A Comparison of Faculty, Peer, and Self-Evaluation of Applied Brass Jury Performances

Abstract

Authorities agree that peer evaluation and self-evaluation can help improve teaching performance. Evaluation of applied music skills, however, remains heavily teacher-centered. In this investigation, I explored the efficacy of peer and self-evaluation of applied brass jury performances. In three episodes at two locations, university faculty members evaluated live brass jury performances using an author-constructed Brass Performance Rating Scale (BPRS). Also using the BPRS, students rated these same performances (one of which was theirs) on videotape. To control for adjudicators' prior knowledge of performers, a fourth panel of adjudicators unfamiliar with the performers evaluated one episodes performances. Interjudge reliability for faculty and peer evaluation panels generally was high, with total score correlations ranging from .83 to .89 ( p < .01). Correlations among faculty and peer-group evaluations also were high, with total score r ranging from .86 to .91 ( p < .01). Consonant with prior investigations, self-evaluation generally correlated poorly with faculty and peer evaluation. The effect of videotape seemed minimal; scoring discrepancies between live and videotaped performances were low. In this investigation, prior knowledge of performers did not seem to affect evaluations.

The Influence of Teaching-Career Level and Primary Performance Instrument on the Assessment of Music Performance

“…Bergee (1993Bergee ( , 1997 found that undergraduate performance majors evaluated collegiate-level solo performances as consistently as university teachers did. This is similar to findings of Mills (1987), who determined that the rankings of instrumentalists by music teachers were similar to those of specialist students and nonspecialists with music experience.…”

“…Piano faculty members were also no more consistent than were students when choosing paired comparisons of piano performers (Wapnick, Flowers, Alegant, & Jasinskas, 1993). Bergee (2003) later found that lack of experience in evaluating had no effect on reliability in faculty evaluation of undergraduate student performances. Burnsed and IGng (1987) found inconsistencies among expertjudges for tone and intonation.…”

“…Research on the evaluation of instrumental performance in secondary and postsecondary education has a long and varied history (e.g., Bergee, 1993Bergee, , 1997Boyle & Radocy, 1987;Cohvell, 1970;Fiske, 1975Fiske, , 1977Saunders & Holahan, 1997). Emphasis has been placed on scale development, self-evaluation, rater consistency, and evaluation context.…”

An Examination of the Reliabilities of Two Choral Festival Adjudication Forms

“…Each dimension on Form B was rated lower than its counterpart on Form A (since the number &dquo;1&dquo; is considered the &dquo;best&dquo; score, lower scores or ratings are indicated by higher numbers). Paired-samples t-tests revealed significant differences between forms at the .05 level or lower in the following dimensions: tone ( t = -2.27, p = .027), diction ( t = -2.40, p=.02), blend ( t = -3.36, p = .001 ) , intonation ( t = -2.34, p = .023), rhythm ( t = -2.80, p = .007), balance ( = -4.09, p < .001 ) , total score ( = -3.94, p < .001), and rating ( (Garman, Barry, & DeCarbo, 1991;Bergee, 1988Bergee, , 1989Bergee, , 1993Bergee, , 1997Bergee, , 2003 The additional analysis of the means of dimensions, total score, and overall ratings corroborates the above comments (see Table 1 and above t-test results). Form B yielded significantly different ratings in every dimension except interpretation, suggesting that the adjudicators in this setting rated the choirs more severely when using Form B.…”

Feedback on Collaborative Skills in Remote Studio Design

“…Very little is known about the creative process in group discussion by studio artists, let alone in remote discussion. The very few studies [2,15] that have examined peer assessment in artistic settings have been in the arena of music performance, and so it is unclear how they apply. Findings from the peer assessment studies and remote brainstorming studies have been in non-artistic topics and settings, and the nature of the brainstorming and decision-making have been different from what artists do: the studio art design setting involves visual design that includes esthetic judgment.…”