Page 41 - CJFeb24

teacher. I emphasize ability over knowledge, because I WEBER: At the University of Houston, the choral fac-
want my students to be able to execute teaching in an ulty teach methods courses, not a separate music educa-
informed and engaging way when they leave my class- tion professor. I do not like the differentiation between
room. I weigh each category more than ten percent, choral faculty and music education. In high school or
so my students cannot easily get an A if they do not taken as an elective in college, students vote with their
complete something. Participation is a large percentage feet. If they do not get an A, they likely will not return. I
for me, and this is a separate category for me than at- have come to grips with the fact that nearly everyone will
tendance (which is ten percent). get an A in these types of ensembles. However, I hold
the students in a top-level group with almost all music
WEBER: I rely on a combination of attendance and as- majors to a different standard. At UH, students lose
sessment. Each student tests about once every four re- their scholarships if they earn below a B- in ensembles.
hearsals, so in forty-two rehearsals they have about ten Therefore, I believe the philosophy should be different
tests. I do not like written tests in a singing ensemble. between top-level groups and lower-level groups.

I use the vocal faculty often. They come to rehears-
als and offer feedback. I am a trained pianist, so this
General comments on assessment: is hugely beneficial to have the assistance of my voice
colleagues. Their comments are part of my assessments
and influence my lesson plans. Because of this collegial-
BJELLA: Nothing should be hidden. Be transparent ity, there is no tension between the voice and choral fac-
with the students about how and why you are assess- ulty. I also aim to involve students in the assessment pro-
ing. Assessment done regularly for everyone is critical. cess by having them record and send comments to each
We cannot have favorites—no student has “got it.” Ev- other. I am able to see and monitor these comments so
eryone can improve. they stay productive. The students learn so much from
each other. These types of assessment are only graded
PACKWOOD: We want singing well to be intrinsic mo- on completion.
tivation for the students. We want them to sing well
because they want to, not because they are getting a
grade (extrinsic). Periodically I have to use assessment We want them to sing well because they want
with negative consequences if students are not at their
best. I am very supportive of attendance being a large to, not because they are getting a grade.
part of grading. You have to come to practice in order
to play the game. —Gary Packwood
I wish universities would remove traditional grading
and transition to a satisfactory/unsatisfactory system.
We need to stress mastery. Too often high grades do
not correspond to students becoming great teachers. Summary
Perhaps a student gets a B in choral methods but might All three interviewees spoke of assessing the ensemble
not know how to do warmups. They must know this. through graded and ungraded means. In terms of assess-
Perhaps a student gets a B who is a fine teacher, but an ments for the ensemble, Bjella and Packwood used small
A student maybe is not a great teacher. You should not group testing in quartets or octets as an assessment, with
be able to pass the class with an unsatisfactory score. only Packwood factoring that into students’ final grade.
You have to prove you can master things that are in In this assessment, Weber differed here by only testing
the syllabus before you can go on. I prefer to use more the individual. Weber’s reasoning was to avoid having an
informal assessment than formal. individual potentially be derailed by less prepared sing-
ers. All three interviewees used many forms of ungraded

CHORAL JOURNAL February 2024 Volume 64 Number 6 39