2010 MASTER PLAN/PROGRESS REPORT
Academic Program: Bachelor of Music in Music Performance Band or Orchestral Instrument Concentration
Jazz/Commercial Music
Piano Concentration
Piano Pedagogy Concentration
Voice Concentration
Person Responsible: Dr. Michael Buckles, Dr. Carol Lines, Dr. Christy Vogt, and Michele Martin
Date Submitted: May 24, 2010
Mission: The Music Performance Program provides the major initial professional competence in the chosen area of performance specialization that leads to advanced graduate
studies with application to a career in university and/or private studio teaching and/or a professional career. Program graduates demonstrate 1) significant technical mastery, 2) a
broad knowledge of music and music literature, 3) the capability to produce work and solve problems independently, 4) the ability to integrate musical knowledge and skills and
communicate musical ideas and concepts, and 5) a coherent set of artistic/intellectual goals which are evident in their work. Five performance concentrations are provided for:
Orchestral/Band Instrument, Jazz/Commercial Music, Piano, Piano Pedagogy and Voice.
Institutional Mission Reference: The Music Performance Program supports the university’s mission by 1) providing a baccalaureate curriculum with numerous concentrations
distinguished by academic excellence and reflective of the best current professional practices in design and pedagogy; 2) promoting major success through excellence in teaching,
effective integration of current technology into its curse work, continuous program assessment, effective academic advising, and individual student mentoring; 3) establishing and
maintaining university-community collaboration through the program’s cultural and educational objectives and projects; 4) maintaining a sense of community that encourages
intellectual-creative endeavor, ethical and civic responsibility, and respect for cultural diversity; 5) cultivating the skills necessary for critical and effective expression through
general studies course work and varied performance and teaching experiences; and 6) promoting an understanding of the global multicultural community through course work and
performance projects.
Assessment Methods Utilized: Data Repository Location:
Standardized Exam (nationally normed)
____ Standardized Exam (state-normed)
____ Major Field Examination
X Internally-developed Examination - Performance Rubric for: SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office
Major Performance Area Entrance Diagnostic SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 200-Admission to Upper Division SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 399-Junior Recital SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office
____ Student Opinion Survey (SOS)
____ National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
X Employer Survey SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
X Graduate Survey SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
____ Alumni Survey
X Exit Survey/Interview/Exam SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
X Scoring of Essay: FFND 101-Initial “Statement of Intent” Essay Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 200-Developed “Statement of Intent” Essay Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 485-Refined “Statement of Intent” Essay Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 261-research presentation/report rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 445- post essay rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
X Portfolio Evaluation – MUSC 485-Professional Portfolio rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
X Capstone Project: MUSC 492-Senior Recital Performance rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
Program Notes/Research Analysis Project Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
X Presentation : MUSC 261-final research project/presentation rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 363-final research written project rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
X Research Paper: MUSC 447-Research Project Rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
X Research Project: MUSC 201-final composition project rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 202-final research project rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
Excel Spreadsheet
____ Access Database
____ Other - Please describe: Entrance Theory Diagnostic Rubric SFAA 204 –Department of Performing Arts Office
MUSC 202L-final proficiency rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
PIAN 216-barrier/proficiency rubric SFAA 204 – Department of Performing Arts Office
Student Learning Outcome 1: Graduates apply critical thinking in academic and professional environments.
Expected Level of Achievement
Critical Thinking Achievement Defined in Music
Performance Program
Program Completers possess
1. the ability to form and defend value judgments
about music;
2. the ability to produce musical work and solve
professional problems independently;
3. an understanding of procedures for realizing a
variety of musical styles; and
4. a developed set of artistic/intellectual goals which
are evident in their own work.
Major Performance Area Entrance Diagnostic
Critical Thinking Indicators Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
• 70% of entering program candidates earn a score of 5
(scale of 0-9) or above on the Major Performance Area
Entrance Diagnostic rubric measuring three indicators
related to critical thinking:
musicianship
expression/musicality
sight reading
Performance Evaluation: a performance presentation
before the appropriate instrument/keyboard/vocal
performance board that provides a formal review of
the program candidate’s acquired technical and
Actual Data From Assessment
2009-2010. Twelve new program candidates entered the
performance major degree. Eight entering program
candidates (67%) earned a score of 5 or above.
Expected Level of Achievement was not met.
Entrance Diagnostic
Critical Thinking Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number
Earning 5 or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 5 4 5.27
Jazz/Commercial 0 0 NA
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 3 2 6.33
Voice 4 2 5.00
Program Total 12 8 5.45
Actions/Decisions
A 2009-2010. Three of the four students who did not
earn a 5 or above on the critical thinking indicators were
placed in their major performance lessons at the 100-
level to improve their basic skills in musicianship,
expression/ musicality and sight reading. Credit for 100-
level performance courses cannot be used toward degree
requirements.
R 2010-11. The Music Performance Policies and
Procedures Manual will be updated in summer 2010 with
changes approved by the Music Performance
Coordinators Committee (MPCC) in 2009-2010.
musical skills, stylistic and repertoire knowledge, and
ability to interpret and communicate through their
medium.
Major Performance Area MUSC 200
Critical Thinking Indicators Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
Sophomore Performance Evaluation - MUSC 200
• 75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of
0-9) or above on the three indicators related to critical
thinking included on the MUSC 200 (Admission to
Upper-Division Performance Study) rubric:
musicianship
expression/musicality
sight reading
• 75% of program candidates complete MUSC 200
requirement on first attempt.
MUSC 399
Critical Thinking Indicators Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
Junior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 399
• 80% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (sale of 0-
9) or above on the three indicators related to critical
Recital Evaluation: an advertised public presentation,
evaluated by the appropriate performance board, that
provides a formal review of the program candidate’s
acquired technical and musical skills, repertoire,
musical styles and performance practices knowledge,
and ability to interpret and communicate through their
medium.
2009-2010. Six program candidates enrolled in MUSC
200. Three program candidates (50%) earned a score of 6
or above. Four program candidates (67%) completed
this requirement on the first attempt.
Expected Levels of Achievement were not met.
MUSC 200
Critical Thinking Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number Earning 6
or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 4 3 7.00
Jazz/Commercial 1 1 7.33
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 1 0 3.67
Voice 1 0 5.00
Program Total 7 4 6.77
2009-2010. Two program candidates enrolled in and
completed MUSC 399. Neither program candidate
completed the sight reading indicator. Both program
2009-2010. Two students received a “U” in the MUSC
200 and will retake the MUSC 200 performance barrier
in a future semester.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 200,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 399,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
thinking included in MUSC 399 (Junior Recital) rubric:
musicianship
expression/musicality
sight reading
• 85% of program candidates complete this requirement
on first attempt.
Major Performance Area MUSC 492
Critical Thinking Indicators Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
Senior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 492
• 85% of program completers earn a score of 6 (scale of
0-9) or above on the three indicators related to critical
thinking included in the MUSC 492 (Senior Recital for
Music Performance) rubric:
musicianship
expression/musicality
sight reading
• 90% of program completers pass the MUSC 492
requirement on first attempt.
400-Level Major Performance Area
Written Research Project
Critical Thinking Indicators (3 indicators/5-point scale) Score Expectations
14-15 Exemplary
11-13 Exceeds
8-10 Meets
candidates (100%) earned a score of 4 or above. Two
program candidates (100%) completed this requirement
on the first attempt.
Expected Levels of Achievement were met.
MUSC 399
Critical Thinking Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number
Earning 4 or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2
Jazz/Commercial 0 0 NA
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 0 NA
Voice 0 0 NA
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in and
completed MUSC 492. Three program candidates
completed all indicators; of those, 100% earned a score
of 6 or above. One program completer was reported with
only two indicators (no sight reading). That program
completer earned a score of 5.33 (above the level
expectation for two indicators). Four program candidates
(100%) passed MUSC 492 on the first attempt.
Expected Levels of Achievement were met with partial
data reported.
MUSC 492
Critical Thinking Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number
Earning 9 or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 9
Jazz/Commercial 1 0 5.33/6
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 0 NA
Voice 1 1 6.00
recommending major change.
R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that sight
reading be removed from the critical thinking indicators
assessing MUSC 399 since this activity was evaluated at
the 200-level. A “Stage Presentation” indicator will be
added to the assessment rubric.
R 2010-2011. The Performance Assessment Rubric will
be revised to make clear at which levels of evaluation
sight-reading is required. Additionally, the Music
Performance Policies and Procedures Manual will be
updated to reflect this change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 492,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
R 2010-2011. The Performance Assessment Rubric will
be revised to make clear at which levels of evaluation
sight-reading is required.
5-7 Needs improvement
0-4 Does Not Meet
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 10 or
above on the Major Performance Area Research Project
(400-level) assessment rubric which measures the
program candidate’s ability to synthesize their
knowledge of theoretical analysis techniques,
historic/style elements, and research skills into a written
project.
MUSC 202/MUSC 261/MUSC 363
Critical Thinking Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of 0-
9) or above on the critical thinking indicators of the
MUSC 202 (Advanced Theory II) final research project
rubric.
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of 0-
9) or above on the critical thinking indicators of the
MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and
Literature) final verbal presentation/research project
rubric.
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in and
completed the 400-level major performance area written
research project. The final projects of three program
candidates were evaluated utilizing all indicators; of
those, two (67%) earned a score of 10 or above.
Expected Level of Achievement was not met.
400-Level Major Performance Area Written Project
Critical Thinking Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number
Earning
10 or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 13.5
Jazz/Commercial 1 0 0
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA NA
Voice 1 0 9
Program Total 4 2 9
Spring 2010. One program candidates enrolled in
MUSC 202. One program candidate completed the
course and the final research project. One program
candidate (100%) earned a score of 6 or above (average
score = 9).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in MUSC
261. One program candidate completed the course and
the final project. That program candidate (100%) earned
the score of 6 or above (average score = 8).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
A 2010-2011. On a recommendation from the MPPC,
the Major Performance Area Research Project was
incorporated into MUSC 492 and the appropriate forms
were filed with the McNeese QEP Committee to have
MUSC 492 declared a writing enriched course within the
discipline. This QEP Committee has yet to act upon the
submitted request. Once approved by the QEP
Committee, a curriculum change request will be sent to
the University Curriculum Committee describing this
change and increasing MUSC 492from 3 to 4 credit
hours and deleting the performance area 402-1 credit
requirement from the degree.
R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that the
expected level of achievement benchmark be lowered
from 85% to 80% to reflect more realistic outcome
expectations.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in the Major
Performance Area Research Project, the MPPC will
analyze and monitor this data over a three-year cycle
[spring 2009-spring 2011] before recommending major
change to the project content.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 202,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
A 2010-2011. While the critical thinking indicators meet
expectations, the MUSC 261 instructor will modify the
course to further strengthen these indicators with
additional reading/worksheet requirements and
group/pairs projects. Additionally, the mid-term oral
project will be videoed for student review and comment.
•80% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of 0-
9) or above on the critical thinking indicators of the
MUSC 363 (Music History II) final written research
project rubric.
•4.00/5.00 average response on the Graduating Student
Exit Survey (GSES) questions relating to the program
completer’s perception of the success of the curriculum
in developing their ability to use critical thinking as a
professional musician.
•4.00/5.00 average response on the Graduate Survey
(GS) and Employer Survey (ES) on questions relating to
critical thinking skills outcomes and their long term
impact on the graduates’ effectiveness as professional
musicians.
Spring 2010. Five program candidates enrolled in MUSC
363. Four completed the course and the final written
project. Four program candidates (100%) earned a score
of 6 or above (average score = 7.75).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
2009-2010. Four program completers responded to
questions on the GSES.
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
GSES
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving Questions Concentration Response # Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 4.50
Jazz/Commercial Total 1 5.00
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 5.00
Program Total 2 4.75
2009-2010. GS. No data available.
2009-2010. ES. No data available.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 261,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 363,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
D The GS is being reformatted by the Office of
Institutional Research and will be distributed in August
2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
D The ES is being reformatted by the Office of
Institutional Research and will be distributed in August
2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
Student Learning Outcome 2: Graduates formulate and express ideas effectively through oral, written, and/or technological communications in academic and professional
environments.
Expected Level of Achievement
Communication and Technology Achievements
Defined within Music Performance Program
Program completers possess
1. the technical and musical skills requisite for
artistic self-expression in the concentration area;
2. the ability to communicate musical ideas,
concepts, and requirements to music professionals
and lay persons related to the practice of the major
field;
3. the ability to defend musical judgments through
oral and written communication; and
4. the ability to use technologies current to
concentration area.
FFND 101
Written Communication Rubric (5 indicators/5-point scale)
Score Expectations
23-25 Exemplary
18-22 Exceeds
13-17 Meets
8-12 Needs improvement
0-7 Does Not Meet
• 70% of first-time freshmen program candidates earn a
score of 15 (scale of 0-25) or above on the FFND 101
Statement of Intent Writing Project Assessment Rubric.
MUSC 200: Statement of Intent (Developed)
• 75% of program candidates earn a score of 15 or above
on MUSC 200 philosophy statement rubric.
MUSC 485: Statement of Intent (Refined)
• 85% of program completers earn of score of 15 or
above on MUSC 485 philosophy statement evaluation
Actual Data From Assessment
Fall 2009. Eight freshmen program candidates enrolled in
FFND 101. Five freshmen program candidates completed
the Statement of Intent Writing Project. Four (80%) earned
a score of 15 or above (average score = 18.2).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
2009-2010. No data available.
2009-2010. In the developed course rotation, MUSC 485
will not be taught until spring 2012.
Actions/Decisions
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
399, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
A 2009-2010. This project was not included in the
MUSC 200 course requirements. In 2010-2011, it will
be included in the course syllabus and an appropriate
assessment rubric will be utilized. A 2010-2011. Appropriate forms will be submitted to
the McNeese QEP Committee to request that MUSC
485 be approved as a Writing Enriched Course in the
Expected Level of Achievement
Actual Data From Assessment
Actions/Decisions
MUSC 399/MUSC 492
Oral Communication Indicators Score Expectations
5-6 Exceeds
3-4 Meets
1-2 Needs improvement
0 Does Not Meet
Junior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 399
• 80% of program candidates earn a score of 4 or above
on the indicators related to communication:
expression/musicality
stage presence
on the MUSC 399 performance assessment rubric.
Senior Recital Evaluation–MUSC 492 (Performance)
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 4 or above
on the indicators related to communication:
expression/musicality
stage presence
on the MUSC 492 performance assessment rubric.
MUSC 485/400-Level Major Performance Area
Written Research Project
Written Communication Rubric (5 indicators/5-point scale)
Score Expectations
23-25 Exemplary
18-22 Exceeds
13-17 Meets
8-12 Needs improvement
0-7 Does Not Meet
2009-2010. Two program candidates enrolled in and
completed MUSC 399. Two program candidates (100%)
earned a score of 4 or above.
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
MUSC 399
Oral Communication Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number Earning 4
or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 5.50
Jazz/Commercial 0 NA NA
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA NA
Voice 0 NA NA
Program Total 2 2 5.50
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in MUSC
492. Three program candidates (75%) earned a score of 4
or above.
Expected Level of Achievement was not met.
MUSC 492
Oral Communication Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number
Earning 4
or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 5.84
Jazz/Commercial 1 1 5.67
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 0 NA
Voice 1 0 3.67
Program Total 4 3 5.25
discipline.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
399, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
492, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 15 or
above on the Major Performance Area Research Project
(400-level) assessment rubric which measures the
program candidate’s ability to synthesize their
knowledge of theoretical analysis techniques,
historic/style elements, and research skills into a written
project.
Senior Seminar: Issues of the Profession MUSC 485
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 15 or above
on the resume and writing projects’ assessment rubric.
MUSC 201
Technology Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations
10-12 Exceeds
6-9 Meets
2-5 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 8 or above
on the technology indicators of the MUSC 201
(Advanced Theory I) final composition/analysis project
rubric.
MUSC 202/MUSC 261/MUSC 363
Communication Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in the 400-
level major performance area written research project. The
final projects of three program candidates were evaluated
utilizing all indicators; of those, all (100%) earned a score
of 15 or above.
Expected Level of Achievement was met with partial data
reported.
400-Level Major Performance Area
Written Communication Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number Earning 15
or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 22
Jazz/Commercial 1 0 0
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA NA
Voice 1 1 15
2009-2010. No data available. Course will be offered
initially in spring 2012.
Fall 2009. Two program candidates completed MUSC 201.
Two program candidates (100%) earned a score of 8 or
above (average score = 11).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
A 2010-2011. On a recommendation from the MPPC,
the Major Performance Area Research Project was
incorporated into MUSC 492 and the appropriate forms
were filed with the McNeese QEP Committee to have
MUSC 492 declared a writing enriched course within
the discipline. This QEP Committee has yet to act upon
the submitted request. Once approved by the QEP
Committee, a curriculum change request will be sent to
the University Curriculum Committee describing this
change and increasing MUSC 492from 3 to 4 credit
hours and deleting the performance area 402-1 credit
requirement from the degree.
R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that the
expected level of achievement benchmark be lowered
from 85% to 80% to reflect more realistic outcome
expectations. A decision will be made once the 2010-
2011 data is available.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in the Major
Performance Area Research Project, the MPPC will
analyze and monitor this data over a three-year cycle
[spring 2009-spring 2011] before recommending major
change to the project content. A 2010-2011. Appropriate forms will be submitted to
the McNeese QEP Committee to request that MUSC
485 be approved as a Writing Enriched Course in the
discipline.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
201, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
A 2010-2011. The Theory Coordinator has expressed
concern that evidence seems to point to students who
participate in more than two ensembles tend to do
poorly in MUSC 201. It is recommended that advisors
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of
0-9) or above on the written communication indicators
of the MUSC 202 (Advanced Theory II) final research
project rubric.
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of
0-9) or above on the oral communication indicators of
the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and
Literature) final verbal presentation/ research project
rubric.
•80% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of
0-9) or above on the written communication indicators
of the MUSC 363 (Music History II) final written
research project rubric.
• 4.00/5.00 average response on the GSES on questions
relating to the program completer’s ability to
communicate and use technology as a professional
musician.
Spring 2010. One program candidate completed MUSC
202. One program candidate (100%) earned a score of 6 or
above (average score = 9).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in MUSC
261. One program candidate completed the course and the
final project. One program candidate (100%) earned the
score of 6 or above (average score = 6).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Spring 2010. Five program candidates enrolled in MUSC
363. Four completed the course and the final written
project. Four program candidates (100%) earned a score of
6 or above (average score = 8.25).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
2009-2010. Four program completers responded to the
GSES.
Expected Levels of Achievement were met.
GSES - Program Enhanced Communication Skills Concentration Response # Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 4.00
Jazz Commercial Total 1 4.00
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 5.00
Program Total 4 4.25
GSES - Program Enhanced Technology Skills Concentration Response # Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 5.00
begin tracking ensemble participation for those enrolled
in MUSC 201. At the conclusion of the semester,
individual success rates will be reported to academic
advisers and the department head. The data will be
collected through spring 2012 and then analyzed for
trends. M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
202, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
A 2010-2011. While the communication indicators meet
expectations, the MUSC 261 instructor will modify the
course to further strengthen these indicators with
additional reading/worksheet requirements and
group/pairs projects. Additionally, the mid-term oral
project will be videoed for student review and comment.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
261, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
363, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
4.00/5.00 average response on the GS and ES on
questions relating to communication and technology
outcomes and their long term impact on the graduates’
effectiveness as a musician and teacher.
Jazz/Commercial Total 1 4.00
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 5.00
Program Total 4 4.75
2009-2010. GS. No data available.
2009-2010. ES. No data available.
D Fall 2010. The GS is being reformatted by the Office
of Institutional Research and will be distributed in
August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master
Plan.
D Fall 2010.The ES is being reformatted by the Office
of Institutional Research and will be distributed in
August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master
Plan.
Student Learning Outcome 3: Graduates analyze the global community to make sound judgments in academic and professional environments.
Expected Level of Achievement
Global Perspective Defined in Music Performance
Program
Program completers possess
1. an understanding of current musical thought and
practice as it relates to the professional musician and
the evolution of contemporary world music and
culture;
2. an understanding of music and music literature
within its global cultural and historic contexts;
3. an ability to evaluate, understand, and respect a
variety of musical repertoires.
4. an understanding of significant ethical and
professional issues related to a career of performance
and music teaching within a global arena.
•75% of program candidates will correctly answer 6 or
more out of 8 analyses of global perspective questions
on the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and
Literature) post test.
MUSC 261/MUSC 363/MUSC 447
Global Perspective Indicators Rubric Scale Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
•75% of program candidates will earn a score of 6 (0-9)
or above on the analysis of global perspective
indicators of the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music
History and Literature) final verbal presentation/research
project rubric.
•80% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of 0-
Actual Data From Assessment
Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in
MUSC 261. One completed the post test. One program
candidates (100%) correctly answered 6 or more out of 8
questions on the post test (average score = 7.00).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Spring 2010. Two program candidates enrolled in
MUSC 261. One completed the course and the final
verbal presentation/research project. One program
candidates (100%) earned a score of 6 or above (average
score = 8.00).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Spring 2010. Five program candidates enrolled in MUSC
Actions/Decisions
A 2010-2011. While the global community indicators
meet expectations, the MUSC 261 instructor will modify
the course to further strengthen these indicators with
additional reading/worksheet requirements and
group/pairs projects. Additionally, the mid-term oral
project will be videoed for student review and comment.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 261,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 363,
9) or above on the analyses of global perspective
indicators of the MUSC 363 (Music History II) final
written research project rubric.
• 80% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (scale of
0-9) or above on the analyses of the global perspective
indicators of the MUSC 447 (Literature of the
Performance Major) final written research project.
Senior Seminar: Issues of the Profession MUSC 485
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 15 (scale of
0-25) or above on the project assessment rubrics
pertaining to global perspective written projects.
•4.00/5.00 average response on the GSES on question
relating to tolerance and diversity and questions on the
quality of instruction in music history and literature
courses.
4.00/5.00 average response on the GS and ES on
questions relating to global perspective outcomes and
their impact on the graduates’ effectiveness as a
musician and teacher.
363. Four completed the course and the final written
project. Four program candidates (100%) earned a score
of 6 or above (average score = 7.75).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
2009-2010. Three program candidates enrolled in MUSC
447. Three completed the course and final written
project. Three program candidates (100%) earned a
score of 6 or above (average score = 8.9).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
2009-2010. No data available. Course will first be
offered in spring 2012.
2009-2010. Four program completers responded to
questions on the GSES.
Expected levels of achievement were met.
Tolerance/Diversity Awareness Evaluation Question Concentration Response # Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 4.50
Jazz/Commercial Music Total 1 5.00
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 2 5.00
Program Total 4 4.75
Quality of Instruction: Music History/Literature
Evaluation Question Concentration Response # Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 4.75
Jazz/Commercial Music Total 1 4.00
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Vocal 1 5.00
Program Total 2 4.63
2009-2010. GS. No data available.
2009-2010. ES. No data available.
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 447,
the MPCC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
A 2010-2011. Appropriate forms will be submitted to
the McNeese QEP Committee to request that MUSC 485
be approved as a Writing Enriched Course in the
discipline.
D Fall 2010. The GS is being reformatted by the Office
of Institutional Research and will be distributed in
August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
D Fall 2010.The ES is being reformatted by the Office of
Institutional Research and will be distributed in August
2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
Student Learning Outcome 4: Graduates possess 1) a conceptual understanding of music theory, musical forms and processes; 2) aural and analytical comprehension as applied
to performance and repertory study; and 3) composition and improvisation abilities appropriate to the concentration major, as these areas of music study form a basis for listening,
composing, and performing.
Expected Level of Achievement
MUSC 399/MUSC 492
Objective Four Indicators Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
Junior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 399 (Performance)
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 6 (0-9 scale)
or above on the three indicators related to Objective Four
included in the 303-level performance study or MUSC
399 (Junior Recital) rubric:
musicianship
expression/musicality
sight singing
• 85% of program candidates complete this requirement
on first attempt.
Senior Recital Evaluation –MUSC 492 (Performance)
• 85% of program completers earn a score of 6 (0-9
scale) or above on the three indicators related to
Objective Four included in MUSC 492 (Performance)
rubric:
musicianship
expression/musicality
sight signing
Actual Data From Assessment
2009-2010. Two program candidates enrolled in and
completed MUSC 399. Neither program candidate
completed the sight-reading indicator. Both program
candidates (100%) earned a score of 4 or above on the
“musicianship” and “expression/musicality” indicators.
Both program candidates (100%) completed this
requirement on the first attempt.
Expected Levels of Achievement were partially met.
MUSC 399
Objective Four Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number Earning 6
or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 6
Jazz/Commercial 0 0 NA
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 0 NA
Voice 0 0 NA
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in MUSC
492. Three program candidates completed all indicators;
of those, 100% earned a score of 6 or above. One
program completer was reported with only two indicators
(no sight reading). That program completer earned a
score of 5.5 (below the level expectation for two
indicators). Four program candidates (100%) passed
MUSC 492 on the first attempt.
Actions/Decisions
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 399,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that sight
reading be removed from the critical thinking indicators
assessing MUSC 399 since this activity was evaluated at
the 200-level. A “Stage Presentation” indicator will be
added to the assessment rubric.
R 2010-2011. The Performance Assessment Rubric will
be revised to make clear at which levels of evaluation
sight-reading is required. Additionally, the Music
Performance Policies and Procedures Manual will be
updated to reflect this change.
R 2010-2011. The Performance Assessment Rubric will
be revised to make clear at which levels of evaluation
sight-reading is required.
• 90% of program completers pass the MUSC 492
requirement on first attempt.
400-Level Major Performance Area
Written Research Project
Objective Four Indicators (3 indicators/5-point scale)
Score Expectations
14-15 Exemplary
11-13 Exceeds
8-10 Meets
5-7 Needs improvement
0-4 Does Not Meet
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 10 or above
on the 400-Level Major Performance Area Written
Research Project/ assessment rubric which measures the
program candidate’s ability to synthesize their
knowledge of theoretical analysis techniques,
historic/style elements, and research skills in producing
advanced program notes.
•70% of program candidates earn a score of 75% or
above on the Theory Entrance Diagnostic Examination.
Expected Levels of Achievement were met with partial
data reported.
MUSC 492
Objective Four Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number Earning 6
or above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 9
Jazz/Commercial 1 0 5.5/6
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 0 NA
Voice 1 1 6.00
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in the
400-level major performance area written research
project. The final projects of three program candidates
were evaluated utilizing all indicators; of those, two
(67%) earned a score of 10 or above.
Expected Level of Achievement was not met.
400-Level Major Performance Area Written Project
Critical Thinking Indicators Concentration Number of
Candidates
Number
Earning 10 or
above
Average
Score
Instrumental 2 2 13.5
Jazz/Commercial 1 0 0
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA NA
Voice 1 0 9
Program Total 4 2 9
2009-2010. Seven new program candidates completed
the theory examination. Five (70%) earned a score of
A 2010-2011. On a recommendation from the MPPC,
the Major Performance Area Research Project was
incorporated into MUSC 492 and the appropriate forms
were filed with the McNeese QEP Committee to have
MUSC 492 declared a writing enriched course within the
discipline. This QEP Committee has yet to act upon the
submitted request. Once approved by the QEP
Committee, a curriculum change request will be sent to
the University Curriculum Committee describing this
change and increasing MUSC 492from 3 to 4 credit
hours and deleting the performance area 402-1 credit
requirement from the degree.
R 2010-2011. The MPPC recommended that the
expected level of achievement benchmark be lowered
from 85% to 80% to reflect more realistic outcome
expectations.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in the Major
Performance Area Research Project, the MPPC will
analyze and monitor this data over a three-year cycle
[spring 2009-spring 2011] before recommending major
change to the project content.
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 70% or
above on the MUSC 201 (Advanced Theory I) final
project rubric.
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 70% or
above on the MUSC 202 (Advanced Theory II-
Contemporary Music Practice) final research project
assessment rubric which measures the program
candidate’s ability to synthesize their knowledge of
theoretical analysis techniques, historic/style elements,
technology, and research skills into a project focusing on
contemporary repertoire and practice.
•75% of program candidates earn a score of 70% or
above on the MUSC 202L (sight-reading/ear training)
proficiency examination rubric; 75% of program
candidates complete proficiency requirement on first
attempt.
MUSC 261 Rubric Scale
Objective Four Indicators Score Expectations
8-9 Exceeds
5-7 Meets
2-4 Needs improvement
0-1 Does Not Meet
• 75% of program candidates earn a score of
6 (scale of 0-9) or above on the Objective Four indicators
of the MUSC 261 (Introduction to Music History and
Literature) final research project rubric.
75%.
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Fall 2009. Two program candidates enrolled in MUSC
201. Two (100%) earned a score of 70% or higher on the
MUSC 201final written analysis project rubric (average
score=80%).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Spring 2010. One program candidates enrolled in MUSC
202. One (100%) candidate earned a score of 70% or
higher on the MUSC 202 final written research/analysis
project rubric (average score=86%).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
Spring 2010. One program candidates enrolled in MUSC
202L. One (100%) candidate earned a score of 70% or
higher. 100% of the candidates completed the
proficiency requirement on the first attempt.
Expected levels of achievement were met.
Spring 2010. One program candidate enrolled in MUSC
261. One completed the course and the final project.
One program candidate (100%) earned the score of 6 or
above (average score = 7).
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 201,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
A 2010-2011. The Theory Coordinator has expressed
concern that evidence seems to point to students who
participate in more than two ensembles tend to do poorly
in MUSC 201. It is recommended that advisors begin
tracking ensemble participation for those enrolled in
MUSC 201. At the conclusion of the semester,
individual success rates will be reported to academic
advisers and the department head. The data will be
collected through spring 2012 and then analyzed for
trends.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 202,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC
202L, the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over
a three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
A 2010-2011. While Spring 2010 MUSC 202L
candidates met expected levels of achievement, there is
concern that some of these (and future) MUSC 202L
candidates begin the course with deficiencies. The
MPPC recommended that the theory faculty meet,
discuss, and recommend changes in content,
methodologies and sequencing in MUSC101L and 102L.
A 2010-2011. While the Objective #4 indicators meet
expectations, the MUSC 261 instructor will modify the
course to further strengthen these indicators with
additional reading/worksheet requirements and
group/pairs projects. Additionally, the mid-term oral
•4.00/5.00 mean response on the GSES on questions
relating to the program completer’s opinion concerning
the quality of instruction in music theory, analysis and
composition courses.
•4.00/5.00 mean response on the GS and ES on questions
relating to the quality of instruction in music theory,
analysis and composition courses and their long term
impact on the effectiveness of graduates’ effectiveness as
a musician and teacher.
2009-2010. Four program completers responded to
questions on the GSES.
Quality of Instruction: Music Theory/Analysis/
Composition Courses Evaluation Questions Concentration Response # Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 4.75
Jazz/Commercial Music Total 1 3.50
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 5.00
Total for all Concentrations 4 4.50
Expected Level of Achievement was met.
2009-2010. GS. No data available.
2000-2010. ES. No data available.
project will be videoed for student review and comment.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 261,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
D Fall 2010. The GS is being reformatted by the Office
of Institutional Research and will be distributed in
August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
D Fall 2010.The ES is being reformatted by the Office of
Institutional Research and will be distributed in August
2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
Student Learning Outcome 5: Graduates possess professional entry-level competence in the major performance area, including significant technical mastery, knowledge of
applicable repertory, capability to produce work and solve professional problems independently, a coherent set of artistic/intellectual goals which are evident in their work, and
orientation to and experience in the fundamentals of pedagogy.
Expected Level of Achievement
Performance Competencies
Program completers possess
1. Technical skills requisite for artistic self-
expression in the concentration;
2. An overview understanding of the repertory in the
major concentration and the ability to perform from a
cross-section of that repertory;
3. The ability to read at sight at a level relevant to
professional standards appropriate for the particular
concentration;
4. Knowledge and skills to work as a leader and in
collaborations on matters of musical interpretation;
and
5. Keyboard competency.
Major Performance Area MUSC 492
Instrumental Rubric Score Expectations
13-15 Exceeds
8-12 Meets
13-7 Marginally Meets
0-2 Does Not Meet
Vocal Rubric Score Expectations
15-18 Exceeds
9-14 Meets
3-8 Marginally Meets
0-2 Does Not Meet
Senior Recital Evaluation – MUSC 492
• 85% of instrumental and keyboard program completers
earn a score of 10 or above and 85% of the vocal
program completers earn a score of 12 or above on the
MUSC 492 (Senior Recital for Music Performance)
assessment rubric; 90% of program completers pass the
MUSC 492 requirement on first attempt.
Actual Data From Assessment
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in and
completed MUSC 492. Three earned the score of 10 or
above on the instrumental performance rubric. One
earned the score of 10.67 on the vocal performance
rubric. Three of four program completers (75%) earned
the appropriate score or above. Four program completers
passed the MUSC 492 requirement on the first attempt.
Actions/Decisions
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 492,
the MPPC will analyze and monitor this data over a
three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring 2011] before
recommending major change.
400-Level Major Performance Area
Written Research Project
Objective Four Indicators (5 indicators/5-point scale)
Score Expectations
23-25 Exemplary
18-22 Exceeds
13-17 Meets
8-12 Needs improvement
0-7 Does Not Meet
• 85% of program candidates earn a score of 15 or above
on the 400-Level Major Performance Area Written
Research Project/ assessment rubric which measures the
program candidate’s ability to synthesize their
knowledge of theoretical analysis techniques,
historic/style elements, and research skills in producing
advanced program notes.
• 80% of program completers earn a score of 10 or above on the MUSC 445 (Pedagogy for Performance
Majors) or MUSC 455-456 (Piano Pedagogy Senior-
Level Teaching Practicum) evaluation indicators which
measures the program candidate’s ability to synthesize
fundamental knowledge of pedagogical methods and
repertoire
MUSC 445/455-456
Objective Four Indicators (3 indicators/5-point scale)
Expected levels of achievement were partially met.
MUSC 492 Composite Rubric Concentration Number of
Completers
Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 14.67
Jazz/Commercial Music 1 13.75
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 10.67
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled the 400-
level major performance area written research project.
The final projects of three program candidates were
evaluated utilizing all indicators; of those, three (100%)
earned a score of 15 or above
Expected Level of Achievement was met with partial
data reported
400-Level Major Performance Area Written Project
Objective Four Indicators Concentration Number of
Completers
Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 22
Jazz/Commercial Music 1 0
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 15
2009-2010. Four program completers enrolled in and
completed MUSC 445. Three program completers
(75%) earned a score of 10 or above.
Expected Level of Achievement was not met.
2009-2010. MUSC 455 and MUSC 456 were not
offered.
MUSC 445
Objective Four Indicators
A 2010-2011. On a recommendation from the MPPC,
the Major Performance Area Research Project was
incorporated into MUSC 492 and the appropriate forms
were filed with the McNeese QEP Committee to have
MUSC 492 declared a writing enriched course within the
discipline. This QEP Committee has yet to act upon the
submitted request. Once approved by the QEP
Committee, a curriculum change request will be sent to
the University Curriculum Committee describing this
change and increasing MUSC 492from 3 to 4 credit
hours and deleting the performance area 402-1 credit
requirement from the degree.
R Change expected level of achievement benchmark
from 85% to 80% to reflect more realistic expectations.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in the Major
Performance Area Research Project, the MPPC will
analyze and monitor this data over a three-year cycle
[spring 2009-spring 2011] before recommending major
change to the project content.
A 2009-2010. Graduate responses indicated a desire for
increased pedagogical experiences. The MPPC
recommends that one studio session of MUSC 190 each
semester be utilized as a “lab band” or “lab choir” for
MUSC 408 (conducting) students.
M 2010-2011. Because of low enrollment in MUSC 445
and MUSC 455-456, the MPPC will analyze and monitor
this data over a three-year cycle [spring 2009-spring
Score Expectations
14-15 Exemplary
11-13 Exceeds
8-10 Meets
5-7 Needs improvement
0-4 Does Not Meet
• 80% of program candidates earn a score of 70% or
above on the PIAN 216 proficiency examination rubric;
75% of program candidates complete proficiency
requirement on first attempt.
Post-Graduation Professional Activity
• 4.00/5.00 mean response on the GSES on questions
relating to the program completer’s opinion concerning
1) overall quality of performance area;
2) quality of instruction in performance study and
pedagogy; and
3) quality of instruction in performance ensemble
experiences.
Concentration Number of
Completers
Average
Score
Instrumental Total 2 13
Jazz/Commercial Music 1 12
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 9
Spring 2010. Two program candidates were enrolled in
PIAN 216. Two program candidates (100%) earned 70%
or above; 100% of candidates completed the requirement
on the first attempt.
Expected levels of achievement were met.
2009-2010. Four Bachelor of Music in Performance
Completers. Two graduated with honors; one student
graduated from the Honors College.
• One completer was accepted into the Masters Jazz
Studies Program at North Texas State University.
• One completer was accepted into a seminary to pursue
a Master of Sacred Music degree.
• One completer is pursuing a post-baccalaureate
certification in secondary music education.
• One completer is opening a private performance studio
and teaching in an enhancement music program in
Calcasieu Parish.
2009-2010. Four program completers responded to
questions on the GSES.
Expected levels of achievement were met.
Overall Quality of Performance Program
Concentration Response
#
Average
Score Instrumental Total 2 5.00
Jazz/Commercial Music Total 1 4.00
Piano/Piano Pedagogy Total 0 NA
Voice Total 1 5.00
Program Total 4 4.75
Quality of Instruction in Performance Studies
(Performance Lessons and MUSC 445)
Concentration Response
#
Average
Score Instrumental 2 5.00
Jazz/Commercial Music 1 4.00
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA
2011] before recommending major change to the project
content.
• 4.00/5.00 mean response on the GS and ES on
questions relating to the quality of instruction in
performance and repertoire and their long term impact on
the effectiveness of graduates’ effectiveness as a
musician and teacher.
Vocal 1 5.00
Program Total 4 4.75
Quality of Instruction in Performance Ensembles
Concentration Response
#
Average
Score Instrumental 2 4.00
Jazz/Commercial Music 1 3.50
Piano/Piano Pedagogy 0 NA
Vocal 1 5.00
Program Total 4 4.13
2009-2010. GS. No data available.
2009-2010. ES. No data available.
D Fall 2010. The GS is being reformatted by the Office
of Institutional Research and will be distributed in
August 2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
D Fall 2010.The ES is being reformatted by the Office of
Institutional Research and will be distributed in August
2010. Data will be reported in 2011 Master Plan.
Professional and Workforce Development Initiatives and Progress: Provide program internship data/information here. This may include student and/or employer survey
satisfaction results, data related to growth of internship program, job-placement after internship program, or other data/information. Please also indicate any actions or decisions
the program has made or intends to make either to the internship program or to its curriculum based on internship data. If you wish to use subsequent pages/sections to display this
information or to specify individual goals of the program, please feel free to do so.
Identify Internship Program (name), Assessment
Tool (e.g. survey), and Expected Level of
Achievement (benchmark)
An internship is not currently a requirement of the
Bachelor of Music in Performance.
Actual Data From Assessment
2009-2010. While an internship is not a requirement of
the B.M. in Performance degree, degree candidates have
the opportunity to enroll in MUSC 311 (Professional
Internship) as an elective. During the evaluation period,
5 degree students enrolled and completed MUSC 311.
Each student participated in the Lake Charles Symphony
Concert Season and was supervised by an on campus
professor.
Actions/Decisions
A 2010-2011. PART Music Program faculty will
evaluate the necessity and feasibility of internship
opportunities in the B.M. degree in performance. The
Coordinator of the Music Performance degree will
review NASM (accrediting agency) standards for a B.M.
degree and see if the nature of this degree would include
a required internship.
Resources Allocated: 2010-2011. Resources will not be allocated until the 2010-2011 operating budget for PART is known.
Master Plan Self-Assessment
Master plans are the evidence that a unit is performing assessment and an index to how that assessment is undertaken. Effective assessment plans establish clear goals, set high
levels of achievement, and include meaningful measurements for gauging progress toward goals. As a progress report, these plans show that the unit evaluates its annual
information and makes decisions based upon evidence. These changes are then followed up on (assessed) in subsequent plans.
In this section, please self-evaluate this process by indicating as follows:
1 – I need a lot of help in this area;
2 – I am making progress, but need help;
3 – I do not need help in this area
Area 1: Mission/Institutional Mission Reference
(I am confident my unit’s mission statement communicates clearly to a broad audience
and shows its unique and obvious place within the institutional framework.)
3
Area 2: Objectives/Outcomes
(Mostly for Admin Units: I am satisfied that the objectives I have listed support the unit
mission, are clear and measurable, and adequate in number.)
3
Area 3: Assessments/Expectations
(I am satisfied that my assessments accurately measure my objectives, that there are
enough assessments to get a meaningful picture, and that my unit’s expectations are
rigorous but attainable.)
3
Area 4: Data/Collection
(I am satisfied with the amount and quality of data I receive.)
2
Area 5: Data Analysis/Application
(I am satisfied with the unit’s process for analyzing data and making improvements.)
2
Comments:
There are still snags in the data collecting process primarily the result of a lack of clear communication among faculty participants. Additional time will be spent on the
requirements of the assessment process and its designated evaluation tools prior in August 2010 prior to the commencement of the fall 2010 academic semester. Data will also be
analyzed immediately after the close of its appropriate collection period and earlier in the master plan process to allow for a longer period of reflection before decisions are made.
Overall, many effective decision and actions have come out of the master plan process and the process itself improves with each cycle.