2007 master plan/progress report - … music performance...thinking included in musc 399 (junior...

2010 MASTER PLAN/PROGRESS REPORT

Academic Program: Bachelor of Music in Music Performance Band or Orchestral Instrument Concentration

Jazz/Commercial Music

Piano Concentration

Piano Pedagogy Concentration

Voice Concentration

Person Responsible: Dr. Michael Buckles, Dr. Carol Lines, Dr. Christy Vogt, and Michele Martin

Date Submitted: May 24, 2010

Mission: The Music Performance Program provides the major initial professional competence in the chosen area of performance specialization that leads to advanced graduate

studies with application to a career in university and/or private studio teaching and/or a professional career. Program graduates demonstrate 1) significant technical mastery, 2) a

broad knowledge of music and music literature, 3) the capability to produce work and solve problems independently, 4) the ability to integrate musical knowledge and skills and

communicate musical ideas and concepts, and 5) a coherent set of artistic/intellectual goals which are evident in their work. Five performance concentrations are provided for:

Orchestral/Band Instrument, Jazz/Commercial Music, Piano, Piano Pedagogy and Voice.

Institutional Mission Reference: The Music Performance Program supports the university’s mission by 1) providing a baccalaureate curriculum with numerous concentrations

distinguished by academic excellence and reflective of the best current professional practices in design and pedagogy; 2) promoting major success through excellence in teaching,

effective integration of current technology into its curse work, continuous program assessment, effective academic advising, and individual student mentoring; 3) establishing and

maintaining university-community collaboration through the program’s cultural and educational objectives and projects; 4) maintaining a sense of community that encourages

intellectual-creative endeavor, ethical and civic responsibility, and respect for cultural diversity; 5) cultivating the skills necessary for critical and effective expression through

general studies course work and varied performance and teaching experiences; and 6) promoting an understanding of the global multicultural community through course work and

performance projects.

Assessment Methods Utilized: Data Repository Location:

Standardized Exam (nationally normed)

____ Standardized Exam (state-normed)

____ Major Field Examination

X Internally-developed Examination - Performance Rubric for: SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office

Major Performance Area Entrance Diagnostic SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 200-Admission to Upper Division SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 399-Junior Recital SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office

____ Student Opinion Survey (SOS)

____ National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

X Employer Survey SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

X Graduate Survey SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

____ Alumni Survey

X Exit Survey/Interview/Exam SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

X Scoring of Essay: FFND 101-Initial “Statement of Intent” Essay Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 200-Developed “Statement of Intent” Essay Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 485-Refined “Statement of Intent” Essay Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 261-research presentation/report rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 445- post essay rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

X Portfolio Evaluation – MUSC 485-Professional Portfolio rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

X Capstone Project: MUSC 492-Senior Recital Performance rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

Program Notes/Research Analysis Project Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

X Presentation : MUSC 261-final research project/presentation rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 363-final research written project rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

X Research Paper: MUSC 447-Research Project Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

X Research Project: MUSC 201-final composition project rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 202-final research project rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

Excel Spreadsheet

____ Access Database

____ Other - Please describe: Entrance Theory Diagnostic Rubric SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office

MUSC 202L-final proficiency rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

PIAN 216-barrier/proficiency rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office

Student Learning Outcome 1: Graduates apply critical thinking in academic and professional environments.

Expected Level of Achievement

Critical Thinking Achievement Defined in Music

Performance Program

Program Completers possess

1. the ability to form and defend value judgments

about music;

2. the ability to produce musical work and solve

professional problems independently;

3. an understanding of procedures for realizing a

variety of musical styles; and

4. a developed set of artistic/intellectual goals which

are evident in their own work.

Major Performance Area Entrance Diagnostic

Critical Thinking Indicators Score Expectations

8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets

2-4 Needs improvement

0-1 Does Not Meet

• 70% of entering program candidates earn a score of 5

(scale of 0-9) or above on the Major Performance Area

Entrance Diagnostic rubric measuring three indicators

related to critical thinking:

musicianship

expression/musicality

sight reading

Performance Evaluation: a performance presentation

before the appropriate instrument/keyboard/vocal

performance board that provides a formal review of

the program candidate’s acquired technical and

Actual Data From Assessment

2009-2010. Twelve new program candidates entered the

performance major degree. Eight entering program

candidates (67%) earned a score of 5 or above.

Expected Level of Achievement was not met.

Entrance Diagnostic

Critical Thinking Indicators Concentration Number of

Candidates

Number

Earning 5 or above

Average

Score

Instrumental 5 4 5.27

Jazz/Commercial 0 0 NA

Piano/Piano Pedagogy 3 2 6.33

Voice 4 2 5.00

Program Total 12 8 5.45

Actions/Decisions

A 2009-2010. Three of the four students who did not

earn a 5 or above on the critical thinking indicators were

placed in their major performance lessons at the 100-

level to improve their basic skills in musicianship,

expression/ musicality and sight reading. Credit for 100-

level performance courses cannot be used toward degree

requirements.

R 2010-11. The Music Performance Policies and

Procedures Manual will be updated in summer 2010 with

changes approved by the Music Performance

Coordinators Committee (MPCC) in 2009-2010.

musical skills, stylistic and repertoire knowledge, and

ability to interpret and communicate through their

medium.

Major Performance Area MUSC 200


8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

Sophomore Performance Evaluation - MUSC 200

• 75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of

0-9) or above on the three indicators related to critical

thinking included on the MUSC 200 (Admission to

Upper-Division Performance Study) rubric:

musicianship


sight reading

• 75% of program candidates complete MUSC 200

requirement on first attempt.

MUSC 399


8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

Junior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 399

• 80% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (sale of 0-

9) or above on the three indicators related to critical

Recital Evaluation: an advertised public presentation,

evaluated by the appropriate performance board, that

provides a formal review of the program candidate’s

acquired technical and musical skills, repertoire,

musical styles and performance practices knowledge,

and ability to interpret and communicate through their

medium.

2009-2010. Six program candidates enrolled in MUSC

200. Three program candidates (50%) earned a score of 6

or above. Four program candidates (67%) completed

this requirement on the first attempt.

Expected Levels of Achievement were not met.

MUSC 200


Candidates

Number Earning 6

or above

Average

Score


Jazz/Commercial 1 1 7.33

Piano/Piano Pedagogy 1 0 3.67

Voice 1 0 5.00


2009-2010. Two program candidates enrolled in and

completed MUSC 399. Neither program candidate

completed the sight reading indicator. Both program

2009-2010. Two students received a “U” in the MUSC

200 and will retake the MUSC 200 performance barrier

in a future semester.

M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 200,

the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a

three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before

recommending major change.




thinking included in MUSC 399 (Junior Recital) rubric:

musicianship


sight reading

• 85% of program candidates complete this requirement

on first attempt.



8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

Senior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 492

• 85% of program completers earn a score of 6 (scale of

0-9) or above on the three indicators related to critical

thinking included in the MUSC 492 (Senior Recital for

Music Performance) rubric:

musicianship


sight reading

• 90% of program completers pass the MUSC 492


400-Level Major Performance Area

Written Research Project

Critical Thinking Indicators (3 indicators/5-point scale) Score Expectations

14-15 Exemplary

11-13 Exceeds

8-10 Meets

candidates (100%) earned a score of 4 or above. Two

program candidates (100%) completed this requirement

on the first attempt.

Expected Levels of Achievement were met.

MUSC 399


Candidates

Number

Earning 4 or above

Average

Score

Instrumental 2 2


Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 0 NA

Voice 0 0 NA

2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in and

completed MUSC 492. Three program candidates

completed all indicators; of those, 100% earned a score

of 6 or above. One program completer was reported with

only two indicators (no sight reading). That program

completer earned a score of 5.33 (above the level

expectation for two indicators). Four program candidates

(100%) passed MUSC 492 on the first attempt.

Expected Levels of Achievement were met with partial

data reported.

MUSC 492


Candidates

Number

Earning 9 or above

Average

Score

Instrumental 2 2 9

Jazz/Commercial 1 0 5.33/6


Voice 1 1 6.00


R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that sight

reading be removed from the critical thinking indicators

assessing MUSC 399 since this activity was evaluated at

the 200-level. A “Stage Presentation” indicator will be

added to the assessment rubric.

R 2010-2011. The Performance Assessment Rubric will

be revised to make clear at which levels of evaluation

sight-reading is required. Additionally, the Music

Performance Policies and Procedures Manual will be

updated to reflect this change.







sight-reading is required.


0-4 Does Not Meet

• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 10 or

above on the Major Performance Area Research Project

(400-level) assessment rubric which measures the

program candidate’s ability to synthesize their

knowledge of theoretical analysis techniques,

historic/style elements, and research skills into a written

project.

MUSC 202/MUSC 261/MUSC 363

Critical Thinking Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations

8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

•75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of 0-

9) or above on the critical thinking indicators of the

MUSC 202 (Advanced Theory II) final research project

rubric.



MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and

Literature) final verbal presentation/research project

rubric.


completed the 400-level major performance area written

research project. The final projects of three program

candidates were evaluated utilizing all indicators; of

those, two (67%) earned a score of 10 or above.


400-Level Major Performance Area Written Project


Candidates

Number

Earning

10 or above

Average

Score


Jazz/Commercial 1 0 0

Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA NA

Voice 1 0 9

Program Total 4 2 9

Spring 2010. One program candidates enrolled in

MUSC 202. One program candidate completed the

course and the final research project. One program

candidate (100%) earned a score of 6 or above (average

score = 9).

Expected Level of Achievement was met.

Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in MUSC

261. One program candidate completed the course and

the final project. That program candidate (100%) earned

the score of 6 or above (average score = 8).


A 2010-2011. On a recommendation from the MPPC,

the Major Performance Area Research Project was

incorporated into MUSC 492 and the appropriate forms

were filed with the McNeese QEP Committee to have

MUSC 492 declared a writing enriched course within the

discipline. This QEP Committee has yet to act upon the

submitted request. Once approved by the QEP

Committee, a curriculum change request will be sent to

the University Curriculum Committee describing this

change and increasing MUSC 492from 3 to 4 credit

hours and deleting the performance area 402-1 credit

requirement from the degree.

R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that the

expected level of achievement benchmark be lowered

from 85% to 80% to reflect more realistic outcome

expectations.

M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in the Major

Performance Area Research Project, the MPPC will

analyze and monitor this data over a three-year cycle

[spring 2009-spring 2011] before recommending major

change to the project content.





A 2010-2011. While the critical thinking indicators meet

expectations, the MUSC 261 instructor will modify the

course to further strengthen these indicators with

additional reading/worksheet requirements and

group/pairs projects. Additionally, the mid-term oral

project will be videoed for student review and comment.



MUSC 363 (Music History II) final written research

project rubric.

•4.00/5.00 average response on the Graduating Student

Exit Survey (GSES) questions relating to the program

completer’s perception of the success of the curriculum

in developing their ability to use critical thinking as a

professional musician.

•4.00/5.00 average response on the Graduate Survey

(GS) and Employer Survey (ES) on questions relating to

critical thinking skills outcomes and their long term

impact on the graduates’ effectiveness as professional

musicians.

Spring 2010. Five program candidates enrolled in MUSC

363. Four completed the course and the final written

project. Four program candidates (100%) earned a score

of 6 or above (average score = 7.75).


2009-2010. Four program completers responded to

questions on the GSES.


GSES

Critical Thinking/Problem Solving Questions Concentration Response # Average

Score

Instrumental Total 2 4.50

Jazz/Commercial Total 1 5.00

Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA

Voice Total 1 5.00

Program Total 2 4.75

2009-2010. GS. No data available.

2009-2010. ES. No data available.









D The GS is being reformatted by the Office of

Institutional Research and will be distributed in August

2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.

D The ES is being reformatted by the Office of



Student Learning Outcome 2: Graduates formulate and express ideas effectively through oral, written, and/or technological communications in academic and professional

environments.


Communication and Technology Achievements

Defined within Music Performance Program

Program completers possess

1. the technical and musical skills requisite for

artistic self-expression in the concentration area;

2. the ability to communicate musical ideas,

concepts, and requirements to music professionals

and lay persons related to the practice of the major

field;

3. the ability to defend musical judgments through

oral and written communication; and

4. the ability to use technologies current to

concentration area.

FFND 101

Written Communication Rubric (5 indicators/5-point scale)

Score Expectations

23-25 Exemplary

18-22 Exceeds

13-17 Meets


0-7 Does Not Meet

• 70% of first-time freshmen program candidates earn a

score of 15 (scale of 0-25) or above on the FFND 101

Statement of Intent Writing Project Assessment Rubric.

MUSC 200: Statement of Intent (Developed)

• 75% of program candidates earn a score of 15 or above

on MUSC 200 philosophy statement rubric.

MUSC 485: Statement of Intent (Refined)

• 85% of program completers earn of score of 15 or

above on MUSC 485 philosophy statement evaluation


Fall 2009. Eight freshmen program candidates enrolled in

FFND 101. Five freshmen program candidates completed

the Statement of Intent Writing Project. Four (80%) earned

a score of 15 or above (average score = 18.2).


2009-2010. No data available.

2009-2010. In the developed course rotation, MUSC 485

will not be taught until spring 2012.

Actions/Decisions

M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC

399, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a



A 2009-2010. This project was not included in the

MUSC 200 course requirements. In 2010-2011, it will

be included in the course syllabus and an appropriate

assessment rubric will be utilized. A 2010-2011. Appropriate forms will be submitted to

the McNeese QEP Committee to request that MUSC

485 be approved as a Writing Enriched Course in the



Actions/Decisions

MUSC 399/MUSC 492

Oral Communication Indicators Score Expectations

5-6 Exceeds

3-4 Meets


0 Does Not Meet

Junior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 399


on the indicators related to communication:


stage presence

on the MUSC 399 performance assessment rubric.

Senior Recital Evaluation–MUSC 492 (Performance)


on the indicators related to communication:


stage presence

on the MUSC 492 performance assessment rubric.

MUSC 485/400-Level Major Performance Area


Written Communication Rubric (5 indicators/5-point scale)

Score Expectations

23-25 Exemplary

18-22 Exceeds

13-17 Meets


0-7 Does Not Meet


completed MUSC 399. Two program candidates (100%)

earned a score of 4 or above.


MUSC 399

Oral Communication Indicators Concentration Number of

Candidates

Number Earning 4

or above

Average

Score


Jazz/Commercial 0 NA NA


Voice 0 NA NA


2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in MUSC

492. Three program candidates (75%) earned a score of 4

or above.


MUSC 492

Oral Communication Indicators Concentration Number of

Candidates

Number

Earning 4

or above

Average

Score


Jazz/Commercial 1 1 5.67


Voice 1 0 3.67


discipline.









• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 15 or

above on the Major Performance Area Research Project

(400-level) assessment rubric which measures the



historic/style elements, and research skills into a written

project.

Senior Seminar: Issues of the Profession MUSC 485


on the resume and writing projects’ assessment rubric.

MUSC 201

Technology Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations

10-12 Exceeds

6-9 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

•75% of program candidates earn a score of 8 or above

on the technology indicators of the MUSC 201

(Advanced Theory I) final composition/analysis project

rubric.


Communication Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations

8-9 Exceeds

2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in the 400-

level major performance area written research project. The

final projects of three program candidates were evaluated

utilizing all indicators; of those, all (100%) earned a score

of 15 or above.

Expected Level of Achievement was met with partial data

reported.


Written Communication Indicators Concentration Number of

Candidates

Number Earning 15

or above

Average

Score

Instrumental 2 2 22



Voice 1 1 15

2009-2010. No data available. Course will be offered

initially in spring 2012.

Fall 2009. Two program candidates completed MUSC 201.

Two program candidates (100%) earned a score of 8 or

above (average score = 11).






MUSC 492 declared a writing enriched course within

the discipline. This QEP Committee has yet to act upon

the submitted request. Once approved by the QEP









expectations. A decision will be made once the 2010-

2011 data is available.





change to the project content. A 2010-2011. Appropriate forms will be submitted to

the McNeese QEP Committee to request that MUSC

485 be approved as a Writing Enriched Course in the

discipline.





A 2010-2011. The Theory Coordinator has expressed

concern that evidence seems to point to students who

participate in more than two ensembles tend to do

poorly in MUSC 201. It is recommended that advisors

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

•75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of

0-9) or above on the written communication indicators

of the MUSC 202 (Advanced Theory II) final research

project rubric.


0-9) or above on the oral communication indicators of

the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and

Literature) final verbal presentation/ research project

rubric.


0-9) or above on the written communication indicators

of the MUSC 363 (Music History II) final written

research project rubric.

• 4.00/5.00 average response on the GSES on questions

relating to the program completer’s ability to

communicate and use technology as a professional

musician.

Spring 2010. One program candidate completed MUSC

202. One program candidate (100%) earned a score of 6 or



Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in MUSC

261. One program candidate completed the course and the

final project. One program candidate (100%) earned the

score of 6 or above (average score = 6).




project. Four program candidates (100%) earned a score of

6 or above (average score = 8.25).


2009-2010. Four program completers responded to the

GSES.

Expected Levels of Achievement were met.

GSES - Program Enhanced Communication Skills Concentration Response # Average

Score


Jazz Commercial Total 1 4.00


Voice Total 1 5.00


GSES - Program Enhanced Technology Skills Concentration Response # Average

Score


begin tracking ensemble participation for those enrolled

in MUSC 201. At the conclusion of the semester,

individual success rates will be reported to academic

advisers and the department head. The data will be

collected through spring 2012 and then analyzed for

trends. M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC




A 2010-2011. While the communication indicators meet














4.00/5.00 average response on the GS and ES on

questions relating to communication and technology

outcomes and their long term impact on the graduates’

effectiveness as a musician and teacher.

Jazz/Commercial Total 1 4.00


Voice Total 1 5.00




D Fall 2010. The GS is being reformatted by the Office

of Institutional Research and will be distributed in

August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master

Plan.

D Fall 2010.The ES is being reformatted by the Office


August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master

Plan.

Student Learning Outcome 3: Graduates analyze the global community to make sound judgments in academic and professional environments.


Global Perspective Defined in Music Performance

Program


1. an understanding of current musical thought and

practice as it relates to the professional musician and

the evolution of contemporary world music and

culture;

2. an understanding of music and music literature

within its global cultural and historic contexts;

3. an ability to evaluate, understand, and respect a

variety of musical repertoires.

4. an understanding of significant ethical and

professional issues related to a career of performance

and music teaching within a global arena.

•75% of program candidates will correctly answer 6 or

more out of 8 analyses of global perspective questions

on the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and

Literature) post test.


Global Perspective Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations

8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

•75% of program candidates will earn a score of 6 (0-9)

or above on the analysis of global perspective

indicators of the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music

History and Literature) final verbal presentation/research

project rubric.



Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in

MUSC 261. One completed the post test. One program

candidates (100%) correctly answered 6 or more out of 8

questions on the post test (average score = 7.00).


Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in

MUSC 261. One completed the course and the final

verbal presentation/research project. One program

candidates (100%) earned a score of 6 or above (average

score = 8.00).



Actions/Decisions

A 2010-2011. While the global community indicators

meet expectations, the MUSC 261 instructor will modify

the course to further strengthen these indicators with









9) or above on the analyses of global perspective

indicators of the MUSC 363 (Music History II) final

written research project rubric.


0-9) or above on the analyses of the global perspective

indicators of the MUSC 447 (Literature of the

Performance Major) final written research project.

Senior Seminar: Issues of the Profession MUSC 485


0-25) or above on the project assessment rubrics

pertaining to global perspective written projects.

•4.00/5.00 average response on the GSES on question

relating to tolerance and diversity and questions on the

quality of instruction in music history and literature

courses.

4.00/5.00 average response on the GS and ES on

questions relating to global perspective outcomes and

their impact on the graduates’ effectiveness as a

musician and teacher.


project. Four program candidates (100%) earned a score

of 6 or above (average score = 7.75).


2009-2010. Three program candidates enrolled in MUSC

447. Three completed the course and final written

project. Three program candidates (100%) earned a

score of 6 or above (average score = 8.9).


2009-2010. No data available. Course will first be

offered in spring 2012.



Expected levels of achievement were met.

Tolerance/Diversity Awareness Evaluation Question Concentration Response # Average

Score


Jazz/Commercial Music Total 1 5.00


Voice Total 2 5.00


Quality of Instruction: Music History/Literature

Evaluation Question Concentration Response # Average

Score




Vocal 1 5.00








the MPCC will analyze and monitor this data over a



A 2010-2011. Appropriate forms will be submitted to

the McNeese QEP Committee to request that MUSC 485

be approved as a Writing Enriched Course in the

discipline.



August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.

D Fall 2010.The ES is being reformatted by the Office of



Student Learning Outcome 4: Graduates possess 1) a conceptual understanding of music theory, musical forms and processes; 2) aural and analytical comprehension as applied

to performance and repertory study; and 3) composition and improvisation abilities appropriate to the concentration major, as these areas of music study form a basis for listening,

composing, and performing.


MUSC 399/MUSC 492

Objective Four Indicators Score Expectations

8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

Junior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 399 (Performance)

• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (0-9 scale)

or above on the three indicators related to Objective Four

included in the 303-level performance study or MUSC

399 (Junior Recital) rubric:

musicianship


sight singing

• 85% of program candidates complete this requirement

on first attempt.

Senior Recital Evaluation –MUSC 492 (Performance)

• 85% of program completers earn a score of 6 (0-9

scale) or above on the three indicators related to

Objective Four included in MUSC 492 (Performance)

rubric:

musicianship


sight signing



completed MUSC 399. Neither program candidate

completed the sight-reading indicator. Both program

candidates (100%) earned a score of 4 or above on the

“musicianship” and “expression/musicality” indicators.

Both program candidates (100%) completed this

requirement on the first attempt.

Expected Levels of Achievement were partially met.

MUSC 399

Objective Four Indicators Concentration Number of

Candidates

Number Earning 6

or above

Average

Score

Instrumental 2 2 6



Voice 0 0 NA

2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in MUSC

492. Three program candidates completed all indicators;

of those, 100% earned a score of 6 or above. One

program completer was reported with only two indicators

(no sight reading). That program completer earned a

score of 5.5 (below the level expectation for two

indicators). Four program candidates (100%) passed

MUSC 492 on the first attempt.

Actions/Decisions





R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that sight

reading be removed from the critical thinking indicators

assessing MUSC 399 since this activity was evaluated at

the 200-level. A “Stage Presentation” indicator will be

added to the assessment rubric.



sight-reading is required. Additionally, the Music

Performance Policies and Procedures Manual will be

updated to reflect this change.



sight-reading is required.

• 90% of program completers pass the MUSC 492




Objective Four Indicators (3 indicators/5-point scale)

Score Expectations

14-15 Exemplary

11-13 Exceeds

8-10 Meets


0-4 Does Not Meet


on the 400-Level Major Performance Area Written

Research Project/ assessment rubric which measures the



historic/style elements, and research skills in producing

advanced program notes.

•70% of program candidates earn a score of 75% or

above on the Theory Entrance Diagnostic Examination.

Expected Levels of Achievement were met with partial

data reported.

MUSC 492


Candidates

Number Earning 6

or above

Average

Score

Instrumental 2 2 9

Jazz/Commercial 1 0 5.5/6


Voice 1 1 6.00

2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in the

400-level major performance area written research

project. The final projects of three program candidates

were evaluated utilizing all indicators; of those, two

(67%) earned a score of 10 or above.




Candidates

Number

Earning 10 or

above

Average

Score




Voice 1 0 9

Program Total 4 2 9

2009-2010. Seven new program candidates completed

the theory examination. Five (70%) earned a score of
















expectations.







above on the MUSC 201 (Advanced Theory I) final

project rubric.


above on the MUSC 202 (Advanced Theory II-

Contemporary Music Practice) final research project

assessment rubric which measures the program

candidate’s ability to synthesize their knowledge of

theoretical analysis techniques, historic/style elements,

technology, and research skills into a project focusing on

contemporary repertoire and practice.


above on the MUSC 202L (sight-reading/ear training)

proficiency examination rubric; 75% of program

candidates complete proficiency requirement on first

attempt.

MUSC 261 Rubric Scale

Objective Four Indicators Score Expectations

8-9 Exceeds

5-7 Meets


0-1 Does Not Meet

• 75% of program candidates earn a score of

6 (scale of 0-9) or above on the Objective Four indicators

of the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and

Literature) final research project rubric.

75%.


Fall 2009. Two program candidates enrolled in MUSC

201. Two (100%) earned a score of 70% or higher on the

MUSC 201final written analysis project rubric (average

score=80%).


Spring 2010. One program candidates enrolled in MUSC

202. One (100%) candidate earned a score of 70% or

higher on the MUSC 202 final written research/analysis

project rubric (average score=86%).


Spring 2010. One program candidates enrolled in MUSC

202L. One (100%) candidate earned a score of 70% or

higher. 100% of the candidates completed the

proficiency requirement on the first attempt.


Spring 2010. One program candidate enrolled in MUSC

261. One completed the course and the final project.

One program candidate (100%) earned the score of 6 or







A 2010-2011. The Theory Coordinator has expressed

concern that evidence seems to point to students who

participate in more than two ensembles tend to do poorly

in MUSC 201. It is recommended that advisors begin

tracking ensemble participation for those enrolled in

MUSC 201. At the conclusion of the semester,

individual success rates will be reported to academic

advisers and the department head. The data will be

collected through spring 2012 and then analyzed for

trends.






202L, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over

a three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before


A 2010-2011. While Spring 2010 MUSC 202L

candidates met expected levels of achievement, there is

concern that some of these (and future) MUSC 202L

candidates begin the course with deficiencies. The

MPPC recommended that the theory faculty meet,

discuss, and recommend changes in content,

methodologies and sequencing in MUSC101L and 102L.

A 2010-2011. While the Objective #4 indicators meet





•4.00/5.00 mean response on the GSES on questions

relating to the program completer’s opinion concerning

the quality of instruction in music theory, analysis and

composition courses.

•4.00/5.00 mean response on the GS and ES on questions

relating to the quality of instruction in music theory,

analysis and composition courses and their long term

impact on the effectiveness of graduates’ effectiveness as

a musician and teacher.



Quality of Instruction: Music Theory/Analysis/

Composition Courses Evaluation Questions Concentration Response # Average

Score




Voice Total 1 5.00

Total for all Concentrations 4 4.50















Student Learning Outcome 5: Graduates possess professional entry-level competence in the major performance area, including significant technical mastery, knowledge of

applicable repertory, capability to produce work and solve professional problems independently, a coherent set of artistic/intellectual goals which are evident in their work, and

orientation to and experience in the fundamentals of pedagogy.


Performance Competencies


1. Technical skills requisite for artistic self-

expression in the concentration;

2. An overview understanding of the repertory in the

major concentration and the ability to perform from a

cross-section of that repertory;

3. The ability to read at sight at a level relevant to

professional standards appropriate for the particular

concentration;

4. Knowledge and skills to work as a leader and in

collaborations on matters of musical interpretation;

and

5. Keyboard competency.


Instrumental Rubric Score Expectations

13-15 Exceeds

8-12 Meets

13-7 Marginally Meets

0-2 Does Not Meet

Vocal Rubric Score Expectations

15-18 Exceeds

9-14 Meets

3-8 Marginally Meets

0-2 Does Not Meet

Senior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 492

• 85% of instrumental and keyboard program completers

earn a score of 10 or above and 85% of the vocal

program completers earn a score of 12 or above on the

MUSC 492 (Senior Recital for Music Performance)

assessment rubric; 90% of program completers pass the

MUSC 492 requirement on first attempt.



completed MUSC 492. Three earned the score of 10 or

above on the instrumental performance rubric. One

earned the score of 10.67 on the vocal performance

rubric. Three of four program completers (75%) earned

the appropriate score or above. Four program completers

passed the MUSC 492 requirement on the first attempt.

Actions/Decisions








Score Expectations

23-25 Exemplary

18-22 Exceeds

13-17 Meets


0-7 Does Not Meet


on the 400-Level Major Performance Area Written

Research Project/ assessment rubric which measures the



historic/style elements, and research skills in producing

advanced program notes.

• 80% of program completers earn a score of 10 or above on the MUSC 445 (Pedagogy for Performance

Majors) or MUSC 455-456 (Piano Pedagogy Senior-

Level Teaching Practicum) evaluation indicators which

measures the program candidate’s ability to synthesize

fundamental knowledge of pedagogical methods and

repertoire

MUSC 445/455-456


Expected levels of achievement were partially met.

MUSC 492 Composite Rubric Concentration Number of

Completers

Average

Score


Jazz/Commercial Music 1 13.75


Voice Total 1 10.67

2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled the 400-

level major performance area written research project.

The final projects of three program candidates were

evaluated utilizing all indicators; of those, three (100%)

earned a score of 15 or above

Expected Level of Achievement was met with partial

data reported



Completers

Average

Score

Instrumental Total 2 22

Jazz/Commercial Music 1 0


Voice Total 1 15


completed MUSC 445. Three program completers

(75%) earned a score of 10 or above.


2009-2010. MUSC 455 and MUSC 456 were not

offered.

MUSC 445

Objective Four Indicators













R Change expected level of achievement benchmark

from 85% to 80% to reflect more realistic expectations.






A 2009-2010. Graduate responses indicated a desire for

increased pedagogical experiences. The MPPC

recommends that one studio session of MUSC 190 each

semester be utilized as a “lab band” or “lab choir” for

MUSC 408 (conducting) students.

M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 445

and MUSC 455-456, the MPPC will analyze and monitor

this data over a three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring

Score Expectations

14-15 Exemplary

11-13 Exceeds

8-10 Meets


0-4 Does Not Meet

• 80% of program candidates earn a score of 70% or

above on the PIAN 216 proficiency examination rubric;

75% of program candidates complete proficiency


Post-Graduation Professional Activity

• 4.00/5.00 mean response on the GSES on questions

relating to the program completer’s opinion concerning

1) overall quality of performance area;

2) quality of instruction in performance study and

pedagogy; and

3) quality of instruction in performance ensemble

experiences.

Concentration Number of

Completers

Average

Score

Instrumental Total 2 13

Jazz/Commercial Music 1 12


Voice Total 1 9

Spring 2010. Two program candidates were enrolled in

PIAN 216. Two program candidates (100%) earned 70%

or above; 100% of candidates completed the requirement

on the first attempt.


2009-2010. Four Bachelor of Music in Performance

Completers. Two graduated with honors; one student

graduated from the Honors College.

• One completer was accepted into the Masters Jazz

Studies Program at North Texas State University.

• One completer was accepted into a seminary to pursue

a Master of Sacred Music degree.

• One completer is pursuing a post-baccalaureate

certification in secondary music education.

• One completer is opening a private performance studio

and teaching in an enhancement music program in

Calcasieu Parish.




Overall Quality of Performance Program

Concentration Response

#

Average

Score Instrumental Total 2 5.00



Voice Total 1 5.00


Quality of Instruction in Performance Studies

(Performance Lessons and MUSC 445)


#

Average

Score Instrumental 2 5.00


Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA

2011] before recommending major change to the project

content.

• 4.00/5.00 mean response on the GS and ES on

questions relating to the quality of instruction in

performance and repertoire and their long term impact on

the effectiveness of graduates’ effectiveness as a

musician and teacher.

Vocal 1 5.00


Quality of Instruction in Performance Ensembles


#

Average

Score Instrumental 2 4.00


Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA

Vocal 1 5.00










Professional and Workforce Development Initiatives and Progress: Provide program internship data/information here. This may include student and/or employer survey

satisfaction results, data related to growth of internship program, job-placement after internship program, or other data/information. Please also indicate any actions or decisions

the program has made or intends to make either to the internship program or to its curriculum based on internship data. If you wish to use subsequent pages/sections to display this

information or to specify individual goals of the program, please feel free to do so.

Identify Internship Program (name), Assessment

Tool (e.g. survey), and Expected Level of

Achievement (benchmark)

An internship is not currently a requirement of the

Bachelor of Music in Performance.


2009-2010. While an internship is not a requirement of

the B.M. in Performance degree, degree candidates have

the opportunity to enroll in MUSC 311 (Professional

Internship) as an elective. During the evaluation period,

5 degree students enrolled and completed MUSC 311.

Each student participated in the Lake Charles Symphony

Concert Season and was supervised by an on campus

professor.

Actions/Decisions

A 2010-2011. PART Music Program faculty will

evaluate the necessity and feasibility of internship

opportunities in the B.M. degree in performance. The

Coordinator of the Music Performance degree will

review NASM (accrediting agency) standards for a B.M.

degree and see if the nature of this degree would include

a required internship.

Resources Allocated: 2010-2011. Resources will not be allocated until the 2010-2011 operating budget for PART is known.

Master Plan Self-Assessment

Master plans are the evidence that a unit is performing assessment and an index to how that assessment is undertaken. Effective assessment plans establish clear goals, set high

levels of achievement, and include meaningful measurements for gauging progress toward goals. As a progress report, these plans show that the unit evaluates its annual

information and makes decisions based upon evidence. These changes are then followed up on (assessed) in subsequent plans.

In this section, please self-evaluate this process by indicating as follows:

1 – I need a lot of help in this area;

2 – I am making progress, but need help;

3 – I do not need help in this area

Area 1: Mission/Institutional Mission Reference

(I am confident my unit’s mission statement communicates clearly to a broad audience

and shows its unique and obvious place within the institutional framework.)

3

Area 2: Objectives/Outcomes

(Mostly for Admin Units: I am satisfied that the objectives I have listed support the unit

mission, are clear and measurable, and adequate in number.)

3

Area 3: Assessments/Expectations

(I am satisfied that my assessments accurately measure my objectives, that there are

enough assessments to get a meaningful picture, and that my unit’s expectations are

rigorous but attainable.)

3

Area 4: Data/Collection

(I am satisfied with the amount and quality of data I receive.)

2

Area 5: Data Analysis/Application

(I am satisfied with the unit’s process for analyzing data and making improvements.)

2

Comments:

There are still snags in the data collecting process primarily the result of a lack of clear communication among faculty participants. Additional time will be spent on the

requirements of the assessment process and its designated evaluation tools prior in August 2010 prior to the commencement of the fall 2010 academic semester. Data will also be

analyzed immediately after the close of its appropriate collection period and earlier in the master plan process to allow for a longer period of reflection before decisions are made.

Overall, many effective decision and actions have come out of the master plan process and the process itself improves with each cycle.

2007 master plan/progress report - … music performance...thinking included in musc 399 (junior...

Documents