This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] On: 18 February 2013, At: 12:16 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Music Education Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmue20

Assessment rocks? The assessment of group composing for qualification

Vicki Thorpe
a a

School of Education Policy and Implementation, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 17-310, Karori, Wellington, New Zealand Version of record first published: 12 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Vicki Thorpe (2012): Assessment rocks? The assessment of group composing for qualification, Music Education Research, 14:4, 417-429 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.699957

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Music Education Research Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2012, 417 429

Assessment rocks? The assessment of group composing for qualication

Vicki Thorpe*
School of Education Policy and Implementation, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 17-310, Karori, Wellington, New Zealand (Received 21 September 2011; nal version received 22 May 2012)

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Ensembles such as rock and pop bands are places of exciting creativity and intense, enjoyable music making for young people. A recent review of New Zealands secondary school qualification, the National Certificates of Educational Achievement (NCEA), has resulted in a new composition assessment of individuals achievement in groups. An analysis of literature suggests that assessing the achievement of individuals in groups is complex and potentially problematic for novices. This is supported by the findings of an investigation into teacher and student experiences of the new NCEA assessment. In particular, the assessment of an individuals contribution to a collaborative compositional process was found to present significant challenges to pedagogical and assessment practice. Keywords: composing; assessment; collaborative; secondary music

Introduction The educational and social benefits of learning in groups are well-documented and in the past two decades cooperative learning strategies have become the cornerstones of educational practice (Hertz-Lazarowitz, Kirkus, and Miller 1995; Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson 2008; Slavin 1995). There is compelling evidence of a strong relation between student achievement and positive peer relationships when adolescents work together to attain shared goals (Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson 2008). Vygotskys (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development also provides strong theoretical support for the positive influences on student learning of collaboration with more capable peers. At the same time, music learning processes in contemporary contexts such as rock or pop have also received considerable attention (Allsup 2003; Green 2008; Miell and Littleton 2008). Contemporary music practices are increasingly reflected in classroom pedagogies where collaborative processes are central to learning (Burnard et al. 2008; Green 2008). Composing is the primary means of musical creative expression (Barrett 1998) and composing in groups has become the norm in many classrooms (Burnard, Fautley, and Savage 2010). Often, teenagers steeped in youth cultures gravitate towards collaborative song writing rather than solo composing (Faulkner 2003; Green 2008). What happens when group composing is incorporated into a national secondary school qualification? This is the case in New Zealand where a recent review of the secondary qualification, the National Certificates of Educational Achievement
*Email: vicki.thorpe@vuw.ac.nz
ISSN 1461-3808 print/ISSN 1469-9893 online # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.699957 http://www.tandfonline.com

418 V. Thorpe (NCEA) has led to the implementation of an internally assessed, standards-based assessment of music composition at Year 11 (15 16 year olds) by either individuals or groups of students. The assessment AS91092 Compose two original pieces of music (Ministry of Education 2010) is assessed by the classroom teacher. It may, or may not, be subject to external moderation by the national qualifications authority. Students must submit recordings of two compositions plus representations such as notated scores, chord charts and lead sheets with lyrics, as appropriate to the genre. There are no exemplars of assessed group-composed work available for teachers and the assessment criteria are extremely brief: Compose two original pieces of music (Achieved); Compose two effective original pieces of music (Merit) and Compose two convincing original pieces of music (Excellence). The NCEA is designed to assess individuals achievement. The composition assessment states that Each students creative contribution to the group composition must be individually assessed (Ministry of Education 2010). Therefore it seems that, unlike solo composing where the composition is deemed sufficient evidence of a students achievement, the teacher is also required to assess both the groupcomposed product and the individuals creative contribution to process. However, it is by no means clear how the teacher is to reconcile the simultaneous assessment of both compositional process and product, nor it is clear what is meant by what the creative contributions of the individual might be. Sociocultural theorists describe group creativity as situated, occurring within a community of like-minded individuals (Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990). Group composing is a fundamentally socio-musical activity involving highly complex interactions (Burnard and Younker 2008; Espeland 2003). Musical and social interactions during the composition process are hard to differentiate, and strongly mediated by the context and purpose of the composing (e.g. in the classroom, or in a garage), as well as the musical skills, confidence and experience of group members (Burnard and Younker 2008; Wiggins 2007). Working towards the shared goal of composing often engenders a high level of interdependence between group members (Allsup 2003; Campbell 1995; Thorpe 2009). In group composing, processes, resources and ideas are distributed across the group so that compositional process and product become shared artefacts owned by all members of the group (Fautley 2005). Furthermore, composing together in contemporary genres, in which the musicians are thoroughly enculturated, can be a highly charged and deeply meaningful process involving profound identity construction (Davis 2005; Faulkner 2003; Green 2002; Miell and Littleton 2008). It seems that the summative assessment of an individuals learning in such contexts is likely to be complex and problematic. This article presents the findings of an investigation into teacher and student experiences of the assessment for qualification of group composing. It also discusses the challenges for teachers assessment and pedagogical practices as a consequence of summatively assessing group composition.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Assessment issues Individuals in groups The benefits of learning in a group can be at odds with the practical of assigning grades for certification (Boud, Cohen, and Sampson 1999; Knight 2004; Webb 1997).

Music Education Research 419 Within a collaborative group, knowledge is situated and shaped by the group members through the context in which it is constructed (Eraut 2000). Cognition is both individual and shared, or distributed as Salomon (1993) terms it. Each individual is dependent not only upon the knowledge of others but the shared knowledge of the context in which the collaboration occurs (Eraut 2000). In a musical ensemble, for example, each person may play a different instrument in a different way from the others, with varying levels of skill, and yet communicate knowledge collectively through shared understanding of the musical, social and stylistic context (Fautley 2005). Furthermore, some of this knowledge may be tacit, where group members know more than they can tell (Polanyi 1967). Learning may also be tacit, where individuals are unaware that they have learned through observation, mimicking, socialisation and sheer proximity (Leonard and Sensiper 1998). This certainly seems be the case for teenage boys in rock bands (Campbell 1995; Davis 2005; Green 2002). Much of the somewhat sparse literature on the summative assessment of groups highlights the importance of peer and/or self-assessment because an external assessor cannot know what happened (Lejk and Wyvill 1996; Nordberg 2008). But selfassessment is not always a valid indicator of achievement either (Falchikov 1991; Johnson and Johnson 2004), and issues of fairness, institutional accountability and consequential validity dominate the discourse when students assess each other for high-stakes qualifications (Sadler 2005; Thompson and McGregor 2009). Furthermore, assessing an individuals achievement within either a group process, or of a group product, can have a negative impact upon learning and motivation (Deutsch 1979; Johnson and Johnson 2004). An individuals performance when working on a new and complex task with others can be impaired by increased levels of anxiety, apprehension and distraction if they are individually evaluated. Conversely, working in a group with no individual, external assessment can be energising and engaging (Johnson and Johnson 2004). Therefore, it is possible that novices are at risk when graded in the company of more able peers (Hargreaves 2007; Sadler 2005). It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the literature pertaining to the summative assessment of achievement in groups involves the assessment of a groups output as a single outcome or product, rather than as a complex mix of individual, collaborative and distributed processes. When assessment takes place in environments that are personally meaningful to students, teachers insights into the lives, experiences and motivations of young people are significant factors in assessment validity (Black and Wiliam 2009; Sadler 1987). While Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson (2008) demonstrated that positive peer relationships is one of the most significant factors in the learning and achievement of young adolescents at school, they also acknowledged that negative peer influences and identification with some youth counter-cultures correlate with low achievement and disengagement. Yet in the context of the present study, a classroom music teacher might foster a positive learning environment for group-composing in music genres associated with the very counter-cultures educational researchers have identified as having negative influences upon student learning. The purposes of assessment Tensions exist when assessment in schools has multiple purposes, particularly between externally imposed examination systems and classroom assessment for

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

420 V. Thorpe learning (Black et al. 2003; Boud 2000). It is ironic that summative assessment can inhibit the learning it seeks to certify (Boud 2000, 156) and could be likened to pulling the wings off a butterfly to find out how it flies (Thorpe 2008, 144).This can lead to significant difficulties for teachers where they struggle to cope with the multiple demands of assessment systems (Brown 2004; Harlen 2005). Boud (2000) points out that every act of assessment has more than one purpose, doing double duty, and sometimes having unforeseen effects upon learning and learners (160). Furthermore, teachers conceptions of assessment include potentially conflicting beliefs about its purpose (not necessarily enacted in their teaching practice), its role in improving student learning, and whether it can make students accountable for their learning (Harlen and James 1997; Pajeres 1992). There is evidence to suggest that young people are motivated to compose music together in bands for the personal satisfaction of doing so, and that they are highly influenced by popular music cultures (Green 2002; Miell and Littleton 2008). Meyer et al. (2009) examined the interrelationships between the beliefs, values, and motivation orientations of over 3000 NCEA candidates and their actual overall achievement across the curriculum. The strongest predictors of achievement were student self-ratings for the factors doing my best and doing just enough. Doing my best was a strong predicator of higher grades, while high self-ratings of doing just enough (to achieve) predicted lower grades. If the work assessed is that which a group of students find personally meaningful and would be doing anyway (such as song writing in a band), then it could be theorised that all members of the group could very well be motivated by reasons that are unrelated to gaining a good grade for a high school qualification. Assessing artistic work The assessment of creativity and its products is often contentious. Eisner (2007) observes that conceptualizing productive idiosyncrasy as an educational goal has much to do with what the arts promote. Such an aspiration frequently flies in the face of the aims of typical assessment programs (425). This highlights the tension that exists when creative work such as music composition is summatively assessed for qualification. Assessment arises out of our propensity to look for and generalize indicators of academic performance, whereas the arts, music in this case, seek productive idiosyncrasy and individualized distinctiveness (423). The last thing an assessment model needs is a surprise, and yet creative artists seek to do just that. This can pose a dilemma for classroom music teachers who may not have a clear understanding of how to go about assessing creative work anyway (Fautley and Savage 2010; Hickey 1999). Furthermore, the objective assessment of creative products is fraught with difficulty and controversy. Even the idea of declared assessment criteria for creative works is a fairly recent one (Boyce-Tillman 2003). In response to the subjectivity dilemma, Colwell (2002) suggests using taxonomies to assess compositions (Bloom 1956; Hauenstein 1998; Marzano 2001) while noting the emphasis upon writing and talking in these taxonomies. He points out that these are not usually appropriate ways to assess music learning and offers some suggested responses to Marzano (2001) that could be used when assessing playing or composing. Hickey (1999) proposes highly structured, standards-based assessment using rubrics, closely aligned to taxonomy, which can help teachers to understand

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Music Education Research 421 and measure students achievement. Eisner (2007) warns rubrics require a level of consensus, or validity and subjectivity will be at risk. This is of some significance for national qualification standards-based assessment systems such as the NCEA where rubrics and taxonomies such as Blooms (1956) are commonly used assessment tools, including the assessment examined in this study. One of the most valid and reliable ways to assess creative works is to ask groups of experts to rate an artistic product subjectively and reach a valid assessment through consensus (Byrne, MacDonald, and Carlton 2002; Hickey 2001). It is significant that Hickey (2001) found that adult composers were far less consistent and reliable in their assessment of student works than classroom music teachers or the students themselves. Qualifications structures like the NCEA often use teacher and/or external moderation, where teacher or moderator consensus is used to ensure validity and consistency of a standards-based assessment for national qualification. For two decades, New Zealand teachers have verified their composition assessments both informally through colleague consensus, and formally under the auspices of a team of national moderators. NCEA assessments are moderated externally but not every assessment is required to be submitted to the national moderators every year. However, it is quite possible that a lone Music teacher in a New Zealand secondary school will not receive feedback on his or her NCEA assessment of group composing for several years, let alone have the opportunity to achieve consensus with colleagues. Assessing the compositional process To assess anything, one needs to have a clear understanding of it. A number of writers have attempted to describe the creative process through conceptual models which have the potential to inform the creation of assessment tools (e.g. Burnard and Younker 2004; Webster 1990; Wiggins 2007). Most include an adapted view of Wallas (1926) stages of creative thinking: preparation time; time away incubation; working through illumination and polishing verification. Central to Websters (1990) highly influential model of creative thinking in music are the concepts of convergent and divergent thinking. How group composing music might be incorporated into an assessment for national qualification, or even if it should be, has not yet been considered in the assessment literature. As discussed earlier, if an individuals contribution to collaboratively composed music is to be assessed then process must be assessed alongside product. A model has the potential to be very useful way to conceptualise these complexities. Fautley (2010) suggests that his model of group composing might be used as an assessment tool. He identifies points in the compositional process where both the teacher and the students can assess either process or product, such as the initial generation of ideas, organisational discussions and work in progress sessions, as well as performance of the music itself. What is clear is that, in order to be valid and meaningful, the students themselves must have a dynamic role in assessment of the group creative process (Boud 2000; Lejk and Wyvill 1996; Nordberg 2008). Collective ownership of compositions While novice groups generally focus upon getting and playing covers (existing songs), playing original material is de rigueur for more experienced young rock

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

422 V. Thorpe bands. It is an important part way to achieve legitimacy as performers (Campbell 1995). When composing together, band members generate a high level of positive interdependence where every member is connected to the others in a shared enterprise (Johnson and Johnson 2004). Even if an individuals participation is peripheral, with only minimal opportunities, experience or abilities to contribute to the composition, the song could not have been composed or performed without them. If every member of a band identifies him or herself as a legitimate member of the band, then each is able to claim collective ownership of the groups compositions. Therefore members of a group composing band might very well claim equal ownership of a composition, regardless of the creative contribution each may or may not have made. As noted earlier, novices are at risk when their work alongside more experienced peers is graded. This may very well be the case when, despite all members taking equal ownership of the groups work, the teacher awards individual grades and some members of the band pass and others do not. The boundaries between formative and summative assessment could become blurred and the learning for some students inhibited by the act of summative assessment (Boud 2000).

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Aims of the research The present study investigated teacher and student experiences of the assessment of group composing, with the aim of informing the design and methodology of the subsequent main study. The research questions are:

What are the students and teachers experiences of the assessment of group composing? How does the teacher go about assessing an individuals learning in a groupcomposing ensemble? Were the issues raised by the literature review present in the findings of the pilot? What are the implications for the design of the main study?

This is an interpretivist, qualitative case study where my stance is that of a nonparticipant observer (Stake 2003). The research was situated in a co-educational, suburban secondary school involving one teacher and her Year 10 (pre-qualification) elective Music class. The teacher was asked to use the new NCEA achievement standard to assess group and solo composing. She selected four students (already composing together in a soft pop style) to participate in the study.

Methodology The students Students were interviewed twice, initially as a group when they had just started working on a composition and then once individually after they had performed their piece to the class but before they had received their grades. They chose pseudonyms for themselves: Bella, Luke, Eva and Anna. Relevant student assessment data were gathered such as video and audio recordings of the students performing their composition, students self-verification of their contribution, the written

Music Education Research 423 composition task, and the teachers assessment materials. The students were each asked to indicate on a 1 10 scale (1 0 my teacher has no idea what I contributed to the composition, 10 0 my teacher completely understands what my contribution was to the composition) how confident they were that their teacher knew what each of them had contributed to compositional process and final composition. The teacher The teacher, an experienced practitioner and musician, was interviewed four times, more often than originally anticipated. This was because it took her several weeks to come to grips with the assessment of compositional process, something which she had not initially realised she would need to do. Halfway through the data collection, the teacher suddenly abandoned the new assessment and, using the old NCEA achievement standard for solo composing, assigned one group grade for the final composition. In the final interview, the teacher viewed the video recording of the students performing their composition and was asked to think aloud the assessment of the final product. She expressed surprise that this able, on-task group had not done better, and graded the composition as a Merit rather than Excellence. Analysis The data were subjected to a grounded theory analysis, using NVivo8 software until the data began to repeat themselves and saturation occurred (Dey 2003). Student and teacher data were analysed together for comparison in order to generate the next round of interview questions. I started with open coding using constant comparison (Creswell 2009). The data were fragmented and sorted into indicators, and broad categories were constructed (Charmaz 2006). This was followed by axial coding where the student and teacher data were collected together and broad categories were abstracted into preliminary models (Creswell 2009). Using conceptual and theoretical memos, I constructed a narrative that described the relationships amongst the categories (Grbich 2007). This led to the generation of new interview questions, mainly for teacher interview, to fill the gaps in the data. This cycle continued until saturation. Findings Composing in a group The students preferred group composing because it provided them with opportunities to learn from each other and to test their ideas through peer critique and verification (Green 2008). There was also safety in numbers so that members of the group could take collective responsibility for the ideas when the piece was performed and subjected to the potentially critical gaze of the whole class. They also found composing in a group more fun than composing alone. This was the case even for Luke, the most experienced songwriter in the group:
Luke: And I enjoy working as a group. Its real fun. These guys are awesome. Bella: It was quite safe, like we could say ideas and not feel stupid, and not to be shut down, yeah.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

424 V. Thorpe
Luke: Just the confidence of knowing I didnt have to get up and perform it on my own made it a lot easier.

The teacher chose to offer the opportunity to compose in a group because she believed it suited the twenty-first century learning styles of some of her students (Burnard et al. 2008). She also believed that less confident and/or less able students would be more likely to take risks and try something challenging such as composition with the support of their peers:
Teacher: Its becoming a very, very verbal culture in that kids work out things, they create things together much more than they used to. You know when you think about when we were in music classes, it was a whole pile of structured individuals. These days weve got a whole pile of people who really start firing on all cylinders when theyre talking to someone. Or when theyre listening to something. What we would consider multi-tasking or intruding interruptions, they consider kind of part of the process, part of the inspiration, part of the creation. For them its very unusual to sit down by yourself and create something all by yourself. They see it around them all the time that people work together to create things.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

She believed that novice composers were at risk if individually assessed:

Teacher: I can totally see that for some students you sort of feel gee theyre probably not taking music next year, they are just really a beginner. I want them to be creative, I dont want to be too hard on them.

This belief was one of the factors that led her to decide in the end to award group and not individual grades. There is also an implication that the teacher perceived group composing as less challenging than individual composing. Yet Luke, a relatively experienced songwriter, found composing in a group difficult:
Luke: I learned that working in a group is really hard. Each person brings their own unique thing to the group but then its being able to utilise each persons own unique thing to create something. And there are certain moments when people dont want to work with other people and then nothing gets done. And then you dont get any progress. It was a learning experience for me.

All of the student participants believed that their most significant learning was social learning in order to get the job done:
Anna: Ive learned how to give my opinion to other people and stuff. Like without forcing it on them or anything. I also learned a bit about the writing process like how you can brainstorm just anything and youll get good stuff out of that. Eva: Ive never really written a song on my own before. Like Ive tried, but I found it a lot harder on my own. In the group, like just being able to kinda bounce ideas off other people, was a lot better. Just the confidence of knowing I didnt have to get up and perform it on my own made it a lot easier. So I guess I learnt that.

Assessing compositional process Both the students and the teacher recognized that the assessment of individuals composing in a group needed to include compositional process as well as product. They also believed to do so was difficult:
Luke: Cos theyre not gonna like, be able to stand over your shoulder and watch you every day with like . . . cos also, sometimes people just dont have ideas at the

Music Education Research 425

certain time, as well . . . It would be a real really hard thing to assess. Teacher: I mean I cant actually figure that one out . . . You cant nut that one out. Thats why Im saying, the final product because thats what often happens in a band. Once the piece is written it might only be two members of the band who really wrote the piece. But everyone in the band performs the piece and makes the final product happen and has made a contribution at some point, but its not always clear.

Fairness and accountability were of concern to both the teacher and the students:
Teacher: I needed to be able to make the individual student accountable, for the input that they had on the composition task. And also, in the back of my mind, I was thinking about the fact that I needed to be able to prove that they had been involved in the whole process, and it wasnt just one person who had carried all the weight. Eva: I think there would be some groups who would have, like, a main person who did most of the work and that might be a bit unfair to give an Excellence grade out to someone who didnt do as much work.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Engagement in class and task completion dominated the teachers discussion of process. She verified participation and task completion against her own criteria: (1) making some contribution to the process (students accounted for what they had done in one or two written sentences); (2) notating the composition; and (3) performing the work in front of the class. She decided that an individual students participation in at least two of these aspects qualified them to share the single grade given to the final product. Despite believing that she was assessing composing, these criteria did not actually assess it, but merely verified participation in a series of classroom tasks. Once the teacher had chosen to assign group rather than individual grades to the final product it was no longer necessary to assess the compositional process individually. Provided that individual participation was verified, for the sake of fairness and accountability, the composition itself was deemed sufficient evidence that the creative process had been collectively successful. So in the end, the assessment carried out by the teacher, ultimately bore little resemblance to the new NCEA assessment. All of the participants believed that because the students were competent and diligent they did not need much help with composing. The teacher spent most of her time with novice composers or disengaged students and the participant group received almost no teacher feedback, other than help with notating the composition. Thus the teacher had very little information on which to base her assessment of individuals contributions to process. However, when asked to indicate on the 1 10 scale (1 0I have no idea what individual students contributed to the composition, 10 0I completely understand what each individual student contributed to the composition), she was 75% confident that she knew what each of the students had contributed. On the other hand, the students were between 30% and 60% confident that she understood what they had individually contributed.

Assessing the composition itself The teacher used the old internal assessment to award one grade (Merit), as she had done in the past with solo compositions. She also awarded everyone in the group

426 V. Thorpe Excellence for verified participation, rather than for the quality of their creative contributions. The students were unconcerned about their grades: as junior high school students they regarded grades as not counting for anything until the following year. Furthermore, it seems that they may have been working from a different set of benchmarks, set by popular music:
Eva: I reckon I might just say, Merit Anna: Yeah, I was thinking Merit. Eva: Because it wasnt bad or anything. Luke: It wasnt bad. Anna: Im not expecting to hear it on the radio or anything.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Discussion At the conclusion of the research, the teacher began formulating a strategy for assessing group composing in the following school year. She commented that the interview questions had expanded her thinking, making her more aware of assessment complexities. She decided to teach her senior students how to reflect upon and analyse the group composing process. She also expressed concern that articulate and reflective students might do better than others who, despite being musically talented and creative, were less able to express themselves. During the course of the study, it became clear that the assessment of group composing was proving to be as complex as the literature had indicated it might be. The teacher struggled with the complexities of assessing individual creative process in a demanding, large and diverse class (Fautley and Savage 2010). Both she and the students were concerned about accountability for the work done and how fair the assessment would be (Nordberg 2008). Diligent students who were already reasonably skilled players and who worked well together in a group were perceived as needing less input and feedback than novice and/or disengaged students. Task completion, including notating and performing the composition, became significant drivers where the students stopped composing in order to concentrate upon completing these required tasks. Ultimately, the only aspect of group composing that was summatively assessed against the NCEA criteria was the composition itself. The findings suggest that, despite being very experienced in teaching secondary school Music, the teacher found it difficult to assess individual learners in groups because she did not have a clear understanding of the group compositional process, nor how to assess it. Given that this kind of assessment is new to New Zealand teachers, and unique to any secondary school qualification, this is hardly surprising. Therefore, the paradigm of the subsequent main study is action research where I work with teachers and their senior secondary students in a research partnership. Conclusion Increasingly, music teachers recognise that collaborative, real world learning is relevant and engaging for twenty-first century learners and seek to incorporate or support such learning in their classroom curriculum (Burnard et al. 2008; Green 2008). We know that a rock or pop band can be a place of profound learning and exciting creativity for young people (Davis 2005; Green 2002). It seems inevitable then that the assessment of collaborative learning finds its way into a

Music Education Research 427 criterion-referenced secondary qualification such as the NCEA. However, assessing individuals in groups is complex. It requires a deep understanding of compositional and social processes by all participants if is to be both fair and valid. Without this shared understanding, learning and learners are at risk (Boud 2000). Despite being small-scale, and situated within a specific assessment environment, the findings from this study resonate with theoretical issues in the literature and have considerable implications for teachers and teacher-educators. Central to these issues is teachers knowledge of assessment, creativity, and collaborative, peer-mediated music learning. If they are to undertake the complex task of assessing individuals achievement in creative ensembles, then teachers will need both knowledge and support to do so.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Notes on contributor
Vicki Thorpe teaches Music Education at the Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She is a former secondary school music teacher. Her Masters research investigated peer teaching and learning in teenage garage and rock bands. She is currently working in a Ph.D. in Music Education, examining the pedagogy and assessment of group composing in secondary schools.

References
Allsup, R.E. 2003. Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music education. Journal of Research in Music Education 5, no. 11: 24 37. Barrett, M. 1998. Researching childrens compositional processes and products. In Children composing, ed. B. Sundin, G. McPherson, and G. Folkestad, 10 32. Malmo: Musikhogskolan i Malmo. Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21: 5 31. Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bloom, B.S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classication of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners: Handbook 2. New York: Longman. Boud, D. 2000. Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education 22, no. 2: 151 67. Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson. 1999. Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 244: 413 26. Boyce-Tillman, J. 2003. Assessing diversity. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 21: 41 62. Brown, G.T.L. 2004. Teachers conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education 11, no. 3: 301 18. Burnard, P., S. Dillon, G. Rusinek, and E. Saether. 2008. Inclusive pedagogies in music education: A comparative study of music teachers perspectives from four countries. International Journal of Music Education 262: 109 26. Burnard, P., M. Fautley, and J. Savage. 2010. Assessing creativity in the secondary school classroom: Exploring variations in teachers conceptions and practices. Presented at the XXIXth International Society for Music Education World Conference. Beijing, China: International Society for Music Education. Burnard, P., and B. Younker. 2004. Problem-solving and creativity: Insights from students individual composing pathways. International Journal of Music Education 22, no. 1: 59 76. Burnard, P., and B. Younker. 2008. Investigating childrens musical interactions within the activities systems of group composing and arranging: An application of Engestro ms Activity Theory. International Journal of Educational Research 47, no. 1: 60 74. Byrne, C., R. MacDonald, and L. Carlton. 2002. Assessing creativity in musical compositions: Flow as an assessment tool. British Journal of Music Education 203: 277 90.

428 V. Thorpe
Campbell, P.S. 1995. Of garage bands and song-getting: The musical development of young rock musicians. Research Studies in Music Education 4: 12 20. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Colwell, R. 2002. Assessments potential in music education. In The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning, ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson, 1128 58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Creswell, J.W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins. Davis, S.G. 2005. That thing you do! Compositional processes of a rock band. International Journal of Education and the Arts 6, no. 16. http://www.ijea.org/v6n16/ Deutsch, M. 1979. Education and distributive justice: Some reections on grading systems. American Psychologist 34: 391 401. Dey, I. 2003. Grounded theory: Qualitative research practice. London: Sage. Eisner, E. 2007. Assessment and evaluation in education and the arts. In International handbook of research in arts education, ed. L. Bresler, 423 6. New York: Springer. Eraut, M. 2000. Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70: 113 36. Espeland, M. 2003. The African drum: The compositional process as discourse and interaction in a school context. In Why and how to teach music composition, ed. M. Hickey, 167 92. Reston, VA: Rowman and Littleeld Education. Falchikov, N. 1991. Group process analysis: Self and peer assessment of working together in a group. Paper presented at the Standing Conference on Educational Development: Self and Peer Assessment, in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Faulkner, R. 2003. Group composing: Pupil perceptions from a social psychological study. Music Education Research 52: 101 24. Fautley, M. 2005. A new model of the group composing process of lower secondary school students. Music Education Research 71: 39 57. Fautley, M. 2010. Assessment in music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fautley, M., and J. Savage. 2010. Assessment of composing in lower secondary school in the English National Curriculum. British Journal of Music Education 281: 51 67. Grbich, C. 2007. Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Green, L. 2002. How popular musicians learn. A way ahead for music education. Aldershot: Ashgate. Green, L. 2008. Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hargreaves, E. 2007. The validity of collaborative assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 142: 185 99. Harlen, W. 2005. Teachers summative practices and assessment for learning: Tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal 16: 207 23. Harlen, W., and M. James. 1997. Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education 4, no. 3: 365 79. Hauenstein, A.D. 1998. A conceptual framework for educational objectives. A holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., V.B. Kirkus, and N. Miller. 1995. Implications of current research on cooperative interaction for classroom application. In Vol. 8 of Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning, ed. R. Hertz-Lazarowitz and N. Miller, 294 315. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hickey, M. 1999. Assessment rubrics for music composition. Music Educators Journal 854: 26 33. Hickey, M. 2001. An application of Amabiles consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of childrens musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education 49: 234 44. Johnson, D., and R. Johnson. 2004. Assessing students in groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013

Music Education Research 429

Knight, J. 2004. Comparison of student perception and performance in individual and group assessments in practical classes. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 28: 63 81. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lejk, M., and M. Wyvill. 1996. A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from group assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 213: 267 91. Leonard, D., and S. Sensiper. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review 40, no. 3: 112 32. Marzano, R.J. 2001. Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Meyer, L.H., J. McClure, F. Walkey, K.F. Weir, and L. McKenzie. 2009. Secondary student motivation orientations and standards-based achievement outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79: 273 93. Miell, D., and K. Littleton. 2008. Musical collaboration outside school: Processes of negotiation in band rehearsals. International Journal of Educational Research 471: 41 9. Ministry of Education. 2010. 91092. Compose two original pieces of music. http://www.nzqa. govt.nz/ncea/assessment/search.do?query0Music&view0all&level001. Nordberg, D. 2008. Group projects: More learning? Less fair? A conundrum in assessing postgraduate business education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33, no. 5: 481 92. Pajeres, M.F. 1992. Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a mess. Review of Educational Research 62, no. 3: 307 32. Polanyi. 1967. The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. Roseth, Cary J., David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson. 2008. Promoting early adolescents achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin 134, no. 2: 223 46. Sadler, D.R. 1987. Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education 132: 191 209. Sadler, D.R. 2005. Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 302: 175 94. Salomon, G. 1993. No distribution without individuals cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations, ed. G. Salomon, 111 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slavin, R. 1995. Cooperative learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stake, R. 2003. Qualitative case studies. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 443 66. London: Sage. Thompson, D., and I. McGregor. 2009. Online-self and peer assessment for group work. Education and Training 515: 434 7. Thorpe, V. 2008. We made this song. The group song writing processes of three adolescent rock bands. Masters thesis, New Zealand School of Music, Wellington. Thorpe, V.E. 2009. Help from my friends: Group composing and informal music learning. Paper presented at the XXX1st ANZARME/MERC Conference for Research in Music Education, Akaroa, New Zealand. Vygotsky, L. 1978. The mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallas, G. 1926. The art of thought. London: Jonathon Cape. Webb, N.M. 1997. Assessing students in small collaborative groups. Theory Into Practice 364: 205 13. Webster, P.R. 1990. Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal 76, no. 9: 22 8. Wiggins, J. 2007. Compositional process in music. In International handbook of research in arts education, ed. L. Bresler, 453 70. Dordrecht: Springer.

Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC] at 12:16 18 February 2013