MTEL Music study materials
MTEL Music study resources

Designing a Composition Unit With Limited Orff Instruments

MTEL Music · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Designing a Composition Unit With Limited Orff Instruments

You teach third-grade general music at a school where each class has 28 students and meets twice weekly for 25 minutes. The district requires a four-week composition/improvisation unit assessed with a simple rubric. Your room has eight barred Orff instruments (soprano and alto xylophones and metallophones), one tubano, and no reliable Wi-Fi. Each class will share a 16-beat ostinato composition at a family music night. One student has a cochlear implant and uses an FM system; another has fine-motor delays and struggles with mallets; three students are still learning English. The previous unit used worksheets, and students scored well on labeling note names but poorly on performing a steady beat. Your principal wants evidence of student growth and asks how you will keep the sharing event from becoming a high-pressure performance.

1. Outline a four-lesson sequence that builds to a 16-beat ostinato composition and includes at least two formative checks.

Read the worked answer

Lesson 1: steady beat and 4-beat pattern work through echo-clapping, walking, and body percussion. Formative check 1: each student echo-claps a 4-beat pattern while a partner watches for steady beat. Lesson 2: barred-instrument setup and mallet technique. Divide the class into four rotating groups; two groups work on instruments, two do unpitched rhythm and body percussion, then switch. Students create and notate a 4-beat rhythm using icons or ta/ti-ti. Formative check 2: each group performs its 4-beat pattern while the class keeps a steady beat. Lesson 3: combine four 4-beat patterns into a 16-beat ostinato. Groups choose an order, practice with a conductor cue, and use a peer checklist for steady beat, entrances, and 16-beat form. Lesson 4: share in a low-pressure format: groups perform for another group, then all groups perform together. Record audio for the principal as evidence of growth; do not rank groups publicly.

2. Explain how you would adapt materials and grouping for the student with a cochlear implant, the student with fine-motor delays, and the three multilingual learners.

Read the worked answer

For the student with the cochlear implant, use the FM system consistently, reduce background noise during instruction, provide visual cues for entrances, and check privately that the chosen instrument's volume and placement are comfortable. For the student with fine-motor delays, offer alternate mallets, a push-stick or hand drum, a simplified bordur, and a partner who handles the bar changes; the student should still make musical decisions and perform a steady part. For multilingual learners, use visual notation, modeling, sentence frames such as 'My group plays ___ then ___,' and allow planning in the home language before English reporting. Group deliberately: mixed-ability groups of four or five, with clear roles (conductor, instrument player, note-reader, recorder). Rotate instrument access so no student is always on the tubano or always off the barred instruments. These adaptations change the pathway, not the musical target.

3. How would you grade the composition sharing using the district rubric, given that the previous unit's worksheet scores were high but steady-beat performance was poor?

Read the worked answer

I would separate the rubric into process and performance criteria: steady beat across 16 beats, accurate entrances, clear 16-beat form, group coordination, and revision evidence. I would not let the earlier worksheet scores raise the composition grade; those scores measured labeling, not performing. I would use the two formative checks and the peer checklist as evidence, and I would allow groups to revise once after feedback before the sharing event. Each student would receive an individual mark for their role plus a group mark for ensemble, with the individual mark based on observed contribution and a short self-reflection. For the family event, I would frame the sharing as a work-in-progress demonstration, not a judged concert. That gives the principal evidence of growth without turning 8-year-olds into contestants.