learning outcome in the future toward a more unified approach to diversity and its place in keeping the profession vital in this day and time. March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller Some programs assess multiple SLOs each year. If your program assessed an additional SLO, report the process for that individual SLO below. If you need additional SLO charts, please cut & paste the empty chart as many times as needed. If you did NOT assess another SLO, skip this section. 2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year? Graduate SLO #2 for all Master of Arts and Master of Music Students: “All MA and MM students will be able to demonstrate a continuing development of individual talent, musical interests, and philosophies to be used creatively both to preserve and extend our cultural heritage.” 2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO? Assessment instruments used in the courses include a performance/research capstone project that represents a synthesis of the totality of the degree candidate’s music education to that point, final analysis projects, term papers, class presentations, service learning community projects & reflective writing exams. As with the undergraduate SLO we assessed this year, we do want to see what students perceive they can do with what they have learned and what habits of mind they have come to know that will positively affect their academic and professional success. 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. Several years ago the music department faculty determined which courses should be used to best assess each SLO. The courses we used were from that list, as well as one new Experimental Topics course that has been approved for permanent offering starting spring, 2010. The final courses finishing the entire process (projection as well as final collection and use of data) were: MUS 698, Thesis, Artistic Performance or Graduate Project, overseen by Graduate Advisor Julia Heinen (with various faculty committees) both semesters, enrollment of 15 for the year; MUS 603, Seminars in Musicology, taught by Linda Stones and Robert Danes both semesters, enrollment 11‐15 per class; and MUS 496ME, Music Entrepreneurship, taught by Diane Roscetti both semesters, enrollment of 22 in the fall and 31 in the spring . MUS 496ME (will be MUS 483ME) can be taken by upperclass undergraduates as well as graduates. March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller 2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: 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. This SLO was assessed longitudinally with the same students in each course using the methods described in 2b. However, MUS 698 progress is assessed by different faculty juried committees, so a wider spectrum of observations across the graduate student enrollment is easier to see. 2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the data collected. As with the undergraduate SLO we assessed this year, data analysis involved comparison of the student learning and perceptions at various point during courses, as determined by the assessment instruments used. For MUS 698, this final capstone project included significant research and creative expression demonstrating the depth and breadth of knowledge of the student, encompassing the entire area of music history as it relates to their area of creative expression/research. Juried faculty committees determined the validity and success of both the recital portion and the paper involved. The works the students analyzed and performed helped them learn how to extend and preserve our cultural heritage by in depth study, synthesis and public presentation. As was the case at the undergraduate level, though, there was some consensus between some professors that students need even more encouragement to think for themselves and take charge of their own learning. 2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could 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 each. In MUS 603, Seminars in Musicology, Robert Danes decided that in his future courses he will give three essay exams before the final, to give them more practice in synthesizing material and getting it to the level where they can write convincingly about it. He also plans to schedule individual appointments at the final exam, and perhaps during the semester, to give the students more opportunities to demonstrate their analytical ability when faced with an unprepared score. He plans these changes to maximize his presentation of the tools the students will need in the future to deal intelligently with whatever music they encounter. For MUS 698, Julia Heinen is interested in adding an oral component to this capstone project, and also seeing the paper requirements become more uniform between dept. areas. Also of interest is considering determining the student potential and preparation by having them take the GRE subject test in music, perhaps instead of our own placement exams. In MUS 496ME, Music Entrepreneurship, Professor Roscetti has instituted a community service learning project which accounts for 40% of the final grade, and involves using their own talent, musical interests and philosophies to meet a community need, then propose the project to March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller the community venue, go through all of the campus and dept. approvals and liability requirements, perform the service and receive community host verification and feedback to the professor as well as the student. This has given them much more keen awareness of how to preserve their cultural heritage, especially in a time of dwindling financial support for the arts and national and CA budget chaos. The department in general is working toward a more unified approach in this area as a result of concentrating on this SLO this year, as well as a national accreditation review. While not part of this SLO assessment, the department chamber music program also instituted a community service learning component based on the same concerns and interests outlined above. 3. How do your assessment activities connect with your department’s strategic plan? Our assessment activities will be more connected to our department’s strategic plan now than ever before. We just underwent a national accreditation review, and one of the things we are addressing from that review is how we plan to review the effectiveness and comprehensive nature of our governance system and procedures, leading to strategic planning. As we work on these issues we plan to include an in depth look at all of our SLOs and consider revisions, additions, deletions and/or anything that will make them a relevant part of our strategic planning. We want to be sure that we are actively implementing needed changes as well as just collecting data. We want to be sure we determine what that final data will lead to. 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. The assessment evidence garnered from the process we used this past year did not indicate that we needed new resources, however, we are currently looking at every SLO in great detail, in relation to an in depth strategic planning process we are undertaking to develop and use procedures and methodologies to ensure evaluation, planning and projections of all areas of the music disciplines offered. Our goal is to be more efficient in academic and administrative processes, and to that end the dept. chair and a team of 3 assistant chairs (one of whom is the department assessment liaison) are investing in finding an improved model of a system that will more accurately reflect department priorities, designed in better alignment with the missions and goals for the Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication. Our renewed efforts to align our SLOs with our strategic planning is due in large part to the outcome of our March, 2009 national accreditation visit and review by National Association of Schools of Music. As we strive for meaningful change that provides a logical relationship to overall financial conditions impacting this institution at this time, possible new programmatic efforts that are in alignment with our Dean’s objectives and that make sense March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller may indicate a need for new resources, but only if the return on that investment would make sense to the directions we need to take in the department to support of the College vision. 4. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above. N/A 5. 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. N/A March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller