Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Search for Balance: The Development of a Performance Assessment Form for Classical Instrumental Music in the Tertiary Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessment in Music Education: from Policy to Practice

Part of the book series: Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education ((LAAE,volume 16))

Abstract

The amalgamation of conservatoria with universities in Australia has brought about consideration of assessment strategies in tertiary classical music performance recitals. Traditional conservatorium performance assessment differs from the university academic assessment model particularly as regards the inclusion of marked criteria. Traditional assessment tends to favour a global response via free examiner comments whilst academic assessment favours marking through the use of pre-set criteria. The first gives an overall appraisal from the perspective of the individual examiner and the second applies a set of measures that aims to provide detailed feedback on specific aspects. This chapter examines several different types of performance assessment forms and discusses their relative benefits. Recommendations are then provided for the creation of an assessment form where the most positive elements are combined. This is demonstrated through the provision of space for free examiner comments and a correlated overall mark together with pre-set criteria and no correlated mark. An exemplar is provided with a range of criteria and a Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) for application in classical instrument performance recitals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bergee, M. J. (2003). Faculty interjudge reliability of music performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. (2010). Admissions and assessment in higher music education. Handbook. Utrecht, the Netherlands: AEC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, H. E. (1977). Relationship of selected factors in trumpet performance adjudication reliability. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25(4), 256–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guildhall School of Music and Drama. (2002). Licentiate in performance LGSMD (P): music. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, E. (2001a). The Guildhall School’s Clear performance assessment system: How Clear works. London: Guildhall School of Music and Drama Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, E. (2001b). The Guildhall School’s Clear performance assessment system: Marking schemes for the assessment categories. London: Guildhall School of Music and Drama Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1997). Performance as experience: The problem of assessment criteria. British Journal of Music Education, 13, 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, G. E., & Thompson, W. (1998). Assessing music performance: Issues and influences. Research Studies in Music Education, 10, 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J. (1991). Assessing musical performance musically. Educational Studies, 17(2), 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, F. (1959). Aesthetic concepts. In A. Neill, & A. Ridley (Eds.), The philosophy of art readings ancient and modern. New York: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review. The Philosophical Review, 68(4), 421–450. doi:10.2307/2182490

  • Stanley, M., Brooker, R., & Gilbert, R. (2002). Examiner perceptions of using criteria in music performance assessment. Research Studies in Music Education, 18, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2009). These music exams. A guide to ABRSM exams for candidates, teachers and parents. London: ABRSM Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • The University of Sydney. http://sydney.edu.au/music/CS/courseinfo/recitals.shtml. Accessed 3 December, 2013.

  • Thompson, S., & Williamon, A. (2003). Evaluating evaluation: Musical performance assessment as a research tool. Music Perception, 21(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, W. J. (2005). Improving musical performance assessment. Doctoral thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queensland Conservatorium, Griffith University, 3428, South Brisbane, Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia

    Eve Newsome

Authors
  1. Eve Newsome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eve Newsome .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Queensland Conservatorium, Griffith University, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Don Lebler

  2. Queensland Conservatorium, Griffith University, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Gemma Carey

  3. Queensland Conservatorium, Griffith University, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Scott D. Harrison

Appendix

Appendix

11.1.1 Instrumental Performance Assessment Form

figure a

11.1.2 Technique

  1. 1.

    The performance consistently demonstrated a high quality of tonal control

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  2. 2.

    The performance consistently demonstrated a high accuracy of intonation

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  3. 3.

    The performance consistently demonstrated a high accuracy of rhythm

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  4. 4.

    The performance consistently demonstrated a high level of control of articulation/diction

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  5. 5.

    The performance consistently demonstrated a high level of sound production technique

    (Circle as relevant: Breathing/bowing/pedalling/stick technique/finger work)

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

11.1.2.1 Musicality/Interpretation/Communication/Presentation

  1. 1.

    The performer consistently demonstrated a wide range of tone colours

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  2. 2.

    The performer consistently demonstrated a wide range of dynamics

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  3. 3.

    The performer consistently demonstrated well-shaped phrasing

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  4. 4.

    The performer consistently demonstrated a high level of understanding of the elements of style

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  5. 5.

    The performance consistently demonstrated a high level of expression, character and interpretative elements

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

  6. 6.

    The performance consistently demonstrated a high level of capacity to engage the audience

    Strongly disagree

    Moderately disagree

    Somewhat disagree

    Neither

    Somewhat agree

    Moderately agree

    Strongly agree

    Students: Please note that the rating of the 11 Technical and Musical criteria may not correlate exactly with the total score

11.1.3 Examples of Assessor Guidelines

  1. 1.

    Please refer to the general guidelines for your institution in relation to syllabus and protocols for the assessment.

  2. 2.

    Please note that performances containing more than one work are to be assessed as a whole unless otherwise stated in the protocols for your institution, in which case, a separate assessment form is required for each piece.

  3. 3.

    Please complete the overall total mark before completing the criteria so that the criteria are used as a feedback mechanism to the student rather than a grading mechanism.

  4. 4.

    Please refer to definitions provided by your institution for the main assessment terms included in the criteria.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Newsome, E. (2015). A Search for Balance: The Development of a Performance Assessment Form for Classical Instrumental Music in the Tertiary Context. In: Lebler, D., Carey, G., Harrison, S. (eds) Assessment in Music Education: from Policy to Practice. Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10274-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation