CMP* and the Standards, Curriculum, and Instruction

By now most districts are somewhere between completing the development of their music standards and just getting ready to start to think about beginning to commence. But after the standards are established, the heavy lifting - writing the curriculum document - begins. Too often the curriculum writing process and the process of planning instruction in the classroom exist on two different planes. This column will suggest a "Unified Field Theory" that uses the Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance* (CMP) goal of "Performance with Understanding" to plan and implement standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessment. It will focus on both aspects:

1. writing a curriculum document based on the standards; and
2. planning instruction that brings that curriculum to life in the classroom.

Use of CMP in the curriculum development process will be followed by a detailed look at how the CMP model can provide a map into the "terra incognita" of implementing the standards in daily instruction.

WRITING THE CURRICULUM DOCUMENT

Guiding Questions

Curriculum writing is often regarded as something mysterious, but it is actually very similar to planning a trip: Where do we want to go? How will we get there? Are we getting there? The answer to the first question is the content and performance standards. Curriculum and instruction comprise the answer to the second. And the third is best answered through ongoing assessment embedded in instruction.

Where Do We Want To Go? Levels of Outcomes

This question concerns outcomes, but not all outcomes are created equal. As teachers, most of our attention centers on the shorter-term outcomes for concerts and rehearsals, the "curriculum in action." In developing content and performance standards, however, we must broaden our planning and consider longer-range outcomes. There are at least three or four levels of the curriculum, each with outcomes that vary from long- to short-range and from very general to specific. The content standards, for instance, are long-range outcomes and provide important direction but are quite general. The next level, the performance standards, focus on a shorter time span and are more specific, describing a way the students can demonstrate their mastery of a content standard's constituent knowledge and skills. The next level might be the outcomes of a specific instructional project designed to help students achieve selected performance standards. Finally, the shortest term and most specific would be the daily rehearsal or lesson plan. All should be aligned with the content standards. The written curriculum document should contain the first three of these outcomes.

Developing the Standards

The structure of the Wisconsin Music Standards makes them quite usable with the CMP principle of "performance with understanding." However, each district should consider carefully the "Where do we want to go" question to ensure that the standards it adopts are its own best answer to that question. The PK-12 music staff within a district should develop the music program's content standards as a "committee of the whole," or, in the case of larger districts where this would be unwieldy, a representative group from each level and area. The goal must be a seamless, well-articulated program with a common focus across levels and areas. Subcommittees of teachers within each area-- choral, general, instrumental--should develop performance standards for their area, always ensuring appropriate correlation among the three areas and alignment with the content standards. This work of the committee and subcommittees will establish the scope of the curriculum. Many teachers find that listing the content standards' constituent knowledge and skills for a given level and area helps establish clear performance standards and (below) the sequence of the curriculum.

How Will We Get There? Planning Sequence of the Curriculum with CMP

Having determined the content and performance standards, the scope of the music program,teachers within each area of music and grade level must next organize their curriculum's sequence of presentation. The mastery of the deep central issues of any discipline, such as the content standards, requires focused effort over time. Therefore, utilizing the CMP approach of teaching through the normal work of the program, many teachers have developed long-term instructional projects that are focused on the standards and occur in the context of the ensemble's performance preparation. For instance, developing an instructional project in middle or high school to improve performance (Standards A or B) might include having the students analyze and evaluate tapes of their rehearsals in preparation for a concert and suggest improvements (Standards F or G), with appropriate and supportive teacher feedback on their critiques. Students could learn about music's relationships to the other arts and other disciplines as well as its historical/cultural context (Standards H and I) by researching the music for the concert in order to prepare the program notes. And this would require little, if any, rehearsal time.

In the same way, the director could present the composing standard (D) through an instructional project during concert preparation (again, a la CMP), using a concert selection as a model for the students' compositions. (e.g., an ABA piece, theme and variations, etc.: "Compose an 8-bar melody and vary it two different ways, using the composer's variation techniques."). Another concert might feature an improvisation project, again, using the concert music as an instructional model. And a project to improve performance (A or B, F, and G), an ongoing concern of all conductors, could be part of every concert preparation and/or lesson. In the CMP approach, preparation for each performance could be an instructional project involving multiple standards. The written curriculum should include descriptions of these project frameworks that detail the standards covered, with a general description of instructional strategies.

Are We Getting There? Assessing Student Work

Besides the content and performance standards, which describe the scope of the curriculum, and the project frameworks, which detail the sequence of presentation (all described above), the written curriculum should also include descriptions of assessment protocols appropriate to the tasks. These would range from ongoing informal teacher observations to the more formal selected response (multiple choice, true/false, matching, etc.) and constructed response assessments (short answer, performance assessments, etc.). Selected response assessments are time efficient and are appropriate for diagnosing low-level understandings, such as recall of facts, methodologies, and principles and even for inferring a conclusion beyond a given circumstance. However, the ability to apply these understandings and analyze, synthesize, and evaluate them can only be assessed by having students actually perform these actions in context. The performance assessment tasks developed by the SCASS-Arts Assessment Consortium are excellent models for this. Again, this follows naturally from the CMP approach.

In all cases, students should know the criteria (the important foci of the project, a. k. a. outcomes/learning targets) and, when at all possible, students should be involved in determining both the criteria and appropriate levels of proficiency (in achieving those points). And using their understanding of the criteria and proficiency levels, students should self-assess on an ongoing basis, with the teacher giving supportive feedback on their assessments.

This has been an overview of the curriculum writing process. The curriculum document at this point should include not only the above three levels (the content standards; performance standards; and instructional project frameworks that cover the standards, with assessment procedures), but also, to put the curriculum in context, sample activities of the projects and assessments. The following section describes the use of the CMP model to implement the standards in the fourth level (where we teachers spend most of our time) - instruction.

PLANNING INSTRUCTION

Using the Points of the CMP Model

Instructional planning based on the curriculum document is the work of the individual teacher, and CMP is especially effective at this level. There are basically five parts of the CMP model through which teachers plan, prepare and present materials, and assess student work: Outcomes, Music Selection, Analysis, Strategies, and Assessment. The following is a brief explanation of how using the CMP model enhances the process of planning and teaching the standards.

The individual teacher determines the Outcomes of the last two levels of the curriculum mentioned at the beginning: the instructional projects and the daily rehearsals. The outcomes of instructional projects typically focus on several standards selected by the teacher as appropriate for the students' abilities and understandings; are quite specific; and have a definite time frame. Ideally, the students will be involved in determining these learning targets. Finally, even more immediate in focus and specificity are the outcomes of each rehearsal, which must have clear connections with the project and the standards.

Having determined the project's outcomes, the teacher proceeds to another point of the model to choose the curricular content - the music - to achieve those outcomes. In a standards-based CMP setting, Music Selection is aligned with those outcomes/targets selected as appropriate for the project and for the students' abilities. Guiding questions in selecting music might be: Does the composition have good teaching opportunities for the standards and other outcomes selected for this project? What does it teach? Is it appropriate for these students? Does it have musical value? Other points to consider are its historical/cultural context and connections to the other arts and other disciplines.

The next logical step in planning is Analysis of the music. Analysis in the CMP model goes beyond the typical score analysis to include points such as the compositional devices used, how the elements of music are utilized, what makes it a quality piece, what the heart of the piece is, etc. Students can and should participate in the analysis. All these considerations lead naturally into the next point of the model - teaching strategies.

Strategies refer to the instructional techniques through which teachers can facilitate learning. Since motivation is a vital element in learning, it is important for teachers to devise instructional techniques that both enhance student motivation and coincide with how students learn best. The extended section that follows is a description of motivational factors and of teaching strategies that utilize them.

While students individually are motivated by many different factors, research and teacher practice have found that some are common to all students:

• An "itch" to learn - This is a survival instinct, hard-wired into our brains and the source of those "Why?" questions that parents of young children know so well. In students it is quickly repressed by implied, perceived, or actual threat (e.g., high-stakes tests, rewards, punishments).
• The "emerging adult ego state" - Students of all ages are eager to assume adult roles, to have more autonomy and less external control; to gain an affirmation of their own value through having their opinions respected. (We can all remember that, right?)
• Creative activities - The surge of pride that comes with creating something that is one's own is a strong source of intrinsic motivation.
• Relevant tasks - For optimum focus and engagement, all humans respond best to tasks that have relevance (value) to them.
• Authentic tasks - Students respond quite differently to tasks made to "get a grade" on them than they do to tasks that are "real-life" - tasks that adults do and that have importance outside of school.
• The students perceive the task as challenging but do-able.

The following are instructional strategies (adapted from the Arts PROPEL** model) that make use of these motivational pathways of learning:

• Students construct knowledge. Teaching students to memorize and recall facts and definitions of concepts does not constitute understanding. Such direct instruction can be appropriate, however, if students are led to use it as a first stepin constructing their understanding: analyzing, organizing, manipulating, and applying the facts or the concept's constituent bits of data.
• Students should confront open-ended questions and tasks just as professionals do, such as composing, interpreting a piece of music, or critiquing their own performance. These can be both relevant and authentic tasks when done in the context of preparing for performance (a la CMP).
• Students learn most efficiently through a mix of closely structured activities (e.g., learning skills of performance, improvising with only two tones, etc.) and relatively unstructured ones in which they apply such earlier understandings. Through this approach the teacher can develop projects and tasks that are challenging to the individual or group but are still do-able.
• Research and teacher practice has shown that humans learn best when they produce, perceive, and reflect, with the reflection providing input for the enhancement of both the process and product and the teacher's supportive comments on both the student's products and reflections are important factors in increasing student learning and motivation. This natural "learning loop" aligns perfectly with the CMP principle of "performance with understanding" and embodies several of the motivational factors described above and the teacher's supportive communication with the students . A creative activity in which one produces (creates) something - a performance, composition, or improvisation - not only is an important learning experience but also is a strong motivator. When the student's perception and opinions about the product (reflection) are both sought and respected by the teacher, the student's self-value is affirmed, and the innate itch to learn is enhanced. And when using such self-assessment practices in preparing a piece for performance, the task will be both relevant and authentic (i.e., not just for a grade).
• The various aspects of doing music - performing, creating, and responding (analyzing and evaluating) require in-depth work over time. Therefore, an excellent teaching strategy is the project-based learning described above in which students address authentic tasks that require them to apply their knowledge and skills and analyze and evaluate their work on an ongoing basis. And involving students in determining the project's learning targets/criteria and the rubrics that describe the levels of proficiency motivates and helps lead them to take responsibility for their own learning.
• Also, when students can revise and improve earlier work and see their present achievement in the context of where they were and perhaps where they might go next, it is both a learning experience and a further motivation to assume an active role in their own learning. A portfolio containing all of a student's work is an effective vehicle for this, as well as authentic evidence and communication of the students' achievements and progress to home and the larger community.

The final point of the model, Assessment, ideally should be used:

1. Primarily as a means of support for the students' efforts to enhance their learning; and
2. As information to enable teachers to facilitate students' effort more efficiently. The SCASS-Arts performance assessment tasks are excellent models for incorporating self- and teacher-assessment.

When such assessments are used during instruction/learning in an ongoing way to improve competence (embedded assessment) instead of as an end-of-unit occasion to prove competence, the patterns of both the teacher's and students' behavior, cognition, and affect are profoundly different. In such a supportive climate, students tend to take risks beyond the safe response and develop and use higher-order and transferable skills. They are also generally more positive, prefer challenge, focus on improving their competence, and tend to invest the necessary time and effort to accomplish mastery. And when students help determine the criteria of the projects and the proficiency levels, as suggested above, self-assessment abilities (Standards F & G) can develop naturally, with (and this is very important) teachers giving supportive feedback on the students' self-critiques. This will make unnecessary a fourth question often associated with trips - "Are we there yet?" Good assessment, therefore, will look like good instruction, and, indeed, should be an episode of instruction/learning. Thus embedded in instruction, such assessments will forward the goal of CMP - "Performance with Understanding" - and make unnecessary and irrelevant the "gotcha" form of assessment so beloved of those who are convinced that more tests and harder punishments for failure are all that are needed to improve education.

Adapted from the September 2000 issue of the Wisconsin School Musician and used with permission.

Contact: Melvin Pontious, Music Consultant, or phone: (608) 267-5042 FAX: (608) 266-1965

---

*CMP, Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance, is a model developed in Wisconsin in 1977 for teaching musical understandings in the performance class. For details contact WMEA, 4797 Hayes Rd., Madison, WI 53704, 608/249-4566.

**Arts PROPEL is an instructional/assessment model developed by Harvard Project Zero that stresses students' active engagement in their own learning. For details contact Project Zero Publications, 124 Mt. Auburn St., 5th floor, Cambridge, MA 02138, 617/495-4342.

***SCASS-Arts is a consortium of several states that is developing performance and selected assessment tasks in the four arts areas. For information contact Frank Philip, Council of Chief State School Officers, One Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001-1431.

For questions about this information, contact Melvin F. Pontious (608) 267-5042

Last updated on 2/25/2008 1:42:47 PM