Designing Substantive Playing Tests- A Model.

The playing test, if rooted in sound musical and assessment criteria, has the potential to promote high-level music making. In other words, the playing test, if developed thoughtfully and skillfully, can serve a function far beyond simply gathering information for grading and chair assignment. The music educator's ability to think deeply and precisely about relevant musical and measurement issues is the key factor in creating a test that guides instruction and teaches expressive performance. To initiate and structure these thought processes, several questions can be posed, the first of which is "What do I want my students to look like (sound like, act like, think like) as 'accomplished learners'?"[1] Development of a substantive, instructive playing test begins with this accomplished learner's "end" or goal in mind. This article chronicles the development and administration of a series of playing tests that, in conjunction with rehearsal experiences, are designed to teach expressive performance of chorale style in the instrumental ensemble setting.

Arguably, there are only two styles in music: chorale and march (also described as "song and dance" or "legato and staccato"). All other styles, which can be viewed as derivatives of chorale and march, are more easily assimilated by student musicians after the basic chorale and march styles have been taught. One issue that really matters to the instrumental conductor is whether students, from elementary to university levels, will "know and be able to do" chorale style after they have spent considerable time interacting with music under the conductor's leadership. Chorales arranged for band or orchestra have been collected in a number of sources and are readily available for use as pedagogical tools.[2] The fact that certain of these arrangements are devoid of tempo indications, terminology indicative of articulation, and dynamic markings renders them vulnerable to interpretational abuse by unknowing student musicians. It also provides an ideal platform from which to promote the virtues of bringing interpretation to the music, as opposed to simply responding to directives already marked on the parts.

The conductor may ask, "How can I flood my students with chorale experiences over a given period of rehearsal time so that, when left to their own devices, they will have no choice but to know and be able to do chorale style?" The phrase "when left to their own devices" highlights the important distinction between group-oriented assessment and individual assessments. Teachers and conductors tend to measure success by the accomplishments of the group--with the assurance that, in their presence and under their influence, the ensemble will respond by performing at some acceptable level. Whether students can function as effectively when performing away from the influence of the conductor and other ensemble members is another question, one which compels teachers to scrutinize the quality of the individual student's performance.

In creating the test, the conductor must first develop a clear picture of what an accomplished learner looks like when he or she performs expressively in chorale style. No doubt, chorale performance provides opportunities for students to play expressively while listening to each other and reacting to a conductor's gestures. But these potential benefits neither singly nor collectively constitute a complete, well-defined picture of what an accomplished learner might look like. A clear definition of the performance-related elements of chorale style includes an individual's approach to tempo, style of articulation, volume variation, and handling of fermatas. An accomplished learner makes interpretive decisions relevant to these four elements and possesses sufficient skill to implement them accurately and musically.

In this discussion, the following assumption provides direction: the pedagogical use of the chorale is an opportunity to create drama in music with students. At times, the act of creating drama via the chorale genre might impinge on accepted performance practices, but the aim here is to prod students into becoming more flexible as performing musicians and more sensitive to ebb and flow in tempo, phrasing, and rubato. Though this approach could be seen as overly romanticizing the chorale, there is just cause.

Chorale tempo, though certainly variable, is more appropriately thought of as slower rather than faster. In rehearsal, students can be given tempo experiences consistent with the idea that slower has more musical potential than faster. The style of articulation in chorales is smooth; creating a convincing legato style with student musicians is a challenge. Closely tied to smoothness of line is how and when the instrumentalist breathes. Preparatory breaths should be in the tempo and character of the music and sufficient to play a reasonably paced phrase. Tempo and breath requirements of certain instruments (tuba, for example) often necessitate quick and efficient breaths within phrases.

As accomplished learners, students might think of volume issues in chorale performance in two ways: (1) phrase leading and (2) terraced dynamics. For phrase leading, the goal is to establish the concept that, as notes ascend, volume should increase. As notes descend, volume should decrease--generally (this last word is a most important consideration advised by Pablo Casals).[3] Terracing provides another option in volume variation that is especially useful when melodic contour does not evince clear ascending or descending patterns.

The prevalence of the fermata at phrase endings is unique to the chorale. Students as accomplished learners should know and be able to demonstrate the rich musical potential inherent in the fermata. Whether this potential is reached lies in the conductor's ability to lead students to attend to four facets of fermata interpretation: approach, duration, volume variation, and release. Approach involves either (1) slowing the tempo as a means of preparing for the cessation of movement brought on by the fermata or (2) no slow down into the fermata. For duration, the two points to emphasize are that (1) fermatas can be sustained for variable rates of time and (2) longer duration, generally speaking, has more expressive potential than shorter duration. How the fermata is treated with regard to volume entails a number of options: (1) increase, (2) decrease, (3) hairpin, and (4) no change. Finally, choices about the release of a fermata go back to undergraduate conducting and the topic of caesura: (1) long caesura, (2) short caesura, and (3) no caesura. Again, the goal is to flood students with fermata experiences that embody the variety of interpretive options available with regard to these four facets.

A further question that helps form a picture of the accomplished learner is "How would the student, independent of the conductor, play his or her part to an unfamiliar chorale?" Try this experiment: choose an unfamiliar chorale and ask several ensemble members individually to play it as musically as possible (without giving any further instructions); nearly all of the performers will "choose" an inappropriately fast tempo. Many will choose a style of articulation that is not convincingly legato. Nearly all will treat each fermata identically-most often for shorter rather than longer duration. Nearly all will play with little to no volume variation.

Now imagine that one of your more accomplished students, a female flutist, chooses an adagio tempo (perhaps quarter note = 56) and plays in a convincingly legato style. Choosing to begin the first phrase at a piano dynamic level, she "sneaks" a necessary breath after count 2 of the second measure and increases the volume gradually to forte as the note contour ascends to the end of the phrase. Approaching the cadence, she slows the tempo a bit and then holds the fermata a long time, with the volume decreasing gradually to niente. She adds a long caesura at the release of the fermata and before the beginning of the second phrase to add drama to her interpretation. This student's chorale experiences in band or orchestra rehearsal have laid the foundation for her musical decisions. Performance-based testing has reinforced the rehearsal experience, while holding her personally accountable for her thought processes and performance skill level. In this way, the myth that slow music is easy music has been dispelled, and the student is challenged by the variety of interpretive possibilities in chorale performance and by the responsibility inherent in devising and realizing her own interpretations. She can be seen concentrating more intensely as she struggles with breath management and tonal control at extreme dynamic levels. Such an exercise brings a healthy respect for slow music. Why should the conductor be the only one charged with the responsibility of thinking musically about music?

The following playing test is applicable to most warm-up chorales arranged for band or orchestra, especially those in a hybrid texture, that is, having bass and inner parts that are more horizontally and less vertically oriented than would be the case in homophonic texture. The test has been field-tested in one middle school orchestra and two high school band settings.[4] Noteworthy aspects include (1) a test design that makes possible one-pass grading and (2) testing procedures that entail during-rehearsal testing for which the teacher/conductor need not be present. One-pass grading places the teacher/conductor in a position to assign a grade after having heard the student's performance one time. During-rehearsal testing involves individual students leaving rehearsal in a prearranged order, proceeding to a nearby testing room equipped with an audio- or videotape recorder, and taping their test performance on their own.

The test instrument is used within a twelve-week unit of study focusing on chorale performance. The unit is designed to occupy no more than five minutes of each rehearsal across the twelve-week period and includes six individual performance tests spaced two weeks apart in test-retest format (Test 1 and retest, Test 2 and retest, and Test 3 and retest). Quality of student performance is evaluated based on specific dimensions of instrumental performance, the creation of which were motivated by the question "What do I want my students to look like as accomplished learners?" This thought process resulted in nine chorale performance dimensions-tempo, breathing, smoothness of line, fermata interpretation, volume variation, written interpretation, tone, rhythm accuracy, and note accuracy.

During the first two-week period, rehearsal instruction focuses primarily on tempo, breathing, and smoothness of line. The corresponding test and point distribution, shown in figure 1, evaluates student performance on these three dimensions, as well as tone quality and note and rhythm accuracy. Though the latter dimensions are not intended as rehearsal focal points during the chorale experience, students are nevertheless held accountable for these music-making "constants." Notice the point distribution under "metronomic tempo," which is designed to encourage students to adopt slower rather than faster tempos. During the second two-week period, instruction, though similarly focused, is adjusted according to the strengths and weaknesses exhibited by students on Test 1. The retest given at the conclusion of this period is intended to allow students the opportunity to respond to teacher/conductor feedback from Test 1.

The teacher/conductor need not feel compelled to address in rehearsal only those elements of chorale performance dictated by the test. In other words, instruction relevant to fermatas or volume variations need not be saved for later simply because Test 1 does not address these concepts. Specific test criteria, however, do warrant a focus of attention in rehearsal.

During the middle four-week test-retest period, students in rehearsals are given many and varied fermata experiences, while the conductor continues to draw secondary attention to issues of tempo, breathing, and smoothness of line. For the corresponding test and retest, shown in figure 2, students are evaluated cumulatively, that is, on all previous dimensions in addition to fermata treatment. During the final four-week period, rehearsal experiences focus on volume variation, while performance dimensions from previous weeks are reinforced. Students again are evaluated cumulatively (see figure 3).

In order that students enter the testing room with a plan of attack, they are required to play from and submit a written interpretation, first with regard to fermata interpretation (Test 2) and then with regard to volume variation (Test 3). Students are taught how to mark their parts to represent their performance intentions. Interpretation is not to be improvised during testing.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 show that, for each performance dimension, a multilevel, criteria-specific rating scale was constructed, with each level represented by a description of student performance. Levels are distinct in that they allow for variations in performance proficiency; each level delineates sequentially more appropriate performance criteria. Under several categories in figures 2 and 3, one or two instances of a musical behavior warrant full credit; this is based upon the reasoning that demonstration of one or two instances is sufficient to indicate that the behavior is in the student's repertoire of interpretive options. Variety is also encouraged by the distribution of points under the "fermata release" category in figure 2.

One chorale is selected for all assessments. This chorale should be devoid of tempo indications, terminology indicative of articulation, and dynamic markings. The chorale portion of each rehearsal should focus on this one chorale during the twelve-week unit of study, though directors might find it beneficial to intersperse other chorales in rehearsal from time to time.

On the first day of each four-week period, students are provided with a copy of the appropriate test instrument. Across the next several rehearsals, the teacher explains the test, making expectations clear to the students. There should be nothing mysterious about what is required to earn full credit in any one performance dimension.

For testing during rehearsal, there is always one student in the testing room and one student waiting "on-deck." In the testing room, an audiotape recorder or video camera is available for use. For video recording, the camera should be directed at the chair and music stand at an oblique angle to capture a combination frontal-side view, with the lens width adjusted once to anticipate students of various heights. Each student enters the room with instrument and chorale part in hand, engages the video camera or audiotape recorder, plays, disengages the camera or audiotape recorder, and returns to rehearsal. The student on-deck enters immediately and follows the same procedure. Alternatively (perhaps preferably), recording equipment can be running continuously.

The evaluator listens to/views recorded performances and, while focusing on the performance dimension(s) in question, matches student performance to level descriptions (see figures 1, 2, and 3).

In implementing these playing test procedures, a number of practical issues emerged:

• Individual assessment requires an investment in teacher time. A four-phrase chorale played at a slow tempo involves less than one minute of time. When the videocamera ran continuously, an average of twenty seconds elapsed between students. Using one testing room, roughly thirty-seven students were tested in one fifty-minute rehearsal, a seventy-five-member band in two rehearsals. One pass per student grading required approximately two hours of grading per test for this seventy-five-member band. Obviously, this time would be extended if the teacher wrote comments or reviewed selected performances that posed particular assessment challenges.
• Teachers are concerned about assessment techniques that are obtrusive in the rehearsal setting. All three directors who used these assessment techniques reported mild distractions with regard to students leaving for testing and returning to rehearsal. For two of the three directors, the distractions abated as students became accustomed to the procedure. The attitude of all directors was that the benefits of individual testing in this manner outweighed the mild distraction factor.
• Student operation of the video equipment in the testing environment posed no problems, though this point was moot for two of three directors who preferred to allow the video camera to run continuously, because "it seemed to create a sense of urgency among students in the transition between them."
• Purchase of audio/video equipment, including a video playback unit, for use as described here should be given high priority in an instrumental music department budget.
• Development of the test entailed extensive revisions to an original version, thus underscoring the idea that test development is not a static endeavor; rather, it evolves. A certain amount of trial and error is inevitable. Further, the content of this test reflects personal values and preferences, which are not necessarily universal. Certainly, if used as a model, this test should be adapted to be consistent with the specific teacher's own values and preferences.

Teaching involves three components usually thought of as occurring in the following order: planning, instructing, and testing. In the process described in this article, this order has been reversed. The test was developed first rather than last. By asking the "accomplished learner" question and developing assessment instruments accordingly, the teacher/conductor is in a position to "articulate ... goals explicitly enough to ensure that he understands vividly and precisely what it is that he is trying to get his students to do."[5] Test criteria, then, inform rehearsal planning. Instruction entails teaching the test, a practice that is acceptable, even desirable "if the test measures achievement relative to [accepted] instructional objectives."[6] No doubt, this approach has far-reaching positive implications for teaching and learning in the large ensemble setting. Ask the "accomplished learner" question often.

1. Robert A. Duke, "Intelligent Assessment in General Music: What Children Should Know and (Be Able to) Do," General Music Today 13, no. 1 (1999): 12.

• 2. See, for example, W. Gorder, Sound Training: Twenty-Six Chorales for Band (Van Nuys, CA: Alfred, 1995); P. Gordon, Forty-Two Chorales for Band (New York: Bourne, 1962); B. Harris, Directional Warm-Ups for Band (Miami, FL: Belwin-Mills, 1996); M. Lake, ed., Sixteen Chorales by J. S. Bach (New York: Schirmer, 1938).
• 3. D. Blum, Casals and the Art of Interpretation (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977), 20.
• 4. The author acknowledges the contributions of instrumental music teachers Pam Chaffin and Brendan Caldwell of the East Baton Rouge (LA) Parish School System in field-testing the assessment procedures described in this article.
• 5. Robert A. Duke, "Will This Be on the Test?" in Reform in Education: Bowling Green State University Symposium on Music Teaching and Research, ed. P. T. Tallarico, 75-86 (Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University, 1997), 79.
• 6. J. David Boyle and Rudolf E. Radocy, Measurement and Evaluation of Musical Experiences (New York: Schirmer, 1987), 28.

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Developing a good playing "feel" begins by examining what an individual accomplished learner looks like in action.

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Accomplished learners take responsibility as individuals for musical choices in tempo, dynamics, articulation, and phrasing.

Chorale Performance Assessment: Test 1 and Retest

NAME _ DATE _

1. Metronomic Tempo

• M.M. 44-66--slow (5) _
• M.M. 69-76--moderate (4) _
• M.M. 80-above--too fast (0) _

Note: If tempo is unsteady due to flawed sense of time, points will be deducted.

2. Breathing

• Sufficient to execute phrase (5) _
• Sometimes sufficient, sometimes not, or breath on occasion not used to full capacity (3) _
• Consistently insufficient to execute phrase or not used to full capacity (0) _

Note 1: Timp. and mel. perc. are not exempt from breathing in tempo prior to each phrase.

Note 2: If catch breath is necessary:

• It was executed appropriately yes _ no _
• The previous note was unduly cheated and/or re-entry was late (deduct 1 point) yes _ no _
• ness of Line (focus on continuous air)
• No break between notes (5) _
• Approximates no break, but coordination between tongue and fingers is flawed (4) _
• Inconsistent--sometimes no break, sometimes break (3) _
• Attempts no break but lacks tonal control necessary to execute it (2) _
• Breaks between notes or incorrect articulation (slur instead of tongue) (0) _
• Rich, full (5) _
• At times loses richness, fullness, response; distorts (3) _
• Consistently flawed (uncharacteristic, unresponsive) (0) _
• and Note Accuracy
• All rhythms and notes played accurately (5) _
• Several errors (3) _
• More than several errors (0) _

TOTAL POINTS (25) _

Chorale Performance Assessment: Test 2 and Retest

NAME _ DATE _

Fermata Interpretation

• Approach
• One or more instances of ritardando (5) _
• No instances of ritardando (0) _
• Length (in beats at prevailing tempo)
• One or more instances of "long" (3 or more beats) (5) _
• No instances of "long" (0) _
• Volume variation
• Two or more instances of clearly discernible change (5) _
• Change is attempted but result is unconvincing (3) _
• No discernible change (0) _
• Release (in beats at prevailing tempo, tally for each)
• Short caesura (1 beat) yes _ no _ all 3 _ (5) _
• Long caesura (2 or more beats) yes _ no _ 2 of 3 _ (3) _
• No caesura yes _ no _ 1 of 3 _ (0) _
• n Interpretation (fermata issues)
• Complete (5) _
• Incomplete (3) _
• No attempt (0) _
• Breathing, Smoothness of Line (15) _
• 5) _
• and Note Accuracy (5) _

TOTAL POINTS (50) _

Chorale Performance Assessment: Test 3 and Retest

NAME _ DATE _

1. Dynamics (phrase-leading and/or terraced)

• Two or more phrases of clearly discernible change (5) _
• Two or more phrases where change is attempted but result unconvincing (3) _
• Discernible change is evident on one phrase or not at all (0) _
• n Interpretation (phrase-leading and/or terraced)
• Complete (5) _
• Incomplete (3) _
• No attempt (0) _
• Breathing, Smoothness of Line (15) _
• a Treatment (20) _
• 5) _
• and Note Accuracy (5) _

TOTAL POINTS (55) _