Criterion-refenced Rating Insment for The

7/27/2019 Criterion-refenced Rating Insment for The

1/15

CRITERION REFERENCED RATING INSTRUMENT EOR THEEVALUATION, TEACH ING AND TRAINING OFUNDERGRADUATE CONDUCTORSJohn Thomas Seddon IV

Abstract

A criteria-specific rating instrument that accurately assessed levels of achievement amongundergraduate beginning conductors w as sought. The purpose of this study w as to develop acriteria-specific rating instrument that accurately assessed specified levels of achievement amongundergraduate students of beginning condu cting. The Conducting Rating Instrument (CRI)measures nine aspects of conducting: posture, baton g rip, preparatory gesture, ending ges ture,pattern , left hand , cue s, facial exp ression and g estural expressio n. Validity and reliability of theCRI w ere examined using 19 video examples of students conducting two contrasting passages.The results of the first trial suggested the need for revision of the content of the CRI for a secondtrial. Resu lts for the revised CRI yielded substantial inter-judge reliabilities (r = .79 , to r = .85),with systematically higher intra-judge a coefficients for most scales and the composite score.Criteria-specific scales can be used to measure specific aspects of conducting achievement in aconsistent man ner. Future research might further explore the relationships am ong the identifiedaspects of conducting that were found to be highly related in the present study.

Criterion-Referenced Rating Instrument for the Evaluation, Teaching and Training ofUndergraduate Conductors

Conducting is a complex musical activity that requires skill development (Green, 1987;Malko, 1950; Rudolf, 1980; Scherchen, 1933 ; Schuller, 199 6). Conductors need to be expressivewhile simultaneously evaluating and managing sonic events being produced by an ensem ble.They must synthesize tonal, rhythmic and expressive information; and absorb and respondfully to this information, kinesthetically conveying their musical intentions to the performers(Adsit, 200 5; Bartee, 1977; Farberman, 1997; Jordan, 1996; Miller, 1988). The conductor mustalso communicate the musical intent through m ovement to convey the comp oser's expressiveintent and the conductor's personal interpretation to the ensemble (Bartee, 1977). Beginningconductors need to develop all of these requisite skills ranging from proper posture to expressivegestures.When developing skills of beginning conductors, evaluation needs to be a part of thecurriculum. Assessmen ts provide diagnostic feedback outlining progress toward the achievementof conducting skills. Evaluation of student progress must also serve to improve instruction(Saunders and Holahan , 19 97). Teaching beginning undergraduate conductors typically includesinstruction in the following area s: pos ture, baton grip , preparatory mo tions, the stopping ofsound, style of gestures, patterns, expressive gestures, the left han d, cues, tempo change s,rehearsal technique, score study, asymmetric meters, and the sub-division of the basic metricpatterns (Lab uta, 1995; Hunsberger and Ernst, 1992; McElheran, 1989; Green, 1987; Prausnitz,

59


2/15

Seddon

1983; Rudolf, 1980).Documenting students' progress in conducting is necessary for the refinement of curriculumand instruction (Karpike, 1987). For students to advance more quickly, clear assessments should

include specific criteria that correspond to multiple levels of achievem ent that reflect a hierarchyof conducting skill development (Saunders and Holahan, 1997). Accurate measurement andevaluation is important for meeting course objectives, defining readiness for advancement, andteaching to individual needs (Co lwell, 1970; Larkin, 1985; Leonard and H ouse, 1 972; Gordon,1980; Saunders and Ho lahan, 19 97). Working on each conducting student's unique issues isessential to their development (Adsit, 2005; Labuta, 1995 ; Hunsberger and Ernst, 1992; Green,1987; Rudolf, 1980; Scherchen 1 933).

Some authors of conducting texts have attempted to create methods for the assessment ofbeginning conductors (Hunsberger and Ernst, 1992; Jordan, 1996; Labu ta, 199 5). Typically,research has examined conducting behavior as a secondary focus within an overall examinationof ensemble rehearsal technique (Larkin, 198 5; Lew is, 1977; Madsen and Yarborough, 1980;Osm an, 1989; Spencer, 2000 ). Herbert Karpicke (1987) examined conducting gestures directly.

The complexity of conducting makes assessment particularly difficult (Berz, 1983; Karpike1987). Available rating scales and assessment tools often lack clarity in the description of levelsof achievem ent. Several attempts have been made to improve feedback to the student by usingchecklists and open-ended forms to evaluate the student's progress (Hunsberger and Ernst, 1992;Jordan, 1996; Labuta, 19 95; Shepherd, 2002) none however place the evaluation of conductingin a hierarchal co ntext. Unfortunately, these tools do not clearly define the extent to which astudent is making progress. General comments and suggestions for practice usually are providedand many texts incorporate vague self-evaluation methods for the benefit and analysis of studentskill development (Hunsberger and Ernst, 1992; Labuta, 1995; Shepherd, 2002). None of theexisting assessment tools are supported by research findings.Several researchers have investigated conducting self-evaluation primarily or as asubscale of a rehearsal technique study (B yo, 1 990; Giersch, 199 3; Johnson and Fredrickson ,1995; Larkin, 1 985; Madsen and Yarborough, 1980; Osmun, 1989; Price, 1985; Scott, 1996;Yarborough, et al, 1979; Yarborough, 1980; Yarborough, 1987). Bergee (1992) developed

a rating system to assess music education student teachers, specifically looking at theireffectiveness in rehearsal. Ten items ap propriate to conducting were identified and paired w ithLikert-type scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (p. 7).Researchers have investigated the psychometric properties (cognitive aspects) of conductingrating instruments (B erz, 1983 ; Karpicke, 1987; Lew is, 1977). All of these authors have designedmetho ds of assessing condu cting techniqu e. Berz classifies non verbal behav iors, but he does notidentify the quality of the behavior observed. Lewis counts conducting gestures and indicateswhere they occur in the m usic. However, Lew is' study does not indicate the quality of the

60


3/15

Criteria Specific Conducting A ssesment

gesture. Karp icke's rating instrument does not describe the quality of the conducting gesture,but only rates the extremes of being effective or not effective based upon the response of theensem ble. Byo and Austin (1994) compared expert and novice conductors. A complex systemof timing, indexing and counting gestures wa s developed to determine the am ount of time spentdoing a given activity (p. 20).

The studies reviewed used a Likert-type system for the purposes of evaluation (with theexceptions of Lewis (1977) and Byo and Austin (1994) who employed coding systems). Thepresent study is concerned with the development of a criteria-specific rating instrument thatestablishes descriptive levels of achievement for the conducting student.

The purpose of this study was to develop a criteria-specific rating instrument that accuratelyassessed specified levels of achievement among unde rgraduate students of beginning c onducting.Using Saunders and Holahan (1997) as a model for the me thod, this research developed acriteria-specific rating instrumen t to be used in the classroom . The me asure is intended toexamine those aspects of conducting that need to be m astered to secure an accu rate and artisticperformance. The problems investigated in this study were as follows: (1) Was it possible todevelop a criteria-specific rating instrument to measure well-defined aspects of conductingachievement? (2) Was it possible to isolate specific aspects of conducting? (3) Did the use ofcriteria-specific rating scales yield consistent results?

Method

Conducting Rating InstrumentThe CRI is a researcher-designed criteria-specific rating instrument designed to assess

separate levels of conducting ability. The CRI addresses three main categories: expression,technique and basic body po sition. The expression category has two subscales covering ge sturaland facial exp ression. The five subscales that comprise the technique category are preparatorygesture, ending ges ture, pattern, left hand , and cue s. Posture and baton grip/right arm areincluded in the final category of basic body position. The revised CRI (Table 1) contains sevencontinuous criteria-specific rating scales and one additive rating scale.

61


4/15

Seddon

Table 1Conducting Rating Instrument (Revised)

Postu re/Baton GripThe conductor (s]: conducted from a position of balance. head was erect and free to move. shoulders were relaxed. gripped the baton in a relaxed manner in the right hand between the thumb and index finger. held the baton naturally in the right hand and prese nted it clearly to the ensem ble.

CueingThe conductor (s):5 5 provided clear cues with accurate prep aration , in time, in the correct style.4 4 provided a cue that was prepared accurately, in time.3 3 prep ared cues accurately bu t had difficulty providing them in time.2 2 cues were not prepared or provided in time.1 1 provided cues after the entran ce had occurred or not at all.

Facial Exp ressionThe conductor's face:5 5 was expressively engaged and comm unicative, in a relevant mann er, throu gho ut theperformance.4 4 was engaged and comm unicative for sections with lapses in expressive connection.3 3 was engaged and comm unicative at key points within the music but lacked consisten t expressive

communication.2 2 was only partially engaged but had no direct connection to perform ers.1 1 lacked connection to both the music and perform ers.Pattern

The conductor's pattern was presented with a:5 5 clear ictus, correspo nding to the score, with precision and musical intent.4 4 clear ictus, correspon ding to the score, and precision.3 3 clear ictus, correspo nding to the score, but lacked precision.2 2 clear ictus, but had some difficulty correspond ing to the score.1 1 lack of clarity (clearness), and did not correspo nd with the score.

Gestural ExpressionThe conductor:5 5 conveyed the expressive depth and nuance of the music in an imaginative way through gesture.4 4 conveyed the expressive depth and nuance with some gestural inconsistencies.3 3 dem onstra ted a cohesive musical concept, howe ver with inconsisten t use of gestu re that reflectsmusical ideas.2 2 displayed interm ittent use of gestu res that reflect musical ideas, but lacked clear direction with

a cohesive musical concept.1 1 lacked connection to the music and provided little or no gestural expression to the perform ers.

62


5/15

Criteria Specific Conducting A ssesment(Table 1 cont.)

Left HandThe conductor's left hand:5 5 was used fluen tly and indepen dently with ease and skill, conveying music line and styleincluding dynamics.4 4 was used independently providing the dynamic contour and a basic outline of the phrasestructure.3 3 was able to function indepen dently providing dynamics.2 2 functioned semi-inde penden tly within the basic dynamic framework but provided no clearmusical line independent of the beat.1 1 lacked basic indepen dence from the beat and was unable to provide dynamics clearly or toshap e the m usical line.

Preparatorv GesturesThe conductor's prep aratory gesture;5 5 was pres ented clearly, precisely indicating the prop er style, tempo , and musical intent.4 4 displayed a clear motion indicating the prope r tempo and style.3 3 provided a clear motion indicating the prope r tempo but lacked proper style.2 2 included a clear motion, but lacked the proper tempo.1 1 lacked a clear motion, prop er tempo, and correct style.

Release G esturesThe conductor's release gesture:5 5 precisely conveyed the pro per style, tempo , clarity and musical intent.4 4 included a clear motion indicating the prop er tempo and style.3 3 provided a clear motion indicating the prope r tempo.2 2 included a clear motion but lacked the proper tempo.1 1 lacked a clear motion, prop er temp o, correct style.

CRl Definitions (Dimensions 1 -7 )Dimension Defnitions:Cueing - The exten t to which the cond uctor is able to accurately cue a performan ce entran ce with a faceor arm gesture.Facial Exp ression - The extent to which the con ductor is able to convey the m usical intent (look like themusic) through the use of their face.Gestural Expression - The ex tent to which the cond uctor is able to delineate m usical feeling through allof their gestures.Left Hand - The extent to which the conductor is able to engage the left hand independently and toconvey dynamics.

63


6/15

Seddon

(Table 1 cont.)Pattern - The extent to which the conductor is able to clearly presen t the prop er m etric pattern. Thisincludes the presentation of a clear ictus for the performers.Preparatory Gesture - The extent to which the conductor is able to indicate prop er style tempo andmusical intent at the beginning and at the allegro sections of the musical excerpt.Release Gesture - The extent to which the conductor is able to indicate proper style and musical intentat the end of phrase s.Other D eflnitions:Style - is the conductors ability to convey various conducting styles such as: legato, marcato, staccato,portato, etc.

Precision - [1] exactness or accuracy; [2] allowing for, made with, or requiring great exactness oraccuracyCorresponding to the Score - The conductor is displaying accurately those elem ents contained withinthe score th at are essential to the performance. These could include: pattern, dynamics, articulations etc.

A review of current textbooks lead to the identification of basic areas of conductinginstruction and the discovery of expected conipetencies for beginning conductors. An initial setof categories w as developed along with the continuous and additive rating sc ales. The continuousscales were w ritten to describe specific levels of achievemen t. For exam ple, the execution of apreparatory gesture m ust effectively prepare the ensemble to play together using an appropriatearticulation at a specific dyn amic lev el. These scales were designed to determine the extentto which a criterion is met. The additive scales address dim ensions that can be observed to becorrect or incorrect. Upon com pletion of this review and scale development, experts (collegiateconductors) were consulted to further establish the content and process validity of the CRI.The experts provided written comments that allowed for modification of the CRI prior toimplementation.Student Conductors

Raters observed D VD recordings of an excerpt from the band repertoire that containedtwo specific styles of condu cting: legato and staccato. The excerpt (by the character of thecompo sitional context) required the student to deal with cues, dynamic cha nges, ferm atas,various articulations, phrasings, stylistic and tem po ch anges . Selected in consultation withteachers of beginning undergraduate conducting c lasses, the excerpt represented appropriatematerial for a beginning conducting final exam. The students observed on the video recordingswere sophomore and junior music education, performance, theory, composition, and musicindustry majors at a university in the Northeastern United States. All of the students wereenrolled in a first-semester undergraduate-level conducting course. Each student conducted theuniversity's second-tier wind ensemble for approximately three minutes using the same music

64


7/15

Criteria Specific Conducting Assesm ent

excerpt, the Religioso and Subito Allegro Vivo sections (measures 1-120) of William Schuman'sChester: Overture for Band (1957). In addition, students analyzed the excerpt according tohistorical context, melody, harmony, form, orchestration and interpretation.Adjudication Panels

Eight instructors of collegiate beginning-level conducting courses were placed into twodifferent p anels . Six judg es (Panel O ne) used the CRI and the remaining two judg es (Panel Two)assigned grades to evaluate the video examples. Of the six judges comprising Panel O ne, fivehad doctorates in music or music education and one had a master's degree in conducting. Theseraters' experience ranged from 10 to 25 years teaching condu cting. All of the raters conduct theband, orchestra or choir at their respective institutions. The two additional judges (Panel Two)provided an independent overall grade for the individual video recordings as they would withtheir beginning con ducting classe s. They used a set of definitions and a 4.0 scale to provide lettergrades. Both judges had extensive experience ranging from 20 - 35 years teaching beginningconducting.Procedure

For administration of the CRI the researcher explained how to use both the continuous andadditive rating scales. Two practice examples were provided to prepare the judges for rating theexam ples used in the study. Panel One then comp leted the CRI for each excerp t. Panel Two useda form provided by the researcher to indicate a letter grade for each example. At the conclusionof the evaluation period , all six CRI raters were asked to provide written feedback on the use andcontent of the CRI. This feedback, in addition to quantitative analysis, was used as the basis forsubsequent revision of the CRI.

The analysis of the data and rater feedback from Trial One indicated that the CRI neededrevision and further study. The CRI was modified incorporating suggestions made by the judgesused in Trial One. The second administration involved a new panel of three judges of similarexperience to the first panel; the same procedures were followed for this administration. Uponcompletion of the second administration, the data were analyzed using the same procedures thathad been used for the first administration.Analysis

For Trials One and Two, means and standard deviations of each scale were calculated foreach jud ge . Inter-judge reliabilities ( a coefficients) were calculated for each scale across alljud ges . Intra-judge reliabilities for the com posite score the CRI were obtained (a coefficientsobtained across all scales) for each jud ge . Inter-judge reliabilities for each scale and the CRIcom posite score were calculated for each pair of jud ge s. A concu rrent validity coefficient wasderived from the correlation between the graded conducting performances from Panel Two65


8/15

Seddon

and the composite CRI scores from Panel One. Intercorrelations among the CRI scales werecalculated using the total scores for all judges participating in the trial.Results

Trial OneThe means and standard deviations for each scale and each judge reect reasonablevariation in the student conducting performances for each dimension and for each judge.Interjudge reliabilities (a coefficients obtained across the six judges) for each scale ranged froma = .24 to a = .88. These coefficients suggest that the dimensions measured by the individualscales vary widely in the degree to which different judges measure those dimensions. Despite thewidely variable interjudge a coefficients obtained for the individual scales, the overall a for thecomposite score (across all scales and all judges) was a = .95.The intercorrelations among the nine dimensions range from low to high (r = .08 to

r = .94). The correlations between the nine dimensions and the CRI Com posite score rangedfrom r = .36 to .94. High correlations were found between gestural expression and facialexpression (r = .94), left hand use was not differentiated from student cond ucto rs' use of gesturalexpression (r = .90). When using the CRI, the judges viewed expressive conducting as threefacets of a single expression construct. Another high correlation was between the left hand andcueing dimensions (r = .92). High intercorrelations were also found between the preparatorygesture and release gesture (r = .84), pattern (r = .88), left hand (r = .88) and cueing (r = .89).This is believed to have occurred because of the preparatory gesture's dependence on the timeaspect of conducting. The pattern dimension correlated highly with the left hand (r =.82), andcueing (A- = .85). This may be attributed to the inexperience of the beginning-conducting student,both in terms of knowledge and motor skills development. Low correlations were found betweenthe posture dimension and all others.

The pairwise interjudge reliabilities for Trial One of the CRI ranged from moderate(r = .76) to low (r = .37). This level of agreement among independent adjudicators wasinsufficient and was one of the reasons for a second evaluation tria l. The ju dg es ' evaluation ofstudent conducting demonstrations was not adequately consistent with the use of version one ofthe CRL A second trial was required for two rea son s. First, the pairwise interjudge reliabilitiesdid not show sufficient agreeme nt to conclude that the rating instrum ent was reliable. Secon d,several mo derate to low alpha coefficients were found for several of the individual rating sc ales.

Revisions w ere made to the CRI resulting in the rewording of Cueing, Facial Expression ,Pattern, and R elease Gesture. In addition, the dimensions of Posture and Baton Grip/RightArm were combined into one additive sca le. This rating scale was labeled Posture/Baton Grip.Definitions of each category and key w ords (Table 1) were included for Trial Two to clarify theintent of each scale for the judges.66


9/15

Criteria Specific Conducting Assesment

Trial Two

The means and standard deviations calculated for the composite of all judges indicatedthat the judges were able to discriminate between student conducting performances, particularlywhen considering the small sample size of 19 performances. The data indicate that the judgesselected a wide range of criteria within each dimension as they made choices about various levelsof performance.

The interjudge alpha coefficients for the rating scales from Trial Two were m oderateto high. In examining the results, cueing (a = .90), facial expression (a = .93), and gesturalexpression (a = .92) had the highest interjudge reliability. The overall CRI reliability was a =.98.The lowest reliability was posture/baton grip at a = .63. This could be du e to the additive natureof the scale.

Table 2 displays the intercorrelations for Trial Two including all dimensions and the CRItotal scores. The correlations range from r = .40 to .94 among the dimensions. As in Trial Onethe high correlations in Trial Two can be found. One example is the r = .94 correlation betweengestural expression and facial expression. The correlations between the dimensions and the CRItotal score are all high, with the exception of posture/baton grip (r = .62).Table 2Scale and Total Score Intercorrelations of the combined judges'ratings for Trial Two of the CRIand Interjudge Alpha Coefficients for Corresponding Scales fi-om Trials One and Two.

cPosture/Baton Grip .46CueingFacial E xpressionPatternGestural ExpressionLeft HandPreparatory GestureRelease Gesture

FE.40.90-

P.61.81.74-

Intercorrelations for TriaGE.52.91.94.82-

LH.65.80.81.78.84-

PG.66.87.81.91.89.81-

RG.45.91.85.87.89.76.93-

12CRI Composite

.62!94.92.91.96.89.95.94

Interjudge a. Trial 1

.88

.76

.86

.82

.80

.84

.24

Trial 2

.90

.93

.83

.92

.84

.79

.85

67


10/15

Seddon

The pairwise interjudge reliabilities for the CRI composite scores in Trial Two were foundto be significant at the .01 level of confidence (between jud ge 1 and 2 (r = .79), between 1 and 3(r = .85), and between judges 2 and 3 (r = .84). These reliabilities are systematically higher thanthose obtained from Trial One.

Also shown in Table 2 is a com parison of the alpha coefficients from Trial One and TrialTwo. This comparison includes only those scales that were included in both trials. (The postureand baton grip/right arm dimensions from Trial One and the posture/baton grip dimension fromTrial Two are excluded.) W hen com paring the alpha coefficients from Trial One and Trial Twoall but the preparatory gesture and pattern rating scales showed improvement. The alterationsmade to the CRI appeared to contribute to the improved reliabilities. The dimensions showingthe greatest change were facial expression, gestural expression and the release gesture.Two conducting teachers independently provided letter grades (A, B, C, D, F) for thestudent conducting examples used in this study. The inter-rater reliability between these judgeswas r = .82. When comparing the results of the conducting teachers who provided grades withthe judg es using the CR I composite s cores , the resulting con gruent validity coefficient was

r= .16. There was a substantial level of agreement in the global assessment of varying levels ofstudent conducting ability.Discussion

The revisions to the CRI led to a general improvement in the interjudge a reliabilities forTrial Tw o. It is important to acknow ledge that the overall alpha coefficients for the CR I werevery high for both Trial One (a = .95, with 6 judges) and Trial Two (a = .98, with 3 judges).Desp ite a smaller panel of jud ge s, the generally im proved interjudge alpha coefficients for TrialTwo are a positive indication of consistency among all judges for each component of conducting.Another factor that may have contributed to the improvement in interjudge reliability was thatdefinitions of each category and key words (Table 1) were provided and the CRI was refined.

The relatively high intercorrelations among the identified dimensions of conducting in theCRI indicated that the diagnostic validity of the CRI is insufficient. For example, the dimensionsof Facial Expression and Gestural Expression had a high correlation in both Trials (a = .94).This can be attributed partially to the wording of the CRL It could also be due to the relativeinexperience of the conductors. With more experienced conductors the two elements m ay beseparab le. In addition, a larger and more diverse student sample of condu ctors could poten tiallycontribute to lower intercorrelations and higher diagnostic validity.

This research used rating scales that attempt to describe specific qualities of conductingbehaviors, in contrast to prior research (Berz, 1983; Lewis, 1977; Karpicke, 1987), that similarlyyielded satisfactory consistency in judge's evaluations. In addition, several researchers designedperformance-rating instruments using a facet factorial approach (Abeles, 1973; Cooksey, 1977;

68


11/15

Criteria Specific Conducting AssesmentDCamp, 1980) while this approach found component areas for rating students, the present studyused experts to identify dimensions for assessment. Using this approach consistent results wereachieved while attempting to observe greater specificity of the quality of conducting gesture.

Although several dimensions have high intercorrelations, providing students with feedbackfor multiple dimensions remains important. In addition to providing students with specificfeedback, this tool can inform instruction to the extent that the instructor can identify specificcondu cting skills that are not yet achieved . This can also lead to positive reflective practicefor the instructor by providing feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses of conductinginstruction. The CR I is a tool that enables teachers to engage in careful an alytic assessm entsof beginning conductors. The data presented suggest that criteria-specific scales can be used tomeasu re specific aspects of condu cting achievem ent in a consistent mann er. Future research mayprovide insights into the relationships among the identified aspects of conducting that were foundin the present study to be highly related.

Even when using individual ratings of different conducting behaviors, this researchindicated that there remains a tendency for judges to view conducting from a global perspective.Further research is needed to understand how human judgm ents of conducting b ehaviors can beisolated to offer conducting students greater diagnostic information. This would contribute to theimprovement of conducting curricula and instruction.References

Abeles, H. F. (1973). Development and validation of a clarinet performance adjudication scaleJournal of Research in Music Education, 2 1 , 246-255.Adsit, G. (2005). Instrumental conducting CON 314 course book. West Ha rtford, CT : Univ. ofHartford.Bartee, N. (1977). The development ofa theoretical position on conducting using principals ofbody movem ent as explicated by Rudolf Laban. Diss. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Bergee , M. J . (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass juryperformances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41,(1), 19-27.Bergee , M. J. (1992 ). A scale assessing music student teachers' rehearsal effectiveness. Journalof Research in Music Educa tion, 40, (1 ), 5-15.Berz, W. L. (1983). The development of an ob servation instrument designed to classify specificnonverbal comm unication techniques employed by conductors of musical ensembles. Diss.Michigan State Univ.

69


12/15

Seddon

Byo, J. L. (1990). Recognition of intensity contrasts in gesture of beginning conductors. Journalof Research in Music Education, 38,157-163.

Byo, J. L., & Austin, K. (199 4). Comparison of expert and novice condu ctors: An approach tothe analysis of nonverbal behaviors. Journal of Band Research, 30, (1), 11-34.

Colwell, R. (1970). The evaluation of music teaching and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.Coo ksey, J. M . (1977) . An application of the facet-factorial approach to rating s cales for high

school choral music performance. Journal of Research in Music Edu cation, 25,100-114.

DC amp, C. B. (1980). An a pplication of the facet-factorial approach to scale c onstruction in thedevelopment of a rating scale for high school band music performance. Diss . Univ. of Iow a.Farberman, H. (1997). The art of conducting technique: A new P erspective. M iami, FL: WarnerBros. Pub.Fiske, H. E. (1975). Judge-group differences in the rating of secondary school trumpetperformances. Journal of Research in Music Edu cation, 23,186-196.Giersch, D . P. (1993). Choral diagnostic eva luation model: A self-administered and self-scoredinstrument for high school choral teachers to evaluate their skill in identifying and solvingrehearsal problems. Diss. Temple Univ.Gordon, E. (2003). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, and patterns: A m usic learningtheory. 4" ed., Chicago, IL: GIA Pub.Green, E. A. H. (1987). The modern conductor. 4* ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ , Prentice-Hall, Inc.Hunsberger, D., & Ernst, R. E. (1992 ). The art of conducting. 2"" ed.. New York, NY : McGrawHill, Inc.Johnson, C. M ., & Fredrickson, W.E. (1995). The effect of aural commentary, written comments,and behavioral self-assessment on conductor intensity. Journal of Band Research, 30, (2),27-38.Jordan, J. (1996). Evoking sound: Fundamentals of choral conducting and rehearsing. Chicago,IL : GIA Pub., Inc.Karpicke, H. (1987). Developm ent of an instrument to assess conducting gesture and validation

of its use in orchestral performances. Diss. Univ. of Ho uston.

70


13/15

Criteria Specific Conducting Assesment

Labuta, J. A. (199 5). Basic Conducting Techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Larkin, M. (1985). The construction and validation of rating scales for the objective

measurement o f five dimensions of achievement in choral music performance. Diss. TempleUniv.Leonard, C , & House, R. W. (1972). Foundations a nd principles of music education. 2"'' ed ..New York, NY: McGraw-H ill.Lewis, K. G. (1977). The development and validation of a system for the observation and

analysis of choral condu ctor gestures. Diss. Texas A&M Univ.M adsen, C. K., & Yarborough, C. (1980). Competency-based music education. Raleigh, NC :Contemporary.Malko, N. (1950). The conductor and his baton: Fundamentals of the teaching of conducting.Copenhagen, Denmark: Wilhelm Hansen.McElheran, B. (1989). Conducting technique: For b eginners and professionals. New York, NY:Oxford Univ. Press.Miller, S. W. A. (1988). The effect of Laban movem ent theory on the ability of student co nductors

to comm unicate m usical interpretation through gesture. Univ. of Wisconsin Mad ison.Osmun, N . (1989). The development of the comm unication skill evaluation instrument: Aninstrument designed to assess the com munication skill of the conductor in the choral

rehearsal. Diss . Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City.Prausnitz, F. (1983). Score and podium: A com plete guide to conducting. New York, NY: W. W.Norton.Price, H. E. (1985). A competency-based course in basic conducting techniques: A replication.

Journal of Research in Music Ed ucation, 21, 61-69.Rudolf, M. (1980). The grammar o f conducting: A practical guide to baton technique andorchestral interpretation. 2"** ed.. New York, NY: Schirmer Bo oks.Saunders, T. C , & H olahan, J. M . (1997). Criteria-specific rating scales in the evaluation of highschool instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45 , (3), 259272.

71


14/15

Seddon

Scherchen, H.; Calvoco ressi, M. D., trn. (1933). Handbook of conducting. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

SchuUer, G. (1997). The complete conductor. New York, NY. Oxford Univ. Press.Schuman, W. (1957). Chester: Overture for ban d. King of Prussia, PA. Merion Mu sic, Inc.Scott, D. E. (1996). Visual diagnostic skills development and college stu dents' acquisition of

basic conducting skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44,229-239.Shephard, W. (2002). A conducting workbook. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Group/Thompson

Learning.Spencer, M . C. (2000). Condu cting pedagogy: teaching through musicianship. Diss ., Univ. ofOklahoma.Weingartner, F. (1969). Weingartner on music


15/15

Copyright of Journal of Band Research is the property of American Bandmasters Association and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Criterion-refenced Rating Insment for The

Documents

Transcript of Criterion-refenced Rating Insment for The