Hacking the Music Theory Classroom

Abstract

This article focuses on three “hacks” to the traditional model of music theory instruction:standards-based grading(SBG),just-in-time teaching(JiTT), andthe inverted classroom. In SBG, students receive multiple grades in reference to clearly defined learning objectives rather than a single grade that may mask weaknesses by averaging them with strengths. JiTT assesses students’ understanding before class so that the instructor can adjust the lesson plan according to their needs. In the inverted classroom, students acquire a basic understanding of the material outside of class so that class time may be used for active engagement rather than lecture. These tools and the technologies that support them have the potential to help strengthen curricula, increase the impact that an instructor can have on undergraduate theory students, and in some cases reduce the amount of time an instructor must devote to achieving that impact. Any one of these hacks can be incorporated within an otherwise traditional music theory course and can work together synergistically. Both their modularity and their compatibility give them potential to increase instructor efficiency and effectiveness in a wide range of class settings. After describing the scholarly literature surrounding the three hacks as they have been incorporated in a variety of academic disciplines, the authors present four testimonials describing how the three hacks have been incorporated into four diverse music programs: a traditional school of music within a large state university, a large private institution with a focus on jazz and commercial music, a department of music in a mid-sized university, and a small, private university with music classes that combine theory and aural skills.

Curious, Collaborative, Creativity

“…31 In addition, flipping the classroom to a student-centered approach may help directors reach goals more quickly than instruction solely delivered in traditional formats. 32 Students also demonstrate stronger musical knowledge, increased participation, and a deeper level of enjoyment in the process. 33 Finally, directors interested in applying CCC should work with students to ensure they have the space, facilities, and resources necessary to carry out their ideas.…”

Experience Report: Standards-Based Grading at Scale in Algorithms

“…While ideally students persist until they have demonstrated proficiency for each topic, we note that this is not a requirement for standards-based grading [Sta18]. Final course grades are based upon the number of standards for which students have demonstrated proficiency and the degree of demonstrated learning for each standard [Bea13,DGHS15,Sta18,EL19,Lew20].…”

“…It has begun to take root in the university setting, most notably in lower-division math [Owe15, Sta18, EL19, Lew20] and science [Bea13,Pos17] courses. However, standards-based grading has also been adopted in upper division math courses such as Real Analysis and Abstract Algebra [Sal18b,Sal18a], as well as other disciplines such as educational leadership [Tow19,BPK17] and music [DGHS15]. We are only aware of one other instance where standards-based grading has been adopted in Algorithms [SFCG20].…”

Alternative grading practices: An entry point for faculty in competency‐based education

“…A second alternative grading method is standards-based grading (SBG) which is closely related to mastery grading. Although SBG has been used more frequently in undergraduate math and science classes (Beatty, 2013;Elsinger & Lewis, 2019;Lewis, 2019;Post, 2017;Stange, 2018), it has also been applied in other disciplines such as educational leadership (Townsley, 2019;Buckmiller, Peters, & Kruse, 2017) and music (Duker, Gawboy, Hughes, & Shaffer, 2015). Students ideally progress until each topic is mastered; however, this is not often a required component of SBG (Stange, 2018).…”

“…3. Final course grades are based on the number of standards and the degree to which these standards have been mastered (Beatty, 2013;Duker et al, 2015;Elsinger & Lewis, 2019;Lewis, 2019;Stange, 2018).…”