Search Results

Palliative care practitioners may be involved in assessment in a variety of ways. First, as teachers, they use assessment to motivate, promote, and test student learning in palliative care. Second, as part of a wider community of teachers, they contribute to assessments that are organized by others in the university and workplace. Third, they may be invited to sit on course organizing committees at which discussions about assessment happen. Therefore, a good understanding of assessment enables the palliative care teacher to be more effective in every setting. This chapter sets out the purposes and sources of assessment; differentiates between formative assessment to aid learning and summative assessment which tests student achievement; and discusses the pros and cons of a range of assessment methods.

This chapter focuses on the important skills of lesson planning and assessment. The discussion is based on the premise that effective teaching depends on the effective management of the learning environment. This chapter begins to integrate and apply the issues raised in earlier chapters, providing examples of lesson planning and assessment to illustrate some current good practices used in schools in Hong Kong.

This chapter details many ways of collecting information about student performance. Diagnostic assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment all work together to inform teaching and learning throughout a lesson or unit. Summative assessment is what comes to mind when many people think of “assessment,” but summative assessment is the assessment type that supports learning the least. Assessment for learning, as opposed to assessment of learning, is the type of classroom assessment that helps students know where they are going, where they are now, and how to get there. Assessment design can improve validity. A nearly infinite variety of possible assessment methods, or ways to gather information, exists. The most common methods in schools can be categorized as selected response, written response, verbal response, performance or demonstration, personal communication, portfolios, quick formative assessment techniques, and self and peer assessment. Using a variety of methods helps to ensure curricular comprehensiveness.

This chapter examines the reasons for assessment, the effects and influence of examinations, methods of assessment, and developments in systems of assessment. It also describes a number of ways in which aspects of assessment could be distinguished.

Assessment is an essential aspect of teaching and learning. Not only is assessment necessary to determine whether students have learned what teachers think they have taught, but it also informs the design of instruction and is used to adjust the specific teaching and learning strategies that are used over time. Numerous technological tools are available that enable teachers to be more efficient and effective with this process. This chapter is primarily concerned with the assessment of musical achievement in creative, psychomotor, and cognitive domains. It outlines essential assessment principles, discusses the technology-assisted development of assessments, explores technologies helpful to the process of assessing specific music learning outcomes, and describes new assessment approaches enabled by technology. The management of assessment data and processes via technology is also examined.

This chapter examines the effect of the movement for accountability in education on art education—the push for national standards and reliable and valid forms of assessment in art education. The chapter examines the emergence of national and state standards for art education and the various approaches to assessing learning in the arts both in the United States (National Assessment of Education Progress, Discipline-Based Art Education, Arts PROPEL, and Advanced Placement) and abroad (International Baccalaureate and the portfolio method used in the Netherlands). Assessment of learning in art is far more highly developed in European countries such as the Netherlands than it is in the United States, and countries with authentic assessment systems also have more rigorous forms of art education than those in the United States. What has been done in other countries could be done in the United States—if there is a will. But improvement in assessment practices makes no sense without improving the rigor of art education.

Every successful music educator has a curriculum that contains a scope (overarching goals) and sequence (how we will achieve our goals and in what order) that are critical to reaching meaningful educational goals within the music classroom. Walker and Soltis (2004) state: “Working with the curriculum is an integral part of all teachers’ daily lives”. When specific curricula are not mandated (by the state, or federal government), most music educators use a set of standards or guidelines to devise a scope and sequence for classroom teaching (i.e., the National Standards). It is important as music educators to consider their curriculum when preparing to teach all students, not just students with learning challenges. This is what separates an educator from a therapist or a service provider. The questions that we will address in this chapter include: How do music educators maintain a focus on their own curricular goals while adapting that same curriculum to the individual needs of students? And how do we assess and reflect on these goals to make adjustments in our curriculum? These are difficult questions to answer. In fact, this has been a challenge for teachers since the inclusion of students with special needs began following the passage of P.L. 94–142 more than 35 years ago. Walker and Soltis explain, “While many teachers supported the goal, many were offended that rigid regulations were imposed on them without their consent”. All these issues require a thoughtful and sequential approach when preparing, presenting, and assessing instruction in the music classroom. However, the stronger the underlying curricular focus is, the easier it will be to adapt and modify your existing curriculum to individualize instruction for students who have learning differences. Your specific curriculum, if not mandated by your state or school system, will be a result of your philosophy of music education. Even when utilizing prescribed curricula, your choices in scope and sequence will reflect your values in the classroom. These same values will be reflected in the choices you make in modifying your curricula for students with special needs.

This chapter explains foundations underpinning assessment in ensembles. Music educators need information about what their students know and are able to do in order to do their best teaching. However, such information is hard to obtain using traditional ensemble methods. Individual classroom assessment yields more information about student performance than standardized testing or regular rehearsals. Concepts such as metacognition, the Zone of Proximal Development, self-efficacy, social-emotional learning, and growth mindset can be productively incorporated into the design and use of assessments. Assessment alters the curriculum as tested topics are emphasized, and runs the risk of reductionism. Still, classroom assessment has untapped power to transform ensemble music education.

I summarize our general education model, compare it with other popular approaches, and discuss our approach to common challenges. All students complete the same four freshman seminars; each lasts the year and is fully active: no lectures. Approximately 115 learning objectives span four core competencies: critical and creative thinking and effective communication and interaction. This model differs from the four dominant models found in ~290 representative institutions of higher education. We avoided many challenges by building our plans into the foundations of the university from its inception, using a highly diverse team-based course development and teaching program, and continuing assessment on the learning objectives throughout all four years.