# data[].attributes.body
I was lucky to get some great feedback from peers on my draft. I took time to look at each comment and develop a plan for revising or construct a reason as to why something was the way it was within my plan.

# data[].attributes.body
Comment One
Rachel V. mentioned finding the FlipGrid integration during the composing process a bit confusing.

Revision One
I went back and re-read that portion and found that it was one of those "technology for technology's sake" instances.  Drat!  What I wanted to accomplish didn't need the technology..and actually the technology wasn't really set up to handle what I needed it to.  So I revised and went back to a face-to-face peer edit.  I actually like this better for this project so students can talk through their process together and explain any errors.  A face-to-face setting affords them the ability to identify errors and have a discussion on how to fix them with the music in front of them.

Comment Two
In response to one of my feedback questions, Rachel also looked at my rubric for me to see if it could accurately assess both standard and non-standard notation compositions.  She suggested rethinking the "Notation" category and applying some of the principles for rubric writing that we had learned in MUS 471.

Revision Two
My second revision came in response to Rachel's comment. I went back and found that in this project, notation was not what I was wanting to assess. The technologies used afford students the ability to NOT make mistakes in notation - so why assess it? I ended up deleting this category from the rubric. The remaining categories accurately assess the objective and their applications of the technologies they are utilizing.

# data[].attributes.body
Comment One
Devin commented that she did not understand the use of FlipGrid and PowToon in student reflection.

Reflection
FlipGrid is now only utilized in the unit where students are given the opportunity to critique the affordances and constraints of the technology tools utilized in composing.  After further reflection, I really like using FlipGrid for this portion of the unit.  Remembering back to discussions that we had in TCH401, I think this technology is a great tool for allowing my students to share their views.  Students recording their observances of the non-standard and standard notation technology tools they utilized on FlipGrid opens up peer-to-peer learning.  As students watch their peers responses their knowledge of these tools will be expanded and perhaps allow them to think about a technology in a new way.
PowToon, Google Slides, PowerPoint, Piktochart, etc were the technologies in my plan for allowing students to create a reflection on their composition process and what led them to utilizing certain creative ideas. After some reflection, I determined that I wanted to keep this part of the unit as well. The reflections that I want the students to do are similar to our "What's Next" posts in TCH432. I do not attend for students to actually include their composition in this portion of the project so audio is not a concern. Instead I want them to reflect on the "Why" of their compositions, and I think these technologies accomplish that goal.

# data[].attributes.body
I took a lot of time looking at my project to see what edits I felt would be beneficial to the learning. The first revision I made was to think about other accommodations that students may require during this project. Those accommodations were added to the end of unit plan. I seriously considered the needs of my students and the availability of certain technologies outside their school day. The second revision made was to include tutorial videos for each technology utilized in composition in the plan. These would be linked in Google Classroom to provide students with an additional resource when utilizing these new technologies. I had originally considered creating these tutorials myself over time, however with a little research I found that most of the software had already created their own!

# data[].attributes.body
This article really resonated with me and I knew that I wanted to utilize the principles for technology integration that they had established.  As I read this article and the annotations from my peers I found that I was not alone in having a "technology first, curriculum second" mindset.  I found many of us had fallen into the trap of finding a "great" technology and then trying to fit it into what our students were learning.  As I began to look at the curriculum map that I had created last week with the principles of Ground Technology Integration in mind, the process of implementing meaningful technologies into the classroom became much clearer!

# data[].attributes.body
In my draft I had chosen to concentrate on Illinois Music Standard MU:Cr2.1.Ia.  As I revised my unit plan I found that I covered more than just this standard.  The final list of standards covered in my Composition Unit Plan are:
MU:Cr1.1.Ia
MU:Cr2.1.Ia
MU:Cr2.1.Ib
MU:Cr3.1.Ia
MU:Cr3.1.Ib

If interested, here are the Illinois Music Standards.

From these standards the goal was set for students to complete a composition.

Objectives:
1. Students will be able to manipulate composition tools using standard and non-standard notation.
2. Students will be able to compose a new melody from a pre-existing melody.
3. Students will be able to compose a new harmony for their manipulation of a pre-existing melody.
4. Students will be able to create an original 128-beat composition.
5. Students will be able to describe their process for composing.
6. Students will be able to describe why they made the creative choices that they did in their original composition.

# data[].attributes.body
In looking at the Eight Corresponding Continua chart included in the Grounded Technology Integration article, I found:
1. This plan is very student centered.  Students are in charge of making creative decisions and choosing the technologies to demonstrate their knowledge.
2. The plan is geared towards the divergent learning side of this chart.  Learning is very hands on with students drawing their own conclusions.
3. Students will utilize their previous knowledge of notation and the abilities of instruments to create their compositions.  Students will have little previous knowledge though of notation technologies.
4. Deeper knowledge of the composition process should be obtained throughout this lesson.
5. A longer duration plan will be more appropriate for the skills being learned.
6. Learning is structured in the sense that students will be asked to complete certain tasks.  Learning will be less structured in the sense that students will choose the tools they wish to utilize.
7. Activities will alternate between small group and individual to provide support for students learning new concepts.
8. Many additional resources will be made available to students.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Small group composition utilizing new composition techniques.
2. Individual compositions utilizing the same techniques.
3. Peer editing and teacher feedback of compositions.
4. Student reflection and evaluation of assessment tools.
5. Student reflection of composition process.

# data[].attributes.body
Formative - Peer Editing and Teacher Feedback of small compositions and during final project

Summative - Final Individual Student Compositions will be assessed utilizing a teacher-created rubric.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Clear assignments and deadlines printed and posted in Google Classroom.
2. Chromebooks
3. YouTube
4. Standard notation tools
5. Non-standard notation tools
6. Instruments
7. FlipGrid
8. Technologies for final reflection
9. Audio recording device
10. Rubric for assessment

# data[].attributes.body
In creating my technology integration plan, I thought back to our reading in Week 1.  I wanted to make sure that I was fully aware of the affordances and constraints of the technologies I wanted my students to utilize.

FlipGrid
Affordances - allows for collaboration between students, easy to use, free!
Constraints - students may feel uncomfortable recording themselves

Standard Notation Tools
Affordances - writes music in way that students are used to reading, allows students to hear composition without having to play it themselves, does not allow notation errors in rhythm, easy to edit
Constraints - learning curve, web-based requires internet, can accidentally delete work

Non-Standard Notation Tools
Affordances -  interesting, does not require students to use written notation, students do not need to know pitch range of instruments, does not allow for notation errors in rhythm
Constraints - learning curve for teacher and students, web-based requires internet, unfamiliar notation system for students

# data[].attributes.body
Harris, J. & Hofer, M. (2009). Grounded tech integration: An effective approach based on content, pedagogy, and teacher planning. Learning & Leading with Technology. Available: http://publish.wm.edu/articles/28

Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. New York: Routledge.

Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Template 3: UDL solutions. In Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A., (Eds.), Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/101042/chapters/Template-3@-UDL-Solutions.aspx

# data[].attributes.body
Universal Design for Learning is something that I had not heard of before this class. The concept and the impact that it could have on student learning directly influenced my plans for this lesson. In consideration of UDL, I took steps to insure that there were opportunities for student choice within the lesson to allow students to choose technology that interested them and fit their skill level. I allowed for peer assistance when manipulating tools for the first time by allowing students to work in small groups. I also intend to create a list for students to reference of peers that they can go to for help with each technology. Activities were also varied between small group and individual work to support student engagement and learning. Online tutorials will be posted in Google Classroom to aid students in navigating new technologies. Clear assignments, rubrics and check-ins will be set to help students structure their work time.

# data[].attributes.body
A post by Rachel V. helped me to structure the requirements for the compositions my students will be creating.  It may seem small or insignificant, however, altering my assessment requirements from "you will compose x number of measures" to "you will compose x number of beats" makes the criteria music clearer for students.  Before there were inconsistencies between students writing in different time signatures.  A student composing in 2/4 time would only do half a composition of someone writing in 4/4 time leaving students and myself trying to do math to see how many measures they'd need to compose.  By flipping the criteria to be beat-specific, I eliminate the inconsistencies and confusion.

Other students also helped me influence my plan by helping me to see that I was not alone in trying to switch from a technology first approach to a content first approach. Their posts and annotations allowed me to reflect on my own practices and see the need for a change in the way I determined which technologies to utilize and how.

# data[].attributes.body
My plans were also highly influenced by my curriculum map.  Unpacking the new Illinois Music Standards afforded me a look at new technologies that I could integrate into my classroom in a meaningful way that helped me to meet these new objectives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rackauskas Curriculum Map with Technology.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rackauskas - Composition Unit Plan Final.pdf