Differentiation

Running Head: Differentiation in the General Music Classroom

Effectiveness of Differentiation in the Elementary General Music Classroom for Specific

Student Populations

Zulia Diaz

Kennesaw State University

1

Differentiation

Abstract

Differentiation in a teaching strategy that allows all students to access the same concepts,

knowledge and skills by beginning in a personal entry point and tailoring instruction to

meet the individual’s learning needs. The goal of differentiation is to allow students to

improve at their maximum potential to achieve personal success. When teaching students

of multiple backgrounds, it is essential to meet students where they are. Data will be

collected to assess student growth after each differentiated general music lesson. For the

purpose of this study, the researcher will focus on the specific differentiation strategies

for specific concepts to test the effectiveness for specific student sub-groups.

2

Differentiation

Effectiveness of Differentiation in the Elementary General Music Classroom for Specific

Student Populations

Introduction and Literature Review

Differentiation is the newest buzzword in education. The goal is to teach a student

their current their level and using methods that respect their current level of knowledge

on a topic, their interests, and their learning preferences, and to ultimately achieve the

district, state and national standards. While grouping and differentiation are very

different, it is effective to know the labels attached to students. Master teacher Dr. Carol

Ann Tomlinson asserts that these labels be used to better serve students “so that kind of

grouping is part of differentiation” as opposed to segregating the labeled students in a

more restrictive setting (Wu, p. 127). For example, a school may have a gifted

exceptionalities cluster, inclusion/special education (SPED) cluster, and an English

Language Learner (ELL) cluster. Because differentiation at the individual student level

is challenging, to provide maximum support, many schools will cluster students based on

their needs to allow for more tailored instruction. The majority of the students in these

classes are facing similar educational challenges. In theory, this clustering, known as

homogeneous ability grouping, will allow the teacher to provide more tailored instruction

using strategies to meet the specific needs of the exceptionalities. Homogeneous ability

grouping is a selective way of organizing students into groups that reflect similar abilities

and needs. This grouping strategy is common for teachers creating small work groups

within the classroom. The remaining classes consist of either students who perform on

grade level, or students who would benefit from the more focused instructional approach.

It is another type of homogeneous ability grouping that groups students of like abilities

3

Differentiation

and needs. Knowing how students are clustered in these classes can assist teachers in

adjusting their teaching strategies to best support student performance goals. It allows

teachers to plan more purposefully to include research-based strategies geared to the

needs of the group of students.

In the general education classroom, specific strategies for specific sub-groups are

widely studied, but what strategies fit best in the general music classroom? What

strategies can the music specialist employ to promote student success in the differentiated

classroom? The current climate of high-stakes testing has trickled down into the fine and

performing arts. The effectiveness of the music specialist is being measured by a

standardized, district-driven student performance exam. In Gwinnett County, long

considered a leader in education in the state of Georgia, fourth grade students are

required to complete a pre-test exam and are then expected to demonstrate a 40% growth

in scores by the end of the school year. The music specialist serves all students of all

exceptionalities and abilities with no modifications or accommodations geared towards

musicianship. Even in the general classroom, teachers report that the push for high-stakes

testing serves to “thwart teachers’ efforts to differentiate and contradict[s] what research

defines as high quality practice.” Teachers report that the curriculum is “test-focused,

facts-based” therefore “lacking in meaning, rigor, and richness” (Brimijoin, p. 255).

While this may be the perception of teachers, it is essential to continue to put into place

best practices and differentiated instruction to allow students the best possibly

opportunity to meet their individual growth potential.

This push for high-stakes testing has also born an expectation of a differentiated

classroom. Differentiation “is not a single strategy, but rather an approach to instruction

4

Differentiation

that incorporates a variety of strategies” (Watts-Taffe et al., 2013). By identifying the

most effective differentiation strategies for students of exceptionalities, music specialists

can then be even more effective for students beyond the median ability. Especially in the

general music classroom, it is essential for student success to employ a differentiated

approach. “The first principle of differentiation is that learning is active rather than

passive” (Moon, 2005). Getting students involved in making music and putting theory

into practice is key for successful music making. Every student must be held to the same

high expectation. The district driven assessment assures that every student is held the to

same standards. Finally, students must learn socially. While elements of music can be

learned or practiced independently, music at its core brings people together and should be

taught similarly to be applicable in life outside the classroom.

While there has been little research specifically geared towards music education,

it is worth delving into findings for the general education classroom. One study in

particular supports the use of project-based learning to increase student achievement,

retention and interest. “It was determined that practices that were project-based and that

used an interdisciplinary approach offered intense, satisfactory learning experiences and

were very efficient and that students gained important experience with interdisciplinary

studies, project-based teaching, cooperative learning, and peer correction” (Altintas and

Ozdemir, 2015). The researchers found that using this interdisciplinary model in a gifted

mathematics classroom increased student achievement. While music and mathematics are

similar fields, this approach to teaching mathematics is similar to the needs of the

growing musician. Students must learn to analyze scores theoretically, critique personal

and others’ performance techniques, cooperation and communication skills, and how to

5

Differentiation

explain and support opinions and ideas. By employing a project-based differentiation

approach in the general music classroom, students will then be able to perform these

tasks at a higher success rate than by teaching by rote as is historically done.

Definition of Terms

It is recognized that the average educator is not well versed in the general music

education curriculum and standards. It is also recognized that some terminology within

education may not be general knowledge to the potential audience of this study.

Instrument Playing: skills necessary to use a mallet to perform on a xylophone using

appropriate techniques as demonstrated by the teacher, and to play a non-pitched

percussion instrument as demonstrated by the teacher

Musical Staff: music is written on a set of five lines and four spaces

Treble Clef Staff: the higher pitches in music are recorded on a musical staff. From

bottom to top, the lines are E, G, B, D and F. From bottom to top, the spaces are F, A, C

and E.

Figure 1: Treble Clef Staff with Note Names

(Opus Music Worksheets, 2015).

Dynamics: terminology for volume in music using Italian words

Tempo: terminology for the speed of the steady beat in music using Italian words

Rote: a method of teaching and learning that requires the teacher to serve as the example

and for students to echo or copy the teacher to learn the skills, methods and/or knowledge

6

Differentiation

Music theory: the study of practices and possibilities in written music

Non-Pitched Percussion: an instrument that is shaken, scraped or struck to produce one

tone

Musical Score: the written form of any musical piece

Melodic Contour: the shape or movement of a tune ascending, descending, remaining the

same, or a combination of the three

SPED: students identified as special education with an Individualized Education Plan

(IEP)

ELL: students identified as English Language Learners based on ACCESS score testing,

students demonstrating knowledge of a primary language other than English

General Education (gen. ed.): a student with no existing IEP or ACCESS score to qualify

for additional services, modifications and/or accommodations within the general

classroom

Limitations

While it would be preferable to work with students daily, the school schedule

does not allow for daily music instruction. However, to account for pre-testing,

instruction, practice and post-testing, students will begin a new lesson every 18 days.

This allows for two full 50-minute class periods for assessment and learning. While

music is foundational, students may not meet the expectations for a lesson at the time of

post-testing, but by continuing to put skills and knowledge into practice, may at a later

time meet the previous lessons’ expectations. This could potentially skew the data.

Ideally, this study would take place over the course of a full school year as opposed to

one semester.

7

Differentiation

It must be acknowledged that time did not allow for every student to participate in

the post-survey questionnaire. Sixty (60) students were selected to complete the survey.

These students were approximately 60% general education students, 24% ELL students

and 16% SPED students. Students were selected based on completion of work and ability

to communicate opinions in writing. For future research, it would be beneficial to survey

all participants.

Method

For this study, the researcher conducted a pre-post research design. In addition to

the test scores, students completed a questionnaire at the conclusion of the study. The

purpose of this questionnaire is to gauge student input as to their preferred instructional

and learning strategies. By differentiating strategies for the specific clusters (one average

ability class called general education, one special education clustered class and one

English language learner clustered class), the researcher sought to identify specific

strategies that are more (and possibly less) effective for the specific clusters.

Participants

This study will evaluate the growth of 156 fourth grade students enrolled in a

general music course at the same elementary school. The mean age of the students is 8

years old. 50% of the participants are female and 50% are male. Participants come from a

variety of backgrounds. 8.9% of participants are second language learners with the

predominant primary language being Spanish. 30.1% of the participants are diagnosed as

having some type of learning disorder requiring special education interventions,

accommodations and modifications. The remaining 61.0% of participants are considered

general education students with no need for accommodations or modifications to their

8

Differentiation

program. 80% of the participants come from low-income homes and qualify for free

and/or reduced lunch programs. Approximately 45% of the participants are African

American, 35% are Hispanic/Latino, 10% are Caucasian and the remaining 10% are

Asian or mixed race.

Measures

This study used a series of teacher-created assessments for each of the four major

conceptual strands (Performance/Skills and Techniques, Creative Expression and

Communication, Critical Analysis/Investigation, and Cultural and Historical Context).

Students will be assessed on mastery of skills. The researcher collected two scores: a pre-

test score measuring prior knowledge before the concept was taught and post-test score

measuring new knowledge acquired after each concept was taught. Mastery is defined as

a score of 80% or better on each assessment. Students scoring between 70% and 80% are

considered progressing towards mastery, and students scoring below 70% do not meet the

expectation for the standard. Students were tested on instrument playing proficiency,

knowledge of the musical staff where notes are written to dictate melodies (tunes),

knowledge of dynamics (volume) terminology and meaning, and knowledge of tempo

(speed) terminology and meaning.

Students also completed a brief survey regarding each lesson at the conclusion of

the assessment. These surveys will be posted in the students’ e-class portal allowing

students to complete the survey in a private setting without influence from peers or the

researcher. Surveys done via this platform allow for anonymous responses as well. Each

survey rated the lesson as a whole in terms of student interest, effectiveness and student

perception of success. Students also rated the interventions such as rote learning, freedom

9

Differentiation

to choose the learning method, technology-based interventions and picture-based

interventions.

Table 1

Plan for Instructional Testing

Concept/Skill Focused Strategy

Instrument playing proficiency Learning by rote/demonstration

Treble clef note names Student choice*

Dynamics Technology-based intervention

Tempo Picture-based intervention

*Student choice included multiple activities such as partner work versus individual work,

flashcards, technology-based intervention, graphic representation, written representation,

and pneumonic creation (words and graphic).

Select student participants also completed a survey at the end of the study.

Students were asked to rank the learning methods from favorite (#1) to least favorite (#4).

Students were then asked to give a rationale behind the rankings. Students were also

asked which strategies allowed them to feel successful and unsuccessful (Appendix 1).

As students returned the surveys, the researcher circled S for SPED, G for gen ed or E for

ELL. Students were asked to refrain from writing their name on the survey, but circling

the student category allowed the researcher to see if trends existed between certain sub-

groups.

Results

10

Differentiation

Each lesson consisted of similar teaching methods. However, to better determine

the effectiveness of a specific strategy, there was more emphasis placed on the tested

strategy. For instance, the use of multiple strategies was in place for each lesson, but for a

given lesson, the use of one strategy was at the forefront taking precedence over the other

strategies. Every lesson included strategies such as verbal repetition, memory devices,

activating videos, and demonstration. Each new skill and technique builds on previous

lessons to deepen the students’ understanding of musical performance and theory as a

whole. While the concepts can be compartmentalized for assessment purposes, when

students engage in active music making, all the concepts work in harmony

simultaneously.

Students were first assessed in instrument performance skills and techniques

proficiency using Native American music. Students would be graded using a rubric

(Appendix 2). For the pre-test assessment, students were shown the score on a

smartboard and were asked to play both a xylophone and a non-pitched percussion

instrument (hand drum or maraca) as best they could. On average, general students

performed best (M=51.8) while ELL students (M=39.8) slightly out performed SPED

students (M=33.8). Students then completed the lesson, learning the song by rote

teaching. In this method, the teacher demonstrates small segments with the students

echoing the teacher until the piece can be performed in its entirety without a teacher

leading the singing and/or playing. Throughout the lesson, students referenced the

musical score and demonstrated increasing knowledge of the musical score (melodic

contour, rhythm, presence of harmony, contrasting and complementary parts) posted on

the screen. For the second day of the lesson, students reviewed the previous week’s work,

11

Differentiation

and then added instrument skills. Again, the students learned by rote teaching with

modifications being made for each student once prior to assessment. Modifications were

allowed for holding mallets, playing correct pitches in rhythm, and playing together in

the correct tempo as a cohesive unit. Each student was assessed again using the same pre-

test rubric. SPED students showed the highest growth (M=80.8) while gen ed students

demonstrated the highest levels of mastery (M=86.9). ELL students showed growth

(M=82.8), and on average demonstrated mastery of the performance skills and

techniques.

Table 2

Mastery of Skill – Instrument Proficiency

Sub-Group Sample Size Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean Growth Differential

Gen Ed 95 51.8 86.9 35.1

ELL 47 39.8 82.8 43

SPED 14 33.8 80.8 47

After experiencing reading music directly from a score, the next lesson was

having students read notes from the treble clef staff. Before introducing the lesson,

students completed the pre-test and scores were very low as anticipated (Appendix 3).

Upon informal questioning after the pre-test very few students reported participating in

music lessons outside of school, and even those students are beginning private studies

and were not quite comfortable with music reading yet. Gen ed students (M=17.5) and

ELL students (M=15.5) performed similarly with SPED students performing the poorest

(M=8.1). In addition to the aforementioned strategies, students were given the freedom of

choice after a mini lesson to practice the knowledge required. Students were allowed to

12

Differentiation

chose to create a pneumonic device with a picture, study flash cards individually or with

a partner, practice analyzing on a piece of music and then play it, practice using an online

program, or using whiteboards to draw notes and identify the name. The following week,

students were given an opportunity to review the treble clef note names with the method

of their choice, and were then asked to participate in a beanbag toss game on to the

musical staff in small groups to identify notes. A student would toss a note shaped

beanbag on to a chalk drawing of the musical staff. The remainder of the students in the

group would then call out the correct name for the line or space the beanbag had landed

on. The first student to correctly answer would be the next to throw the beanbag. At the

end of that lesson, students were given the assessment again. Interestingly, each sub-

group demonstrated similar growth. Gen ed students improved 69.2 points to M=86.7,

ELL students improved 69.1 points to M=84.6, and SPED students improved 68.9 points

to M=76.9. While SPED students did not meet the mastery of the standard on average,

SPED students did demonstrate progressing knowledge of the standard. It can be

assumed that SPED students will have mastered the concept by the end of the school year

given more time to practice the concept.

Table 3

Mastery of Skill – Treble Clef Note Name Identification

Sub-Group Sample Size Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean Growth Differential

Gen Ed 95 17.5 86.7 69.2

ELL 47 15.5 84.6 69.1

SPED 14 8.1 76.9 68.8

13

Differentiation

As students demonstrated increased confidence with the musical score, the

students began to question what other symbols meant. This was a seamless transition into

the study of dynamics, the third unit of study. The terminologies used to describe the

dynamics (the volume in music) are Italian words. Prior to the mini lesson, students

completed the pre-test (Appendix 4). Again, students across all sub-groups performed

poorly. Gen ed students (M=15.1) performed more poorly than ELL students (M=19.6).

This can be attributed to language. Because dynamics in music are in Italian, and because

a majority of the ELL students speak Spanish, a similar language, it can be hypothesized

that the ELL students performed better due to a similar base of previous knowledge.

SPED students again performed poorly (M=11.5) with many appearing to guess without

attempting an answering. After a mini lesson and whole group demonstration, students

were put in partners to share laptops and complete activities to identify different

dynamics. The following week, students returned to their computers to review prior to the

post-test assessment with no teacher interventions. Gen ed students improved the average

score into the mastery range (M=83.2), and SPED students demonstrated progression to

mastery (M=76.9). ELL students also demonstrated mastery (M=81.7). After the

assessment, students participated in a game as a way to reward the effort exerted in the

previous class periods.

14

Differentiation

Table 4

Mastery of Skill – Dynamics Identification

Sub-Group Sample Size Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean Growth Differential

Gen Ed 95 15.1 83.2 68.1

ELL 47 19.6 81.7 62.1

SPED 14 11.5 76.9 65.4

The final concept was tempo. Tempo refers to the speed of the steady beat and

range from very slow (largo) to very fast (presto). Upon entering the classroom, students

completed the pre-test (Appendix 5). Again, ELL students performed best (M=25.9)

largely because of native language similarities with Italian. Gen ed students (M=15.3)

and SPED students (M=12.3) had previously experienced a variety of tempos over the

course of their music education elementary experience, but appears did not retain the

terminology. In addition to the previously mentioned strategies, tempo focused on

pictures and visual aids to connect with previous knowledge. Largo was associated with a

tortoise, moderato was associated with a pair of legs walking, and presto was associated

with a rabbit. Students identified tempos with cards with each picture on it. The terms

were written on the back so the student could associate the word with the picture and the

feel of the steady beat. Immediately upon entering the classroom the following week,

students were given the post-test assessment. Gen ed students (M=82.9) and ELL

students (M=81.5) met the mastery of standards with SPED students (M=79.2) nearly

meeting the standard.

15

Differentiation

Table 5

Mastery of Skill – Tempo Identification

Sub-Group Sample Size Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean Growth Differential

Gen Ed 95 15.3 82.9 67.6

ELL 47 25.9 81.5 55.6

SPED 14 12.3 79.2 66.9

Figure 2

Overall Pre- and Post-Test Mean Results for General Education Students

Instrument Note Name Dynamics Tempo0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GEN ED Pre MeanGEN ED Post Mean

16

Differentiation

Figure 3

Overall Pre- and Post-Test Mean Results for English Language Learner Students

Instrument Note Name Dynamics Tempo0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

ELL Pre MeanELL Post Mean

Figure 4

Overall Pre- and Post-Test Mean Results for Special Education Students

Instrument Note Name Dynamics Tempo0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

SPED Pre MeanSPED Post Mean

17

Differentiation

At the conclusion of the study, sixty students were selected to participate in a

survey (Appendix 1). Each student was asked to anonymously complete the survey and

return it. Upon completion, the researcher circled the appropriate student sub-grouping; S

for SPED, G for general ed., or E for ELL. This insured the ability to categorize data

trends based on sub-groupings if necessary while maintaining the anonymity of the

student respondents.

Students ranked the four methods of learning (rote, student choice, technology

and pictures) from favorite to least favorite. 66.7% of students identified rote learning as

the favorite followed by student choice (58.3%) ranked second, technology (58.3%)

ranked third and pictures (58.3%) ranked fourth. There were no obvious correlation

between preferred method of learning and student sub-groups.

Table 6

Student Survey Rankings

Strategy 1st2nd 3rd 4th

Learn by watching Ms. Diaz (rote) 40 12 5 3My choice of activity 20 35 3 2Using technology (Quaver) 5 10 35 10Using pictures 2 3 20 35

18

Differentiation

Figure 5

Student Survey Rankings

1st 2nd 3rd 4th0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Learn by watching Ms. Diaz (rote)My choice of activityUsing technology (Quaver)Using pictures

Discussion

Perhaps one of the most important trends to come from this data concerns the

success of students with language barriers and students exceptionalities. In this study,

they were held to the same standard as general education students. There were no

modifications or accommodations given on the assessments. According to Moon, one of

the building blocks of differentiation in terms of assessment is “high expectations exist

for all students with scaffolding to support success” (Moon, 2005, p. 231). By providing

additional support for these students by adding strategies not previously in practice within

the classroom, students facing learning challenges were able to meet their potential and

master the standards. While SPED students on average did not meet the mastery standard,

SPED students were very close to mastery at the time of post-assessment. With continued

19

Differentiation

support and scaffolding, I believe these students will meet the mastery of standard by the

end of the course.

While students of all sub-groups demonstrated growth in every lesson, it appears

that some strategies were more effective than others. The highest growth came from

lessons focused on student choice in the learning environment. By allowing students a

choice in the activity, it is handing ownership of the learning to the student. Each student

is cognizant of their strengths and weaknesses, and thus will gravitate towards activities

to highlight the strengths. It also allows students to choose an activity based on personal

interest. Technology also proved to be a high-growth strategy. Students are surrounded

by technology and are more proficient and comfortable using it as a learning tool. Data

shows that ELL students showed the lowest growth using picture-based interventions,

however, it should be observed that the ELL students score more than 10 points higher on

the pre-test than the remaining sub-groups.

The student surveys provided some valuable feedback from students. In a

classroom climate calling for more student-centered teaching, students felt more

successful and preferred learning in a teacher-centered environment. (Note: spelling and

grammar errors have been corrected). One student responded, “she teaches us many

[different strategies] and [I] learn more” (student survey response). Another student

replied, “I picked learning by watching Ms. Diaz because I understand more” (student

survey response). It appears that students require modeling to feel confident and

successful in a given task. While other strategies such as technology integration and

student choice are valuable tools, the role of the teacher as a model cannot be

underestimated.

20

Differentiation

Student feedback should also be considered when utilizing technology. The given

technology supplement in the district is a set of DVDs with online access to interactive

whiteboard activities and web site games called Quaver’s Marvelous World of Music.

Students ranked this as the third favorite intervention with some commenting that “it is

kind of annoying” and “technology isn’t good for my eyes” (student survey responses).

This is an area of consideration when planning what technologies to use when teaching.

Perhaps the students in upper grades can utilize technology more independently while

primary grade students need the support offered by this program.

The purposeful planning and execution of these lessons underscores the need for

planning and collaboration among teachers. Sharing ideas and lessons based on

successful experiences and research can only benefit future students. Professional

learning opportunities to allow teachers to observe master differentiation in practice puts

theory into the real world. A teacher is much more likely to try a new approach if he or

she sees it being successfully implemented in a colleague’s classroom. By extending

these findings to professional learning and scheduling, teachers will have more

opportunities to grow as educators and to plan intentionally for students.

While this is far from a comprehensive study, it would be interesting to continue

to look into how students can be affected by a differentiated music classroom. Perhaps by

studying the frequency of classes, one might see a connection to higher scores with

higher attendance. This may also translate into better performance in the general

education classroom given the natural connection between the arts and other disciplines.

It would also be interesting to see the retention rate of students from year to year. How

much does a student learn and retain from the fourth grade to the fifth grade? This would

21

Differentiation

allow elementary music specialists to better plan the overall elementary curriculum to

better prepare students for active music making in a band, orchestral or choral setting.

Should students retain more knowledge through this approach, the amount of work a

student can accomplish would be consequential to the success of secondary instrumental

and choral programs. The elementary schools would be sending more prepared musicians

ready to be competent members of the fine arts community.

22

Differentiation

References

Altintas, E., & Ozdemir, A. (2015). Evaluating a Newly Developed Differentiation

Approach in Terms of Student Achievement and Teachers’ Opinions. Educational

Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(4), 1103-1118.

Brimijoin, K. (2005). Differentiation and High-Stakes Testing: An Oxymoron? Theory

Into Practice, 254-261.

Moon, T. (2005). The Role of Assessment in Differentiation. Theory Into Practice, 226-

233.

Staff-Treble clef. Retrieved from URL http://www.opusmusicworksheets.com/music-

theory-3-treble-clef/

Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B., Broach, L., Marinak, B., Connor, C., & Walker-Dalhouse, D.

(2012). Differentiated Instruction: Making Informed Teacher Decisions. Read Teach The

Reading Teacher, 303-314.

Wu, E. (2013). The Path Leading to Differentiation: An Interview With Carol Tomlinson.

Journal of Advanced Academics, 125-133.

23

Differentiation

Appendix 1

Student Survey1. Rank your favorite way we learned about music. Put your favorite at

#1 and your least favorite at #4.

Learn by watching Ms. Diaz 1. ___________________________My choice activities 2. ___________________________Using technology (Quaver) 3. ___________________________Using pictures 4. ___________________________

2. Why did you rank #1 your favorite?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Why did you rank #4 your least favorite?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Which activity left you feeling the most successful and why?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________5. Which activity left you feeling the least successful and why?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________S G E

24

Differentiation

Appendix 2Category 4 3 2 1

Student performs the macro and

Student performs the macro and micro

Student performs the macro and micro

Student cannot identify the

micro beat with 100% accuracy

beat with 80% accuracy.

beat with 50% accuracy.

macro and/or micro beat.

without teacher

assistance.

Sticking Patterns

Student demonstrates

Student demonstrates Student requires some assistance

Student makes no attempt

exceptional mastery of

developmentally appropriate

with sticking pattern for given

demonstrate sticking pattern.

sticking pattern mastery of sticking pattern

score. for given score.

for given score. for given score.

Technique

Student demonstrates

Student demonstrates Student demonstrates Student makes no attempt

exceptional technique with

appropriate technique with

improvement in basic technique.

demonstrate performance

no teacher assistance.

minimal teacher assistance.

techniques.

Dynamics Student performs written

Student performs written

Student attempts to perform

Student makes no attempt

dynamics with no teacher

dynamics with minimal

dynamics with teacher to demonstrate dynamic

assistance. teacher assistance. assistance. performance.

Attention in

Student is exceptionally

Student is attentive during

Student is mildly inattentive during

Student demonstrates

Class attentive during instruction and

instruction and practice time.

during instruction and/or practice

inattentive and disruptive

practice time. time. classroom behaviors.

Total Score

25

Differentiation

Appendix 3

26

Differentiation

Appendix 4

27

Differentiation

Appendix 5

28