MUS I–202/502

Masterclass in Music Education: Student Teaching

edTPA Assessment Analysis

SECTION 1
1.1. In the table, list your learning objectives and how they were evaluated in your summative
assessment.

Objective (paste in full) Classification Description of assessment task

Students will be able to define the following
terms: pianissimo, piano, mezzo piano, mezzo
forte, forte, fortissimo, fortepiano, crescendo,
and decrescendo.
(K, S, CU, AE)
K Students will write out at least three distinct
dynamic markings and at least one crescendo or
decrescendo in their etude. Students will
include the definitions of the dynamics below
each dynamic marking in their etude.

Students will be able to perform an etude
while adhering to the dynamics that they have
individually written.
Students will compare and contrast how soft
dynamics are utilized across genres of music.
S Students will record a short etude with their
devices and submit it on Canvas, or play it live
for a teacher
CU Students will listen to John Williams’ “Yoda
and the Force,” and Kendrick Lamar’s “Untitled
04|08.14.2014” and then fill out a short
worksheet that asks them to describe one
similarity and one difference the two pieces have
in relation to their dynamics, how the dynamics
impact the mood of the piece, and one piece
that they enjoy listening to that utilizes soft
dynamics and how the dynamics impact the
mood of that piece

1.2. In the table, list the approximate percentage of your students accomplished your goals for the
unit as demonstrated by the summative assessment.

Objective % of students
proficient
Knowledge 84
Skill 73
Contextual Understanding 88

1.3. Write a paragraph summarizing the results. Were there any trends in student performance?
Were there certain groups of students who performed especially well or not especially well?
Why do you believe that this trend emerged? What might you do in response the next time
you teach a similar unit?

For the skill portion of the unit, students did a really good job on the observance of the
dynamics and the execution of dynamic contrast, though they were less successful with
 MUS I–202/502
Masterclass in Music Education: Student Teaching

maintaining a good tone throughout the entire etude. I believe this occurred for a couple of
reasons. One, many students have trouble producing a good tone even without changing
dynamics. Two, tone takes a long time to cultivate, as well as a significant amount of time in
individual practice. Three, young students are pretty good at following clear instructions (like
dynamics) and less proficient at doing things that are not explicitly stated on paper (like
maintaining a good tone). With the CU objective, everyone that took the activity seriously
and put thought into their answer did really well. I believe that the students that did not take
the activity seriously are still capable of the task laid out, it is just a matter of convincing them
to put effort into the activity. For the knowledge objective, the online-only students did
significantly worse than the in-person students, mostly because they did not follow the
instructions. A few in-person students had answers that were close to the definition, but they
were not the exact definition I would use. I think this is in part because we did not spend
sufficient time spelling out every single definition, as well as because different people think
about similar concepts in different ways.

SECTION 2
Write a narrative addressing the following questions:

2.1. Think about the objectives where the majority of your students were successful. What
decisions that you made led to their success?

In my opinion, the single greatest thing that led to success for my students was making the
objectives clear. When given something that is clearly laid out, they tend to do pretty well, even the
students that struggle in class. If the directions are unclear, or the goal is not defined, there is a
much lower chance of success. I saw this especially with the pre-assessment. Students were given
something to sightread, with minimal instruction. They played the notes and rhythms pretty well,
but only a handful of students observed the dynamics. Two weeks later, when they played a very
similar etude with their own dynamics, nearly everyone observed them accurately. This is because I
wrote out the instructions on the assignment and went over the assignment in class several times.
Another thing that helped prepare students for success was clear sequencing of instruction and
pacing the lesson to maintain student interest.

2.2. Think about the objectives where the majority of your students were less successful. Why
do you think that was?

Many of the online students struggled with the unit as a whole, simply because their attendance is
spotty and the transfer of in-person instruction to online students is less than ideal. For the in-
person students, the lack of technical proficiency on their instruments limited their success for the
skill objective. This is not something that can be taught during a unit, though I think the
knowledge of the content we talked about during this unit will help students become proficient on
their instruments going forward. The Contextual Understanding objective was the one the class
did the best at, though some students did not take the assignment seriously and gave insufficient
answers. I think that if this activity had been for a grade, it would have shown a higher level of
understanding, though on the whole I was pleased with the in-class discussion and written
comments I got for this portion of the unit.
 MUS I–202/502
Masterclass in Music Education: Student Teaching

2.3. Were there any particular aspects of the summative assessment task or scoring/evaluation
system that worked especially well, or not especially well, at helping you understand which
students had mastered your objectives?

Having the students write in their own dynamics made it less likely that students would ignore the
dynamics or forget what they mean, as did writing out the definitions under the markings. The
rubric that I designed to evaluate the summative assessment helped me understand which students
understood the directions and whether or not they had a basic understanding of dynamics.
However, this rubric did not help me understand whether or not students have a more nuanced
understanding of dynamics, or whether they can apply these concepts to the music we are playing
for our performances. The Contextual Understanding objective helped a little bit with the nuance
portion, as it displayed their thoughts about the subject and went a little more in-depth.

2.4. The next time you taught a similar unit, what would you keep the same and what would
you change?

The next time I teach the concepts covered in this unit, I wouldn’t necessarily frame it as a unit.
Musical concepts are always building on each other; articulation, dynamics, phrasing, musicality,
and form are related to each other. Isolating these aspects can be helpful in the short term, but
having a unit dedicated to one or the other is not conducive to producing developed musicians.
This is not like math or science, where there is a generally clear linear progression of topics and
skills, everything builds on each other. I will definitely be using the activities I developed for this
unit in the future. Having students write in their own dynamics helped them understand what
works musically and what doesn’t work so well. Having students identify musical concepts in
music that we don’t typically listen to in the band room helped them develop an understanding of
how dynamics work across genres, and the different effects that can be developed through the use
of dynamics. Having students define dynamics at first seemed kind of boring and unhelpful, but it
made me realize that not all students have a firm understanding of the literal meaning of our
dynamic markings, which was contributing to some of our issues in our repertoire.