Ensemble Listening

Using the Year 9 Syllabus from this page: https://k10outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/home/teaching/curriculum-browser/the-arts/music2#year-9-syllabus I need to create what is discussed in this breakdown:

Introduction – the context and task

In your major subject teaching area you are learning how to teach aspects of the WA K-10 Curriculum to lower secondary classes. For this task you will select a particular topic or section of the WA Curriculum for ONE year group from 7 – 10, that would take you 3 (three) weeks to teach.

Determine 2 or 3 (maximum) learning intentions that you want the students to attain by the end of the three weeks. Construct the Success Criteria aligned to these learning intentions. Consider a summative assessment at the end of the teaching experience to measure your impact on the students over the three weeks. You will need to think about what sort of authentic, valid and reliable summative assessment task you would choose to do this. Having selected the curriculum topic, the learning intentions, success criteria and the summative assessment task, you need to develop a rubric around the success criteria and the differing standards that students might achieve for each criteria (standards for an A; standards for a B; standards for a C; standards for a D and what would constitute a fail E). Having planned the summative assessment task, and developed the rubric, prepare the diagnostic and formative assessment activities that would support your teaching and learning activities across the three-week period. Include feedback – from you to the students and from them to you. Diagnostic Assessment (takes place in Week 1)

Outline how you will assess prior knowledge and readiness. You must explain:

what information the diagnostic tool will provide how this data will inform changes to your planning Formative Assessment (takes place during Weeks 1–3)

Explain how you will implement multiple formative strategies throughout the sequence. You must include:

opportunities for students to demonstrate learning across time regular feedback cycles opportunities for students to act on feedback You must also show:

how formative strategies support spaced practice and retrieval how you will use results to adjust instruction and provide targeted support how you would tailor your teaching and assessment to meet diverse learners Summative Assessment (takes place at the end of Week 3)

Describe a single summative assessment task that measures learning across the three-week period. You must explain:

how the task aligns with learning intentions and success criteria how it demonstrates authenticity, validity and reliability how it assesses cumulative learning (not just final lesson content) how it can measure your impact on students’ learning Summative Assessment Rubric Explanation

You must clearly describe how the rubric enables:

evaluation of student progress over time consistent judgement identification of learning gaps provision of targeted feedback modification of future instruction how performance standards represent clear, observable differences in achievement (A–E) The completed rubric must appear in Appendix 2.

Note: You are not asked to develop or create the diagnostic, formative or summative assessments or resources. You do need to outline, describe and explain your approach as explained above.

You are required to construct the summative assessment rubric.

The goal of this assessment task is to learn how to plan your assessment and teaching strategies in a way that you might practically and realistically do in your first teaching practice (Professional Experience). It is also a precursor to the Quality Teacher Performance Assessment which you will do in 4th year – an assessment you must pass to be able to register as a teacher. This assessment task introduces you to the principles of that assessment task. The aim is to think carefully about how you would plan to assess your students, diagnostically, formatively and summatively, to support and assist them in their learning, to maximise their learning and to measure your own impact on the students’ learning.

Developing the final product:

Advice for Choosing a Topic:

Choose one subject from either your major or minor learning area, from one year group from Years 7 – 10. Access the syllabus from the WA K-10 Outline Select content from one or two content descriptors, which could be typically taught and summatively assessed over 8 x 1-hour lessons (480 minutes in total). Lessons may be practical, theory-based or both. Instructions

Apply the process of backward design to: Determine 2 or 3 (maximum) learning intentions you want students to attain by the end of the lesson sequence. Construct success criteria aligned to each learning intention. Describe an authentic, valid and reliable summative assessment which could be undertaken to measure student achievement and progress over the 8-lesson sequence. You do not need to create the actual assessment, but you do need to create a rubric to evaluate student learning against the Achievement Standard using a 5-point scale. Develop an outline (scope and sequence) of the content and teaching and learning activities which will be undertaken, including diagnostic and formative assessment. The outline must also explicitly demonstrate: Increasingly complex, conceptually deeper and cognitively more demanding learning experiences over time. Embedding of spacing and retrieval strategies to support students’ memory.

Overview

Over three weeks (8 lessons, 480 minutes total), students develop style-aware performance through focused listening, tuning/intonation awareness, and ensemble control. They work towards a culminating performance task that demonstrates cumulative learning in accuracy, balance, and expressive vocal/instrumental decisions.

Learning intentions

Students will apply focused listening strategies to identify musical features (tempo, dynamics, pitch/intonation, articulation) and use them to adjust performance decisions.
Students will practise and refine style-specific vocal/instrumental techniques to communicate expressive effects in an ensemble.
Students will reflect on their own and others’ performances to explain and justify improvements for future rehearsals.

Success criteria

I can demonstrate controlled pitch/intonation and steady rhythm during rehearsals, using feedback to improve accuracy.
I can maintain ensemble balance by listening to others and adjusting volume, timing, and phrasing (as appropriate to the task).
I can plan and realise expressive dynamics and articulation choices that match the style/intent of the piece.
I can give and use specific feedback (what to do next) and explain what I changed and why.

Curriculum links

AC9AMU10D01: develop, practise and refine listening/aural skills and style-specific vocal/instrumental techniques to interpret music and communicate expressive effects.
AC9AMU10C01: interpret music in a variety of forms/styles using style-specific vocal/instrumental techniques to communicate ideas/meaning.
AC9AMU10D02: reflect on their own and others’ music to inform performance interpretation choices.

Lesson structure (8 lessons; total 480 minutes)

0–60 min · Week 1 Lesson 1 · Diagnostic: Listening + baseline performance. Teacher plays two short contrasting excerpts (same instrument group if possible) and models attentive-listening prompts; students complete a quick worksheet identifying tempo/dynamics/articulation cues they heard. Students then perform a 16–24 beat ensemble pattern (clap/tap + sing/play) while teacher records observational notes on pitch/intonation, timing steadiness, and balance.
60–115 min · Week 1 Lesson 2 · Teach: “Listen–Match–Adjust” routine. Teacher demonstrates a rehearsal cycle: listen to a reference (teacher/performance recording), match one element (e.g., dynamics or entry timing), then adjust based on evidence. Students practise the same passage in three short rounds, each round with one targeted listening goal.
115–175 min · Week 1 Lesson 3 · Formative feedback cycle 1 (micro-auditions). Students perform in pairs/trios (or rotating stations). Teacher and peers use a one-page feedback form: “I noticed… / Next time try… / Evidence is…”. Students act on feedback immediately by repeating the exact section with the suggested adjustment.
175–235 min · Week 2 Lesson 4 · Ensemble balance + dynamics plan. Teacher introduces a simple “dynamics map”: where the music should be loud/soft and how phrasing should breathe. Students listen to their own section recordings (teacher-made or device-recorded) and annotate where dynamics/articulation could change. They rehearse using the dynamics map, then perform a full run-through for recording.
235–295 min · Week 2 Lesson 5 · Retrieval + targeted technique building. Starter: students complete a rapid retrieval check (5–8 questions) from Week 1: tempo/dynamics/intonation cues and the rehearsal routine steps. Teacher groups students by the most common need (e.g., intonation control, rhythmic steadiness, ensemble timing). Students practise differentiated technique drills that feed directly into the ensemble passage.
295–355 min · Week 3 Lesson 6 · Formative feedback cycle 2 (student-led coaching). Students lead one coaching round using the feedback form: they must reference a specific bar/beat and propose one precise action (e.g., “reduce volume at bar 5, match consonant onset at beat 3”). After coaching, students rehearse and re-record a short section to show improvement.
355–420 min · Week 3 Lesson 7 · Cumulative rehearsal + refinement. Teacher conducts “evidence checkpoints”: each group performs, and teacher gives one goal-focused adjustment for the next run. Students use a checklist to ensure they apply earlier learning (listening routine, ensemble balance, dynamics plan, technique drill results). Final 10–15 minute segment is a full ensemble recording.
420–480 min · Week 3 Lesson 8 · Summative performance + reflection. Students present the culminating ensemble performance (as planned) to class or invited audience. Immediately after, students submit a short reflection: what they changed across the three weeks, which feedback was most helpful, and what they would improve next time.

Resources

Device(s) for audio recording and playback (phones/tablets/teacher laptop)
Reference recordings of the chosen short piece/patterns
One-page “Listen–Match–Adjust” routine cards
Dynamics map printable (simple grid: sections vs loud/soft + articulation notes)
Peer feedback form (“I noticed / Next time try / Evidence”)
Retrieval quiz (short paper or digital)
Student performance checklist (intonation, timing, balance, dynamics/articulation)
Tuners/intonation tools if available (optional; e.g., phone apps)
Score/lead-sheet/graphic score for the class arrangement

Assessment

Formative: observational notes during rounds (intonation accuracy, timing steadiness, ensemble balance) using a consistent teacher template.
Formative: peer micro-audition feedback forms plus immediate re-performance to demonstrate action on feedback.
Formative: Week 1 and Week 2 retrieval tasks used to adjust grouping and target drills.
Summative (end of Week 3): ensemble performance assessed with the rubric below + brief reflection explaining improvements and justification.

Differentiation

Support: sentence starters for feedback (“I noticed… because… Next time try…”), reduced task complexity (smaller ensemble roles, simplified parts), and model exemplars for what “balanced dynamics” sounds like.
Support: targeted technique drills matched to diagnostic notes (e.g., rhythm clapping with metronome support; intonation practice on stable intervals).
Extension: students choose and justify a more nuanced expressive option (e.g., contrasting articulation or micro-dynamics across phrases) and document the listening evidence used to decide.
Diverse learners: allow role flexibility (e.g., instrument/voice alternatives, conductor-style timekeeping, or graphic-score navigation roles) while preserving the same performance evidence criteria (timing, balance, expressive intent).

Summative Assessment Rubric Explanation (Appendix 2)

This rubric enables:

evaluation of progress over time by using performance evidence from Weeks 1–3 (rehearsal recordings + final presentation) aligned to the same criteria.
consistent judgement through clear, observable indicators (listening evidence, ensemble balance behaviours, expressive realisation, and reflection/justification).
identification of learning gaps by highlighting which criterion remains “emerging” (e.g., intonation vs balance vs expressive planning).
targeted feedback by providing specific next steps linked to the descriptors.
modification of future instruction by using the class pattern of scores (teacher reviews which criteria most often drop one standard).

Performance standards represent clear differences (A–E) using measurable behaviours: accuracy/control, ensemble balance, expressive decision-making, and quality of reflection with evidence.

Appendix 2: Summative Performance Rubric (A–E)

Assessed task: Week 3 ensemble performance + short reflection (evidence-based).

Criterion 1: Listening use for accuracy (pitch/intonation + rhythm)

A: Consistently matched pitch/intonation and steady rhythm; adjustments are clearly made after feedback; errors are minimal and self-corrected.
B: Mostly accurate pitch/intonation and steady rhythm; makes effective adjustments with minor lapses; self-correction occurs in response to cues.
C: Some correct pitch/intonation and rhythm stability; adjustments are attempted but inconsistently applied; errors occur but do not dominate.
D: Limited accuracy; frequent pitch/rhythm lapses; improvements are evident only after repeated prompting.
E (Fail): Major inaccuracies; rhythm/pitch frequently break; feedback does not lead to meaningful improvement.

Criterion 2: Ensemble balance and responsiveness

A: Maintains balance and blend; listens actively to other parts (timing, entrances, dynamics) and responds appropriately in real-time.
B: Generally maintains balance; responds to ensemble needs with occasional timing/dynamics mismatch.
C: Balance is sometimes appropriate; responsiveness is inconsistent and requires reminders.
D: Balance often off (too loud/too quiet or late/early entries); limited evidence of responsive listening.
E (Fail): Rarely maintains ensemble alignment; performances are disorganised and impede the group.

Criterion 3: Expressive interpretation (dynamics, articulation, style intent)

A: Expressive dynamics and articulation are planned and realised with stylistic coherence; phrasing is clear and purposeful.
B: Dynamics and articulation are mostly planned/realised; style intent is clear though some phrasing/dynamic control varies.
C: Some expressive moments are present; dynamics/articulation choices are inconsistent or not always supported by the plan.
D: Minimal expressive differentiation; dynamics/articulation largely unchanged from rehearsal baseline.
E (Fail): Little/no expressive intent shown; dynamics/articulation not applied.

Criterion 4: Reflection quality (evidence-based decisions)

A: Reflection explains what changed across the sequence using specific rehearsal/performance evidence and links to feedback; next steps are realistic and targeted.
B: Reflection identifies key improvements and references feedback/evidence; next steps are clear and connected to observed needs.
C: Reflection notes changes but with limited evidence or vague “why”; next steps are general.
D: Reflection is mostly descriptive; limited evidence; next steps are unclear or unrelated to performance data.
E (Fail): Reflection lacks meaningful connection to performance or feedback; no actionable next steps.

(Teachers use the rubric holistically: final judgements are based on the observable performance evidence and the submitted reflection aligned to the criteria.)

Teaching Instructions