See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258171149

Understanding and Developing Rubrics for Music Performance Assessment

Article  in  Music Educators Journal · March 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0027432111432524

CITATIONS READS

28 7,958

1 author:

Brian Wesolowski
University of Georgia
82 PUBLICATIONS   370 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NAfME Model Cornerstone Assessment Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Wesolowski on 28 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Music Educators Journal
http://mej.sagepub.com/

Understanding and Developing Rubrics for Music Performance Assessment

Brian C. Wesolowski
Music Educators Journal 2012 98: 36
DOI: 10.1177/0027432111432524

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mej.sagepub.com/content/98/3/36

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Association for Music Education

Additional services and information for Music Educators Journal can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mej.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mej.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Mar 7, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012

 by Brian C. Wesolowski

Understanding and
Developing Rubrics for
Music Performance
Assessment
Abstract: A primary difficulty with music performance assessment is managing its subjective
nature. To help improve objectivity, rubrics can be used to develop a set of guidelines for clearly
assessing student performance. Moreover, rubrics serve as documentation for student achieve-
ment that provides music teachers with a written form of accountability. This article examines
the complexities of music performance assessment and provides an argument for the benefit
of rubrics in the assessment process. In addition, discussion includes an overview of the vari-
ous types of rubrics as well as suggestions for choosing and writing rubrics to assess musical
performances.
Assessment rubrics Keywords: accountability, assessment, evaluation, rubric, performance, professional develop-
ment, teacher education
can give music
teachers and their
students a clear In the United States today, assessment has
become one of the most important and per-
student performance is necessary. According
to Edward Asmus, the fundamental rationale
and fair measure of vasive topics in music education.1 Assessment for assessment is that “the more a teacher
can be defined as the collection, analysis, and student know about the student’s learn-
progress and mastery interpretation, and application of informa- ing, the more effective the teacher can be in
in the classroom, tion about student performance or program facilitating learning and the more effective
effectiveness in order to make educational the student can be in acquiring the learn-
studio, or rehearsal. decisions.2 It consists of two important com- ing.”5 In addition, the documentation of
ponents: (1) measurement of student perfor- student performance enhances parents’ abil-
mance and (2) evaluation of data.3 Educational ities to support and assist in the process of
reform and related matters of accountability student learning and achievement.6
have provided grounds for the widespread Numerous textbooks have been written
demand for new assessment strategies.4 to help classroom teachers develop their abil-
Now more than ever, teachers of all ity to implement strategies for performance
grade levels find themselves in situations assessment. These books, however, tend to
in which a thorough documentation of approach assessment in terms of objective

Copyright © 2012 National Association

Brian C. Wesolowski is a doctoral candidate and graduate teaching assistant at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. His
for Music Education
DOI: 10.1177/0027432111432524 research interests include music performance assessment, scale development for performance measurement and evaluation,
http://mej.sagepub.com and the microstructure, perception, and pedagogy of jazz rhythm. He can be contacted at [email protected].

36 Music Educators Journal  March 2012

Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012
testing, in which there is only one clear, A more valid form of assessment may solo performance assessment as well as
correct answer. Music, on the other hand, be used by building objective measures ensemble performance assessment.15
is a discipline that embraces expressive based on aesthetic value judgments. Criteria-specific performance scales
decisions and divergence of response. By Rubrics can be used to develop a set of are based on written, objective state-
nature, music educators deal with perfor- guidelines that can help educators clearly ments that describe various performance
mance assessment on a daily basis, using assess students’ work. Rubrics not only attributes. These objective statements
techniques to recognize, diagnose, and aid in increasing the objectivity of teacher offer more information to the student
communicate methods for improvement grading, but they also can be tailored to than assessments using Likert-type scale
in individual or ensemble performance. assess ensemble members on an individ- responses because they offer insight into
This yields numerous opportunities to ual basis. proficiency levels. The scales are gener-
assess student performance achievement. Another complexity with music per- ally graded in a dichotomous manner.
However, many music educators have formance assessment is the use of sum- Researchers have traditionally used these
not developed a mechanism to docu- mative and diagnostic assessments as a scales in either additive approaches or
ment student learning and developmental means to document individual student continuous approaches.16 Scales involv-
progress, or they have not tied their indi- achievement.10 Summative and diagnostic ing an additive approach demonstrate a
vidual student assessment to their grad- assessments may not always provide the list of criteria that becomes more devel-
ing system. Furthermore, many music necessary feedback to improve instruc- oped as the list continues. Scales using a
teachers rely heavily on nonmusic cri- tion. These assessments relate learning to continuous approach demonstrate a list
teria, such as behavior, attitude, attend- the quantification of errors in any given of criteria that assumes the form of an
ance, and participation to determine their performance. By using only summa- equally weighted checklist. The benefits
grades.7 Often, students are not receiv- tive and diagnostic assessment methods, of criteria-specific performance scales are
ing a clear indication of their individual a teacher cannot get a clear indication that they are able to assess very specific
achievement, how they can improve, or of whether the student is truly learning levels of performance aptitude accurately
the teacher’s expectation of their individ- about music or only learning the teacher’s and reliably. However, adjudicators may
ual performance. Music educators need parameters for the tolerance of mistakes.11 find difficulty in judging music perfor-
to reevaluate their assessment strategies. If assessments in music performance are mances based on single, generalized,
The inclusion of more formative assess- implemented with a purely summative objective statements.17 Also, these scales
ment methods directly tied to student or diagnostic purpose, we lose the rich- do not offer any type of quality judg-
achievement must be explored. For music ness of instructional value that could be ment or convey the level of achievement.
educators to be successful at music per- possible. By implementing more forma- There is only a judgment of “present”
formance assessment, they must be not tive methods of assessment, such as the or “absent” according to the specified
only prescriptive in evaluating their indi- rubric, music educators can better moni- criteria in the checklist.
vidual students and ensembles but also tor and improve student learning as well The rubric is a form of a criteria-spe-
willing to assess and improve their meth- as shape their instruction in a tangible, cific performance scale. It is a set of scoring
ods of teaching and communicating. sequential manner in response to what criteria used to determine the achieve-
they discover. ment level of a student’s performance
on assigned tasks. A rubric divides a task
Complexities of Assessment into constituent parts and offers detailed
Music performance assessment is a com-
Rating Scales descriptions of the performance levels for
plex process. A primary difficulty with Research in music education has yielded each part.18 The descriptions are written
performance assessment is managing its two primary rating scales for music per- so students are able to learn what must
subjective nature.8 The testing and assess- formance assessment: (1) Likert-type be done to improve their performances
ment of music will always be affected scales and (2) criteria-specific scales.12 A in the future. Because it helps teachers
by aesthetic value judgments. Human Likert-type scale is a psychometric scale directly assess performance experiences,
reasoning is used to establish test cri- in which the evaluator is asked to respond a rubric is a tool for providing authentic
teria, determine the method of testing, to a list of item statements by his or her assessment. Educational literature tends to
determine the method of scoring, and level of agreement or disagreement. Lik- make the rubric selection process overly
interpret scores. The combination of this ert-type scales provide clear evidence dramatic and complicated. Each branch
subjectivity with the ephemeral nature of of an evaluator’s judgment of a specific of education has its own methodology for
music makes music performance assess- performance.13 However, they lack the adaptations of types of rubrics and their
ment an especially arduous task. David individualized detail of formative assess- usage. Furthermore, the overlap between
J. Boyle and Rudolf E. Radocy suggest ments and do not offer information about these branches can lead to more complex-
that assessments can be significantly the mastery of performance aspects.14 The ity and ambiguity. The unclear nature of
improved through assessment measures use of statistically validated Likert-type rubric writing has left many educators with
with improved measures of objectivity.9 scales can be found in research studies of a vague understanding of their operational

www.nafme.org 37
Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012
use and advantages. Recently, there has assess a concert band should also be individual student assessment for ensem-
been a surge of published research dealing able to serve as an assessment tool for ble music preparation.
with the statistical validation of rubrics.19 an orchestra or a jazz band. A holistic
In spite of this, more guidance into rubric rubric written to assess a solo clarinet
construction is needed. performance should also be general Creating Your Own Rubric
enough to use for other solo instru-
Define the Focus,
mental performances. An advantage of
Benefits of Using Rubrics holistic rubrics is that they are easy and Purpose, and Objectives
Rubrics offer many advantages in the fast to use. However, they do not pro- of the Assessment
music performance medium. Rubrics can vide detailed information on an overall Before creating a rubric, the teacher needs
provide the following: performance assessment. The score of to know each learning goal and be able
the holistic rubric will not provide the to define levels of accomplishment. This
1. Clear levels of accomplishment student with specific feedback for the initial reflection process should not only
by defining tangible measures of teacher’s choice of grading. Figure 1 is entail the specific reasoning for the par-
individual achievement an example of a task-specific, holistic ticular assessment but also include atten-
2. Clear indications of what students rubric designed as a quarterly assess- tion to the overall performance structure,
need to accomplish in the future to ment for individual student sight-read- the needs of the specific students being
improve their individual performance ing within the ensemble. assessed, the expectations of what is to
The opposite of a holistic rubric is be accomplished, and the students’ prior
3. A learner-centered approach to the analytic rubric. An analytic rubric
performing, learning, and assessing knowledge and skill.
contains more than one dimension of The focus and purpose of the rubric
4. A bridge between student learning evaluative criteria. The multiple criteria represented in Figure 2 is to assess each
and teacher expectation are matched with multiple descriptors member of an advanced high school
5. Versatility in adapting to meet the and the teacher’s feedback, and scor- wind ensemble. Specifically, it is intended
needs of a specific curriculum, student ing is based on each of these individual to provide frequent feedback about each
age, ability level, style of music, and dimensions. Because of the assessment student’s musical development and foster
type of ensemble by multiple criteria, the analytic rubric a better sense of individual accountability
6. A valid and reliable form of provides more information than does the for each student’s musical choices within
individualized assessment holistic rubric. The analytic rubric consists the context of ensemble performance.
and documentation of teacher of multiple scales, thereby providing mul-
tiple sets of scores. A benefit of analytic
accountability
rubrics is the wealth of specific, individu-
Define the Performance Criteria
7. A quantitative means for evaluating alized assessment information that can be and Learning Outcomes
and scoring qualitative, performance- of great value to students, parents, and
based tasks The performance criteria should be
teachers. These rubrics move beyond clearly defined, with no ambiguity across
8. A means for clearly implementing basic, generic descriptions of tasks. In the various criteria domains. Each cri-
content standards and course this type of rubric, a student’s perfor- terion listed should be an important
objectives into the assessment process mance can vary across performance lev- learning outcome for a high-quality per-
9. Valuable information for parents on els because complex concepts are broken formance and understood by the student.
their child’s progress and needs for into constituent parts. Students may mas- Choose criteria that reflect your teaching
improvement ter one area but perform in an average or goals. The rubric represented in Figure 2
below-average manner in another. As an focuses on four learning outcomes:
example, a student might have achieved
Types of Rubrics an accomplished level of performing 1. rhythmic fluidity within the melodic
There are two main categories of rubrics: with good intonation, but may still be line,
holistic and analytic.20 Holistic rubrics developing accuracy in rhythm. This
2. tone control within varying registers,
provide a single score based on an overall variability across dimensions allows stu-
assessment of a music performance. The dents, parents, and teachers to isolate the 3. control of intonation and self-
evaluator matches the descriptors of the strengths and weaknesses of the overall demonstrated intonation adjustment,
scale to his or her overall impression of performance assessment. Analytic rubrics and
the performance. are generally task specific in nature; how- 4. consistency of focus within the
Generally, a holistic rubric is written ever, they can be generic or a mixture of rehearsal setting.
in a manner that is generic and simple generic and task specific as well. Figure
enough to adapt to other performance 2 shows an example of a task-specific, Each of the four performance crite-
situations. A holistic rubric written to analytic rubric designed as a weekly, ria focuses on the specific musical task

38 Music Educators Journal  March 2012

Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012
 FIGURE 1
Example of a Task-Specific, Holistic Rubric Designed as a Quarterly Assessment of Individual Student
Sight-Reading within the Ensemble

Quarterly Individual Sight-Reading Performance Assessment

4 points (Accomplished) Grade: A

Intonation and balance: Student plays with good overall intonation and demonstrates ability to match pitch quickly and fluently.

Fluency of reading notation in ensemble context: Reading is fluid with very few to no pauses.

Phrasing: Interpretation of melodic contour, note emphasis, and note duration are performed consistently in a proper, idiomatic style.

3 points (Proficient) Grade: B

Intonation: Student plays with moderately-good overall intonation and demonstrates some difficulty matching pitch.

Fluency of reading notation in ensemble context: Reading is moderately fluid with occasional pauses.
Phrasing: Interpretation of melodic contour, note emphasis, and note duration are performed somewhat consistently in a proper, idiomatic
style.

2 points (Developing) Grade: C

Intonation: Student does not consistently play with good overall intonation and demonstrates difficulty in matching pitch.

Fluency of reading notation in ensemble context: Reading lacks fluidity with frequent pauses with little coherency.

Phrasing: Interpretation of melodic contour, note emphasis, and note duration are performed mostly inconsistent of the idiomatic style.

1 point (Beginning) Grade: D

Intonation: Student does not play with good intonation and demonstrates little to no awareness in matching intonation.

Fluency of reading notation in ensemble context: Reading lacks fluidity and is disjunct with no coherency.

Phrasing: Interpretation of melodic contour, note emphasis, and note duration are performed inconsistently in the idiomatic style.

Comments: You have come a long way! Continue to work on your intonation exercises with a tuner, Score:
particularly in the upper register! It continues to be a bit sharp at times. 3

that the teacher finds to be consistently better fit. How much time do you have to the time invested to fill out the rubrics
troublesome, as well as the student’s invest in the assessment process? Analytic was worth the reward.
responses to teacher prompting. rubrics take more time to develop and
grade. The rubric demonstrated in Figure Define the Range and Degrees
Determine the Type of Rubric 2 is for formative assessment purposes. of Proficiency of Performance
It is intended as a weekly assessment for
for Your Assessment each ensemble member’s music prepara-
Scale Levels
Is the assessment formative or sum- tion. The rubric has two purposes: (1) to The degree of proficiency describes how
mative? Are you teaching a new skill or continue to develop basic musical skills, well the dimension has been performed.
further developing a previously-taught such as tone, intonation, and rhythmic There are unlimited labels that can
skill? Look at the complexity of the skill fluidity, and (2) to foster a new skill of serve to categorize the levels of proficiency
and how many component parts are to individual accountability for their musical achieved by the students, for example,
be assessed. In addition, consider how choices and individual focus within the (1) beginning, (2) developing, (3) accom-
closely related the learning outcomes are rehearsal. An analytic rubric was chosen plished, and (4) exemplary. The majority
to each other. If there is a certain level because there is diversity in the learning of performance assessment rubrics tend
of overlap, a holistic rubric may be a outcomes, and the teacher concluded that to contain three to five categories.

www.nafme.org 39
Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012
 FIGURE 2
Example of a Task-Specific, Analytic Rubric Created as a Weekly, Individual Music-Preparation
Assessment for an Advanced High School Wind Ensemble

Weekly Individual Music Preparation Assessment

Learning Outcome Beginning Developing Accomplished Exemplary Score

Rhythmic fluidity
within the
  1 pt.   2 pts.   3 pts.   4 pts. 3
Student plays with little Student plays with some Student plays with some Student plays
melodic line
or no fluidity. fluidity, but does not fluidity and improves with with fluidity and
improve with coaching. coaching. self-adjusts.

Tone control
within varying
  1 pt.   2 pts.   3 pts.   4 pts. 4
Student plays with little Student plays with some Student plays with Student plays
registers
or no control. control, but has not some control and shows with control and
shown improvement. improvement with self-adjusts.
coaching.

Control of
intonation and
  1 pt.   2 pts.   3 pts.   4 pts. 4
Student needs Student has some Student has some Student plays in tune
demonstrated
considerable attention problems with problems with intonation and self-adjusts.
intonation
to intonation problems. intonation, but does not and shows improvement
adjustment
improve with coaching. with coaching.

Consistency of
focus in rehearsal
  1 pt.   2 pts. 3 pts.   4 pts. 3
Overall performance Overall performance is Overall performance is Overall performance is
setting generally consistent.
is almost always generally inconsistent. consistent.
inconsistent.

Comments: Continue to work on your fluidity in performance: the connecting and musical shaping of phrases, evenness of notes (in
rapid passages), and creating a relaxed feeling during technical passages so as not to rush. Overall, you are gaining much independence in
making musical decisions and adjustments. Continue working hard! Bravo!

Sum score:

14—A
Explanation of Scoring: Each proficiency level is scored according to the label: Exemplary (4 points), Accomplished (3 points),
Developing (2 points), and Beginning (1 point). Students are graded according to each criterion under the level and the total should be
added. The maximum score for this rubric is 16 points. The scoring cut points are as follows:

A:  14–16
B:  11–13
C:  8–10
D:  4–7

40 Music Educators Journal  March 2012

Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012
 The rubric demonstrated in Figure 2 Choose an Appropriate Scoring can serve as a valuable assessment tool
includes four degrees of proficiency: (1) Scale with Clearly Defined Cut for music educators to assist them in
emerging, (2) progressing, (3) partial mas- determining the overall effectiveness of
tery, and (4) mastery. The specific termi-
Points the educational process.
nology was chosen to accommodate the The levels of a rubric provide a reliable
level of the students in the ensemble. For structure to which a teacher can assign
example, choosing the term beginning for numeric values for the performance Notes
the first level would not fit the skill level of area. In terms of teacher accountability,   1. Edward Asmus, “Considerations for
an advanced high school wind ensemble. it is important to construct a logical and Teaching Music Education Assessment,”
In addition, the term mastery may provide easy-to-understand scoring guide that in Proceedings of the Tenth International
Symposium of the Research Alliance of
a goal to achieve for an older student who correlates to the entirety of the perfor-
Institutes for Music Education, ed. Sven-
can fully comprehend the term. mance assessment. The method and style Erik Holgersen and Frede V. Nielsen
of scoring may vary from one assessment (Copenhagen: RAIME, 2010), 27.
to the other. There are generally three   2. Edward Asmus, “Music Assessment
Define Appropriate Task methods to choose from for grade con- Concepts,” Music Educators Journal 86,
Expectations and Meaningful struction: (1) assign each scale level a no. 2 (1999): 21.
Descriptors for Each Criterion point value, and sum each descriptor to   3. David J. Boyle and Rudolf E. Radocy,
reach a defined grade according to a pre- Measurement and Evaluation of Musical
Performance Level Experiences (New York: Schirmer Books,
determined scoring guide; (2) assign each
The totality of the descriptors provides a 1987).
scale level a point value while weighting
comprehensive summary of what is being each descriptor according to importance   4. Asmus, “Music Assessment Concepts,” 19.
assessed. The descriptors should be writ- within the total assessment; or (3) assign   5. Asmus, “Considerations,” 27.
ten as clearly and concisely as possible. a letter or numeric value for each level.   6. Anthony W. Jackson and Gayle A.
Avoid any vernacular or terminology that In each case, a clearly defined scoring Davis, Turning Points 2000: Educating
is superfluous in nature. Write descriptors Adolescents in the 21st Century (New
method must be labeled and maintained
York: Teachers College Press, 2000).
for continuity between levels of perfor- throughout the assessment process.
mance in each category. The descriptors   7. Claire W. McCoy, “Grading Students
The rubric demonstrated in Figure 2 in Performing Groups: A Comparison
should define a continuum of quality demonstrates a four-letter grading scale. of Principals’ Recommendations
throughout each category. Be sure that Each degree of proficiency is assigned a with Directors’ Practices,” Journal of
each descriptor has a clear sense of flow point value. The learning outcomes are Research in Music Education 39 (1991):
between levels. The descriptors should graded accordingly and added to form 181–90.
be detailed enough to limit subjectivity a sum score. The creation of the grad-   8. Rudolf E. Radocy, “On Quantifying the
yet concise enough to avoid confusion ing scale was constructed in three stages: Uncountable in Musical Behavior,”
or ambiguity. Edwin Gordon states that Bulletin of the Council for Research in
(1) the lowest possible outcome (in this Music Education 88 (1986): 22–31.
the more descriptors that are included example, 4) was specifically chosen to
for each dimension, the more reliable the   9. Boyle and Radocy, Measurement.
be represented by the letter grade of D;
rubric will become; however, the number 10. Thomas W. Goolsby, “Assessment in
(2) letter grades were chosen (in this
Instrumental Music Education,” Music
should not exceed five.21 example, four grades: A, B, C, and D); Educators Journal 86, no. 2 (1999):
The rubric demonstrated in Figure and (3) each letter grade was divided into 31–32.
2 contains one descriptor for each level. equal divisions. 11. Ibid., 32.
The descriptors were specifically written
12. T. Clark Saunders and John M. Holahan,
as matched pairs: “Emerging/Mastery” and
“Progressing/Partial Mastery.” The most
A Valuable Tool “Criteria-Specific Rating Scales in the
Evaluation of High School Instrumental
important descriptions are contained in This article is a brief introduction to the Performance,” Journal of Research in
the two middle descriptors. The progress- understanding and developing of rubrics Music Education 45, no. 2 (1997):
ing category demonstrates that the student for music performance assessment. Many 260–61.
is getting better at the skill but does not variations of rubrics exist. As a teacher 13. Boyle and Radocy, Measurement.
respond independently to the prompt- becomes increasingly comfortable with 14. Saunders and Holahan, “Criteria-Specific
ing of the teacher. The partial mastery rubric development, more variations may Rating Scales,” 259–72.
category demonstrates that the student be developed to accommodate specific 15. Harold F. Abeles, “Development and
is getting better at the skill and demon- ensembles, students, student needs, and Validation of a Clarinet Performance
teaching styles. The outcomes that result Adjudication Scale,” Journal of
strates improvement with prompting.
Research in Music Education 21, no. 3
These two descriptions, skill demonstra- from the implementation of assessment (1973): 246–55; Martin J. Bergee, “An
tion and response to prompting, are found tools such as the rubric can enlighten the Objectively Constructed Rating Scale
throughout all four learning outcomes. teaching and learning processes. Rubrics for Euphonium and Tuba Performance,”

www.nafme.org 41
Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012
 Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education School Band Performance” (PhD diss., 19. Charles R. Ciorba and Neal Y. Smith,
13, no. 2 (1989): 65–81; Robert H. University of Iowa, 1980); and Bret P. “Measurement of Instrumental and
Horowitz, “The Development of a Rating Smith and Gail V. Barnes, “Development Vocal Undergraduate Performance
Scale for Jazz Guitar Improvisation and Validation of an Orchestra Juries Using a Multidimensional
Performance” (PhD diss., Columbia Performance Rating Scale,” Journal of Assessment Rubric,” Journal of
University Teachers College, 1994); Jon Research in Music Education 55, no. 3 Research in Music Education 57, no.
P. Nichols, “A Factor Analysis Approach (2007): 268–80. 1 (2009): 5–15; Marvin E. Latimer Jr.,
to the Development of a Rating Scale for Martin J. Bergee, and Mary L. Cohen,
16. Kenneth U. Gutsch, “Evaluation in
Snare Drum Performance” (PhD diss., “Reliability and Perceived Pedagogical
Instrumental Music Performance: An
University of Iowa, 1985); Brian E. Utility of a Weighted Music Performance
Individual Approach,” Bulletin of the
Russell, “The Development of a Guitar Assessment Rubric,” Journal of
Council for Research in Music Education
Performance Rating Scale Using a Facet- Research in Music Education 58, no. 2
4 (1965): 21–29; Robert L. Kidd, “The
Factorial Approach,” Bulletin of the (2010): 168–83; and Charles E. Norris
Construction and Validation of a Scale
Council for Research in Music Education and James D. Borst, “An Examination
of Trombone Performance Skills” (PhD
184 (2010): 21–34; Stephen F. Zdzinski of the Reliabilities of Two Choral
diss., University of Illinois at Urbana–
and Gail V. Barnes, “Development and Festival Adjudication Forms,” Journal of
Champaign, 1975); and Saunders and
Validation of a String Performance Research in Music Education 55, no. 3
Holahan, “Criteria-Specific Rating
Rating Scale,” Journal of Research in (2007): 237–51.
Scales.”
Music Education 50, no. 3 (2002):
20. Audrey M. Quinlan, “A Complete Guide
245–55; John M. Cooksey, “A Facet- 17. Abeles, “Development and Validation.” to Rubrics: Assessment Made Easy for
Factorial Approach to Rating High School
Teachers, K–College (Lanham, MD:
Choral Music Performance,” Journal of 18. Danielle D. Stevens and Antonia A. Levi,
Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006).
Research in Music Education 25, no. 2 Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment
(1977): 100–114; Charles B. DCamp, Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey 21. Edwin Gordon, Rating Scales and Their
“An Application of the Facet-Factorial Effective Feedback, and Promote Uses for Evaluating Achievement in
Approach to Scale Construction in the Student Learning (Sterling, VA: Stylus, Music Performance (Chicago: GIA,
Development of a Rating Scale for High 2005). 2002).

School music educators that attend a Teaching Guitar Workshop this summer will receive:
Three Graduate Credits, a new guitar, numerous method books, and an unforgettable, week-
long, professional-development experience taught by award-winning clinicians.

Learn more and download an application at www.guitaredunet.org. Sponsored by:

Summer 2012 Teaching Guitar Workshop locations:

NAfME HQ - Reston, VA | Duquesne University - Pittsburgh, PA | Charleston, WV |
Seattle, Washington | Colorado Springs, CO | St. Louis, MO | Sheridan, Wyoming |
Richmond Hill, ON, Canada*
For more information contact Mark Koch - 412.396.4939 or [email protected]
*Graduate credits do not apply for the Ontario, Canada site.

42 Music Educators Journal  March 2012

Downloaded from mej.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on August 12, 2012

View publication stats