RUSSELL - Assesment in Instrumental Music

Assessment in Instrumental Music
Oxford Handbooks Online

Joshua A. Russell
Subject: Music, Music Education Online Publication Date: Nov 2014
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935321.013.100
Abstract and Keywords
Assessment is a necessary and challenging task for many instrumental music educators.
Limited instructional time, little to no assessment training, and large class sizes are but a
few of the often cited reasons for the current state of assessment in instrumental music.
Some steps, however, can be taken to improve student achievement in music through bet
ter assessment practices. In this chapter, I will focus on the assessment of student learn
ing and achievement in the instrumental music classroom. I review the status of assess
ment, the differences between instrumental and choral assessment practices, rating
scales, assessing musical knowledge, self-assessment, peer assessment, the psychological
impact of assessment, technology in assessment, standardized tests, and the impact of
case law on assessment. The chapter concludes with a series of general recommendations
for improved assessment strategies.
Keywords: assessment, instrumental music, tests, rating scales, achievement, assessment strategies
The discussion around assessment in instrumental music education has gained a great
deal of importance in educational rhetoric in recent years. Despite the current education
al culture, in which assessment and data-driven instruction is at the forefront of many ed
ucational leaders’ minds, relatively little empirical research has been conducted on as
sessment in instrumental music education. A great deal of journal space has been dedi
cated to the discussion of assessment. However, much of this discussion has either fo
cused on teacher evaluation procedures or the corporatization of student assessment in
subjects such as math and English. Assessing student achievement in instrumental music
is a topic that relatively few academic writers have addressed or explored in any methodi
cal manner, and for many years much of the writing on this topic remains anecdotal (e.g.,
Spotlight on Assessment in Music Education, now National Association for Music Educa
tion).
As with many topics of research, music-education scholars have demonstrated ebb and
flow in their productivity in research on assessment in instrumental music classrooms. In
Page 1 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 26 June 2019

their discussion of future concerns of the measurement and evaluation of music experi
ences, Boyle and Radocy (1987) stated
Education experiences many trends, counter-trends, and would-be trends that ex
cite theoreticians and generate many articles. Sometimes the general public be
comes enamored of a trend, and legislators, corporate executives, and various ed
ucation-minded activists direct attention to schools in accordance with the trend.
After a time, the trend dissipates and attention turns elsewhere, with or without
any enduring changes. (p. 305).
As one example of this, the first handbook of research in music education (Colwell, 1992)
contained five chapters on the topic of evaluation. However, only one of those chapters fo
cused on the evaluation of students’ musical ability. In this chapter, Boyle (1992), focused
on several aspects of evaluation, including music ability, music aptitude, music intelli
gence, music capacity, music talent, music sensitivity, and musicality. Boyle spent relative
ly little space discussing musical achievement but defined it as “music accomplishments
as a result of experience with music, musical phenomena, or music-related materials. Mu
sic achievement reflects what has been learned as a result of such experiences” (p. 251).
A decade later in the New Handbook of Research in Music Teaching and Learning, only
one chapter remained regarding assessment of student outcomes and as the author of
that chapter acknowledged,
An entire section of the first Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learn
ing was devoted to assessment. Those authors successfully summarized the histo
ry of assessment in music with chapters on assessment in five areas: teaching,
creativity, program, general, and attitude. This chapter is an update of a few of the
issues raised in the first Handbook (Colwell and Richardson, 2002, p. 1128).
In a decade, the focus on assessment in the handbooks diminished from five chapters to
one chapter accurately and effectively updating the same topics covered artfully in the
original handbook. Since that time, external forces, including the economy and the prolif
eration of technology, among other factors, have prompted a resurgence of interest in as
sessment. Nonetheless, as musical achievement is the outcome most directly impacted by
instrumental music instruction and the skill that some authors believe should be the pri
mary focus of assessment (e.g., Russell and Austin, 2010), I focus in this chapter on the
assessment of musical achievement in instrumental music.
Cooksey (1982) claimed that performance assessment has been traditionally impaired by
the often-cited subjective nature of musical performance. In response, some music educa
tors have employed equally subjective or ill-conceived assessments that “are determined
haphazardly, ritualistically, and/or with disregard for available objective
information” (Boyle and Radocy 1987, p. 2). Despite such realities, music education schol
ars continue to defend the role that assessment can and should take in improving student
learning and teacher practices (e.g., Asmus, 1999).
Page 2 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Despite the importance of assessment to student learning, many music teachers cite sev
eral barriers to effective assessment beyond a belief that music is a subjective art (e.g.,
Priest, 2006). Researchers have found that music educators believe that school size (Han
zlik, 2001; McCoy, 1991; Simanton, 2000), the large number of students being taught
(Kancianic, 2006; Kotora, 2005; Lehman, 1998; McCreary, 2001; Nightingale-Abell, 1994;
Tracy, 2002), inadequate instructional time (Kotora, 2005; Nightingale-Abell, 1994; Tracy,
2002), difficulty in recording results and maintaining control of student behavior while
conducting assessments (Kotora, 2005), parent and student apathy toward assessment in
music classes (Kotora, 2005), and lack of training in assessment techniques (Kotora, 2005;
Nightengale-Abell, 1994) negatively impact their ability to adequately assess student
learning in music classrooms. Nonetheless, researchers have yet to substantiate teach
ers’ claims that these factors do, in fact, impede better assessment strategies. Russell and
Austin (2010), for example, found that
The majority of participants in our study appear to work under adequate, if not
ideal, classroom conditions. Moreover, issues of instructional time and number of
students taught had no substantive relationship with assessment decisions or
grading priorities (i.e., weight assigned to achievement vs. non-achievement as
sessment criteria). Some music teachers who were responsible for very busy
schedules and many students, for example, were among the most sophisticated in
their choice of assessment strategies and the most credible in how they graded
students. (p. 50)
Moreover, it seems that music teachers are content to employ assessment strategies that
lead to grade inflation, and a large number of high grades as such assessment schemes
are supported by students and parents (Hill, 1999). Russell and Austin (2010) also found
evidence of grade inflation in secondary music classrooms. They found that the vast ma
jority of students receive, on average, As (75%) or Bs (15%), while only 7% receive Cs and
3% receive Ds or Fs. Such attitudes and assessment strategies as well as a dearth of ad
ministrative support for improving assessment in music classrooms led Russell and Austin
to identify the current assessment environment as one of “benign neglect” (p. 48).
In this chapter, I organize research conducted in the assessment of instrumental music

performance into several categories, including the status of assessment, the differences
between instrumental and choral assessment practices, rating scales, assessing musical
knowledge, self-assessment, peer assessment, the psychological impact of assessment,
technology in assessment, standardized tests, and the impact of case law on assessment. I
conclude with a series of general recommendations for improved assessment strategies.
Page 3 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

The Status of Assessment in Instrumental Mu

sic
LaCognata (2010) examined the manner in which high school band directors assessed
student achievement. Band directors (N = 45) from two different states (North Carolina
and Missouri) completed the questionnaire. The participants reported a relatively bal
anced distribution of school size, school population, director experience, grading prac
tices, and school socioeconomic background. Band directors most commonly used partici
pation and performance attendance as grading criteria (95.6%). They employed perfor
mance-based tests almost as often (91.1%) followed by daily rehearsal attendance
(82.2%). As has been often cited, the band directors in LaCognata’s study believed that
the amount of available class time was one of the most prevalent issues influencing as
sessment strategies. However, these directors believed the most important issues influ
encing their assessment practices were their philosophy of music education as well as the
overall objectives for the class. These directors believed that the most important purpos
es of assessment were to identify student needs, provide feedback, and have a better un
derstanding of overall program and instructional direction.
In a similar study of string educators, Duncan (2009) found that string teachers’ most
common assessment method was teacher-given verbal critique, attendance, teacher-rated
rubrics, and student evaluations. Similar to a later study by LaCognata (2013), Duncan al
so found that string teachers least often assessed comprehensive music skills (composi
tion, music history, portfolios, improvisation, and interdisciplinary assignments). Interest
ingly, Duncan found that in successful string programs, teachers often employed written
assessments, student reflections, teacher-rated rubrics, sight-reading assessments, stu
dent evaluations, music theory and history assignments, as well as portfolios and student-
rated rubrics.
Differences Between Vocal and Instrumental

Assessment Practices
One might assume that differences between vocal and instrumental music teachers would
be either minimal or nonexistent. Both are often based on large performance ensemble
experiences and are impacted by many of the same potentially influential circumstances
(i.e., large number of students, performance expectations, and so on). However, Russell
and Austin (2010) found that more established mores and practices of each genre of mu
sic may be more influential. For example, middle school choral directors gave significant
ly more weight to written assessment of musical knowledge than middle school instru
mental directors, while they found no significant difference in the amount of weight given
to musical knowledge by high school instrumental and choir directors. Conversely, middle
school band directors more heavily weighted practice assessments than middle school
choir directors. Russell and Austin did not find, however, a significant difference in the
amount of weight given to practice by high school instrumental and high school choir di
Page 4 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

rectors. Overall, choral directors (both middle school and high school) gave greater
weight to attitude (M = 37.5%) than instrumental directors (M = 21.0%), while instru
mental directors gave greater weight to performance assessments of musical skill (M =
31.5%) than choral directors (M = 21.2%). These findings left Russell and Austin to con
clude
These differences may indicate that performance skills are either more valued or
considered easier to assess in instrumental contexts. Alternatively, choral music
teachers may emphasize attitudinal assessments, despite the challenges inherent
in documenting and reliably assessing attitude, because of a stronger desire to
cultivate social goals and sense of community than instrumental teachers. (p. 50)
Rating Scales
Several researchers have attempted to create a valid and reliable rating scale for assess
ing instrumental music performance. Saunders and Holahan (1997) posed three guiding
questions regarding criteria for developing specific rating scales for wind instruments.
They wanted to know (a) if such scales yielded accurate or adequate results, (b) if they
helped judges discriminate between students’ instrumental performance, and (c) which
scores were best able to predict students’ overall scores. In general, Saunders and Hola
han found relatively high internal consistency in their rating scale and that overall scores
were best predicted by five individual dimensions (i.e., tone, technique/articulation,
rhythmic accuracy and interpretation (both during solo evaluation and sight reading).
Zdzinski and Barnes (2002) developed a valid and reliable rating scale to evaluate string
performance. As with Saunders and Holahan, Zdzinski and Barnes found that five factors
were best able to account for students’ string performance rating (interpretation/musical
effect, articulation/tone, intonation, rhythm/tempo, and vibrato). What is clear from both
of these studies of rating scales is that tone, articulation, rhythmic accuracy and interpre
tation or musical effect play major roles in listeners’ ability to assess accurately and con
sistently.
Assessing Instrumental Students’ Musical

Knowledge
One of the more neglected aspects of assessment in the instrumental classroom is assess
ing student musical knowledge. Although 82% of secondary teachers indicated that they
assessed musical knowledge, the average weighting in the overall grading scheme was
12% (Russell and Austin, 2010). In a survey of band directors only, however, LaCognata
(2013) found that only just over half (58.1%) of directors use written tests of worksheets
and similarly weight such assessments as 11.11% of a student’s grade.
Page 5 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Even if instrumental music teachers are assessing students’ musical knowledge, the for
mats most commonly used may not be the most sophisticated and often focus primarily on
skills that will improve, understandably, ensemble outcomes. Of the secondary teachers
who assessed students’ musical knowledge, the most common formats employed included
quizzes (74%) and worksheets (68%), while projects and presentations were employed by
only about one fifth (21%) of teachers. The most common objective of teachers’ assess
ment of students’ musical knowledge were knowledge of music terminology, symbols, or
notation (97%); the ability to analyze and evaluate music performance (71%); and the
ability to identify musical elements (62%). Objectives focusing on comprehensive musi
cianship were the least used objectives (i.e., knowledge of compositional techniques,
12%), ability to create compositions or arrangements (14%), and cultural context knowl
edge (42%; Russell and Austin, 2010).
Self-Assessment
Music educators have identified self-assessment as a means to enrich musical under
standing, aesthetic sensitivity, and critical-listening skills (Burrack, 2002). Through self-
assessment, students can gain a more positive and meaningful idea of their own progress
and abilities (Zimmerman, 2005). Moreover, some authors have posited that, in addition
to offering another opportunity for data driven instruction, self-assessment can help stu
dents remain engaged in their musical learning and encourage music-making throughout
their lives as performers, creators, or responders (Shuler, 2011). Students who self-assess
gain ownership of their own learning and provide themselves with a means for evaluating
their growth and setting future goals (Wells, 1998). Through self-assessment, students
can determine their performance weaknesses and devise practice plans to overcome
those weaknesses. Instructors can teach students to monitor their playing by having them
create rubrics for assessment, listen to recordings of themselves, and identify techniques
or skills that are not up to standard (Burrack, 2002; Criss, 2011). Students who have
more input into their self-assessments become more motivated to do their best and meet
their goals, especially when recognizing their own achievement (Criss, 2011; Shuler,
2011). Despite the potential benefits of self-assessment, this assessment strategy is only
employed by roughly one-fifth (22.5%) of instrumental music teachers and, on average,
only accounts for less than one-tenth of students’ grades (8.10%; LaCognata, 2013).
It is unclear, however, if students are able to assess their own musical achievements accu
rately. Researchers have found that student self-assessments of musical performance
have not always mirrored the evaluations of experts (Aitchison, 1995; Darrow, Johnson,
Miller, and Williamson, 2002; Hewitt, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2011; Kostka, 1997; Morrison,
Montemayor, and Wiltshire, 2004; Priest, 2006). Middle school (Aitchison, 1995; Darrow
et al., 2002; Hewitt, 2002, 2005, 2011) and high school (Hewitt, 2005) students tended to
overrate their abilities compared to scores of experts. Moreover, Hewitt (2005) found that
students were better able to assess melody but were least successful when assessing
technique or articulation. Some researchers have found, however, that students’ ability to
self-assess may be improved using additional models. Morrison and colleagues (2004), for
Page 6 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

instance, found that high school students could self-evaluate with more discrimination
when using a professional recording as an aural model. Nonetheless, Hewitt (2002, 2005)
determined that the use of an aural model did not appear to assist junior high instrumen
talists with self-evaluation accuracy but did improve high school students’ ability to self-
assess.
Researchers examining students’ self-evaluation processes have employed various evalua

tion forms. While some researchers used self-designed evaluation forms (Aitchison, 1995;
Darrow et al., 2002; Morrison et al., 2004; Priest, 2006), Hewitt (2001, 2002, 2005, 2011)
used the Saunders and Holahan (1997) Solo Evaluation section of the Woodwind Brass So
lo Evaluation Form either in its original form or in a modified version. Hewitt (2011)
incorporated student feedback to create rubrics to clarify the form. Hewitt concluded that
this modification may have negatively affected the student self-evaluation scores. Saun
ders and Holahan (1997) designed the form to be used by expert adjudicators who may
better understand the wording. Middle school and high school students may need addi
tional help in interpreting the grading criteria. In addition to the use of rating scales,
models, and more specific rubric criteria, assessment specialists have suggested that self-
evaluation training could lead to greater student accuracy when self-assessing (Darrow et
al., 2002). However, Hewitt (2011) found that self-assessment training had little impact on
middle school instrumentalists’ ability to self-assess.
Peer Assessment
Brew (1999) claimed that peer assessment is a crucial key to developing life-long music-
makers. Many researchers, however, have posited that some students find it difficult to
accurately assess their peers due to either little understanding of how to assess or social
pressures leading to distorted feedback (Divaharan and Atputhasamy, 2002). In order to
combat these issues of peer process assessments, teachers need to give students some
training in assessment, as well as clearly defined directions of how to employ the assess
ment instrument or scale (Crooks, 1988; Boud, 1995) or include students in the process of
designing the assessment criteria (Nightingale, Wiata, Toohey, Ryan, Hughes, and Magin,
1996). Clear directions and effective assessment instruments can also lead students to as
sess their peers, and themselves, in a similar manner to that of the teacher (Falchikov,
1995).
In order to create effective assessment or peer assessment instruments that will help de
velop adaptive responses to failure, music teachers need training and support. Shuler
(1996), however, indicated that many music teachers do not receive the requisite training
to adequately assess the musical achievement of their future students. The lack of specif
ic assessment training may lead to a lack of assessment confidence. Russell and Austin
(2010), for instance, found that music teachers who reported greater confidence in their
ability to assess their students were more likely to include musical performance assess
ments in their overall grading criteria rather than nonachievement criteria such as atti
tude or attendance.
Page 7 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Despite all of the potential benefits of peer assessment, very few instrumental music
teachers employ it as a strategy (9.5%; LaCognata, 2013). This may be due to the poten
tial complications or conflicts that may arise. However, if prepared well and given specific
parameters within which to work, students can be one of the more helpful assessors of
their peers’ musical achievement. One should be wary, however, that peer assessments
should not be a stand-alone recorded grade. Current educational practices often preclude
students from knowing the grades of their peers. This does not mean, however, that peers
cannot give each other assistance and guidance.
The Impact of Assessment on Instrumental

Student Psychology and Motivation
It is possible that assessment that focuses on the ability of students can have subtle long-
term negative influences (Dweck, 2002; Kamins and Dweck, 1999; Mueller and Dweck,
1998). Young instrumental students may develop the view that their ability to play their
instrument, or indeed participate effectively in music at all, is a fixed entity rather than
an incremental or malleable phenomenon. If a student develops an entity view of their
ability, he or she could see failure as a more negative outcome than necessary (Willing
ham, 2005). Moreover, such students may view failure on a single test or outcome as an
indicator of their ability for the rest of their lives (Stone and Dweck, 1998). Willingham
(2005) claimed that students who believe their ability is malleable are less likely to view
failure as an indicator of future success as they believe they can do something (expend ef
fort) in their future trials.
Music education researchers have found similar responses in music students. Vispoel and
Austin (1993), for instance, found that students who attributed their success or failure to
effort were more likely to improve on future tasks than students who attributed their lack
of success to ability. Asmus (1985) suggested that music educators should stress the inter
nal and unstable attributions of musical success to students. In short, students who devel
op a malleable view of ability are more likely to develop adaptive psychological responses
(i.e., mastery motivation) to failure while students with fixed views may develop maladap
tive responses such as helplessness when confronted with failure.
General education researchers have examined the impact of ability feedback on the learn
ing practices of students. Although researchers have found no short-term problems with
praising a student’s ability, they have found negative long-term effects. A student who has
experienced ample praise for his or her ability is more likely to continue to seek the
“able” label and will strive to maintain that label even at the cost of future learning. The
student may utilize maladaptive responses such as seeking out easy tasks in which he or
she is guaranteed success or shut down entirely. When students who believe they possess
great ability (as evidenced by positive ability and product feedback) first encounter fail
ure, they may avoid future challenges (learning opportunities), lower their expectations,
become angry or depressed, or give up entirely (O’Neill and McPherson, 2002). Dweck
Page 8 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

(2000) claimed that even the most talented of individuals who respond to early failures in
a maladaptive manner could experience diminished overall skill or knowledge attainment.
Music education researchers have documented the negative outcomes of students’ mal
adaptive responses to failure. O’Neill (1997) found that students with an adaptive mastery
oriented belief made more progress than maladaptive students after their first year of
musical study. O’Neill discovered that maladaptive students practiced double the amount
of mastery-oriented students in order to achieve the same outcomes. It is clear that music
educators need to be aware of the impact that not only the tenor of assessment but also
the focus of that assessment has on the psychological development of music students.
Music educators should create valid assessments that give students useful feedback in
their musical development and help shape their long-term adaptive responses to chal
lenges and even failure. Austin and Vispoel (1998), for example, suggested that teachers
give positive feedback for increase of student effort. Although the praise of increased ef
fort may be a valid way of reinforcing that behavior, some educational theorists also warn
against the long-term impact. Willingham (2005) claimed that some students who experi
ence failure and are offered positive praise about their expended effort believe that
praise to be disingenuous and even an indicator of poor ability. Rather than offering posi
tive feedback about effort, Willingham suggested offering feedback that focuses on the
students’ process. Austin and Vispoel (1998) also suggested that offering students encour
agement about the implementation of different strategies might be a way to motivate
them despite any short-term failure.
The ability for students to learn that musical skill and understanding is not a stoic entity
is, in part, influenced by teachers’ ability to offer meaningful feedback that encourages
long-term musical learning. As students develop the ability to recognize that their musi
cal learning is a process rather than predetermined phenomenon, educators may be able
to better combat some of the issues facing music education through process assessment.
Teachers may be able to mitigate problems, including low student matriculation into mu
sic programs, dwindling student retention, and advocacy as we develop more valid as
sessment schemes to communicate with parents and administrators, and even improved
teacher relations with parents and other stakeholders as we can offer documentable evi
dence of student short-term success and failure in music. For this, and a myriad of other
reasons, assessment should be often and varied. If students are assessed often, their fear
will decrease as students learn that the motivation behind assessment is learning, not
punishment. If students are assessed in multiple ways, they will have more opportunities
to find their particular skills while potentially demonstrating a wider spectrum of learn
ing. More important, music educators may move toward the goal of engendering life-long
participation in music for those whose self-efficacy in music increased as they developed
adaptive responses to assessment.
Page 9 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Technology as an Assessment Tool

Many instrumental music educators use various forms of technology to help them assess
their students from a simple audio-recording devices and spreadsheets to intricate soft
ware designed specifically for the instrumental classroom. These tools can be extremely
beneficial in saving class time. Students often employ technology outside of the class
room allowing teachers to focus class time on musical development and allow for more in
dividualized assessment. Russell and Austin (2010) found that 32% of secondary teachers
used out-of-school recordings to assess their students. LaCognata (2013) found very simi
lar results; 33% of teachers asked students to record themselves outside of class as a
means of assessment. Individually assessing students using this method can save class
time. It does not, however, save the instrumental music teacher’s time. Giving feedback to
each student who turns in a recording of their playing can be time consuming.
Some music educators employ computer-assisted programs to assess their students.

LaCognata (2013) found that while some use generic computer-assisted programs (5.1%),
more band directors use a specific program, Smart Music™ (13.1%). This program can
“listen” to students play lines from their method books and evaluate the accuracy of their
pitch and rhythm to a desired threshold. In a study evaluating the efficacy of Smart Mu
sic™, Buck (2008) found that using Smart Music™ as an assessment tool benefited stu
dents etude performances, especially technically oriented passages and less so for lyrical
passages.
The use of technology does present some possible barriers. Most technology costs stu
dents and their guardians’ capital. The cost of a subscription to an assessment program,
the Internet access to use the program, and the hardware required to use the program
may be cost prohibitive to many families, who have most likely already spent money on an
instrument rental or purchase. The use of technology can be very helpful but must be
tempered with ensuring all students have equal access to the technology.
Standardized Test(s) in Instrumental Music

Performance
In 1987 when Boyle and Radocy published their seminal text on the measurement and
evaluation of musical experiences, they claimed that the “only readily available published
performance measures are the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale (Watkins and Farnum,
1954), for wind instruments and snare drum, and the Farnum String Scale (Farnum,
1969), for orchestral strings” (Boyle and Radocy, 1987, p. 174). Twenty-four years later,
Colwell and Hewitt (2011) noted a curious continuance of the dearth of standardized per
formance tests:
Surprisingly, performance skill, which receives much teaching emphasis, has had
little attention from test makers. It is an on-demand task in teacher-constructed
assessments. Only one performance test is in print, the Watkins-Farnum Perfor
Page 10 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

mance Scale, which is available for wind, string, and percussion instruments. (p.
34)
The Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale is a test in which students sight-read increasing

ly difficult musical passages until they are unsuccessful. This test can be difficult to ad
minister, however. In addition to the time it requires, many of the “errors” to be assessed
can be difficulty to discriminate and include:
• Pitch
o Errors: additional notes, omitted notes, incorrect notes

o Not errors: poor attack or changing pitch during a sustained tone, initially playing
and incorrect note but fixing it (if a lip adjustment is made without retounguing or
bowing)
• Time
o Errors: a note is not sustained accurately within one beat, an omitted or incorrect
ly sustained rest
• Change of time
o Errors: tempo change of +/–12 bpm, a measure played in a different tempo
• Expression
o Errors: missed dynamics, missed expression markings (e.g., ritardando, etc.)
• Slur
o Errors: missed articulations
• Bowing
o Errors: same as slur errors but for the string players taking the test
Despite these somewhat difficult and time-consuming aspects of the test, many music ed
ucators use this test as a means of evaluating their students’ performance development.
Additionally, researchers continue to use the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale as a
standardized test in high-quality research or modify it in order to more closely meet re
search needs.
The Potential Impact of Case Law on Instru

mental Grading Practices
As Russell and Austin (2010) posited, music educators often rely heavily on attendance
and other nonachievement criteria for grading; instrumental music teachers should be
Page 11 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

aware of the potential legal issues that may arise from such practices. In the New Hand
book of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, Richmond (2002) elegantly cautioned
the profession:
Throughout music education’s public school history, the significance and power of
the law—both in terms of legislation and litigation—have become increasingly im
portant considerations as vehicles for music education policy formation. The range
and scope education issues touched by our nation’s laws are extensive, and a
chronic naiveté about the power of the law to shape our professional lives can on
ly mean an increasingly perilous state of affairs at best for American music educa
tion. (p. 33)
Moreover, in the seminal text regarding music education and the law, Hazard (1979)
stated, “As case law and statues shape new directions in tort liability, educators must stay
informed of such changes and modify their professional practice accordingly” (p. 5).
Russell (2011), based on the work of Dayton and Dupre (2005), offered several strategies
that instrumental music teachers may employ to help avoid such grade challenges and le
gal entanglements. Generally speaking, instrumental music educators should establish
their grading policy in conjunction with administrators, apply grading policies fairly and
consistently, offer students and parents an opportunity to discuss grades (even to the
point of establishing a grievance procedure), and focus on the individual student’s musi
cal achievements.
General Recommendations for Instrumental

Music Educators Based on the Body of Re
search
• Assess (give feedback) often, not for the sake of grading (evaluation) but rather to
give students more help and to mitigate their fear of feedback.
• Find multiple ways for students to demonstrate learning and skill development.
• Never use assessment as a punishment (e.g., “If you don’t settle down, percussion
ists, there will be a playing exam on Friday!”).
• Focus all of your grading policy on the musical achievements and knowledge of the
students. Focusing assessments on nonmusical outcomes (e.g., attitude, attendance,
etc.) is either unreliable or invalid, gives no meaningful feedback to students (or par
ents and administrators), and can often hurt the curricular standing of music in the
schools.
• Teach instrumental music students how to self-assess. This takes time, however, and
requires the use of models as well as self-assessment training. Hewitt (2011) found
that students were better able to self-assess melody. Start there and build on those ini
tial skills, working toward more nuanced and intricate self-assessment activities.
Page 12 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

• Use existing, validated performance scales to assess ensembles (not individual stu
dents). Modify them to fit the particular musical genres or specific ensemble needs.
• Give students performance rating scales and rubrics that will help them assess the
ensemble in which they are playing as well as their own achievements.
• Create rubrics and rating scales with students so that they have input into the
process, understand what is expected, and have the opportunity to think creatively
about what constructs are required to be successful in a given musical task.
• Employ rating scales that have been validated and found to be reliable.
• To save rehearsal time, focus rating scales and performance assessments on the five
skills best able to predict overall scores (tone, technique/articulation, rhythmic accura
cy, and interpretation), during both solo evaluation and sight-reading.
• Use the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale as a means to objectively (relatively) as
sess students’ musical achievement to gain a better idea of what instruction is needed
as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the program.
• If using the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale, spend some time with the score
sheets practicing on student recordings or informally with students or colleagues.
Learning how to use the test well can take time and effort.
• Before creating and distributing any handbooks or written documentation of the
grading policy to students or parents (a common practice for secondary instrumental
music teachers), check with the administration to make sure they support the stated
policies and that the policies do not conflict with other school or state policies or man
dates. Then instrumental music teachers may apply their grading policy consistently
with the fair hope of administrative support should any issues arise.
• Do not rely heavily on nonachievement criteria such as attitude or attendance as ma
jor components of a grading policy. Instrumental music teachers who do so may be
opening themselves up to a greater number of grade challenges. Many of these issues
are not assessments of a student’s achievement or understanding of music and are,
therefore, misleading as to the student’s actual musical achievement.
• Find ways to give students an opportunity to discuss a grade or even a system to file
a grievance. In such cases, if a grade has been well documented and based on student
achievement, a fair and reasonable grading policy, and consistent application of the
grading policy, the challenge to the grade assigned will most likely be denied. What
might be very difficult for instrumental music teachers is not taking such challenges
personally. Students deserve a fair hearing if they feel their assigned grade was
reached in error, and errors can occur.
• Ask students to record themselves playing outside of class. This will allow the
teacher to give individual feedback to each student while not taking up too much class
time.
• Employ computer-assisted programs to help assess students, but do not use these as
the only means of giving individual feedback. Using such programs (e.g., Smart Mu
sic™) can help students develop technical if not lyrical musical skill.
Page 13 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

• Teach students how to assess others by starting with very specific and observable
phenomenon.
• Give musical examples, such as: Did Billy start with a down bow or an up bow?
Which should he have started on?
• Employ grading policies as fairly and consistently as possible. A teacher may want to
be more lenient to a student who plays a pivotal role in the band or orchestra (e.g., a
soloist, the only bassoon player, the concert master/mistress). However, each student
should be held to the same expectations or at least the initially agreed-on expectations
(in case of established tiered assessment policies). Moreover, lowering student grades
for relatively small offenses such as limited absences, tardiness, talking in class, for
getting a pencil in rehearsal, or not succeeding on a chair challenge may not be a fair
or proportional response and may lead to a successful grade challenge.
• Find ways for students to make up work that they miss. Contrary to common dogma,
there is no such thing as a singular event that was so meaningful that what was
learned could not be taught to those who were unable to attend. One may reasonably
make the argument that attending a concert is an integral part of being in an instru
mental ensemble class. However, students do not always have the opportunity to influ
ence the circumstances that lead to their absence outside of school, and such punitive
grading practices are usually more about the ego of the director than the more impera
tive student learning. Instrumental music teachers should create make-up work that is
meaningful and gives students the opportunity to demonstrate the learning that stu
dents in the concert demonstrated.
• Employ a wide range of others to help students. Oftentimes marching band directors
often have a staff to help students learn; instrumental music teachers bring in special
ists to give students private lessons and conduct sectionals. It is a staple of high-quali
ty programs to seek out those who can help students. However, this practice has impli
cations for assessment as well as grade challenges. When instrumental music teachers
work with these other professionals or any other individual that may have interactions
with students, they must make sure that they know the current grading policy and that
it is enforced in the same manner by all. They also must protect themselves by docu
menting all grading policies, grades, and any information that may help defend any
grades assigned to students.
• Create, utilize, and continually improve assessments that focus on the process of mu
sical performance (i.e., fingerings, embouchure, breathe support, bowings, etc.). This
will give students the developmentally appropriate feedback they need to improve and
is easily observable and objective. Music educators often claim that they do not have
the time to adequately assess music performance skills and even that music is too sub
jective of a subject to objectively assess (Russell and Austin, 2010). However, in addi
tion to the short-term benefits of improved performance feedback for students and a
focus on more easily assessed musical skills for educators, the long-term effects of
process-focused feedback are vital. Students who were praised for their process (e.g.
“I liked how you used more bow in the up bow so you could play the next note accent
ed near the frog”) rather than being given an overall positive entity assessment (e.g.,
Page 14 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

“You are a great trumpet player”) will be more able to incorporate future criticisms or
failures in an adaptive manner. Although this process-based assessment strategy does
not allow for more complex musical assessment, it does give the music educator a valid
and reliable means to assess students’ performance development.
• Create checklists or rubrics that focus on small processes that students can change
in a relatively short amount of time. These process-based assessments are an easy way
to effectively and efficiently give students feedback that will likely lead to a malleable
view of musical success. By utilizing an analytic rather than holistic rubric, an instru
mental music teacher will be able to give students specific feedback on several
processes.
• Offer feedback or assessments that allow students to improve (and understand how
to improve) through new strategies or increased effort. Avoid labeling a student as ei
ther talented or not or musical or not. These labels are not helpful and can have a neg
ative impact in the long run on the student.
• Point out the praiseworthy actions of students, not the students themselves.
o Musical example: “You worked on your fingerings and bowings silently while I
worked with the other orchestra section; that’s what I call a great use of time that
will help lead you to success.”
• Avoid giving students feedback that reminds them of past failures while praising new
skills. It is more beneficial for students to focus on their new skills and successes
rather than past weaknesses or failures.
o Musical example: Instead of “After playing that scale with an out of tune 7th scale
degree for weeks, you finally played it with good intonation!” say, “Nice job playing
that scale with good intonation! Your hard work has paid off.”
• When giving students feedback, try to avoid feeding the egos of students who are too
eager to be praised. When students are too eager for praise, be positive without explic
itly praising. This can help students develop a more intrinsically motivated view of mu
sic rather than working for external praise.
o Musical example: “Your tone production made me want to listen to more!”
Despite many instrumental music educators’ reticence to assess student achievement,

whether due to a perceived lack of time, an intense performance schedule, a belief that
music is too subjective to accurately assess, or any other ingrained bias against assess
ment, it is a required and imperative facet of effective instruction. Although not enough
research has been conducted, teachers could use the information in this chapter to com
pare their practices to those throughout the profession and to improve the efficacy and
efficiency of their assessment practices. As instrumental music teachers improve feed
back, students will gain more skill at an increased rate, resulting in increased motivation
to learn more, remain in the program, and continue to find opportunities to perform and
share music with others throughout their lives.
Page 15 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

References
Aitchison, R. E. (1995). “The Effects of Self-Evaluation Techniques on the Musical Perfor
mance, Self-Evaluation Accuracy, Motivation, and Self-Esteem of Middle School Instru
mental Music Students.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Asmus, E. (1985). “Sixth Graders’ Achievement Motivation: Their Views of Success and
Failure in Music.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 85: 1–13.
Asmus, E. P. (1999). “Music Assessment Concepts: A Discussion of Assessment Concepts

and Models for Student Assessment Introduces this Special Focus Issue.” Music Educa
tors Journal 86, no. 2: 19–24. doi: 10.2307/3395
Austin, J. R., and Vispoel, W. P. (1998). “How American Adolescents Interpret Success and
Failure in Classroom Music: Relationships among Attributional Beliefs, Self-Concept and
Achievement.” Psychology of Music 26, no. 1: 26–45.
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing Learning Through Self Assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Boyle, J. D. (1992). Evaluation of music ability. In. R. Colwell (Ed.). Handbook of Research
on Music Teaching and Learning, pp. 247-265. New York: Schirmer Books.
Boyle, J. D., and Radocy, R. E. (1987). Measurement and Evaluation of Musical Experi
ences. New York: Schirmer Books.
Brew, A. (1999). “Towards Autonomous Assessment: Using Self-Assessment and Peer As
sessment.” In Sally Brown and Angela Glasner (Eds.), Assessment Matters in Higher Edu
cation: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches, pp. 159–71. Buckingham, UK: Open Uni
versity Press.
Buck, M. W. (2008). “The Efficacy of Smart Music® Assessment as a Teaching and Learn
ing Tool.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
Burrack, F. (2002). “Enhanced Assessment in Instrumental Programs.” Music Educators

Journal 88, no. 6: 27–32. doi: 10.2307/3399802
Colwell, R. (1992). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. New York:
Schirmer Books.
Colwell, R. J., and Hewitt, M. P. (2011). The Teaching of Instrumental Music, 4th ed.
Boston: Prentice Hall.
Colwell, R., and Richardson, C. (Eds.). (2002). The new handbook of research on music
teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference. Oxford
University Press.
Page 16 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Cooksey, J. M. (1982). “Developing an Objective Approach to Evaluating Music Perfor

mance.” In Richard Colwell (Ed.), Symposium in Music Education, pp. 197–229. Urbana:
University of Illinois.
Criss, E. (2011). “Dance All Night; Motivation in Education.” Music Educators Journal 97,
no. 3: 61–6. doi: 10.1177/0027432110393022
Crooks, T. J. (1988) Assessing Student Performance. Sydney: University of New South

Wales, Higher Education Research and Development Society.
Darrow, A., Johnson, C. M., Miller, A. M., and Williamson, P. (2002). “Can Students Accu
rately Assess Themselves? Predictive Validity of Student Self-Reports.” Update: Applica
tions of Research in Music Education 20, no. 2: 8–11. doi: 10.1177/875512330202000203
Dayton, J., and Dupre, A. (2005). “Grades: Achievement, Attendance, or Attitude.” West’s
Education Law Reporter 199: 569–92.
Divaharan, S., and Atputhasamy, L. (2002) “An Attempt to Enhance the Quality of Cooper
ative Learning Through Peer Assessment.” Journal of Educational Enquiry 3, no. 2: 72–83.
Duncan, S. A. (2009). “Assessment Practices of String Teachers.” Master’s thesis, Univer

sity of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development.

Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). “Messages that Motivate: How Praise Molds Students’ Beliefs, Moti
vation, and Performance (in Surprising Ways).” In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving Academic
Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education (pp 61-87). New York: Acade
mic Press.
Falchikov, N. (1995). “Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment.” Innovations

in Education and Training International 32, no. 2: 175–87.
Farnum, S. E. (1969). “Farnum String Scale.” Winona, MN: Hal Leonard.
Hanzlik, T. J. (2001). “An Examination of Iowa High School Instrumental Band Directors’
Assessment Practices and Attitudes Toward Assessment.” Doctoral dissertation, Universi
ty of Nebraska, Lincoln. Dissertation Abstracts International 62: 955A.
Hazard, W. R. (1979). Tort Liability and the Music Educator. Reston, VA: Music Educators
National Conference.
Hewitt, M. (2001). “The Effects of Modeling, Self-Evaluation, and Self-Listening on Junior

High Instrumentalists’ Music Performance and Practice Attitude.” Journal of Research in
Music Education 49, no. 4: 307–22. doi: 10.2307/3345614
Hewitt, M. (2002). “Self-Evaluation Tendencies of Junior High Instrumentalists.” Journal

of Research in Music Education 50, no. 3: 215–26. doi: 10.2307/3345799
Page 17 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Hewitt, M. (2005). “Self-Evaluation Accuracy Among High School and Middle School In
strumentalists.” Journal of Research in Music Education 53, no. 2: 148–61. doi:
10.1177/002242940505300205
Hewitt, M. (2011). “The Impact of Self-Evaluation Instruction on Student Self-Evaluation,

Music Performance, and Self-Evaluation Accuracy.” Journal of Research in Music Educa
tion 59, no. 1: 6–20. doi: 10.1177/0022429410391541
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.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi. Dissertation Ab
stracts International 60: 1954A.
Kamins, M., and Dweck, C. S. (1999). “Person Verses Process Praise: Implications for
Contingent Worth and Coping.” Developmental Psychology 35: 835–47.
Kancianic, P. M. (2006). “Classroom Assessment in United States High School Band Pro
grams: Methods, Purposes, and Influences.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Mary
land, College Park. Dissertation Abstracts International 67(06).
Kostka, M. (1997). “Effects of Self-Assessment and Successive Approximations on ‘Know

ing’ and ‘Valuing’ Selected Keyboard Skills.” Journal of Research in Music Education 45,
no. 2: 273–81. doi: 10.2307/3345586
Kotora, E. J. (2005). “Assessment Practices in the Choral Music Classroom: A Survey of

Ohio High School Choral Music Teachers and College Choral Methods Professors.” Con
tributions to Music Education 32, no. 2: 65–80.
LaCognata, J. (2010). “Student Assessment in the High School Band Ensemble Class.” In
Timothy S. Brophy (Ed.), The Practice of Assessment in Music Education: Frameworks,
Models, and Designs, pp. 227–38. Chicago: GIA Publications.
LaCognata, J. (2013). “Current Student Assessment Practices of High School Band Direc
tors in the United States.” In Timothy S. Brophy and Andreas Lehmann-Wermser (Eds.),
Music Assessment Across Cultures and Continents: The Culture of Shared Practice.
Chicago: GIA Publications.
Lehman, P. R. (1998). “Grading Practices in Music: A Report of the Music Educators Na
tional Conference.” Music Educators Journal 84, no. 5: 37–40.
McCoy, C. W. (1991). “Grading Students in Performing Groups: A Comparison of Princi

pals’ Recommendations with Directors’ Practices.” Journal of Research in Music Educa
tion 39, no. 3: 181–90. doi: 10.2307/2244718
McCreary, T. J. (2001). “Methods and Perceptions of Assessment in Secondary Instrumen

tal Music.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Page 18 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Morrison, S. J., Montemayor, M., and Wiltshire, E. S. (2004). “The Effect of a Recorded
Model on Band Students’ Performance, Self-Evaluations, Achievement, and Attitude.”
Journal of Research in Music Education 52, no. 2: 116–29. doi: 10.2307/3345434
Mueller, C. M., and Dweck, C. S. (1998). “Intelligence Praise Can Undermine Motivation
and Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75: 33–52.
Nightingale-Abell, S. E. (1994). “Teacher Evaluation Practices in the Elementary General

Music Classroom: A Study of Three Teachers.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincin
nati. Dissertation Abstracts International 55: 900A.
Nightingale, P., Wiata, I., Toohey, S., Ryan, G., Hughes, C., and Magin, D. (1996). Assess
ing Learning in Universities. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
O’Neill, S. A. (1997). “The Role of Practice in Children’s Early Musical Performance

Achievement.” In H. Jorgensen and A. C. Lehmann (Eds.), Does Practice Make Perfect?
Current Theory and Research on Instrumental Practice, pp. 53–70. Oslo: Norges
Musikhogkole.
O’Neill, S. A., and McPherson, G. E. (2002). “Motivation.” In R. Parncutt and G. E.

McPherson (Eds.), The Science and Psychology of Music Performance: Creative Strate
gies for Teaching and Learning, pp. 31-46. New York: Oxford University Press.
Priest, T. (2006). “Self-Evaluation, Creativity, and Musical Achievement.” Psychology of

Music 34, no. 1: 47–61. doi: 10.1177/0305735606059104
Richmond, J. W. (2002). “Law Research and Music Education.” In R. Colwell and C.

Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, pp.
33–47. New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, J. A. (2011). “Assessment and Case Law: Implications for the Grading Practices of
Music Educators.” Music Educators Journal 97, no. 3: 35–9.
Russell, J. A., and Austin, J. R. (2010). “The Assessment Practices of Secondary Music Ed
ucators.” Journal of Research in Music Education 58, no. 1: 37–54.
Saunders, T. C., and Holahan, J. M. (1997). “Criteria-Specific Rating Scales in the Evalua
tion of High School Instrumental Performance.” Journal of Research in Music Education
45, no. 2: 259–72. doi: 10.2307/3345585
Shuler, S. C. (1996). The Effects of the National Standards on Assessment (and Vice Ver
sa). Reston, VA: MENC.
Shuler, S. (2011). “Music Education for Life: Music Assessment, Part 2—Instructional Im
provement and Teacher Evaluation. Music Educators Journal 98, no. 3: 7–10. doi:
10.1177/00274321112439000.
Page 19 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

Simanton, E. G. (2000). “Assessment and Grading Practices Among High School Band
Teachers in the United States: A Descriptive Study.” Doctoral dissertation, University of
North Dakota, Grand Forks. Dissertation Abstracts International 61: 3500A.
Stone, J., and Dweck, C. S. (1998). Implicit Theories of Intelligence and the Meaning of
Achievement Goals. Unpublished raw data, Columbia University, New York.
Tracy, L. H. (2002). “Assessing Individual Students in the High School Choral Ensemble:
Issues and Practices.” Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Disser
tation Abstracts International 63(09): 3143.
Vispoel, W. P., and Austin, J. R. (1993). “Constructive Response to Failure in Music: The
Role of Attribution Feedback and Classroom Goal Structure.” British Journal of Education
al Psychology 63: 110–29.
Watkins, J. G., and Farnum, S. E. (1954). “The Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale: Form
A.” Winona, MN: Hal Leonard.
Wells, R. (1998). “The Student’s Role in the Assessment Process.” Teaching Music 6, no.
2: 32–3.
Willingham, D. T. (2005). “How Praise Can Motivate or Stifle.” American Educator 29, no.
4: 23–7.
Zdzinski, S. F., and Barnes, G. V. (2002). “Development and Validation of a String Perfor
mance Rating Scale.” Journal of Research in Music Education 50, no. 3: 245–55.
Zimmerman, J. R. (2005). “The Effects of Periodic Self-Recording, Self-Listening and Self-

Evaluation on the Motivation and Music Self-Concept of High School Instrumentalists.”
Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Joshua A. Russell
Joshua A. Russell, Ph.D., The Hartt School, The University of Hartford
Page 20 of 20
date: 26 June 2019

RUSSELL - Assesment in Instrumental Music

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RUSSELL - Assesment in Instrumental Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment in Instrumental Music

Oxford Handbooks Online

Abstract and Keywords

date: 26 June 2019

date: 26 June 2019

In this chapter, I organize research conducted in the assessment of instrumental music

date: 26 June 2019

The Status of Assessment in Instrumental Mu­

Differences Between Vocal and Instrumental

date: 26 June 2019

Assessing Instrumental Students’ Musical

date: 26 June 2019

date: 26 June 2019

Researchers examining students’ self-evaluation processes have employed various evalua­

date: 26 June 2019

The Impact of Assessment on Instrumental

date: 26 June 2019

date: 26 June 2019

Technology as an Assessment Tool

Some music educators employ computer-assisted programs to assess their students.

Standardized Test(s) in Instrumental Music

date: 26 June 2019

The Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale is a test in which students sight-read increasing­

o Errors: additional notes, omitted notes, incorrect notes

o Errors: tempo change of +/–12 bpm, a measure played in a different tempo

o Errors: missed dynamics, missed expression markings (e.g., ritardando, etc.)

o Errors: missed articulations

The Potential Impact of Case Law on Instru­

date: 26 June 2019

General Recommendations for Instrumental

date: 26 June 2019

date: 26 June 2019

date: 26 June 2019

o Musical example: “Your tone production made me want to listen to more!”

Despite many instrumental music educators’ reticence to assess student achievement,

date: 26 June 2019

Asmus, E. P. (1999). “Music Assessment Concepts: A Discussion of Assessment Concepts

Burrack, F. (2002). “Enhanced Assessment in Instrumental Programs.” Music Educators

date: 26 June 2019

Cooksey, J. M. (1982). “Developing an Objective Approach to Evaluating Music Perfor­

Crooks, T. J. (1988) Assessing Student Performance. Sydney: University of New South

Duncan, S. A. (2009). “Assessment Practices of String Teachers.” Master’s thesis, Univer­

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development.

Falchikov, N. (1995). “Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment.” Innovations

Farnum, S. E. (1969). “Farnum String Scale.” Winona, MN: Hal Leonard.

Hewitt, M. (2001). “The Effects of Modeling, Self-Evaluation, and Self-Listening on Junior

Hewitt, M. (2002). “Self-Evaluation Tendencies of Junior High Instrumentalists.” Journal

date: 26 June 2019

Hewitt, M. (2011). “The Impact of Self-Evaluation Instruction on Student Self-Evaluation,

Hill, K. W. (1999). “A Descriptive Study of Assessment Procedures, Assessment Attitudes,

Kostka, M. (1997). “Effects of Self-Assessment and Successive Approximations on ‘Know­

Kotora, E. J. (2005). “Assessment Practices in the Choral Music Classroom: A Survey of

McCoy, C. W. (1991). “Grading Students in Performing Groups: A Comparison of Princi­

McCreary, T. J. (2001). “Methods and Perceptions of Assessment in Secondary Instrumen­

date: 26 June 2019

Nightingale-Abell, S. E. (1994). “Teacher Evaluation Practices in the Elementary General

O’Neill, S. A. (1997). “The Role of Practice in Children’s Early Musical Performance

O’Neill, S. A., and McPherson, G. E. (2002). “Motivation.” In R. Parncutt and G. E.

Priest, T. (2006). “Self-Evaluation, Creativity, and Musical Achievement.” Psychology of

Richmond, J. W. (2002). “Law Research and Music Education.” In R. Colwell and C.

date: 26 June 2019

Zimmerman, J. R. (2005). “The Effects of Periodic Self-Recording, Self-Listening and Self-

Joshua A. Russell, Ph.D., The Hartt School, The University of Hartford

date: 26 June 2019

The Status of Assessment in Instrumental Mu

Researchers examining students’ self-evaluation processes have employed various evalua

The Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale is a test in which students sight-read increasing

The Potential Impact of Case Law on Instru

Cooksey, J. M. (1982). “Developing an Objective Approach to Evaluating Music Perfor

Duncan, S. A. (2009). “Assessment Practices of String Teachers.” Master’s thesis, Univer

Kostka, M. (1997). “Effects of Self-Assessment and Successive Approximations on ‘Know

McCoy, C. W. (1991). “Grading Students in Performing Groups: A Comparison of Princi

McCreary, T. J. (2001). “Methods and Perceptions of Assessment in Secondary Instrumen