Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:50:21.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seeing yourself as others see you: developing personal attributes in the group rehearsal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Mark Pulman
Mark Pulman*
Affiliation:
University of Huddersfield, University Campus Barnsley, Church Street, Barnsley S70 2YW, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An important part of the process that enables us to improve ourselves as musicians in group music making involves developing an awareness of our personal attributes as they are displayed in the rehearsal. In order to help students become more aware of themselves and of their band members’ personal attributes as they rehearse, a peer assessment system was established. The project was piloted and developed at Barnsley College and University of Huddersfield (Barnsley Campus) with first year undergraduates on the BA Popular Music course across 2000–2008. Individuals agreed to allow their bands to identify particular personal attributes for each member that, they felt, could be improved and used as peer assessment criteria. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 students over a 4-year period and the following areas emerged as a focus of these: self-knowledge, feedback, confidence, honesty. The study has implications for devising peer assessment systems that are responsive to individual learners and their unique needs. It also suggests the desirability of providing peer assessment activities that might foster trust among participants and, if so, supports the provision of exceptional feedback. Now in its ninth year, this system has been refined into a model.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Music Education , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 117 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BALLANTYNE, R., HUGHES, K. & MYLONAS, A. (2002) ‘Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (5), 427–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BIGGS, J. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 2nd edn. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.Google Scholar
BLOM, D. & POOLE, K. (2004) ‘Peer assessment of tertiary music performance: opportunities for understanding performance assessment and performing through experience and self-reflection’, British Journal of Music Education, 21 (1), 111–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOUD, D. & WALKER, D. (1993) ‘Barriers to reflection on experience’, in Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Walker, D. (Eds), Using Experience for Learning (pp. 73–86). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.Google Scholar
BOUD, D. & FALCHIKOV, N. (2006) ‘Aligning assessment with long-term learning’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (4), 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BROWN, S. & KNIGHT, P. (1994) Assessing Learners in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
BRUNER, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRYAN, C., Ed. (2004) Assessing Group Practice. SEDA paper 114. Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association Publications.Google Scholar
CHARMAZ, K. (2000) ‘Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods’, in Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edition) (pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
CHARMAZ, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
COHEN, L., MANION, L. & MORRISON, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
CRESWELL, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
DANIEL, R. (2004) ‘Peer assessment in musical performance: the development, trial and evaluation of a methodology for the Australian tertiary environment’, British Journal of Music Education, 21 (1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DENZIN, N. & LINCOLN, Y., Eds. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
DREW, S. (2001) ‘Student perceptions of what helps them learn and develop in education’, Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (3), 309–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EXLEY, K. & DENNICK, R. (2004) Small Group Teaching. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FALCHIKOV, N. (2005) Improving Assessment through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
GLASERFIELDE, Von. E, Von. (1995) Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
GUBA, E. & LINCOLN, Y. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
HABERSHAW, S., GIBBS, G. & HABERSHAW, T. (1993) Interesting Ways to Assess Your Students. Melksham: Cromwell Press.Google Scholar
HUNTER, D. & RUSS, M., Eds. (2000) Peer Learning in Music. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
LINCOLN, Y. & GUBA, E. (1985) Naturalist Inquiry: London: Sage.Google Scholar
MILES, M. & HUBERMAN, A. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
MILES, M. & HUBERMAN, A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
NORTON, L. (2004) ‘Using assessment criteria as learning criteria’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (6), 687–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ORSMOND, P., MERRY, S. & REILING, K. (2002) ‘The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (4), 309–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRINS, F., SLUIJSMANS, D., KIRSCHNER, P. & STRIJBOS, J. (2005) ‘Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (4), 417–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POPE, N. (2005) ‘The impact of stress in self- and peer assessment’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PULMAN, M. (2004) ‘Peer assessment in popular music’, in Hunter, D. (Ed.), How Am I Doing? Valuing and Rewarding Learning in Musical Performance in Higher Education. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
PULMAN, M. (2008) ‘Knowing Yourself through Others’: Peer Assessment in Popular Music. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
RUST, C., PRICE, M. & O'DONOVAN, B. (2003) ‘Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (2), 147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHWANDT, T. (1994) ‘Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry’, in Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
TOPPING, K., SMITH, E., SWANSON, I. & ELLIOT, A. (2000) ‘Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25 (2), 149–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VYGOTSKY, L. (1976) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar