Abstract
In the assessment of performance, examiners, whose specialized skills are in applying well-formed and experienced aesthetic judgment, are often involved in peripheral tasks such as administration or down-time while waiting for performers to set up. The goal of this project is to develop assessment processes that minimize the peripheral and down-time for examiners and students alike and provide a structure for authentic assessment tasks and detailed, specific, and timely feedback for students.
Between 2010 and 2014 I coordinated and or taught in several offerings of courses in Jazz Performance and Popular Music Performance, in which I developed some processes towards achieving this goal. One process assists examiners to simultaneously mark a number of individual performers in group situations, and based on criteria that are specific to each student’s activity. Having developed the process as an electronic proof of concept, the next step in the research is to shape the system around the needs, activity patterns, and perceptions of students to improve their experience of the process and therefore improve overall compliance. This highlights an important area for future development and places the system in a conversation between staff and students to improve the value of student’s experience and learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“Authentic” assessment is used here to mean assessment that “resemble(s) meaningful performances in real world contexts” (Khaira & Yambo 2005). The aim is to organise music performances that place similar demands on the student as they might encounter in professional music performance contexts.
- 2.
Leading a group involves organising a group, rehearsing, arranging the piece and then providing direction in the performance.
References
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education final report. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Khaira, H. G., & Yambo, D. (2005, June). The practicality of authentic assessment. Paper presented at the first international conference on enhancing teaching and learning through assessment, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Krishnan, S., Gabb, R., & Vale, C. (2011). Learning cultures of problem-based learning teams. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 17(2), 67–78.
Lemley, D., Sudweeks, R., Howell, S., Laws, R. D., & Sawyer, O. (2007). The effects of immediate and delayed feedback on secondary distance learners. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 251–260.
Patrick, C., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008, December). The WIL [Work Integrated Learning] report: A national scoping study. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Final reports. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Savin-Baden, M. (2004). Understanding the impact of assessment on students in problem-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 223–233.
Scardamalia, M., & Beretiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Berkel, H., & Schmidt, H. (2000). Motivation to commit oneself as a determinant of achievement on problem-based learning. Higher Education, 40, 231–242.
Williams, J., & Kane, D. (2009). Assessment and feedback, institutional experiences of student feedback, 1996 to 2007. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(3), 264–286.
Wren, J., Campbell, A., Heyworth, J., & Bartlett, R. (2010). Improving marking of live performances involving multiple markers. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings Ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 1131–1137). http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Wren-concise.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chapman, J. (2015). The Amazing Marking Machine, A Process for Efficient, Authentic Assessment. In: Lebler, D., Carey, G., Harrison, S. (eds) Assessment in Music Education: from Policy to Practice. Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10274-0_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10274-0_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10273-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10274-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)