9 assessed work items are mapped below. Use the lesson title or activity ID to find the work, the evidence to keep, and the criteria used to assess it.
Suggested learner fit
For educators, not a student course.
Priority skills: Demonstrating and assessing midi versus audio; performance editing; instrument design; portable project handoff.
Prior skills: Read or complete the companion student course; bring a sample assignment to assess.
Equipment: Computer with a DAW and virtual instrument, headphones; a MIDI keyboard is optional.
Expected time: 8 designed hours
Teacher guidance: No instructor is required; this edition is for educators preparing to demonstrate, assess, and adapt the student course.
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Choose a school-approved DAW that creates instrument tracks and edits notes. Test MIDI import/export, audio export and project reopening with a student account. Assign a built-in pitched instrument. Download the First Steps MIDI, event table and both renders. If MIDI export is absent, retain the native editable project and event table; mark MIDI exchange as not demonstrated. No keyboard is required.
One performance, two sounds: Import first-steps.mid, or enter the first four events from the table. Set 96 BPM. Choose a pitched instrument and play the phrase. Keep the note events unchanged. Choose a contrasting instrument and replay. Describe attack or release rather than only good/bad. Save the original MIDI and record both instrument names in your project notes. Evidence: Three sentences explaining MIDI, audio and project roles; one unchanged musical feature and one changed sound feature.
Build one playable route: Create one instrument track and select a built-in pitched sound. Enter or play notes 60, 64 and 67 separately at moderate velocity. Label the note input, instrument, track audio and output in a simple route drawing. Save the project with a name you will recognize, then reopen it before continuing. Evidence: A route drawing and a saved project with three notes; state whether input was drawn, on-screen or physical.
Record a phrase worth keeping: Make an original 8–16-note phrase, using First Steps only as practice if needed. Listen once without editing; name one intended focal note. Save the editable project and export MIDI if available. Export audio including the final tail. Name the files consistently and record tempo, instrument and preset. Evidence: Editable performance or native project, audio render and a short instrument/tempo record.
Prove the handoff opens: Fill in the handoff template with real filenames and instrument dependencies. Save a copy, close the working project and reopen the saved copy. Play the exported audio in a separate player and check its beginning and ending. Reimport MIDI where supported; record each test as passed, failed or not available. Evidence: A completed handoff record with actual results and a correction for any failed check.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Play First Steps A, then B. Follow the event table. Identify one repeated musical feature and one changed sound feature. The supplied renders are simple teaching synthesizers, not recordings of named commercial instruments.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Import first-steps.mid, or enter the first four events from the table. Set 96 BPM. 2. Choose a pitched instrument and play the phrase. Keep the note events unchanged. 3. Choose a contrasting instrument and replay. Describe attack or release rather than only good/bad. 4. Save the original MIDI and record both instrument names in your project notes.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: You send only the MIDI file. Must the recipient hear your instrument? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
An educator says MIDI contains the exact synth sound and accepts a download notification as recovery proof.
Assignment
A MIDI export where supported, or the native editable project and event table; two audio renders and an explanation of what each file preserves.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-M02
Teach routes and expression
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Test note editing and velocity in the selected DAW. Identify whether sustain CC64, pressure and pitch bend can be viewed. Prepare the supplied event cards for unsupported controls. Use one simple instrument with a clearly audible velocity response. Do not send configuration messages to classroom hardware.
Ports are not channels: Draw controller or editor → input/track → instrument → audio output. Label MIDI versus audio. Solve Route A in the route cards: sender channel 2, receiver channel 3 only. Solve Route B: two enabled routes from the same controller to the same receiver. Mark one unnecessary route to disable in the fictional setup and predict a successful retest. Evidence: Two fault explanations and a labeled one-route diagram.
Change one property at a time: Copy the phrase and choose one note. Write its number, start beat, duration and velocity. Transpose only that note by twelve semitones; listen, then restore it. Double only its duration. Listen with a sustained sound and a percussive sound if available. Keep a named edited version and explain which changes the receiver made audible. Evidence: Before/after values, editable revision and a two-sound observation.
Give the phrase an accent: Duplicate your phrase as flat and shaped versions. Set a consistent moderate velocity in the flat version. In the shaped version, emphasize one focal note and soften the ending; keep pitch and time fixed. Render both and explain whether the accent affected level, tone or both in your actual instrument. Evidence: Baseline/revision, named focal note and evidence of how the instrument responded.
Release, bend and pressure: Annotate the provided event sequence: note starts, note releases and pedal release. Where supported, draw a sustain-off point before the next harmony and test the transition. Otherwise predict it on the event card. Explain how a pitch-bend range mismatch could change the intended gesture. Record which controls you actually tested and which you studied from the card. Evidence: Annotated event card and a tested-versus-modeled expression record.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Play the First Steps phrase through one instrument. Imagine a second route triggering the same sound; explain why doubling could change level or timing without adding new written notes.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Draw controller or editor → input/track → instrument → audio output. Label MIDI versus audio. 2. Solve Route A in the route cards: sender channel 2, receiver channel 3 only. 3. Solve Route B: two enabled routes from the same controller to the same receiver. 4. Mark one unnecessary route to disable in the fictional setup and predict a successful retest.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: Would moving the receiver from channel 3 to channel 2 fix every silent MIDI setup? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
The teacher calls velocity a dB value, confuses port with channel and changes controller number to alter sustain strength.
Assignment
Route drawing, mismatch diagnosis, observed or predicted retest, and a learner diagnostic.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-M03
Teach intentional groove
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Test grid size, duplicate clips and quantization. If percentage strength or swing is absent, demonstrate moving one event manually by a measured amount. Import the supplied patterns and confirm the local drum map; the supplied drum WAV uses a simplified synthetic kit. Keep tempo fixed at 96 BPM during comparisons.
Move halfway, not everywhere: Inspect the timing table and locate an event whose original offset is +20 ms. Predict the offset after a 50% correction and compare the table. Apply a suitable grid to a copy of your phrase; if strength is unavailable, move one event halfway manually. Compare baseline and edit at the same tempo and keep the version that serves your stated feel. Evidence: Before/after onset, unchanged baseline and one located musical reason for the chosen version.
Swing with a stable anchor: Create or import an eight-note pattern with two events per beat. Duplicate it; keep events on whole beats fixed. Move only the second event of each pair later, using the table if no swing control exists. Render both and identify an anchor that stayed fixed and an offbeat that moved. Evidence: Two versions and a timing explanation naming the unchanged anchors.
Variation with a reason: Copy a short pattern into baseline, velocity-test and timing-test versions. In velocity-test, create a repeated accent/soft-note relationship without moving starts. In timing-test, restore velocity and move one recurring part consistently relative to the pulse. Choose one test to keep and describe its musical job and one possible cost. Evidence: Three labeled versions and a short decision record naming the isolated variable.
Build a drum performance: Audition your drum instrument and write the actual kick, snare and hat note numbers. Import or enter a two-bar pattern and correct any mapping mismatch. Keep the first bar and create a final-half-bar variation in the second. Play with your bass or a steady click; reduce hits if the return to the downbeat becomes unclear. Evidence: Editable two-bar pattern, audio, actual drum map and a sentence about the variation’s purpose.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Play loose.wav, half.wav and tight.wav at the same level. Follow the onset table. Listen for the relation between the note attacks and the steady click.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Inspect the timing table and locate an event whose original offset is +20 ms. 2. Predict the offset after a 50% correction and compare the table. 3. Apply a suitable grid to a copy of your phrase; if strength is unavailable, move one event halfway manually. 4. Compare baseline and edit at the same tempo and keep the version that serves your stated feel.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: Why can full quantization to eighth notes damage an intentional sixteenth-note phrase? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
The educator requires full eighth-note quantization on a sixteenth-note pattern and calls independent random offsets musical intention.
Assignment
Three versions, timing notes and a musical reason for the version you keep.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-M04
Teach sound design and preserve dependencies
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Choose one sampler or sample-based instrument, one FM instrument if available, and two contrasting preset sounds. Use the supplied FM renders if editable FM is absent. The included original sample may be imported where supported. Confirm preset saving or project-state saving. Prepare mono listening with an actual sum; listening to only one channel is not a mono sum.
A sample becomes an instrument: Import sample-root.wav into a sampler if supported; otherwise compare the supplied pair and annotate expected mapping. Assign the original pitch to note 60 and test 60 then 72, or inspect the supplied speed-linked example. Record whether pitch and duration both change in your actual instrument. Save the project/sample together and add a source entry crediting the course-generated asset. Evidence: A sample-state record and either a playable mapping or a clearly labeled analysis of the supplied pair.
Shape attack, body and release: Choose a preset and save its baseline state in a project copy. Name the intended role: short pulse, foreground phrase or connected background. Change only one available envelope parameter and replay the unchanged notes. Save the revision, render the phrase and describe one benefit and one possible overlap cost. Evidence: Baseline/revision, the changed control and an explanation tied to the part’s role.
Hear what an FM modulator does: Predict which example has more audible brightness or complexity, then listen and locate the difference. On an available FM instrument, save a copy and identify a modulator from its diagram. Otherwise use the supplied settings as your analysis route. Change one modulation control modestly; keep note events fixed and reduce playback level if needed. Save the custom state where possible and describe tone separately from loudness. Evidence: Controlled comparison and either a saved FM state or a clearly labeled interpretation of the supplied model.
Give every layer a job: Create two separate instrument parts and name each role in one sentence. Compare matching-register and octave-separated versions while keeping rhythm fixed. Set a useful balance and mute each layer briefly to test its contribution. Listen in stereo and an actual mono sum if available; record the method and any change. Evidence: Layered project/audio, role statements and a mono-check result or explicitly untested mono status.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Compare sample-root.wav and sample-octave.wav. The second is deliberately played at double speed: listen for its higher pitch and shorter duration. This is a controlled model, not a claim about every sampler.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Import sample-root.wav into a sampler if supported; otherwise compare the supplied pair and annotate expected mapping. 2. Assign the original pitch to note 60 and test 60 then 72, or inspect the supplied speed-linked example. 3. Record whether pitch and duration both change in your actual instrument. 4. Save the project/sample together and add a source entry crediting the course-generated asset.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: Why might a sampler preset reopen but fail to play the intended sound? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
A preset swap is presented as a one-parameter FM test, and a sampler preset is handed off without its source file.
Assignment
Control or render-comparison notes, dependency list and reopened result where a project was operated; mark analysis-only work clearly.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-M05
Teach MIDI 2.0 without hardware mythology
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Print the resolution, expression and capability cards. Download both chord-bend examples. No MIDI 2.0 hardware is required. If testing available equipment, record the actual controller/host/instrument path and supported modes; do not infer support from a connector or marketing label. All supplied examples are simulations or conventional audio, not MIDI 2.0 conformance tests.
More steps, useful movement: Compare the four-level and sixteen-level values on the card for the same requested movement. Identify two requested values that collapse to one value in the coarse model. Listen and describe the modeled steps; name smoothing as another possible influence. Write one gesture, the required route components and an observable test of whether finer control helps. Evidence: Annotated numeric comparison and a musical test proposal with its limits.
Move one voice inside a chord: Read the starting notes 60,64,67 and predict the result when all rise two semitones. Predict the result when only 67 rises two semitones. Listen to both examples and describe the different harmonic result. If your instrument supports independent expression, test and save it; otherwise annotate the event card and label the work as analysis. Evidence: Two pitch predictions, an audible comparison and practical-test or analysis status.
Agree on what a control means: Read the fictional controller and instrument cards. Choose the shared Profile P behavior and locate evidence in the four columns. Mark high-resolution note data as unverified where the host information is missing. Write the next observation needed before claiming a complete working path. Evidence: A capability table with evidence in each column and one unanswered compatibility question.
Design an expression test: Choose either independent-note bend or a smooth control sweep as the claim. List controller, host, connection, instrument and mode requirements. Write a short input gesture, expected result and failure signs. Add an export/reopen check; execute only if the teacher has a compatible setup, and record actual results separately from predictions. Evidence: A one-page feature test with requirements, expected behavior, failure evidence and tested/planned status.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Play ramp-coarse.wav and ramp-fine.wav. These audio models vary tone brightness in steps; they do not transmit MIDI. Follow resolution-card.txt and separate the modeled result from a hardware claim.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Compare the four-level and sixteen-level values on the card for the same requested movement. 2. Identify two requested values that collapse to one value in the coarse model. 3. Listen and describe the modeled steps; name smoothing as another possible influence. 4. Write one gesture, the required route components and an observable test of whether finer control helps.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: Would placing a noisy measurement in a larger numeric field remove the noise? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
A USB-C connector and a successful audio illustration are offered as proof of native MIDI 2.0 support.
Assignment
Comparison notes, route record and an explicit limit on what the audio proves.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-M06
Teach configuration and portable exchange
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Prepare the route, configuration and conversion cards. Identify the chosen DAW’s real project/preset export capabilities. All configuration changes use a disposable project copy or paper model; no factory reset, firmware update or hardware bank replacement is required. Preserve the student’s current project before experimenting.
Name the layer: Label Route C’s gesture, message protocol, packet representation, connection and receiving instrument. Explain how UMP carrying MIDI 1.0 messages differs from assuming MIDI 2.0 Channel Voice. Mark device enumeration as a connection observation, not an audible-success claim. Draw your current classroom route and leave unknown message-format details explicitly unknown. Evidence: A layered route diagram and two unsupported claims corrected.
Keep the instrument state: List the files/settings your sound needs: instrument/version, preset and any sample. Save a baseline project or supported preset before editing. Change one reversible parameter in a copy; if unavailable, complete the fictional name-change card. Restore the baseline and document what actually recovered and what remained only a simulation. Evidence: Instrument-state inventory, baseline/revision names and a restoration result.
Find what conversion loses: Map the card’s values using its explicit four-level rounding rule. Find two distinct inputs with the same output and describe the information lost. Export and reimport a copy of your editable phrase where supported; compare notes, timing and any expressive data. Record one preserved property and one loss or untested feature. Keep the reference audio. Evidence: Completed conversion example and an actual export comparison or a labeled paper analysis.
Package for another musician: Collect your project, permitted sources, MIDI exports and an audio reference in one named folder. Complete every applicable field in the handoff template; use not applicable rather than invented values. Copy the folder to a new approved location and reopen the project from there. Check reference playback and MIDI import where supported; record missing dependencies and fix or clearly disclose them. Evidence: A tested handoff folder and completed file-role/dependency record.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Play your saved phrase, then trace the route aloud. Identify where the note instructions become audio. No listening test can identify the connector shape from the sound alone.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Label Route C’s gesture, message protocol, packet representation, connection and receiving instrument. 2. Explain how UMP carrying MIDI 1.0 messages differs from assuming MIDI 2.0 Channel Voice. 3. Mark device enumeration as a connection observation, not an audible-success claim. 4. Draw your current classroom route and leave unknown message-format details explicitly unknown.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: An operating system lists the device. What has that failed to prove? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
The teacher sends an arbitrary voice dump to hardware and treats a successful file open as proof all expression survived.
Assignment
Layer diagram, exchanged file and playback check where supported, and a record of lost or untested distinctions.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-M07
Teach hybrid timing and automation
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Test importing audio beside MIDI, automation recording/drawing and render playback. Download the alignment example and synchronization cards. Physical recording is optional; use approved monitoring and school recording procedures if available. The synthesized audio part is an alignment exercise, not evidence of microphone technique or measured device latency.
Put audio beside MIDI: Import guide.wav and response-late.wav at the same zero start, or add an approved original audio part to your MIDI phrase. Identify three corresponding intended attacks and estimate their offsets. If the difference is consistent, move a copy once; if it varies, document why one shift is insufficient. Compare before/after in context and preserve the original placement. Evidence: Baseline/revision and a timing note distinguishing observed alignment from unmeasured monitoring latency.
Fix the right thing: Build or identify an overlap between foreground and support. Save a baseline. Create alternative A by changing only register, entrance or duration. Restore the baseline and make alternative B using only support-track level. Compare at sensible playback levels and choose a version using one located musical reason. Evidence: Baseline and two alternatives with a performance/instrument/arrangement/mix classification.
Save the movement: Choose one control and identify whether the DAW stores it as host automation or MIDI data. Draw or record a short movement around a specific entrance. Save and reopen the project; start playback before the move and observe its behavior. Export audio and listen outside the DAW. Record whether the editable movement also survives MIDI export if tested. Evidence: Project with one intentional move, audio render and a movement-storage/reopen note.
Choose a timing authority: Match the four fictional requirements to pulse, position, transport or sample timing. Draw one tempo authority and its follower for the drum-machine card. Add a separate position requirement for the recorder card; do not assume start/stop carries it. Write two observable tests: repeat a start and locate to a named middle position. Evidence: A completed synchronization card and a diagram with two verification tests.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Play alignment.wav. Compare the guide and the delayed response using alignment-events.csv. This constructed example has a known fixed offset; it is not a latency measurement of your equipment.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Import guide.wav and response-late.wav at the same zero start, or add an approved original audio part to your MIDI phrase. 2. Identify three corresponding intended attacks and estimate their offsets. 3. If the difference is consistent, move a copy once; if it varies, document why one shift is insufficient. 4. Compare before/after in context and preserve the original placement.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: If three attacks are late by 50, 50 and 50 ms, what can a single −50 ms shift address? What if they are 10, 50 and 90? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
A fixed shift is applied to variable timing errors, and a WAV containing movement is treated as proof that MIDI holds editable host automation.
Assignment
Offset measurements, corrected passage and a note on any remaining drift.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-M08
Assess a musical handoff
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Provide the fault cards, handoff template and final rubric. Confirm school-approved submission routes and enough storage. Arrange a peer or teacher reopen of a copy. Final product is 45–90 seconds, three musical roles and two contrasting virtual-instrument parts; a single multi-part instrument is acceptable if roles and state are clear. No paid library or physical recording is required.
Find the first failing stage: Choose Fault A or B and list what is already proven by its observations. Identify the earliest unproven stage and propose one discriminating test. Apply the test to a teacher-prepared copy if available; otherwise use the card’s returned observation. Write expected result, actual observation, conclusion and the next test or repair verification. Evidence: A short diagnostic report including evidence that could disprove the first hypothesis.
Make your work understandable: Write a caption naming the unchanged material, changed variable and comparison location. Add text values and note numbers to an explanation instead of relying only on color. List the creator/source and permitted use for every imported asset; identify your own work too. Have a peer or teacher follow the description and record one ambiguity you corrected. Evidence: Accessible comparison description, source record and a corrected ambiguity.
Build a piece with evidence: Plan the three roles and three sections on the capstone checklist. Assemble your earlier original phrases into 45–90 seconds; add material only when it serves a role. Retain before/after evidence for one timing edit and one expression edit. Save one sound decision and one arrangement-space decision. Ask a peer or teacher for one specific musical improvement; apply or test it, and retain the feedback plus a before/after explanation. Evidence: A working project and draft audio with four located decisions and retained edit evidence.
Deliver, reopen and defend: Complete the handoff record and package the final reference, project, permitted sources and evidence. Open a copied package independently or with a school-approved reviewer; record actual results and fixes. Present a two-minute explanation or equivalent text showing a kept decision, rejected test and next skill. Write a MIDI 2.0 readiness note naming a feature, required path and tested or planned status. Evidence: Final package, reopen evidence, accessible reflection and bounded MIDI 2.0 readiness note.
Tell students what they are testing. Ask what result would count as evidence, and write down one answer before you begin.
Display the baseline and identify its source, route and playback conditions. Play one known note on an on-screen key and through another available input. Compare the observed stages rather than turning every level control up.
Model these operations aloud, keeping the original recoverable: 1. Choose Fault A or B and list what is already proven by its observations. 2. Identify the earliest unproven stage and propose one discriminating test. 3. Apply the test to a teacher-prepared copy if available; otherwise use the card’s returned observation. 4. Write expected result, actual observation, conclusion and the next test or repair verification.
Pause before the final result. Ask: “Which variable changed, what stayed fixed, and what has not been tested?” Then show the result and name its limits.
Ask the student diagnostic: On-screen notes sound, but the controller’s activity reaches no track. Is replacing the audio output your strongest first test? Collect an explanation, not just yes/no. Offer text or spoken/transcribed response. If a student misses the point, use a simpler example and ask again.
Perform the linked unit’s practical on your actual classroom setup. Retain a baseline, the changed version and one independent replay/reopen check. If a capability is unavailable, label analysis evidence and record the practical skill still to be demonstrated.
Prepare and deliver a three-minute teach-back of the demonstration to a colleague or reviewer, or make an accessible recording for review. Include one prediction, one controlled operation and one check for understanding. A transcript alone can document explanation but does not prove operation.
Read the fictional educator submission below. Score it against the four PD criteria before seeing the facilitator key. Cite the sentence or missing artifact that justifies each score and suggest one practical step the teacher can try again.
Adapt the lesson for your class: state period length, available devices, student grouping, an access alternative and how each learner will produce individual evidence. Do not claim an analysis alternative proves a physical operation.
Save the workbook with the files you used, the time you spent, what you could not test, and what you will do next. Obtain reviewer feedback and retain a correction if any essential criterion is unmet.
A large project receives full marks without source credits, a complete ending or a tested recovery route.
Assignment
Reopened project, route check, audio render and criterion scores for the handoff.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
PD-MVI-FINAL
Final portfolio and practical review
2.5.b · ISTE Standards for Educators Design a practical technology lesson
2.5.a · ISTE Standards for Educators Adapt a lesson for learner needs
2.7.c · ISTE Standards for Educators Use assessment to guide teaching
Implementation · Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning Improve teaching through practice
Work to do
Locate evidence from the course tasks or modules for each final criterion. Include the original, a justified revision, and the verification result.
Preserve the listening copy, editable recovery materials and applicable source permissions. Use your teacher-selected DAW.
Name skills operated independently, skills completed with assistance and skills only analyzed. Arrange required practical opportunities before asking for final acceptance.
For teacher development, include the classroom launch plan, teach-back, calibration example and actual active-time record. Module minutes and this final review time must not be double counted.
Assignment
Portfolio evidence references, final handoff/recovery result, practical-skill record and next learning step.
Evidence to keep
Include the teaching plan, a teach-back or classroom trial, one scored student example, specific feedback, and a revised activity for a named learner need.
Assessment criteria
State the learning objective, teach a workable activity and show how the resulting student work demonstrates the objective.
Name a specific access or learning need and provide a usable alternative that preserves the intended skill.
Score the work against stated criteria, identify the misconception and provide feedback and a suitable next activity.
Retain teach-back feedback, revise the lesson, and use a subsequent teaching attempt to check the change.
Teacher assessment guide
Assess the work named in each row. Record the file or portfolio entry, the criterion, the result and the next action. Use a practical observation for equipment operation. Give feedback on the learner’s decisions as well as the finished result.
Score
Evidence
3
Criterion met, with independent verification or a successful application in another situation.
2
Criterion met: the required work is complete, accurate and supported by evidence.
1
Some relevant work is present, but the intended result has not been demonstrated.
0
The required evidence has not been submitted or demonstrated.
Record each criterion and the next action. Practical equipment work needs an observed demonstration. Use the course grading plan for the final result.
Self-guided completion
Read the evidence requirement before starting. Save the work, check each criterion and revise any missing or unsuccessful part. Use a peer or instructor for tasks that require feedback or a witnessed practical demonstration.