Plan for Success

When we plan for success with out students, we are able to actively engage everyone in the lesson. In
approaching a music standard, one way to plan for success is to choose methods of assessment both formative and
summative that are student-centered. Below is a chart and description as an example of such a plan.
NV State Music Content Standard 5.0: Students read and notate music
Full description of standard listed above:
Students will be able to read and notate certain rhythmic patterns in their appropriate clef in a variety of
time signatures.

Sub-standard

Specific Skills

Choral 5.7.1

Read whole,
half, quarter,
eighth,
sixteenth,
and dotted
half and
quarter notes
and rests in
2/4, 3/4, and
4/4 time.

Reading
rhythms
Notating
numerical
descriptors
for given
rhythms
Clapping
rhythms
Creating
rhythmic
patterns

Assessments
FORMATIVE:

Effective
questioning
Gamification
Perform
short
rhythmic
examples
and have
students
notate what
they hear.
Have
students
read and
perform
rhythmic
examples

Instructional
Methods

SUMMATIVE:

PreTest/PostTest of
matching
material to
demonstrat
e growth to
mastery

Direct
instruction
Peer led
group work
Group
Gaming
and
Simulation

Resources
STUDENT:

Peer groups
Prior knowledge
Discussion with teacher

TEACHER:

NV State Standards for Fine Arts,

Music Content Standards
Professional Learning
Communities
Buonviri, N. O., & Paney, A. S.
(2015). Melodic Dictation
Instruction. Journal Of
Research In Music Education,
63(2), 224-237.
doi:10.1177/0022429415584141
Standerfer, S. L. (2011).
Differentiation in the Music
Classroom. Music Educators
Journal, 97(4), 43.
doi:10.1177/0027432111404078

The selected standard and subsequent sub-standard narrows focus to beginning level rhythmic reading and notation
using the most common musical symbols. Students who elected to take intermediate choir need to know and be able to do
everything required in earlier grades (NV Fine Arts Standards, 2000). Thus, mastery of the above standard is pivotal for
students to advance to the next level, and to be successful in both the performance and academic aspects of music
(Standerfer, 2011). This is coherent in that I can use one standard to deal with three fundamental aspects of music: reading
rhythms, performing rhythms accurately, and notating rhythms.
For differentiation purposes, some students show more strength in writing, while others are better at performance.
These methods of instruction will give a measure of both of these abilities within the parameters of the chosen standard.

Rhythmic instructional lessons demonstrate visual music, oral counting, kinesthetic clapping, aural and logical recognition
of pattern and counts, written musical notation, and identification of a variety of notes (Standerfer, 2011). By creating a
sense of team when approaching some of the more complex tasks of rhythmic reading, students who have different
strengths can share with one another in peer-to-peer interaction in a way direct instruction might have missed. Gaming and
simulation are solid approaches to support the informal formative assessments by making learning fun and engaging for
reluctant learners. Examples of such simulations/games are grouping students by "note types" and having them connect
around the room in single measures in varying time signatures or playing a game of rhythm trivia, where teams try to
stump one another and/or the teacher with creating measures that have one beat missing and we have to determine what's
wrong.
It is important to use a multi-pronged assessment for reading and notating because it is possible to perform music
without understanding the theory behind it (Buonviri & Paney, 2015). The goal of creating independent musicians
demands that we help students understand both the why and the how. In utilizing the formative assessments, gauging
the ability of the students to recognize rhythmic patterns, create simple clapping examples, and perform examples from
written prompts will prepare them for the culminating assessment, which is a combination of these. By monitoring
progress along the way, I can use gaming and simulation to improve student understanding so the summative assessment is
not so daunting. The assessment tasks will give an accurate barometer of student learning because they will assess both the
students abilities to perform as well as their written expression.
Resources were selected for academic support of the chosen assessment methods as well as accurate statement of
the standard. As our text states, Great results in the area of standards alignment always follow exceptional collaboration
(Lopez, 2013). In working with professional learning communities, ideas can be shared and altered based on information
garnered from the informal, formative assessments, and team approach to learning can help substantiate what is working
and what might need to be altered.
Regarding standards alignment, I believe that keeping the end in mind along the way helps to see that the standards
are a guide to lead students to mastery. Measures along the way keep us focused as instructors and student participation
along the way are keeping students engaged and enthusiastic. By relying on ideas and strategies rather than timelines
(Lopez, 2013), we continue to improve how we approach the standards as life-long learners.

REFERENCES:
Buonviri, N. O., & Paney, A. S. (2015). Melodic Dictation Instruction. Journal Of
Research In Music Education, 63(2), 224-237. doi:10.1177/0022429415584141
Lopez, D. (2013). No Excuses University: How six exceptional systems are revolutionizing
our schools. Ramona, CA: TurnAroundTM Schools Publications
Nevada Fine Arts Standards. (2000). Nevada Department of Education. Accessed October
23, 2016.
http://www.doe.nv.gov/Standards_Instructional_Support/Nevada_Academic_Standar
ds/FineArts/
Standerfer, S. L. (2011). Differentiation in the Music Classroom. Music Educators
Journal, 97(4), 43. doi:10.1177/0027432111404078