Sydney Seed

MUED 304

Post-Test Reflection

I am very pleased with Chris’ progress. For personal feedback, and to make Chris

mindful of the skills we worked on before he started the post-test, I asked him what his

takeaways were from our time together. I was really excited about what we worked on-

specifically the breathing ideas. He said he has translated those concepts to the clarinet in

preparation for his recital, and it has really helped him. This conversation, and listening to his

progress really validated my work with him.

During the post-test I was unpleased with my rubric. I spent a lot of time writing it out

initially, but even so, upon reflection I feel like it ended up being a horrible gauge of his

progress. We spent a lot of time developing musicality, and he sounded so good when he played

the pieces, but all I could grade was that steady tempo, articulations, and dynamics were present.

Saying that something wasn’t there, and now is there is not an accurate gauge of how much he

progressed. Also, Chris missed several notes playing the chromatic scale, but he had beautiful

phrasing, and a great sound. Box 1 of my rubric is “student is still learning fingerings”. That is

an accurate description of what I observed, but there were so many great things about what he

did that exceeded box 4s expectations, so clearly my boxes for the chromatic scale were not

suitable.

With a few alterations I think this could be a suitable “grading rubric” so all students can

get credit for meeting my expectations, but this would not be a good way to monitor students

individual progress. I think differentiating between the two is important because band is not

about giving A’s to the first chair players and C’s to the last chair players. Every student who
can play an FM scale should get credit for that accomplishment without forcing a bell curve.

Some students will simply be able to do more with tone, dynamics, articulation, etc. It would be

wrong for me to make that the standard for everyone.