Abigail Carter

carterai@dukes.jmu.edu
Block 3 - Middle School Chorus

Impact on Student Learning Project

Link to Google Folder (all slides, detailed plans, and assessments):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1CJ5hUk5-qcy_0uJq54yVITEwWPaNzgui?usp=sharing

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to plan and implement a unit that increased and developed student
understanding and application of interval identification in music. I noticed early in this placement that not
all students felt comfortable in their understanding of intervallic leaps or identification of them. Upon
noticing this in observation, I identified goals and objectives for a full 3 lesson unit on intervals (with the
added pre-assessment and post-assessments). After identifying these goals, I was able to plan specific
lessons and develop student assessments.

Unit Standards

VA Music SOLs
● MCB.13a, MCI.13a Identify diatonic intervals
● MCAD.13a Identify all diatonic intervals
● MCI.13b Distinguish ascending half-step and whole-step intervals
● MCAD.13b Distinguish descending half-step and whole-step intervals

Unit Objectives

The student will be able to:

● Define “interval” in a musical context (as the distance between two notes/pitches)
● Distinguish and explain the difference between melodic and harmonic intervals
● Aurally and visually identify diatonic intervals
○ Winding back: aurally OR visually identify diatonic intervals, identify diatonic intervals
aurally or visually when given limited answer options, physically or verbally react to
changing intervals to indicate understanding of pitch changes/aural differences
● Employ steps to determine an interval’s name/label (number) such as counting lines and spaces,
using visual picture references, and/or relating intervals to popular songs
 Student Pre-Assessment

Pre-Assessment Link: https://forms.gle/qzG1XiwL5cdUTzgx9

Overview:

The pre-assessment for students took shape as a multiple-choice Google quiz, which students took on
their Chromebooks. To account for the varying modalities in which intervals are able to be identified and
distinguished, the quiz included multiple types of questions: 1) questions that required students to define
“interval” and distinguish between the definitions of “melodic” and “harmonic” intervals, 2) visual
identification questions in which students were asked to identify the interval by its picture, and 3)
listening questions in which students were asked to distinguish between interval distance (number) or to
determine whether the example played in-class was melodic or harmonic. Each listening example was
played 4 times. Students were given the option on every question to select “I’m not sure/I don’t know”,
but were encouraged to make educated guesses if possible before choosing that option. The quiz
contained 10 questions, which were each worth 2 points.

For a small group of students (6 students across all class blocks), I pre-assessed using more informal
observation based assessment (as per their IEPs and accommodations, a formal assessment would not be
the most effective or beneficial to track growth). For these students, I paid careful attention to their
sensory, physical, and sometimes verbal reactions listening to different intervals being played (the ones
used for the listening examples on the pre-assessment). All 6 students’ body language and reactions were
minimal (other than acknowledging that they were hearing a sound). I noticed no specific similarities for
student reactions when they heard intervals that were played similarly or differently. For these students,
throughout the unit and in post-assessment observation, the goal was to engage the students in listening
and reacting to the different sounds as the intervals and pitches changed. I planned to look for any
physical, sensory, or external signals from them individually that would indicate that they are
understanding similar and different pitch patterns (in this case, the intervals).
Results:
Analysis:

While multiple questions had over half of students answer or guess correctly, the average score
individually across classes was 3 correct responses out of the 10 questions asked (excluding the name and
class block questions). The lowest score reported was zero correct responses, and the highest score
reported was 8 correct responses. Upon seeing this data, my goal for assessment was to improve the
average score and see more correct responses percentage-wise per question in the post-assessment.
Students largely seemed to answer questions defining terms correctly more frequently than they did
specific aural or visual interval identification.
 Individual Lesson Overview

Lesson One (2/17 and 2/18)

Lesson Plan: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ibPwpJ7dXyNVd9FUc4pDgKgajZ6NFKUi/view?usp=sharing

Lesson Slides:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1naEzsb-adirFUvVG-oIFbezUHk7nrdpY3cfGhRHneBw/edit?usp=sha
ring

For this lesson, students began by taking the pre-assessment Google form. They were encouraged to make
guesses if they did not know the answer, only using the “I’m not sure” choice as a last resort. During the
listening portion, I made sure to observe the responses of any students being assessed with the modified
form of assessment. Once finished, the students began taking notes on the lesson slides in their notebooks.
To begin, we reviewed the concept of half and whole steps as a class (the unit before this one). We
defined the word “interval” in a musical context and repeated it as a class verbally aloud to help us
remember. We discussed how the bigger the interval number was, the farther apart the notes are and how
every note is assigned a number and a quality. As a class, we discussed the two different ways to play
intervals: melodic and harmonic. Students quickly noticed that the words sounded like “harmony” and
“melody”, which became a way to help us remember which is which. After covering these definitions,
students took notes on perfect unison, major seconds, and major thirds– each slide showing what the
interval looks like melodically and harmonically, and song examples to help students remember what it
sounds like. After notes were completed, we practiced distinguishing between seconds and thirds as a
class using the musictheory.net tool.

Lesson Two (2/22 and 2/23)

Lesson Plan:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1KCMHD2kVVZ2P0b4jnXTir41SgDsjMGzvwPpu_rmak/edit?usp=sh
aring
Lesson Slides:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dcTW9O2FnIjhJbGo6SZnQkar7ve9vFsaEGfJyC78AlQ/edit?usp=sh
aring

Lesson Two began with a review of Lesson One content– defining “interval”, melodic versus harmonic,
and distinguishing between unison, seconds, and thirds. After this review as a class, students began to
take notes on fourths and fifths. Since these two intervals specifically are easy to confuse for one another,
I did extra aural identification with these students as I taught the intervals. Upon completion of the notes
and practicing aural skills, students once again reviewed using the musictheory.net tool as a class. To
begin, students only had the option of distinguishing between seconds and thirds; once comfortable with
those intervals, we added fourths and fifths as options. During this practice, we reviewed the idea of
counting lines and spaces to determine the interval number. At first, all classes struggled to grasp this, but
quickly developed the counting skill as we practiced.

Lesson Three (2/24 and 2/25)

Lesson Plan:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16HfbHt7bunCzjUEQ-sxytfmmGpgYs29RMej3nHTZmp0/edit
?usp=sharing
Lesson Slides:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cQ_FOqctdJ64t4UWj-VhqkbE049Y76p3ge3ZEuhfRnY/edi
t?usp=sharing

Lesson Three began with review of the Lesson One and Lesson Two content– defining “interval”,
melodic versus harmonic, and full review of unison, seconds, thirds, fourths, and fifths. Students took
notes on the major 6th, major 7th, and perfect octave. As a class, students did aural identification of these
new intervals as I played them on the piano. To finish our unit, we did musictheory.net practice once
again– students lined up in front of the board and individually went up to count the interval for the class.
Once they double checked their counting, they went over to the computer and selected the answer. After
every student had an opportunity to do an example, students took their post-assessment on their
Chromebooks.
 Post-Assessment

Overview:

For the post-unit assessment, students once again completed the same Google form assessment that they
had taken before the unit. This time, the assessment counted for a quiz grade. Prior to taking the
assessment, students took notes on the third intervals lesson and we reviewed as a class. All of the
questions on this assessment were identical to the pre-assessment; the examples and order of questions all
remained the same. Students were made aware that they could select “I’m not sure” as an option, but that
it would count as an incorrect response. Students were given time to work on the non-listening section
and then heard each listening question example 4 times per question.

For students that were assessed using observation-based informal assessment, I observed their reactions to
hearing different intervals during the post-assessment listening questions. I wrote down specific physical,
sensory and sometimes verbal reactions to the examples to compare to their pre-assessment reactions; the
goal was to look for heightened reaction to contrasting intervals and similar reactions to like intervals.
From all 6 students, I noticed an increased reaction when presented with intervals once we covered and
reviewed material; students moved as we counted lines and spaces visually, participated in non-verbal
responses to interval identification when possible, and behaved and presented differently when they heard
varying intervals (indicating to me their awareness of an aural change). Several students even came to the
board volunteering to point and help us count intervals.

Results:
Analysis:

In the post-assessment, the average score across classes increased from 3 out of 10 to 8 out of 10. 48% of
students received a perfect score on the post-assessment, and only 4 out of 76 students scored lower than
50%, all of which had an extenuating circumstance (missing a lesson). In the pre-assessment, the
percentage of correct responses for each question ranged from 11-61%; the range for the post-assessment
responses improved to 73-96%.
 Reflection

Evidence of Extent of Student Growth

The average overall post-assessment score increased significantly, and every single student improved their
score by a margin of 2-10 points. 48% of students received a perfect score on the assessment. Only 4
received a score below 50%, and all of those students had an extenuating circumstance (an absence,
missed a lesson, etc). In addition to these averages, every student who took the pre and post-assessments
individually improved their score by a margin of between 2-10 correct responses. Upon learning that the
post-assessment was also a quiz grade, students appeared nervous. After review, though, they realized
they were more confident in the material than they assumed themselves to be. I asked each class if it was
harder to take the assessment the first time (pre-unit) or the second time (the post-unit). Every class’
students told me that the first time was much harder, and overall, that this time felt easier. They have been
eager to review and jump up to volunteer during class review time. I hear them singing the interval songs
when we do aural identification, and they ask me questions about intervals outside of the specific lesson
time now as well– including during repertoire rehearsal and warmup (“Is that a major 3rd?” “This song
has a perfect 5th!”). Students who were assessed using observation-based informal assessment had
noticeable changes in physical and sensory responses after being present for lessons– particularly,
students responded most to aural examples. Prior to the unit, students had minimal to no response to
hearing intervallic leaps– post-unit, they showed indicators of awareness of the various pitches and leaps
being played, as well as having specific responses to specific intervals (humming in tune, appearing more
excited when hearing certain intervals, movement during interval counting activities). Overall, students
seem to have responded well to this unit; my cooperating teacher and I agree that they have been very
receptive to the presentation of content.

Evidence of Modification and Differentiation

Specific differentiation is listed for each lesson in this unit, but largely, the modifications made were to
assessment and modality in which the content was delivered. Throughout the unit, I ensured that every
concept and interval could be presented aurally, visually, and kinesthetically. This included using songs to
help students remember intervals, presenting intervallic counting in different ways visually, referencing
objects/images an interval may resemble, using hand and arm movement to reinforce distance between
intervals and the “bigger number = farther apart” concept. Being able to present all of the material in three
different ways seemed to benefit students of different learning styles.

In terms of assessment, modification was made for students who would not benefit from data tracking
through formal assessment/were not able to participate in formal assessment. The assessment style shifted
from formal individual assessment to observation-based informal assessment. This way, I could use
cues/indicators that were unique to each of the 6 students as gauges for their aural and visual
understanding hearing different or the same intervals.
This same unit plan was delivered to 5 different class blocks, and each responded best to different types of
instruction. Some classes found it more helpful overall for me to talk and show slides while they took
notes without much interactive activity, while others responded best to hands-on opportunities to show
what they had learned. With this in mind, though the lesson was the same on paper, it came to life in very
different ways for each class. Some classes preferred to count the intervals aloud as a class; others
preferred thirty seconds to count individually and answer by showing the number with their hands. Based
on how students responded to a certain type of activity or instruction, I planned to either maintain that
type of instruction for the class or look for new ways to increase their understanding.

Reflection for Future Lessons/Units

Overall, I am very happy with the outcome of this unit. The students at first were hesitant to jump in and
learn about intervals, but quickly became enthusiastic about them– the more they practiced, the more
confident and accurate they became. Each class responded well to my modifications and changes to
pacing and instruction that was specific to them. In the future, I would likely add more opportunities for
assessment and practice for students to complete individually. I would also emphasize more aural
identification practice and counting lines and spaces to identify intervals– while the vast majority of
students applied these skills correctly in the post-assessment, a small number of students still did not fully
grasp them. Incorporating more opportunities to have them practice these skills could be beneficial to help
those students (and all students) develop their understanding further. Most of our practice was done as a
group, but individual could help next time (and could be used as a form of assessment if scored). For the
future, I will look for a larger variety of activities and resources to provide students. If I taught this unit
again, I would also wait one more class period to give students the post-assessment; this time, students
received the final lesson and took the post-assessment directly after the lesson. Lastly, I would look for
different ways to assess students for whom the formal assessment through testing was not effective.