Assessment in the secondary school band programs of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many years, the assessment practices of band directors in North America have come under scrutiny. As funding for public education shrinks, the call for greater accountability in schools has focused attention on the assessment procedures of all teachers. This is especially true for arts teachers, including band directors, due to the public’s perception of highly subjective assessment practices in arts-based courses. This sequential, explanatory mixed method study sought to investigate the current assessment practices of high school band directors in British Columbia, including the purposes and uses of classroom assessment methods, and potential implications for teacher education with respect to the use of classroom assessment. The study also sought to discover any underlying assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes of band directors in designing and implementing those assessment procedures. Using a stratified random sample of band directors from 12 districts across four regions of British Columbia, this sequential, explanatory mixed methods study allowed a dialectical research structure that connected the empirical evidence of the quantitative survey instrument with the qualitative interview that drew upon the subjects’ personal beliefs. This study found that band directors do assess their students and hold strong beliefs that assessment is fundamental to the teaching/learning process. Despite this, they often use structures in their assessment practice that account for non-achievement, behavioural factors (i.e., effort, attendance, attitude, and participation) rather than musical outcomes. It also became apparent that band directors lacked sufficient pedagogical content knowledge in the early stages of their career that supports broad-based assessment within a comprehensive musicianship context. Why? Band directors noted that their pre-service education in assessment was deficient. Therefore, in addition to other recommendations, this study suggests a tripartite model for undergraduate music education that is more inclusive of assessment instruction and procedures. In other words, music teacher education programs should balance educatorship, musicianship, and assessorship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".