One thing that I observed during my placement was the very large discrepancy between students in their musicianship abilities. When I was marking the ear training test that I designed, I found that people were either getting %80 to %100 or completely failing. I realized that it was a bit unfair to make students take a test in this way without giving them the ability to practice it. Ear training is like any other skill and needs to be practiced to gain proficiency. Even though the students were playing and and hearing those note and rhythm patterns everyday; they lacked the ability to translate those skills for the listening test. This activity allows the students to develop their musicianship skills and provides the teacher with feedback on areas of need before testing them.

      I used the large conductor's music stand to display the two pieces of paper (each with a different 3 beat pattern) to the class. I started with the simple patterns and then gradually switched out the pieces of paper to display more difficult rhythms. 

      I asked the half the class to tap the beat on their legs and the other half to clap the rhythm I had displayed in this way: 

 -Each note is a clap

 -If the note is more than one beat; hold your hands together for the duration of the note

 -A rest is shown by moving your hands apart with palms up for the duration of the rest

      I displayed each combination until both halves of the class were clapping the right pattern. If a large majority was struggling with the specific combination I would clap it with them. They were getting direct auditory feedback from listening to each other as well as visual feedback from me if when needed by watching my hands. This strategy worked well to get them comfortable with 6/8 time and could be easily adapted for other time signatures and different levels of difficulty.

      First we have a discussion about what makes a performance good. For example: is it in tune? Is the tempo consistent? Is it rhythmically together? Are there any blatantly wrong notes? How expressive is the phrasing? 

      Once we have discussed and made a list of the qualities that make a good performance, we create a Word Web on the board. The main circles will be: Expression, Rhythm, Tone, and Pitch. Then we connect the list of qualities that we just brainstormed to those categories. For example, in the category of Rhythm we could add: good tempo (too fast or slow), consistent tempo (speeding up or slowing down), tightness (are the sections together?), rhythmic articulations (are they accurate?) etc. 

      Using this web as a guide, we co-create (with guidance) a rubric for assessing and comparing two performances of the same piece. 
The piece chosen will be one that the students have been working on and are familiar with so that they can follow along with their music in front of them. The two performances will be high school level performances similar to the level and expectations of the class. The rubric will consist of those main categories mentioned above and contain the aspects of the sub categories to varying degrees. For example, a level 3 for rhythm could be: tempo is suitable, there is some speeding up or slowing down, most articulations are heard, individual sections of instruments sound together with some minor discrepancies.

This is a beneficial strategy because it opens up discussion and critical thought about the qualities of a good performance. It forces students to actively listen to the song that they are working on from an outside perspective and gives them more concrete ideas of how they can improve the overall sound of the piece.

      The students have their required material for the test (for example a B flat major scale) and are each given a rubric for assessing their assigned partner. One student plays while the other records a video (on a phone or laptop) and fills out the assessment rubric. The rubrics are handed in and the videos are uploaded to an online platform for the teacher to mark. The teacher can also assess the students' rubrics and give marks for accurate evaluations.

The advantage of the peer assessment rubric is that students are actively listening to the performance and critically thinking about the objectives of the test which they can then apply to their own performance. The rubric makes the criteria on which the students are being assessed perfectly clear. Using the technology available to us now enables the teacher to mark the playing tests outside of class time. This also might be beneficial for to students mitigate the anxiety of playing one on one for their teacher. 

      For a listening test, the students are given a sheet of paper with blank staves on it. For the rhythm section, the students will draw a certain number of bar lines. The number of bars will vary depending on the difficulty/grade level. The teacher will play (for example) a 6 bar pattern (one bar at a time) on one note of the piano. The bar can be repeated multiple times depending on the difficulty and then the whole 6 bar pattern is played. The students need to write down in notation the rhythm that they hear. The pitch recognition section will follow the same format but this time the students are asked to write down the notes they hear in the correct order (all in quarter note rhythm). Other layers of difficulty can be adding by playing intervals, or identifying types of chords. 

      As mentioned in the assessment 'for' section, I think that in order for listening tests to be an effective assessment strategy, the students need to be given adequate time to practice and develop their musicianship in order to apply this to the test.