Unit Plan Narrative Analysis

Nichole Thompson
Parameters
I taught and collected data on a 31-student 5 th grade choir class. The piece or unit
we collected the data on was Firefly by Andy Beck. The piece was taught over 6
class periods, each period being 40 minutes. The amount of time the piece received
in class varied depending on the amount of time that was needed to address
another piece. The original plan was to allow for 9 periods of instruction, but it was
decided by colleagues that all the specials classes (gym, band, and choir) should
end early so the students could choose what class they wanted to be in for the rest
of the year. In order to provide information as accurate as possible per each
student, I created a self-assessment sheet that stated the objective in short and
easy terms for students to understand. The students used this sheet by rating
themselves on a scale of 1 to 3 for how well they understood each objective. 1 was
Doesn't Understand Concept / I'm lost, 2 was Show Partial Understanding/ Almost
there, and 3 was Understands Concept/ Got it!. Here is an example of the
Assessment:
First Name:_______________ Last Name:_________________ Date:__________
Im lost

Almost there

Got it!

Notes
1
2
3
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Rhythms

(When to start
and stop singing)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can identify the

other parts
1
2
3
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Keeping up
with the music
1
2
3
_____________________________________________________________________________________
(piano part, part 1, part 2)

Since none of the students knew the song, how to follow along in sheet music, or
how to read music, their pre-assessment scores based on this scale were all 1s,
except for one student who was part of a previous 5th grade class and had already
learned all the music.
These classes were set up in a unique way. Each 5 th grade class would get a chance
to attend a specials class (gym, band, or choir) for 3 days a week for 3 weeks (9

class periods). After the 3 weeks was up, the classes would rotate going to another
subject. At the end of the 9 weeks each student would get to choose what subject
they wanted to attend during that normally scheduled time. For this reason, my
cooperating teacher called this section pre-choir because it was giving them a
preview of what choir would be like. My colleague and I planned to continue to
teach the pieces we introduced during the pre-choir time later after the 9 weeks.
This meant that the summative assessment for this data was not going to be the
final product but only an example for how close the students came to knowing the
content by the end of the 3 weeks.
When collecting and recording the data, I had to create another category to add to
1, 2, and 3. To compensate for students absences or forgetting to write their name
on their assessments I created the category No Data Available represented as
NDA.

Overall Conclusions

Overall, based solely off of Summative Assessment scores, 60.5% met the
proficiency standard of a 3 point measure of my unit goals. 15.3% of students
received 2s indicating that they thought they almost understood, 9.7% of students
did not understand the content, and 14.5% of students received NDA on their final
assessment indicating that they were either absent or forgot to identify their
papers.
In the case of properly showing what the students know, I have included averages
of some of the objectives. Using the averages could be an acceptable form of
analysis considering that each class the student would use their previous knowledge
of the music to build upon what they learn on in class. Each class they are able to
sing the notes and rhythms better and better. Also, the summative assessment

alone may not be as accurate a representation of what was learned considering

there were so many students who did not get rated (NDA 14.5%).
Using the averages of Objectives C and D, along with the Summative Assessments
of A and B (there is not enough data to produce averages for objectives A and B)
the scores increased slightly. 63.5% of students rated themselves as a 3. The
percentage of students in the category of a 2 increased 4.5% taking up the
percentage to 19.8%. There was a decrease in 1s, making 8.7% of students saying
they do not understand the objectives. After the averages were taken we were still
left with 8.1% of students receiving NDA, which is significantly lower than the
Summative Data by almost half of what it was before (14.5%). It is my prediction
that since there was only a 3% increase in 3s between the Summative Data and
Average Data, most students who are absent or do not write their names on their
paper (receiving NDAs) are the students who would receive more 2s than 3s.
There may also be a few that receive 1s, but based on the slight (1.6%) decrease in
1s between the two data sets, 2s are most likely.

Analysis by Objective
The desired proficiency was that all students in the class would get 3s. This is
unlikely to happen not only because of normal trends in classroom data, but also
because the piece was planned to be unfinished by the end of the time period and
had an even shorter time period than previously planned.
Based on Summative Assessments, each objective was at a lower proficiency than
desired.

Objective A
The Learner Will (TLW) be able to follow along with his or her part using sheet
music while listening to a recording of the same piece.

71% of students reached the proficiency of a 3 for this objective. The difficulties for
this objective lie in the inexperience of looking at sheet music and in the quick pace
upon which the song is played. It is essential for recognizing differences between
parts in music. Since the piece was in two parts, the students needed to know how
to do this. They also needed to recognize measure markings to know where to start.
Many of the students memorized the music leaving it difficult to convince them of
the necessity of looking at the sheet music. This objective was only evaluated once,
but if it were evaluated again I predict that the score would be higher due to my
reminders in class to look at the music and the fact that they did not know all of the
words or timing of the piece by heart. 12.9% of students said that they almost
understood to follow along (2s). This probably means they know how to follow
along, but they got lost because of the pace of the recording. 12.9% of the students
rated themselves as a 1 for this objective. These students probably did not
accomplish the objective because they either a) did not use their finger to follow
along as instructed, b) got lost from the very beginning and was scrambling to catch
up the whole time during the recording, or c) did not care enough to try. 3.2% of
students (1 student) was absent or forgot to his or her name on the assessment and
therefore was not assessed with a number rating (NDA).

Objective B
TLW be able to identify individual parts in music (Part I, Part II, and piano part).

54.8% of students reached the proficiency of a 3 for this objective. The difficulties
for this objective lie in the inexperience of looking at sheet music and in the relaying
of this information to the students. The student needs to be able to identify the
different parts to help them follow along in the music and to know what part they
are supposed to sing. Many of the students memorized the music leaving it difficult
to convince them of the necessity of looking at the sheet music. This objective was
only evaluated once, but if it were evaluated again I predict that the score would be
higher due to my reminders in class to look at the music. Some students looked at
the graphic on the board to figure out the parts and eventually understood it
enough to find their part. 29% of students said they almost understood how (or
rated themselves 2s) to identify the parts. This probably means that these students
could identify the parts some or most times, but still get confused occasionally.
12.9% of the students rated themselves as a 1 for this objective. Since this
objective is has close ties with Objective A, this percentage is not very surprising.
These students most likely did not accomplish the objective because they either a)
did not look at or understand the graphic on the board explaining where each part
was, b) did not listen or understand the explanation of how to find the parts, or c)
did not care enough to try. 3.2% of students (1 student) was absent or forgot to his
or her name on the assessment and therefore was not assessed with a number
rating (NDA).

Objective C
TLW respond to entrance and cut-off cues given by the conductor.
-Summative

61.3% of students reached the proficiency of a 3 for this objective. The difficulties
for this objective lie in making sure the students look up from their music in order
not to miss the cues to come in or stop singing. This objective was evaluated four
times. In a normal piece, students are evaluated constantly by the teacher, not on
paper like with this piece. Students receive constant evaluations and feedback when
learning a piece. This piece was not at its best and final product by the end of the
time period. 6.5% of students said that they almost knew when to start and stop
singing (2s). This probably means they look up at the conductor some of the time
but not all the time, or they are trying to memorize the piece without watching for
cues and they almost have the timing down on their own. 6.5% of the students
rated themselves as a 1 for this objective. These students probably did not
accomplish the objective because they either a) did not look up for cues as
instructed, b) got lost in the sheet music or c) did not care enough to try. 25.8% of
students were absent or forgot to their name on the assessment and therefore were
not assessed with a number rating (NDA).

-Average

When taking the average of all the time students were assessed for this objective,
their percentage of proficiency went up. It is a cumulative representation of how
well they know each objective. Objectives A and B were not assessed multiple times
so there do not have an average that differs from their summative assessment
scores. There is a 4.8% increase between the Summative Assessment (61.3%) and
the Average of all the assessments (66.1%). There is also increase for students who
rated a 2. The summative was 6.5% but the average went up to 15.3%. The levels
of decrease were seen in the 1s and NDA ratings. 1s decreased from 6.5% to 5.6%.
NDA decreased by half (25.8% to 12.9%).

Objective D
TLW learn his or her part in a two part piece in a small group.
-Summative

54.8% of students reached the proficiency of a 3 for this objective. The difficulties
for this objective lie in making sure the students know the difference between
another persons part and their own and matching pitch. This objective was
evaluated four times. In a normal piece, students are evaluated constantly by the
teacher, not on paper like with this piece. Students receive constant evaluations
and feedback when learning a piece. This piece was not at its best and final product
by the end of the time period. 12.9% of students said that they almost knew their
part (2s). This probably means they know most of the notes but they still mess up
in specific areas. 6.5% of the students rated themselves as a 1 for this objective.
These students probably did not accomplish the objective because they either a)
they do not know how to sight read (none of the students currently have this skill),
b) havent heard or sung the piece enough times, or c) did not care enough to try.
25.8% of students were absent or forgot to their name on the assessment and
therefore were not assessed with a number rating (NDA).

-Average

When taking the average of all the time students were assessed for this objective,
their percentage of proficiency went up. It is a cumulative representation of how
well they know each objective. Objectives A and B were not assessed multiple times
so there do not have an average that differs from their summative assessment
scores. There is a 7.3% increase between the Summative Assessment (54.8%) and
the Average of all the assessments (62.1%). There is also increase for students who
rated a 2. The summative was 12.9% but the average went up to 21.8%. The levels
of decrease were seen in the 1s and NDA ratings. 1s decreased from 6.5% to 3.2%.
NDA decreased by half (25.8% to 12.9%).

Differentiation

For students not meeting the objectives I reminded them of how to do each
objective and/or I modeled how to accomplish it. I knew whether or not they
accomplished objectives by how they performed in class. For the one student that
knew and had accomplished the objectives before, I sometimes used him as a
leader to go around and help out his classmates. I reminded him that since he
knows the song already that his voice and input is even more necessary because
the other students will lean on his knowledge without realizing it.

What I Learned
There were some moments I taught that I knew what I saying did not get through to
the students. I knew that sometimes a teacher has to improvise by using unplanned
strategies to get students attention. I got to put this knowledge into action many
times. I know now that it is essential to know how to do this, otherwise the optimal
amount of learning will not happen. I knew that having a plan was important, but I
found that practicing what I was going to say and how is just as important as having
an outline for instruction. Following an outline means nothing when unaccompanied
with the knowledge of how to explain it. In all of the classes I teach, I can see that
students like change. They like a consistent set of rules, procedures, and
expectations, but they enjoy varied methods upon which information is shared with
them. I also learned that it is okay and sometimes even appropriate to yell or talk
sternly to a class who is not paying attention. In the future, I would include visuals
that are more direct to explain how to navigate sheet music, I will practice how I am
going to explain every lesson, and I would explain why it is important that we know
how to do this. These things occurred sometimes, but did not always happen every
time. Assessing them in the beginning stages of the piece more often would help
the students with this piece in the future.