student learning assessment report (slar) · dr. bonnie jenkins dr. tom matrone dr. greg morris mr....

1

Student Learning Assessment Report (SLAR)

“How are students learning?”

Instructions: This template is a running document of each annual Academic Program Assessment Report due to the department chairs and Provost the last Friday in October. The final report in the document should be the official report of the year of the full Program Review. All reports below use the same report template. If the report is the Program Review year, please indicate it next to “Program Review Year” and also submit the Academic Program Review (APR).

Department: Music Program Coordinator: Dr. Larry Dissmore

Academic Program Evaluated: Bachelor of Arts in Music Program Review Year: 2020-21

Year 1 Academic Year: 2018-19


Year 3 Academic Year: Year 4 Academic Year:

Faculty members involved in this assessment process: (List all faculty members who participated: program coordinator, reviewers, committee members, etc.)

Dr. Larry Dissmore Mr. Joel Griffin Dr. Kevin Hawkins Dr. Bonnie Jenkins Dr. Tom Matrone Dr. Greg Morris Mr. Matthew Moore Mr. Jason Salazar

Dr. Larry Dissmore Dr. Joel Griffin Dr. Kevin Hawkins Dr. Bonnie Jenkins Dr. Tom Matrone Dr. Greg Morris Mr. Matthew Moore Mr. Jason Salazar

Number of students in sample: (If known, supply the number of students in each class/year who were used in the assessment report.)

Freshmen: 1 Sophomores: 3 Juniors: 2 Seniors: 5 Graduate: 0

Freshmen: 3 Sophomores: 2 Juniors: 1 Seniors: 4 Graduate: 0

Freshmen: Sophomores: Juniors: Seniors: Graduate:


Instrument(s) used in assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests, portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

PLOs in the following

categories:

- Repertory and History

- Music skills and Analysis

- Composition, Arr. &

Improv.

- Cultural Awareness

PLOs in the following categories: - Repertory and History - Music skills and

Analysis - Composition, Arr. &

Improv. - Cultural Awareness

Additional Data: (List any -Jury Score Average

2 additional information/data that informed this report.)

-Sophomore Review

Methodology: (Explain the method of data collection and the data analysis process.)

Data for the PLOs were

collected through

designated assignments tied

to specific music classes. -

Jury Exams are conducted

each semester during the

final exam period. For this

report, Individual student

scores were collected and

then averaged. - Sophomore

reviews are conducted in

the Spring semester for all

students who are in their

sophomore year of music

study. Pass/Fail scores were

collected from students

The various PLOs associated with this degree are assigned to various courses. Mastery is assessed by the professor of those courses..

Data: (Provide the graphs, charts, etc. that were used to show PLO data results. Do not include the raw data.)

See appendix D from 2018-19 report

See appendix D

Results of Assessment: (What evidence exists that the program helps students achieve learning outcomes? What changes have been made since the last APR to ensure that outcomes are achieved and what changes will be made to the program following this APR? What have you learned from assessing the changes?)

See appendix A from 2018-19 report

See appendix A

Strengths: (From the findings, list the areas of strengths that currently exist in the academic program.)

See appendix B from 2018-19 report

See appendix B

Areas in need of improvement: (From the findings, list the areas of weakness(s) that currently exist in the academic program.)

See appendix C from 2018-19 report

See appendix C

3

Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and person who will administer the improvement plan.) *If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

See below See below.

Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.) *If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

See below. See below.

4 Year 1: 2018-19 Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and person who will administer the improvement plan.)

*If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person 1. Notify advisors concerning

underperforming students on the jury exam.

By Sept. 23, 2019 Dr. Larry Dissmore

2. Notify academic advisors of students who underperformed on the jury exam.

By Sept. 23, 2019 Dr. Larry Dissmore

3a. Meet with full-time faculty to further define the expectations and interpretation of each level on the jury rubrics with the goal achieving greater consistency in scoring.

3b. Request full-time faculty in the various applied areas—keyboard, voice, instrumental—to appropriately advise the adjunct faculty as to the interpretation of the various levels on the jury rubrics.

3a. By Nov. 30. 3b. By Fall semester jury exams.

Dr. Larry Dissmore in coordination with the Music Dept. Chair. Full-time music faculty

Year 1: 2018-19 Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.)

If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

Improvement Plan Implementation Date

1. Notify advisors concerning underperforming students on the jury exam.

Implemented fall 2019

2. Notify academic advisors of students who underperformed on the jury exam.

Implemented fall 2019

3a. Meet with full-time faculty to further define the expectations and interpretation of each level on the jury rubrics with the goal achieving greater consistency in scoring.

3b. Request full-time faculty in the various

3a. Discussions about rubric took place in Fall 2019. Implementation is continuing.

3b. Discussions and implementation is ongoing.

5

applied areas—keyboard, voice, instrumental—to appropriately advise the adjunct faculty as to the interpretation of the various levels on the jury rubrics.

Appendix A

Results of the Assessment

Ten students were pursuing the BA in music degree during the 2019-20 academic year. Two (2) of these students have graduated. Three (3) freshmen and one (1) sophomore have not yet taken any PLO-assessed courses. Two (2) students are underperforming in various PLO categories. Of these two, one has decided not to return to continue in the program; the other must repeat a course to continue. The following is a summary assessment of the students who have completed PLOs and are continuing in the BA in Music program in 2020-2021:

1. PLOs: Of the 7 students continuing in the BA in Music program, 3 have completed music courses with PLOs attached. Two (2) of these students have achieved Mastery Level on all PLOs attempted. The other student must repeat a course to continue.

2. Sophomore Review: All of the students who were sophomores or above during 2019-20 have passed their sophomore reviews.

6 Appendix B Strengths

1. Classroom instruction as measured by the PLOs is leading to the Mastery level in the appropriate skill and/or knowledge areas required in the Bachelor of Arts in Music program.

2. Studio applied instruction is leading to successful results in musical performance as evidenced by the Sophomore reviews.

Appendix C Areas for Improvement

Appendix C

Areas for Improvement

While the large majority of students in the BA in Music Program are achieving the PLOs and have either completed or are moving toward successful completion of the program. Advisors will need to continue to monitor the progress of a small number of students who are having difficulties.

Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Continued monitoring of student progress in the program.

Ongoing Advisors for BA Program and full music faculty

7 Appendix D: Data

8


Department: MUSIC Program Coordinator: Dr. Kevin Hawkins

Academic Program Evaluated: Music Education Program Review Year: 2019-2020

Faculty members involved in this assessment process:

Year 1 (2018-2019) Year 2 (2019-2020) Year 3 (2020-2021) Year 4 (2021-2022) Dr. Larry Dissmore Mr. Joel Griffin Dr. Kevin Hawkins Dr. Bonnie Jenkins Dr. Tom Matrone Mr. Matt Moore Dr. Greg Morris Mr. Jason Salazar

Number of students in sample:

Instrument(s) used in assessment:

Freshmen: 5 Sophomores: 7 Juniors: 7 Seniors: 11 Total=30 1. Program Learning Goals (PLOs) for the

Music Education (MUED) students. 2. Missouri General Education Assessment

(MoGEA Exam). 3. Practicums (3) or Field Placements. 4. Music Department Sophomore Review. 5. Missouri Content Assessment (MoCA). 6. Music Department Performance Events. 7. Education Department Standards and

Approval Committee. 8. Student Teaching (EDUC 437).

Freshmen: Sophomores: Juniors: Seniors: Total



Additional Data: 9. Required Grade Point Averages (GPA). Total classes taken or Cumulative GPA (2.75). Music classes or Content GPA (3.0). Education classes or Professional GPA (3.0).

9

10. Writing Proficiency Exam (WPE) 11. Strengths Quest Finder (SQF) 12. Vocal and/or Instrumental Juries 13. Piano Proficiency 14. Elementary Music Methods class (MUED

331) 15. Secondary Music Methods class (MUED

342) 16. Senior Recital (MUSC 499)

Methodology: 1. MUED Program Learning Goals (PLOs). Every semester, the Music Department faculty uses 7 Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) to assess and measure MUED student’s progress in specific music classes (Musical Skills and Analysis; Performance; Composition, Arranging, and Improvisation; Repertory and History; Cultural Awareness; Teaching Competencies; and Pedagogy).

2. Missouri General Education Assessment (MoGEA Exam). This state assessment includes five subtests: English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Writing. The student must pass these exams to be admitted into the teacher education program at EU.

3. Field Placements (3) or Practicums: #1-Elementary Practicum (EDUC 220). #2-Middle School Practicum (EDUC 397). #3-High School Practicum (EDUC 497) All MUED students must receive a satisfactory recommendation from their cooperative music teacher in the field for all 3 practicums. During EDUC 397 (Practicum #2), a member of the Education Department faculty evaluates and assesses the MUED student while teaching a lesson in the field.

4. Music Department Sophomore Review. All music majors (except Performance majors) must schedule the exam during their 4th semester. Transfer students and those changing majors after matriculation must do so no later than their 3rd semester

10

as a music major. There are 2 parts to the Sophomore Review: (1) Audition. A ten- minute audition on their applied instrument, and (2.) Academic Review. Students must not have earned a grade lower than C- in any music course. However, the music faculty may make exceptions in some instances.

5. Missouri Content Assessments (MoCA). MUED students must attempt the Missouri Content Assessment (MoCA) test prior to student teaching. The MoCA test must be passed in order to receive their music certification.

6. Music Department Performance Events. MUED students performed, and were evaluated and assessed throughout their undergraduate degree program (scholarship auditions, sophomore review, juries, forums, and senior recital). The music faculty used standard music rubrics. The data was compiled and the music faculty conferenced to make pertinent decisions regarding the student’s progress in the MUED program. The faculty communicated to the student regarding their progress.

7. Standards and Approval Committee. The Education Department’s Standards and Approval Committee reviews all education student’s progress throughout their undergraduate degree. There are four major benchmarks (Admitted to the teacher education program, mid-level check, approval for student teaching, and recommendation for certification) the MUED students must pass to continue in the Education Department. The students can receive one of three statuses: (1.) Approved, (2.) Provisional, or (3.) Denied. Their status can change at any time throughout their undergraduate degree.

8. Student Teaching (EDUC 437) with Formative and Summative Evaluations. During student teaching, MEES (Missouri

11

Educator Evaluation System) or clinical evaluations are collected from the Education Department supervisor, the Music Department supervisor, and the cooperating music practitioner in the field. Observations, informal interviews (student teacher and cooperating teacher), and document review were also used in evaluations. Field notes were taken by a designated Education Department faculty member and by the Music Department supervisor. The cooperating teacher also submits formative and summative assessments of the MUED student. All of this data is collected and used to determine the student’s progress, to designate a final grade, and to award teacher certification (MUED K-12).

9. Grade Point Averages. MUED students must maintain a cumulative GPA of 2.75 in all classes, a content GPA of 3.0 in music classes, and a professional GPA of 3.0 in education classes. If the student falls below these GPAs, the Standards and Approval committee places the student on “provisional” status until they can raise their GPA. If after two semesters the student cannot raise their GPA, the status moves from “provisional” to “denied.” The student is counseled by their education or music supervisor and guided to another degree program on campus.

10. Traditional Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods are used, to collect data from MUED students throughout their entire undergraduate degree (ACT and/or SAT scores, Writing Proficiency Exam, MoCA and MoGEA state designed tests).

11. Surveys and/or questionaires were used to assess the student’s top five strengths (SQF).

12. MUED Focus Group. The music supervisor used a focus group to compile empirical data from a wide spectrum of individuals. Informal interviews were conducted with

12

Results of Assessment:

current MUED students, MUED graduates, music faculty, education faculty members, and other MUED teachers who are members of the Missouri Music Educators Association (MMEA). Narative jottings were used and compiled to uncover possible themes, threads, and/or trends. The music faculty discussed these themes in monthly departmental meetings.

13. MUED Student File. A running “hard copy” and digital file are compiled for each MUED student in the Music and Education Departments. These files are helpful in seeing a holistic view of the student’s strengths, accomplishments, and deficiencies or weaknesses. The files are often accessed in departmental and Standards and Approval meetings.

The MUED degree is one of the most demanding, rigorous, and rewarding undergraduate degrees at Evangel. Every year, there are specific benchmarks and hurdles the MUED students must pass before they can continue in the program. MUED students are monitored, assessed, evaluated, mentored, and counseled throughout their degree. This is a continuous process that involves five unique organizations: (1.) the EU Music Department faculty and staff, (2.) the EU Education Department faculty and staff, (3.) the EU Education Department’s Standards and Approval Committee, (4.) the music practitioners in the field that serve as cooperating teachers during practicums (3) and student teaching, and (5.) the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) administration and staff. These five groups collaborate and communicate to ensure every student in the education and teaching program progresses smoothly through their degree. However, if a student struggles to pass one of the benchmarks, the student, the music supervisor, and the education faculty work together to find strategies to help the

13

student succeed. The student is given multiple opportunities to pass the benchmarks. If the student is unable to pass the benchmarks successfully, in a reasonable amount of time, the supervisors and faculty counsel the student to find another degree that best suits their gifting and skills. On average, 10%-15% of students who begin in the MUED program are unable to continue in the program and find another degree to pursue. This decision occurs within the first two years. To be successful in the MUED program, students must be academically driven, self-motivated, well- rounded, out-going, persistent, dedicated, hard- working, emotionally stable, musically talented, a good performer and test-taker, and they must be willing to spend 4 to 5 years on their undergraduate degree. The students that succeed, and finish their MUED degree with certification, have been extremely successful and sought after in Springfield, Southwest Missouri, Missouri, around the United States, and overseas. In 2018-2019, EU Music Department had 7 MUED graduates. Cumulative GPAs ranged from 3.77 to 4.0. All seven graduates are currently employed and using their training in music education and ministry. With the help of the Education Department, and guidance from DESE, the Music Department faculty and staff assess and evaluate the MUED program at EU. We continue to make small annual adjustments to the program to benefit the students, the faculty and staff, and Evangel University.

Data: See attachments to this document.

Strengths: The strength of the EU MUED program lie in four main areas: (1.) The MUED degree is designed to have a wide spectrum of voices pouring into the student’s life during their undergraduate degree. As stated above, there are five main organizations that work to ensure MUED students progress successfully through the degree. If a student struggles, the faculty

14

and staff work to guide, mentor, assist, and counsel the student. (2.) The EU MUED students must take a wide variety of tests and measurements to assess their abilities, skills, and talents—not just one or two standardized tests. (3.) EU MUED graduates are multi- talented and highly sought after in public schools, private school, and churches. EU MUED graduates are well-rounded, self-motivated, out-going, confident, organized, musically talented, and can perseverve through stressful environments. (4.) Practical leadership opportunities. During my first year at Evangel (2015-2016), I noticed our MUED students had few opportunities to lead and direct music classes and performing groups before their student teaching assignments. Many of them were unprepared for this transition (from student to teacher). I began to challenge our MUED students to think differently about their undergraduate education and view music classes and performance groups from the perspective of a leader with full responsibility rather than a student or follower (Sitting in a chair playing an instrument or standing and singing in a choir versus teaching, conducting, and leading a music group or rehearsal). I also challenged our music faculty to provide small opportunities for our MUED students to lead and direct regular music classes and performing groups (leading a sectional, or rehearsing and conducting a piece for class or a concert). The music faculty agreed and began to provide more opportunities for our students to lead and direct. In 2018-2019, I had several cooperating teachers in the field comment, “Your students are some of the best prepared and confident student teachers I’ve ever mentored.” Many of these music practitioners are “master teachers” with 25-30 years of experience. I believe this is due, in part, to giving our MUED students opportunities to lead and direct before their student teaching experiences.

15

Areas in need of improvement:

Two weak areas exist in the EU MUED program: (1.) Before the student arrives at EU. The percentage of students who sign up for MUED and then switch to other degrees is too high (currently 10%-15%). Most of these students are unprepared for the rigors (mentally and musically) of the MUED degree. (2.) After they graduate from EU. We must continue to communicate, collaborate, and connect with EU MUED graduates after they receive their certification and take their first teaching position. This transitional season is the most difficult and challenging of their careers. First- year MUED teachers often become over- whelmed, discouraged, and lonely. We must continue mentoring and networking with these young teachers.

Year 1:

Plans for improvement:

Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person1. Provide specific musical strategies and helpful guides to assist incoming MUED students that need to get “up to speed” before they start at Evangel. MUED students, who switch to other degrees, are typically deficient in one or more musical benchmarks (piano skills, music theory, voice, sight-singing, and ear-training). These musical strategies and helpful guides could be compiled and sent to students in advance. If the student is aware of the musical benchmarks, and prepares for them before they arrive at EU, their progress in the MUED degree will not be delayed or inhibited. 2. Form a musical focus group to brainstorm ways to network, connect and provide musical and emotional support to EU alumni who are new music teachers (public school, private school, and church). This transition, from full-time student to full-time music teacher, is often the most difficult season in their musical careers. The focus group could include new and seasoned music teachers and meet at the Missouri Music Educators Association (MMEA) annual convention in January. To solidify our brainstormiung ideas additional collaboration could occur through email or FaceTime.

February 2020 Dr. Kevin Hawkins Music Education Supervisor

April 2020 Dr. Kevin A. Hawkins Music Education Supervisor

Year 1:

Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.)

16


Year 2:

Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and person who will administer the improvement plan.)

Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person

Year 2:



Year 3:



Year 3:



Year 4:


17

17


Year 4:



18

18


“How are students learning?”


Department: Music Program Coordinator: Dr. Greg Morris

Academic Program Evaluated: Bachelor of Music (Performance) Program Review Year: 2020-21

Year 1 Academic Year: 2018/2019

Year 2 Academic Year: 2019/2020



Dr. Tom Matrone Dr. Kevin Hawkins Dr. Greg Morris Dr. Larry Dissmore Dr. Bonnie Jenkins Mr. Jason Salazar Mr. Joel Griffin Mr. Matt Moore

Dr. Tom Matrone Dr. Kevin Hawkins Dr. Greg Morris Dr. Larry Dissmore Dr. Bonnie Jenkins Mr. Jason Salazar Mr. Joel Griffin Mr. Matt Moore

Number of students in sample: (If known, supply the number of students in each class/year who were used in the assessment report.)

Freshmen: Sophomores: 1 Juniors: 1 Seniors: 1 Graduate:

Freshmen: Sophomores: Juniors: 1 Seniors: 1 Graduate:



Instrument(s) used in Program PLO Rubrics: • Musical Skills and

Program PLO Rubrics: Repertory and History

19

19

assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests, portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

Analysis • Cultural Awareness

• Repertory and History Junior/Senior Recitals Applied Lesson grades Piano Proficiency Exam

Performances Junior/Senior Recitals Applied Lesson grades

Additional Data: (List any additional information/data that informed this report.)


• PLO rubric data gathered from Course Commons.

• Data was collected from faculty grading/rating forms of recitals

• Applied Lesson jury rubric results and grades were used

• PLO rubric data gathered from Course Commons.

• Data was collected from faculty grading/rating forms of recitals

• Applied Lesson jury rubric results and grades were used

Data: (Provide the graphs, charts, etc. that were used to show PLO data results. Do not include the raw data.)

Results of Assessment: (What evidence exists that the program helps students achieve learning outcomes? What changes have been made since the last APR to ensure that outcomes are achieved and what changes will be made to the program following this APR? What have you learned from assessing the changes?)

• PLO: all students rated at “Mastery” or “Beyond Mastery” for each PLO scored during 2018-2019

• Junior/Senior Recitals: Two students performed degree recitals and earned a grade of A

• Applied Lesson Grades: the three students earned

• PLO: both students rated at “Mastery” or “Beyond Mastery” for each PLO scored during 2019-2020

• Junior/Senior Recitals: Both students performed degree recitals and earned a grade of A

• Applied Lesson Grades: both students

20

20

grades of A each semester

Piano Proficiency Exam: all students successfully completed the exam in its entirety

earned grades of A each semester


The program demonstrates strength in all areas, particularly in performance.

The program demonstrates strength in all areas, particularly in performance.


No weaknesses are indicated. No weaknesses are indicated.

Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and person who will administer the improvement plan.) *If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

Assessment tools continue to be refined.

Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.) *If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

21

21



Department: Music Program Coordinator: Mr. Jason Salazar

Academic Program Evaluated: BM Worship Leadership Program Review Year: 2018-2019





Mr. Jason Salazar, program coordinator Dr. Tom Matrone, department chair/reviewer Mr. Matt Moore, reviewer Mr. Joel Griffin, reviewer Dr. Larry Dissmore, reviewer Dr. Kevin Hawkins, reviewer Dr. Bonnie Jenkins, reviewer Dr. Greg Morris, reviewer

Mr. Jason Salazar, program coordinator Dr. Tom Matrone, department chair/reviewer Mr. Matt Moore, reviewer Mr. Joel Griffin, reviewer Dr. Larry Dissmore, reviewer Dr. Kevin Hawkins, reviewer Dr. Bonnie Jenkins, reviewer Dr. Greg Morris, reviewer

Number of students in Freshmen: 1 Freshmen: 6 Freshmen: Freshmen:

22

22

sample: (If known, supply the number of students in each class/year who were used in the assessment report.)

Sophomores: 2 Juniors: 1 Seniors: 5 Graduate: 0

Sophomores: 3 Juniors: 1 Seniors: 1 Graduate: 0

Sophomores: Juniors: Seniors: Graduate:

Sophomores: Juniors: Seniors: Graduate:


1. Analysis of Program assessment tools: Music Theory Placement Exam, Performance Audition, Jury Exam, 2. Sophomore Review 3. Senior Worship Project 4. Creative Arts Administration Projects 5. Worship Leadership Internship 6. Piano Proficiency 7. PLO Rubric Data: - Philosophy of Ministry: Articulate the purpose and process of ministry preparation as well as goals practical to worship for a worship leader. - Praxis: Develop, administrate and implement a variety of worship services in appropriate context.

1. Analysis of Program assessment tools: Music Theory Placement Exam, Performance Audition, Jury Exam, 2. Sophomore Review 3. Senior Worship Project 4. Creative Arts Administration Projects 5. Worship Leadership Internship 6. Piano Proficiency 7. PLO Rubric Data: - Philosophy of Ministry: Articulate the purpose and process of ministry preparation as well as goals practical to worship for a worship leader. - Praxis: Develop, administrate and implement a variety of worship services in appropriate context

23

23



Data collected from existing students currently enrolled in this program. The data included entrance audition data, theory placement exam results (pass/fail), sophomore review, and applied lesson evaluations. Further data collected through journal/reports composed by worship leadership internships and supervisor approval.

Data collected from existing students currently enrolled in this program. The data included entrance audition data, theory placement exam results (pass/fail), sophomore review, and applied lesson evaluations. Further data collected through journal/reports composed by worship leadership internships and supervisor approval.

Results of Assessment: (List the findings in summary format as narrative.)

Findings suggest that the Worship Leadership Majors prepare well for church music placement. This is most evident in communication with internship supervisors and journal/reports. Furthermore, observation and evaluation of the student’s skill set in leadership in chapel services and local church

Several worship leadership graduates have recently received church jobs. Findings suggest that the Worship Leadership Majors prepare well for church music placement. This is most evident in communication with internship supervisors and journal/reports.

24

24

involvement. Furthermore, observation and evaluation of the student’s skill set in leadership in chapel services and local church involvement.

Data: (Provide the graphs, charts, etc. that were used to show data results. Do not include the actual data.)

1. Senior Worship Leadership Project: Rubrics with Criteria: 30% - Administration of Thematic Design. 70% - Performance (execution of the creative leadership plan) Passing Grade derived by an average of the two percentages. 2. Worship Leadership Internship: The intern as documentation of the internship experience shall compile a weekly journal of activity and discovery. A final paper on the overall experience and signed by the intern’s supervisor and transferred to the Director of Worship Studies.

1. Senior Worship Leadership Project: Rubrics with Criteria: 30% - Administration of Thematic Design. 70% - Performance (execution of the creative leadership plan) Passing Grade derived by an average of the two percentages. 2. Worship Leadership Internship: The intern as documentation of the internship experience shall compile a weekly journal of activity and discovery. A final paper on the overall experience and signed by the intern’s supervisor and transferred to the Director of Worship Studies.

25

25

Passing graded derived by Rubric defined as 70% percent or higher. 3. Music Theory Entrance Exam: For Placement Purposes: Four Categories:

- Note Reading - Intervals - Key signatures - Part Writing

Each category the student must achieve a 70% and above. Passing grade must be a 3pt or higher on a 5pt Likert scale to enter MUSC 141 and MUSC 143 4. Performance Audition: Passing grade of 70% or higher for the following criteria:

- Interpretation - Stage Presence - Memorization - Rhythm - Tone - Intonation - Note accuracy - Range

Passing graded derived by Rubric defined as 70% percent or higher. 3. Music Theory Entrance Exam: For Placement Purposes: Four Categories:

- Note Reading - Intervals - Key signatures - Part Writing

Each category the student must achieve a 70% and above. Passing grade must be a 3pt or higher on a 5pt Likert scale to enter MUSC 141 and MUSC 143 4. Performance Audition: Passing grade of 70% or higher for the following criteria:

- Interpretation - Stage Presence - Memorization - Rhythm - Tone - Intonation - Note accuracy - Range

26

26

- Dynamics - Appropriate lit. - Sight Reading - Scales - Technique

5. Sophomore Review: Exam will consist of 2 components. 10 minute Audition Academic Review: Students must earn a GPA of 3.0 and above in music core curriculum. Student must demonstrate sophomore level in the following categories:

- Interpretation - Stage Presence - Memorization - Rhythm - Tone - Intonation - Note accuracy - Range - Dynamics - Appropriate lit. - Sight Reading - Scales - Technique

6. Piano Proficiency: Requirements:

- Dynamics - Appropriate lit. - Sight Reading - Scales - Technique

5. Sophomore Review: Exam will consist of 2 components. 10 minute Audition Academic Review: Students must earn a GPA of 3.0 and above in music core curriculum. Student must demonstrate sophomore level in the following categories:

- Interpretation - Stage Presence - Memorization - Rhythm - Tone - Intonation - Note accuracy - Range - Dynamics - Appropriate lit. - Sight Reading - Scales - Technique

6. Piano Proficiency: Requirements:

27

27

- Perform selected repertoire

- Single line melody in right hand to be harmonized.

- Sight reading - Transposition - Accompaniment - Open score - Completion of

Keyboard levels - Proficiency Recital

7. Jury Exam: Passing grade of 3 or higher on a Likert Scale of 1-5.

- Perform selected repertoire

- Single line melody in right hand to be harmonized.

- Sight reading - Transposition - Accompaniment - Open score - Completion of

Keyboard levels - Proficiency Recital

7. Jury Exam: Passing grade of 3 or higher on a Likert Scale of 1-5.


The BM in Worship Leadership is a professional degree that allows the student to discover the multi-faceted aspects of local church pastoral music ministry. This degree also prepares the student to facilitate and design church music programs with curriculum that meets the approval of the NASM. Unique classes in the area of Worship Leadership and Arts

The Worship Leadership program contains much variety. From a strong music core, to courses in many relevant areas, this program allows the student to discover the multi-faceted aspects of local church pastoral music ministry. This degree also prepares the student to facilitate and design church music programs with curriculum that meets the approval of

28

28

Administration focus on the strengths of leadership, theological knowledge, and character formation.

the NASM. Unique classes in the area of Worship Leadership and Arts Administration focus on the strengths of leadership, theological knowledge, and character formation.


1. There is a need to include more relevant courses to the degree. 2. With the current emphasis in the degree on music performance, appropriate leadership and ministry courses should be added to give students a broader perspective in preparation for vocational worship ministry. 3. The need for improvement in media technology training. 4. Improve the supervision of internships. The desire is to coordinate more closely with supervising music directors and have on-site observations of interns

A new version of this degree has been approved by the music faculty and academic council. The next step is to have the degree approved by NASM. NASM approval has been on hold due to the pandemic. The update to the degree was to answer the 2018/2019 “Areas in need of improvement.” The new worship leadership degree will move from a BM to a BS with added non-music, elective leadership and ministry courses and removal of Piano Proficiency as a requirement

29

29

similar to student-teacher evaluations.

Additionally, the online worship certification for non-traditional students was launched in conjunction with the Adult and Graduate Studies.

Year 1: Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and person who will administer the improvement plan.)


Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Revise BM degree – change to BS with added non-music, elective leadership and ministry courses; remove Piano Proficiency as a requirement

Fall 2020 Mr. Jason Salazar Dr. Tom Matrone

Create two new courses - a media technology course and rhythm section/worship band method course


Online Certification in Worship Leadership. A theology/Leadership based certificate program allowing professional focused knowledge to fulfill a ministry call outside of the primary degree program.


30

30

Year 1: Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.)

If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.




Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Continue revision of degree Fall 2020 Mr. Jason Salazar

Dr. Tom Matrone Launch new degree Spring 2021 Mr. Jason Salazar

Dr. Tom Matrone Creation of two new courses Fall 2020 Mr. Jason Salazar

Dr. Tom Matrone Year 2: Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.)


31

31


Online worship certification Spring 2020







Year 4:

32

32







33

33


INSTRUCTIONS: This template is a running document of each annual Student Learning Assessment Report due to the department chairs and Provost the last Friday in October. The final report in the document should be the official report in the scheduled year of the full Program Review. All reports below use the same report template. If the report is the Program Review year, please indicate it next to “Program Review Year” and also submit the Academic Program Review (APR).

Department: Music Program Coordinator: Mr. Matt Moore

Academic Program Evaluated: BS in Music, Emphasis in Recording Technology

Program Review Year: 2019-2020

Year 1 Academic Year: 2018-2019 Year 2 Academic Year: 2019-2020 Year 3 Academic Year: Year 4 Academic Year: Faculty members involved in this assessment process: (List all faculty members who participated: program coordinator, reviewers, committee members, etc.)

Dr. Tom Matrone Dr. Larry Dissmore Dr. Bonnie Jenkins Dr. Kevin Hawkins Dr. Greg Morris Mr. Joel Griffin Mr. Jason Salazar Mr. Matt Moore

Dr. Tom Matrone Dr. Larry Dissmore Dr. Bonnie Jenkins Dr. Kevin Hawkins Dr. Greg Morris Dr. Joel Griffin Mr. Jason Salazar Mr. Matt Moore

Number of students in sample: (If known, supply

Freshmen: 4 Sophomores: 3

Freshmen: 5 Sophomores: 3

Freshmen: Sophomores:

Freshmen: Sophomores:

34

34

the number of students in each class/year who were used in the assessment report.)

Juniors: 5 Seniors: 5

Juniors:2 Seniors: 7

Juniors: Seniors:

Juniors: Seniors:


Progam Learning Outcomes (PLO) Rubrics (State which PLOs were used. I’ll attach the PLOs for this program. They’re on page 3 of the Assessment Plan.” Sophmore Review Jury Exams Senior Project Weekly Audio Projects Comparative Study of like 4 year BS degrees

Progam Learning Outcomes (PLO) Sophmore Review Jury Exams Senior Project Weekly Audio Projects Comparative Study of like 4 year BS degrees



PLO – passing grade of assigned courses at the introductory, remedial and mastery level from designed courses. Sophmore Review – passing grade earned from music faculty as outlined in the applied primary of study and the department handbook at the sophomore level. Jury Exams - passing grade earned from music faculty as outlined in

PLO – passing grade of assigned courses at the introductory, remedial and mastery level from designed courses. 4) Beyond Mastery 3) Mastery 2) Developing 1) Unsatisfactory 0) Did Not Attempt

Musical Elements Accuracy of musical elements – pitch, rhythm, articulation, score accuracy.

35

35

the applied primary of study found in the department handbook per grade level. Senior Projects – Weekly one-on-one meetings showcasing progress made with audio capture, mixing, mastering, ideas, concepts, scheduling of artist, artwork, weekly journaling, CD publication. Senior Interview – Upon completion of the senior project an interview is conducted asking favorite/least favorite courses with an explanation of why and if they see any areas of improvement that can be made from their perspective of the degree. Weekly Audio Projects – passing grade earned on audio projects showcasing students understanding of specific topics, applications of those topics, creativity of weekly topics as to compared to the industry standard. Comparative study – study of like 4 year BS degree programs with emphasis in recording technology

Command of Instrument Technical proficiency on instrument – i.e., ability to control instrument with musical intent. Presentation Ability to be expressive with regard to phrasing, inflection and style, as well as collaborate musically with others. Musical Knowledge Knowledge of composer and historical context of the composition. Scales Accuracy, intonation, steadiness of tempo.

Sophmore Review – passing grade earned from music faculty as outlined in the applied primary of study and the department handbook at the sophomore level. Jury Exams - passing grade earned from music faculty as outlined in the applied primary of study found in the department handbook per grade level. 4) Beyond Mastery 3) Mastery 2) Developing

36

36

in regard to materials used, methods of teaching, equipment, applications and more.

1) Unsatisfactory 0) Did Not Attempt

Musical Elements Accuracy of musical elements – pitch, rhythm, articulation, score accuracy.

Command of Instrument Technical proficiency on instrument – i.e., ability to control instrument with musical intent. Presentation Ability to be expressive with regard to phrasing, inflection and style, as well as collaborate musically with others. Musical Knowledge Knowledge of composer and historical context of the composition. Scales Accuracy, intonation, steadiness of tempo.

Senior Projects – Weekly one-on-one meetings showcasing progress made with audio capture, mixing, mastering, ideas, concepts, scheduling of artist, artwork, weekly journaling, CD publication. Senior Interview – Upon

37

37

completion of the senior project an interview is conducted asking favorite/least favorite courses with an explanation of why and if they see any areas of improvement that can be made from their perspective of the degree. Weekly Audio Projects – passing grade earned on audio projects showcasing students understanding of specific topics, applications of those topics, creativity of weekly topics as to compared to the industry standard. Comparative study – study of like 4 year BS degree programs with emphasis in recording technology in regard to materials used, methods of teaching, equipment, applications and more. Liberty University Conservatory of Recording Arts & Sciences Belmont University

Results of After various forms of data were After various forms of data were

38

38

Assessment: (List the findings in summary format as narrative.)

collected, assessed and discussed with full time faculty, the committee reached a consensus that the BS degree with emphasis in recording technology at Evangel is successful and competitive with other like programs. However, the study did find a few common themes that need addressed and discussed.

collected, assessed and discussed with full time faculty, the committee reached a consensus that the BS degree with emphasis in recording technology at Evangel is successful and comparative with other like programs. However, the study did find common themes that need addressed and discussed in order for the degree to continue it’s strength.

Data: (Provide the graphs, charts, etc. that were used to show data results. Do not include the actual data.)


From the findings of the above various assessments shows that the Bachelor of Science in Recording Technology provides a strong and competitive foundation both in musicianship and recording technology. The unique and various topics/projects have been proven to prepare students for employment in the church, recording studio, movie, films, TV, song writing and audio production.

From the findings of the above various assessments shows that the Bachelor of Science in Music with Emphasis in Recording Technology provides a strong and competitive foundation both in musicianship and recording technology. The unique and various topics/projects have been proven to prepare students for employment in the church, recording studio, movie, films, TV, song writing and audio production.

39

39


From the instruments and methodology used in this assessment showcased three critical areas needing attention. Dedicated studio space – current location of the studio is inadequate, causing scheduling conflicts with students due to the overlap and use of the Barnett Recital Hall with recitals, rehearsal times, Academic affairs and non-related Evangel events. The location also lacks the correct acoustical treatment which plays a vital role on studio projects and does not give an accurate assessment to professional standards expected after graduation. Addition of Live audio courses – From the interviews and comparative study assesments we found the lack of live audio courses to be a desired need not only for students but also for job requirements in the field of study. The additional live audio class could be applied for both the recording tech track as well as the worship degree track. The course would study the difference

Dedicated studio space – Of the feedback from student interviews and the comparative study of other University’s the Evangel University recording studio (Studio 161) working space was found to fall way short of any studio expectation. Other proper Universities provide a designated recording area (large room, small room, isolation booths, etc.) all which are acoustically treated for the best working environment for the field of study. Evangel’s Studio 161 currently operates in an converted closet setting with drop ceilings and expect the same audio results. I would propose a designated working space that provides a mixing/mastering/tracking room and two unique isolated rooms from which to record (isolation rooms). The current location of the studio is inadequate, causing scheduling conflicts with students due to the overlap and use of the Barnett Recital Hall with recitals, rehearsal times, Academic affairs and non-related

40

40

between live and studio mixing, acoustic treatment, digital signal path, digital sound boards, amplification methods, etc… Senior Project Lab– the senior project is currently 3 credits over one semester time. This time frame of completing the senior project in one semester has become problematic in terms studio time/space (reference #1 above) and rushed creativity with the expectations of the project (song writing, arranging, audio capture, editing, mixing, mastering, artwork, production of CD, weekly journaling…). The proposed resolution would be to spread the 3 credits 1(Fall - Lab) + 2(Spring – Sr. Project) The Fall semester would include weekly meetings with instructor, audio capture could begin, song writing/arranging fine tuned while granting ample time in the studio and creativity.

Evangel events. Addition of Live audio courses – From the interviews and comparative study assesments we found the lack of live audio courses to be a desired need not only for students but also for job requirements in the field of study. The additional live audio class could be applied for both the recording tech track as well as the worship degree track. The course would study the difference between live and studio mixing, acoustic treatment, digital signal path, digital sound boards, amplification methods, etc… Studio Equipment – From the feedback of student interviews, NASM and the comparative study the Evangel University recording studio (Studio 161) equipment was found to be years behind and not up to professional quality. The current set up would qualify for a decent home recording studio, not professional. This causes a

41

41

conflict in that students do not get real world application on current equipment in the job place, in turn causing delays in job placement requiring specific training that Evangel currently cannot provide. A recording studio upgrade has been presented multiple of times but has gone nowhere which states Evangel is not wanting to support the current degree track.

Year 1: Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and who will administer the improvement plan.)


Designated space for studio with proper acoustical treatment including two isoloation rooms

Fall 2020 Matt Moore

The addition of LIVE audio course

Fall 2020 Matt Moore

Senior Project Lab Fall 2020 Matt Moore Year 1: Improvements made: NONE to date!

42

42




Designated space for studio with proper acoustical treatment including two isoloation rooms

???

The addition of LIVE audio course

???

Equipment Upgrades ??? Year 2: Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.)


43

43







44

44



student learning assessment report (slar) · dr. bonnie jenkins dr. tom matrone dr. greg morris mr....

Documents