DM Auditions Pedagogy

Problem Context

The project that I've been working on was originally prototyped during this past summer at Dr. Horsman's Foresight and Strategy intensive. At the time I was asked to take over the reins of coordinating the Drum Major and Block Captain audition process - a three-month long training and evaluation process that develops the band's student leaders. The program has a rich history of previous drum majors, block captains, and other educators coming back to volunteer and train in the new wave of dedicated students. Even when I was a student first auditioning, only a mere nine years ago, the process itself focused almost entirely of the marching and performing aspect of the position and has since grown to incorporate the many duties the two positions are responsible for. Additionally, the size of the candidate pool has growth along with the notoriety of the program as a beneficial leadership development program that 10% of the band participates each year.

These factors brought a particular dilemma to the training team. The marching component focus was non sustainable, nor was it benefiting most of the candidates auditioning that would inevitably not get one of the two positions. The future Drum Majors, Block Captains, and non-positional leaders of the band had the potential to grow from the experience beyond in their performing capacities.

Audition Process Outline

Each year the program lasts between 10 to 13 weeks with 2.5 hours of instruction each week. Additionally, there are some special times added which focus on a particular aspect of the audition process: interviews, meet the candidates - a public forum for students to ask candidates questions, conducting lab/spring game, and a band alumni and donor event. The candidate pool is reduced in segments, once after a month of practices, prior to interviews, and post-interviews to present finalists to the band community.

Project Vision

The project starts with a fundamental rebuilding of the audition process. While the special events were unlikely to change, nor were their existence problematic, the largest area of improvement was in the approach and schedule each week. I proposed a pedagogical shift for the training team to help guide our efforts. Instead of teaching for the test, preparing each candidate for finals, or teaching for the best Drum Major to succeed in the next season, we would work to make each and every candidate to become better performers, musicians, leaders, and humans. 

This meant each minute of our schedule would need to be able to be justified under one of those umbrella terms, which they all did fairly easily, but also meant that changes and updates to the schedule were possible to be transformed. Previously, any changes to the programming was viewed as taking away from another aspect. Add in improv training to improve creativity, trust, and communication skills would be seen as time taken away from marching fundamentals instead. Furthermore, this focused placed equal importance on each candidate and not just the high potential or high performing finalists that were more likely to become Drum Major or Block Captain. The philosophy also required a shift in rhetoric for the committee and gave purpose to the many efforts trainers felt they could offer but did not feel like it was allowed previously. 

Finally, understanding that the goal is ultimately development towards mastery and not just comprehension required becoming creative in delivery methods as well as adding an experiential aspect to the curriculum. I added a new mode to the audition process with the goal of adding peer to peer learning that focuses on the meta-competencies and lessons learned during the audition process.

The prototyping stages were pulled from Sharmer's (2009) Theory U, in which the project was created after several stages of interviewing stakeholders like the director, and a series of small, incremental, projects to test the peer-to-peer learning through Flip Grid and the new pedagogical language through preview audition sessions in the fall. The four pillars: performers, musicians, leaders, and humans; were pulled using the ideas of the three social divides and the areas of competencies that the drum major audition processed focused on from Sharmer and Kaufer (2013).

The strategies for better learning come from Palmer's (2007) concept of subject centered learning. Instead of an expert-to-subject delivery method, in which the trainers instruct and give feedback to candidates individually, the candidates and trainers take a look at the subject with dialogue around ways to better understand and improve. The use of intentional emergence which relies upon the trainer’s ability to notice competency edges and themes naturally arise and use those moments as learning opportunities is pulled from Werner and Hellstrom (2016). Intentional emergence partners well with subject centered learning as it places ownership back on the students and utilizes the student-teacher relationships to build understanding collaboratively.

Additionally, the scope of peer-to-peer learning was developed from Heifetz, Grashow, and Linksy's (2009) idea of building a container to support the challenging forces of change and learning. These ideas helped me create a virtual space that stripped away the implications of evaluation and adjudication in favor of training, development and support. Emelo's (2015) peer mentoring methods were also used through open invitations and modern delivery methods like FlipGrid.

FlipGrid Statistics

FlipGrid includes analytics that help to track the effectiveness of the tool. Since I have data from the earlier prototype that tested the use of FlipGrid without the four values added to the pedagogy, I have a baseline to compare the new uses of FlipGrid. These statistics review the hours of engagement, the number of videos uploaded, and number of replies uploaded. 

Results
As a baseline, the 2018 FlipGrid prototype, 9 themes over 9 weeks resulted in 9.7 hours of engagement.

The 2019 FlipGrid included 4 themes over 9 weeks for a total of 59.5 hours of engagement. Candidates showed interest and commitment through replies to their peers and not just the instructor lead prompt. Candidates mentioned topics addressed online during their teaching simulations, in the interview process, and in the public “meet the candidates” forum.

Individual Trainer to Candidate Feedback

The traditional practice after candidate pool reductions was to offer individual feedback sessions. Dialogue during this personal feedback meeting was aimed to be transparent about the selection committee’s decision, and collaboratively review the student’s entire application. Previously, this involved a one-way conversation in which a trainer would go through the decision making process and review footage of the audition.

Feedback sessions now aimed to involve a two-way dialogue in which the student engaged with agreeing their own progress. Dialogue explores each subject area (performing, music, leadership, human) and helps provide a holistic picture of a candidate’s application.

Results
These sessions revealed much individual growth and mindset shifts from previous years. Prior feedback sessions would last about ten minutes in which the candidate would ask for reasoning for why they were not selected, some discussion on their overall application, before ending the session. This year, feedback sessions lasted, on average, an hour in length and focused more heavily on individual goal obtainment, areas of growth and methods for practicing, and how to influence, lead, and thrive in the upcoming season.

Additionally, candidates felt more at ease to give feedback about the training methods and structure. Every returning candidates expressed a feeling that the training methodology had shifted and was more effective for their own growth, and that the group of candidates felt closer and more collaborative than previous years.

Direct Group Feedback Session

First is the feedback session with candidates and the training committee at the end of the season. In late April and early May, I invite all candidates back with a facilitated feedback session. Committee members are invited under the stipulation that they can only listen and inquire for understanding and not to commentate or explain. The feedback session uses a facilitation technique that helps allow for each candidate to share freely and equally. They answer individually on note cards, and with the prompts known ahead of time, the following questions: 

• What aspect/segment of the audition process was most useful for you? In what ways did the trainers help you during the process?

• What was most effective for your growth/learning?

• Was there an aspect/segment that was not useful? In what ways may we improve this portion of the audition process?

• Is there something missing that could help you as a candidate?

Candidates are asked to be responsible for their own review of the note cards, often grouping the individual replies together by theme and by asking questions for better understanding. The committee also participates in a feedback session that reviews the takeaways from the candidate's session. 

Group feedback session results TBD.