PROCESS AND PRODUCT: THE SIGHT-SINGING BACKGROUNDS AND
BEHAVIORS OF FIRST-YEAR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in The
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Victoria J. Furby, B.M. M.A.
********
The Ohio State University
2008
Doctoral Examination Committee Approved By
Dr. Patricia J. Flowers, Advisor ______
Dr. Hilary Apfelstadt Advisor
Dr. Leila Heil Graduate Program in Music
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to address the need for research examining the sight- singing backgrounds and behaviors of students who had finished a secondary school education, but had not yet begun a college curriculum. Sample subjects (N=40) were self-selected from the population of first-year undergraduate students who auditioned for a choral ensemble at a large Midwestern university. Data were gathered from questionnaire responses, video observations and audio recorded evaluations of a sight- singing task.
A large majority (97.4%) of students entering college choral ensembles had participated in a variety of choral ensembles throughout their high school (M=3.36 years) and middle school (M=1.92 years) educations. Many students (43.5%) had also participated in a variety of instrumental ensembles (M=2.9 years). Most students (84.6%) reported receiving some type of sight singing instruction and 77% reported receiving instruction in a specific sight-singing system with a large majority (75%) receiving instruction in movable tonic systems. A majority (59%) of students reported that they had been instructed regarding specific strategies to prepare for sight-singing performance.
Students were asked to sight sing a newly constructed melody written in common time and in the key of F major. Students spent an average of six minutes and thirty-two
ii seconds preparing for sight-singing performance. Students spent the most time singing
(M=320.23 seconds) and also spent time tonicizing (M=25.13), in silent study (M=30.51), writing (M=26.38) and keeping an external beat (M=25.62). Students also played the starting pitch (M=10.91 occurrences), made error detections (M=9.54) and started again
(M=10.79).
Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis showed years of high school choral participation to be the strongest predictor of sight-singing success, with years of instrumental ensemble participation also found to be a significant predictor. Analysis of high and low scorers showed that high scorers spent less total time than low scorers in preparing for sight-singing, and a larger proportion of preparation time in non-singing behaviors, including writing, silent study and external beat keeping. Low scorers restarted the example significantly more often than high scorers. Analysis of sight- singing instruction showed that students who had received sight-singing instruction, especially in regard to specific preparatory strategies, were more successful sight-singers.
Varied musical experiences and the inclusion of sight-singing instruction were shown to be the best predictors of sight-singing success.
iii Dedicated to my family
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I thank my advisor of the last four years, Dr. Patricia Flowers.
Without her unwavering support and advice, this project would never have come to fruition. I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Hilary Apfelstadt and Dr. Leila Heil for their support and the unselfish donation of their valuable time.
Finally, I would also like to thank the other valued professors of The Ohio State
University for the education that made this project possible.
I wish to thank Anthony Brock, David Tomasacci and Marci Major for their help with the evaluation portion of this project. Harold Weiss, of the sociology department, has also been of invaluable assistance in the completion this project. I would like to thank my fellow music education graduate student, Elizabeth Thacker, for the countless hours of support and advice. I would also like to acknowledge my students for their understanding and cooperation as this project was completed.
Finally, I thank my friends and family, for their encouragement, not only for this project, but for pushing me to reach my goals. To my brother Oliver and my sister-in-law
Kristen, thank you so much for taking the time to assist in the final stages of this research. To my mom and dad, Andrea and Brian, words cannot express what your support has meant to me over the last four years. As I end this journey I will never be able to thank you adequately for all you have done and for what you mean to me. v VITA
June 15, 1979…………………………………Born- Waterford, Ireland
2000………………………………..B.M., Education, Capital University
2001-2004……………….….Choral Director, Pickerington High School
2005……………..….M.A. Music Education, The Ohio State University
2004-present……………………………….Graduate Teaching Assistant
The Ohio State University
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Music
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii Dedication iv Acknowledgments v Vita vi List of Tables ix
1. Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Problem 2 Research Questions 4 Definitions 5 Method 6 Significance of the Study 7 2. Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Literature 9 The History of Sight-Singing Practice 9 Ideology of Sight Singing 18 Systems for Sight-Singing Instruction 21 Current Trends in Sight-Singing Research 31 Conclusion 45 3. Chapter 3: Method 46 Purpose 46 Design 47 Procedure 49 Characteristics 50 Musical Example 54 Audio Evaluation 55 Observations 56 4. Chapter 4: Results 59 Sample Characteristics 59 High and Low Scorers 67 Summary 73 5. Chapter 5: Summary, Discussion and Conclusion 76 Summary 76 Discussion 83 Conclusion 91 References 94 Appendices 103
vii Appendix A: Recruitment Letter 104 Appendix B: Consent to Participate in Research 105 Appendix C: Questionnaire 109 Appendix D: Sight Singing Test 111 Appendix E: Audio Evaluation Form 112 Appendix F: Tables 114
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Movable-do solfége syllables 22 2.2 Fixed-do solfége syllables 23 4.1 Means and Standard Deviations for Timed Behaviors of the Sample 63 4.2 Linear Regression of Reported Independent Variables 65 4.3 Linear Regression of Observed Independent Variables 66 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations for Timed Behaviors of High Scorers 69 4.5 Means and Standard Deviations for Timed Behaviors of Low Scorers 70 4.6 Descriptive Data for Top and Bottom Scorers on Sight Singing Test 72 F.1. Years of High School Participation-Sample 115 F.2. Type of High School Choral Ensemble-Sample 116 F.3. Years of Middle School Participation-Sample 117 F.4. Type of Middle School Participation-Sample 118 F.5. Years of Private Voice Lessons-Sample 119 F.6. Years of Instrumental Ensembles-Sample 120 F.7. Type of Instrumental Ensemble-Sample 121 F.8. Years of Private Instrumental Lessons-Sample 122 F.9. Type of Instrumental Private Lessons-Sample 123 F.10.Educational Background of Sight-Singing Instruction-Sample 124 F.11. Sight-Singing System Utilized-Sample 125 F.12. Descriptive Statistics of Observed Behaviors-Sample 126 F.13. Years of High School Participation-High Scorers 127 F.14. Type of High School Choral Ensemble-High Scorers 128 F.15. Years of Middle School Participation-High Scorers 129 F.16. Type of Middle School Participation-High Scorers 130 F.17. Years of Private Voice Lessons-High Scorers 131 F.18. Years of Instrumental Ensembles-High Scorers 132 F.19. Type of Instrumental Ensemble-High Scorers 133 F.20. Years of Private Instrumental Lessons-High Scorers 134 ix F.21. Type of Instrumental Private Lessons-High Scorers 135 F.22.Educational Background of Sight-Singing Instruction-High Scorers 136 F.23. Sight-Singing System Utilized-High Scorers 137 F.24. Descriptive Statistics of Observed Behaviors-High Scorers 138 F.25. Years of High School Participation-Low Scorers 139 F.26. Type of High School Choral Ensemble- Low Scorers 140 F.27. Years of Middle School Participation- Low Scorers 141 F.28. Type of Middle School Participation- Low Scorers 142 F.29. Years of Private Voice Lessons- Low Scorers 143 F.30. Years of Instrumental Ensembles- Low Scorers 144 F.31. Type of Instrumental Ensemble- Low Scorers 145 F.32. Years of Private Instrumental Lessons- Low Scorers 146 F.33. Type of Instrumental Private Lessons- Low Scorers 147 F.34. Educational Background of Sight-Singing Instruction- Low Scorers 148 F.35. Sight-Singing System Utilized- Low Scorers 149 F.36. Descriptive Statistics of Observed Behaviors- Low Scorers 150 F.37. Reported Characteristics Correlation Coefficients 151 F.38. Observed Variable Correlation Coefficients 152 F.39. Histogram Report Test for Heteroskedasticity 153 F.40. P-plot Test for Heteroskedasticity 154 F.41 Mean Score and Years of High School Participation 155
x CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
One of the primary goals of music education, or indeed any educational endeavor, is to produce interested and independent learners. Music literacy, or the ability to read musical notation, is a necessary component of musical independence. In modern instrumental ensembles this skill is often the first thing taught, interrelated to the actual playing of one’s primary instrument. However, the situation is much different in the modern choral ensemble. The ability to sing is not tied to the ability to read music.
Students are taught to sing parts by rote, a process by which the instructor teaches each part without relating aural recognition of the melody to the written musical notation.
The apparent ease of rote teaching leads to the exclusion of sight singing and music reading instruction. Many singers can participate in school related activities and never learn to read music accurately and/or respond to written musical notation.
The goals of a modern choral director are often different than the goals of music teachers throughout the history of American music education. In fact, publicly available music education was first introduced to teach the music reading skills necessary to improve church singing. During the twentieth century, however, changes in technology and educational ideology led to differing ideas of the importance of music reading. “With the emergence of the child-centered approach to education in the 1930’s music reading 1 was considered secondary to music enjoyment” (Armstrong, 2001). The inclusion of composition, improvisation, listening analysis and performance skills was not always associated with the need for music reading skills (Demorest, 2001). Choral directors began to be more concerned with performances than developing musical skills that would lead to musical independence (Guzy, 1994). The skills of music reading and sight singing became less important to choral directors than the ability to perform a variety of music for an audience.
Current trends in vocal music education are beginning to show resurgence in the belief of the importance of music reading. Most choral directors agree that music reading and sight singing skills are favorable instructional goals. However, research shows that few include time in their daily rehearsals to teach these all-important skills (Demorest,
2001). In order to maximize productivity and increase the capacity for musical independence, music reading and sight singing skills must be included in the choral music curriculum.
Problem
Sight-reading must be the ultimate goal of music literacy. If one can read music with enough skill to immediately transfer that knowledge to his or her instrument, rehearsal time can be spent making musical decisions rather than simply teaching notes.
For vocal musicians, this skill is known as sight singing. Sight singing is defined by The
New Harvard Dictionary of Music and Musicians as “the performing of a piece of music on seeing it for the first time. The ability to sing at sight requires the ability to imagine 2 the sound of pitches or intervals without the aid of an instrument.” A difficult skill for instrumental musicians, sight-reading for a choral musician becomes even more difficult.
The difficulty lies in the number of skills that must be completed simultaneously to be a successful sight singer (Justus, 1969; Miller 1980). “Sight-reading is characterized by high demands on the performer’s capacity to process complex visual [input] under real- time constraints and without the opportunity of error correction” (Kopies, Lee, Ligges &
Weihs, 2006). The skill of internalizing the sounds of specific intervals, adding specific syllable systems and maintaining one part while hearing another are added to the already challenging task of reading rhythms and pitches simultaneously and immediately. Add a layer of text to this task and it may seem impossible to expect singers to complete it successfully. “The sight-singing enterprise is recognized as both complex and abstract and is indeed challenging to both instructor and student” (Ewers, 2004).
Surveys of current practice have found that although most teachers have a positive attitude towards the teaching of music reading, few spend the necessary time to teach the skills (Johnson, 1987; Daniels 1988; May 1993). This may be due to a variety of issues surrounding choral music education. The first of these may be linked intuitively to the difficulty of the task itself. Sight singing is not something that can be taught quickly, or with little practice. A structured daily routine, complete with varied activities, frequent group and individual assessments and inclusion into the actual performance music, has been shown to be the best way to teach students to sight sing effectively (Collins, 1993;
Demorest, 1998; Demorest, 2001). Second, many teachers of singing were probably not taught in a way that emphasized the importance of sight singing; and so the cycle continues, of teachers continuing to teach as they were taught and neglecting sight- 3 singing practice in the choral rehearsal. Finally, many teachers spend their time emphasizing performance to the exclusion of music reading skills (Dwiggins, 1984). In modern choral music education, the emphasis of performing music for an audience, or in a contest situation, has led to the idea of learning music quickly by rote and a de- emphasis on the importance of teaching music reading and sight-singing skills.
It may be assumed that students are being taught the basic skills of music reading during their elementary school music career. The ability to label notes with their correct pitch names and durational values may be regarded as a basic and necessary skill by the elementary general classroom teacher. The translation of these basic skills to the complex skill of sight singing appears to be the major area of neglect in the secondary choral classroom. The question remains: what sight-singing skills are vocal musicians learning during their pre-college school music training? This research will attempt to determine how current practice in both the middle school and high school classroom affects the sight-singing skill of first year collegiate ensemble participants.
Research Questions
This study will attempt to answer several questions regarding the entry-level collegiate musician. The following questions will be the basis for the study Process and
Product: The sight-singing backgrounds and behaviors of first-year undergraduate students.
1) What are the demographic characteristics of entry-level college choral
musicians? 4 2) What is the musical background of entry-level college choral musicians?
3) What is the sight-singing background of entry-level college choral musicians?
4) What behaviors are exhibited during sight-singing preparation as observed in
entry-level college choral musicians?
5) Are there demographic characteristics, musical background characteristics or
behaviors that are predictors of sight-singing success?
Definitions
Entry-level college choral musician: A first-year undergraduate student who has completed an audition for participation in the collegiate choral program.
Musical background: Any music preparation undertaken by the subject prior to entry into the college curriculum. May include participation in choral and instrumental ensembles, private vocal or instrumental lessons, and musicals.
Sight-singing background: Any study of music reading as related to the ability to perform a piece of music vocally at first sight. May include introduction and practice of specific syllable systems at any school level.
Demographic characteristics: Non-musical characteristics utilized to define the sample and the population. May include age, gender, college major and US state of high school attendance.
Behaviors: Visually or aurally observed and/or reported physical or intellectual response to stimuli.
5 Method
The population for the study consisted of entry-level college students auditioning for placement in the choral program of a large Midwestern university. This population was selected for a variety of reasons. These subjects were seen as students with 1) an obvious interest in continuing their music participation, 2) a probable background in choral music, 3) a variety of previous educational experiences and 4) a diversity of future expectations. All students in the population were given the opportunity to participate in the study, and those who self-selected to participate were asked to complete two tasks.
Students were asked to sing a melody from sight with minimal preparation time. They were also asked to fill out a questionnaire asking about their musical backgrounds and sight-singing skills.
Analysis was conducted by the researcher as well as by independent evaluators.
The researcher observed video footage to determine what behaviors the subjects attempted in preparation for the sight-singing task. In addition, questionnaire responses were analyzed to determine the musical backgrounds of the subjects. Independent evaluators analyzed audio recordings of each singer’s final performance of the melody to determine whether successful sight singing had taken place. Finally, musical backgrounds and behaviors were compared to individual evaluations of success to determine whether there were any significant predictors of sight-singing success.
6 Significance of the Study
Many studies have been completed that compare sight-singing systems, analyze demographic and musical characteristics of sight singers or observe group success at sight singing, yet there have been few studies completed that analyze the end result of secondary school music education. This study will attempt to determine whether or not individual students are receiving enough sight-singing instruction during their high school careers to continue in successful music making at the college level. This study will attempt to realize what characteristics are found among entry-level college choral musicians, what behaviors have been taught to help students prepare for sight singing, what sight-singing systems and strategies are frequently used by entry level college choral musicians and whether or not these characteristics and behaviors will predict sight- singing success. This study is an important step in determining whether or not students are learning basic sight-singing skills in their secondary school music educations.
In order that students be given the best opportunities for musical growth, especially in the area of music literacy, it is important that teachers and teacher educators understand the status quo of today’s music education. This study will attempt to describe the backgrounds and behaviors of entry-level college choral musicians. It will also attempt to relate descriptive characteristics with sight-singing skill to determine if one may predict the other. Finally, it will attempt to determine if specific observed behaviors could be predictors of sight-singing success. This information will then be disseminated
7 to practicing teachers and choral conductors in the hopes of improving sight-singing instruction at a variety of educational levels.
8 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
The History of Sight-Singing Instruction and Practice
Influential European Sight-Singing Practices
Modern sight-singing practice and systems are most likely to be based upon the system for teaching sight singing developed by Guido d’Arezzo (b.991/991-after 1033)
(Grout & Palisca, 1996; Hughes, 2003). In his Prologus in antiphonarium “Guido lamented the time young singers spent learning chants by heart and pointed out the advantages of a system of lines identified as to height of pitch, permitting the sight singing of unknown chants” (Palisca, 2007). Guido is attributed to have developed a system of teaching music reading using the hymn Ut queant laxis, a previously written text but newly composed melody, to develop a system of syllables designating scale degrees. The syllables ut, re, mi, fa, so, la when placed in a scale format, formed a six- pitch hexachord (Grout & Palisca, 1996). This system of movable syllables was used for the keys of C major (hard-indicating a natural B) and F major (soft-indicating a flat B) in order to teach hymn tones to young singers. Guido’s constant search for effective devices to train the eye and the ear also led to the development of the Guidonian hand, in 9 which six syllables were assigned to six notes and ascribed to the joints of the fingers of the left hand, in ascending and descending order, to physicalize the practice of music reading (Palisca, 2007).
This first known system of sight singing has had a profound impact on the field of music reading in the history of choral music. Most important musicians of the
Renaissance (Dufay, Desprez, Willaert, Gombert, Clements, Binchois, Palestrina,
Victoira, Lassus and others) emerged from the choirboy schools as trained vocalists with extensive experience in music reading (Collins, 1993). Books of hymns in both the traditional Catholic tradition and the new Lutheran worship were written and performed during the church service in true four-part choral singing. Music reading, and in particular sight singing, was expected from the members of these choirs tied to the churches and cathedrals of Europe.
As the composers and singers of the Renaissance period used more syllables, livelier rhythms and shorter note values, notation and theoretical concepts of music underwent a dramatic change (Hanning, 2002). Ramis de Pareia’s treatise of 1482, introduces a system emphasizing the importance of the octave by adding a seventh and eighth syllable in his system, although this system was never popularized (Hughes,
2007). The practice of using solmization as a sight singing system in connection with plainchant can be regarded as definite, but the addition of accidentals and extended ranges led to a need for different systems outside the hexachord system developed by
Guido d’Arezzo and used throughout this time (Hughes, 2007).
Other European practices of sight singing have continued to be influential in the sight-singing practices of Western music notation. The field of music education 10 developed both as part of and outside of the church in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Several important European names in the field of sight singing, music literacy and education during this time include Johann Pestalozzi, Sarah Anne Glover, John
Curwen, and Zoltan Kodály (Kuehne, 2003).
Johann Pestalozzi was a Swiss educator and author during the eighteenth century.
His ideas of education have influenced practice throughout Western culture for the past three centuries. The major components of the Pestalozzian principles of education were based on the method of moving from the easier to the more difficult. “Pestalozzi believed that thought began with sensation and that teaching should use the senses”
(Clark, 1999).
Pestalozzi employed four fairly simple principles of teaching. These include: 1) begin with the concrete object before introducing the abstract; 2) begin with the immediate environment before dealing with what is distant and remote; 3) begin with easy exercises and move toward more difficult ones and 4) always proceed gradually, cumulatively, and slowly. These ideas were adopted and strengthened by the entire education community, including music educators, in the proceeding centuries.
Sarah Anne Glover was an English teacher who attained recognition through the excellence of her children’s choir, trained for her father’s church. In 1835, she published her Scheme for Rendering Psalmody Congregational. Her system, developed over twenty years of teaching, was based on a new set of notational syllables, do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, te, wherein do was always the tonic pitch of the major scale. Students were trained using the ‘Norwich Sol-fa Ladder’ to sing exercises and songs, and then introduced to traditional musical staff notation (Rainbow, 2003). 11 John Curwen is another name found in the sight-singing history of England.
Curwen, a member of the ministry in nineteenth century England, had his first experiences with music education whilst attempting to teach music to children during
Sunday school services. Although well guided in educational principles, Curwen himself was not a musician. His acquaintance with the Pestalozzian theory of education and his own study of Glover’s Scheme for Rendering Psalmody Congregational, led to his interest in developing and perfecting the scheme of tonic sol-fa. Curwen’s major achievement was to develop a manual system that incorporated physical movement and hand signs with aural recognition of pitches. This system was developed to help students of all ages and class backgrounds to develop musical literacy (Rainbow, 2007).
Zoltan Kodály is probably one of the most well known names when discussing the teaching of music reading to children. A Hungarian musician and educator, Kodály was a strong proponent of the use of relative solmization, hand signs and rhythmic syllables along with the native folk music of Hungary in order to teach music literacy to children (Tacka, 2007). Certain aspects of Emile Jacques Dalcroze’s eurhythmics were also incorporated into the Kodály methodology. The sequences of instruction included musical experience preceding symbolization. The teaching order is sound to sight, concrete to abstract, drawing heavily on the work of Pestalozzi (Choksy, 1981).
Kodály’s method was based upon the following ideaolgy:
• music literacy is something everyone can and should enjoy • singing is the foundation of all music education • music education must begin with the very young • the folk songs of a child’s own culture is his musical mother-tongue and should be the vehicle for early instruction • only music of the highest artistic value (folk and composed) should be used in teaching. (Choksy, 1981) 12 The Pestalozzian principles of moving from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract had a profound impact upon the ideas of music literacy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Glover, Curwen and Kodály all used this philosophy to inform their methods of music literacy instruction. These ideas have been developed and influence the music literacy instruction of the present in Europe and in the United States.
Music Education in the United States
The importance of sight-singing instruction and musical literacy has raged in a continual debate since the introduction of music education to the general public of the
United States. “The first musical education…occurred very early in the country’s history and had as its central goal the teaching of music reading to improve church singing”
(Demorest, 2001). John Tufts, an influential minister from Massachusetts, wrote the first practical musical text An Introduction to the Singing of Psalm Tunes. This book contained psalm tunes with directions on how to sing them, contrived in the easiest method invented. “The book has special significance for American music education because it was intended to help children, as well as adults, learn to sing” (Mark, 1999).
This book was one of the first practical users of fasola notation, in which traditional notation was substituted with the first letters of the four solmization syllables (f)a, (s)o,
(l)a and (m)i. Tuft’s text and many others like it led to the development of the singing school, introducing Americans to instruction in music literacy.
13 Singing schools were instructional sessions designed to teach the elements of music to congregation populations (Crawford, 2007). Music teachers or singing masters held classes in communities where people desired to learn to sing by note. Similar to the scholae cantorum and other choir schools centuries earlier in Europe, these schools served dual musical and social purposes (Mark, 1999). Singing schools generally had around fifty students and lasted between one and three months. The pupils were taught to sing in parts and to read music using sung fasola solmization singing (Collins, 1993).
Attention in singing schools was given to music reading, vocal production, style of performance and deportment. Most schools were held in churches and led by itinerant singing masters who traveled from town to town. These singing schools were the earliest form of American music education and also became a major focus of social interaction
(Phillips, 2004).
Singing schools also led to developments in notation and instruction from a variety of sources. This included a notational system using the basic musical instincts of fasola notation. This system eventually developed into shape notes, a system still used in a limited fashion in the United States today (Mark, 1999). Shape notes were a system of music reading developed to help singers with little or no musical expertise sing at sight without having to understand staff notation or key signature relationships (Downey,
2007). Shape note singing imparted to generations the joy of choral singing by note and shared a rich repertoire of American choral music, much of which remains in today’s choral and sacred repertoire. It is also the only singing school tradition that carries on to the present day (Demorest, 2001).
14 The importance of the singing school and the advent and popularity of singing societies led to the inclusion of music in public school education. Lowell Mason, often called the “Father of Music Education” is generally the first name associated with the inclusion of music into the public school curriculum. Mason, a director of one of the most famous singing societies in Boston, believed that all people had a degree of musical talent, and that singing was a skill to be generally developed. This belief led Mason to develop a sequential method of teaching sight-singing and singing skills to children based upon Pestalozzian principles. Hans Georg Nageli combined the educational objectives of
Pestalozzi with basic musical knowledge in the treatise The Theory of Instruction in
Singing. Mason demonstrated the success of his own teaching method, which was based upon these ideals, in a public concert of the children of Hawes elementary school in
Boston (Phillips, 2004).
In 1838, Mason was named the first public school music teacher in the United
States and music in the school curriculum quickly spread to other cities (Phillips, 2004).
Mason believed that music contributed to the well-being of the individual by uniting that person with God and by creating better homes, better citizens and better human beings.
Mason became an influential figure in music pedagogy. He advocated that children should become comfortable with singing and the sounds of music prior to learning music reading. He also advocated for the use of movable do solfége, a seven-note pattern, in contrast to the more popular fasola patterns used during the time (Demorest, 2001).
Mason divided music-reading instruction into the categories of rhythm, melody and dynamics and created a course of study for each category. His specific ideas were included in the manual Manual of the Boston Academy of Music, for Instruction in the 15 Elements of Vocal Music, on the System of Pestalozzi, and were widely disseminated among music teachers. The emphasis on developing a “sound-based understanding of music prior to teaching the rules of notation,” or the “rote before note” approach was different than the pedagogy of music reading previously studied. The argument surrounding the best way to approach music reading was and continues to be a source of great controversy amongst the society of music educators (Demorest, 2001). The popularity and success of Mason’s ideas and teachings have had a profound influence on sight-singing instruction and music education at the elementary level. In addition, the a capella movement of the early twentieth century led to the inclusion of choral music as a curricular subject at the high school level, and also to the need for advanced instruction in sight singing at that level.
With the advent and popularity of recorded music, the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the emphasis in competing world markets, musical literacy became secondary to experiential music. John Dewey’s emphasis on educating the whole child had a profound impact upon musical instruction, making it essential in the production of a well-rounded and educated student (Collins, 1993). The lack of sufficient trained personnel prior to the Second World War, however, resulted in the hiring of professional musicians to replace trained education personnel. “This approach resulted in the music classroom experience becoming a rehearsal with emphasis on performance, a practice that is still prevalent today” (Collins, 1993). The emphasis on performance led to a converse de-emphasis on musical literacy.
The educational reform movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s and the belief in the importance of educating the whole child led to the idea of comprehensive musicianship. 16 These ideas were developed during several events that included the Contemporary Music
Project for Creativity in Music Education, The Yale Seminar, The Manhattanville Music
Curriculum Program and the Tanglewood Symposium (Collins, 1993). In response to the performance-based focus of secondary music education, comprehensive musicianship sought a balance of performance, analysis and creativity. This led to new approaches to learning music and a general loosening of the approach to music in the schools (Mark,
1999). In the approaches determined by the ideas of comprehensive musicianship, choral literature is seen as the “vehicle through which students learn to make musical decisions, study historical and cultural context, analyze and describe musical concepts, and apply them to their own compositional efforts” (Demorest, 2001).
Although it seems that the ideas surrounding comprehensive musicianship would have a positive impact upon musical literacy, and especially sight singing for choral musicians, the need for musical reading skills is not always associated with performance or listening experience of a particular music repertoire. Students may develop broad musical skills including the analysis and enjoyment of music, yet not necessarily acquire the music reading or sight-singing skills necessary to be independent musical performers.
The end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century has seen some resurgence in the emphasis on developing music literacy as a necessary skill of music education.
17 Ideology of Sight-Singing
Nearly all choral music educators and experts in the field of sight singing agree on several important points regarding the ideology of teaching music reading. These points include the necessity for aural recognition of musical intervals, the development of listening and singing skills prior to reading of staff notation and the development of a language of patterns that exist within the framework of tonal music. It should be noted however, that the application of these ideals has been seen mostly within the framework of learning to sight sing tonal music, and has not been formally applied to the ability to sing highly chromatic or atonal music.
The goals of sight-singing instruction must be to establish tonality and have the eye lead thought securely and independently. In order to reach these goals, certain requirements must be met including the ability to lay a foundation of tonality and become acquainted with the associated symbols of that tonality. In addition, students must learn to associate pitches with their representation in the prescribed syllable system. Students must also become acquainted with scales, mode and intervals as well as rhythmic forms and sharpen their memory and concentration. The habits associated with successful music reading include a mastery of key representations, intervals, melodic progressions and grouping of tones as one groups letters to form words (Root, 1931).
Another supporter of the aural conception of music reading, Wilson (1954) writes
“music reading cannot be taught without an aural background.” He argues that the first step for successful sight singing must be the aural recognition of patterns and direction of musical motion. Other steps of importance include the ability to establish tonality, 18 understand fundamental chords, develop a sense of tone tendency and know major and minor triads and keys (Wilson, 1954). Middleton (1984) advocates for the learning of rhythmic patterns prior to pitch and the inclusion of tonal memory and consolidated notational understanding.
Several authors have created a system of sight singing, including manuals and examples, incorporating ear training as an important component of instruction. Bland
(1984) created a manual entitled Sight Singing through Melodic Analysis. The manual teaches students to utilize the concepts of triadic tonal theory within their sight-singing knowledge. This method teaches students to distinguish between structural and decorative tones within a horizontal triad outline. The method also helps the student to recognize and interpret melodic shapes with triad outlines in various positions. Finally,
Bland’s manual teaches the ability to recognize and interpret melodic shapes within entire phrases. These steps of instruction develop knowledge of tonal relationships, phrases, common shapes and motions in melodies. Students learn to consider melodies in relation to larger patterns and melodic contour is used as a means of developing tonal memory.
Danish composer and educator Jorgan Jersild shares the ideology of an aural connection to written staff notation and the idea of scale degree functionality. In a study of Jersild’s approach to sight-singing, Rogers (1996) describes the major components of the method. Tonal Bearings, Functional Tonality, the Geography of Tonality and Tonal
Scaffolding are the building blocks of the Jersild Approach. Tonal Bearings refers to the knowledge of one’s location and relationship to carefully selected reference pitches.
Functional Tonality refers to scale degree functionality and the common resolution and movement of pitches within a major scale outside the tonic triad. Building a Geography 19 of Tonality involves learning how to find, discern and recognize landmark musical patterns rather than individual intervals. Notes carry different importance according to their function and relationships to other pitches. Finally, Tonal Scaffolding refers to the structured relationships between pitches that affect the perception and understanding of groups of notes. “This approach helps students to sight read musically, within a tonal context” (Roger, 1996).
Phillips (1996) also argues for the integration of aural training into sight-singing instruction prior to visual training. “Once students have learned to successfully navigate patterns of sound aurally through the use of tonic and dominant tonal patterns then they can be asked to visually recognize these patterns.” An aural foundation should be laid in a variety of ways, which will lead to an introduction of the traditional visual representation of notes on the staff. After the relationship of aural and visual is established, then sight singing can be attempted.
“Music reading proficiency, meaningful music performance, and [indeed] all musical activities in general are the result of clear mental images of sound” (Cross &
Hiatt, 2006). Students must be able to relate the aural, oral and visual vocabularies that are related to music literacy in order to sight sing successfully. To that end many systems of sight singing have been developed which help to lead students from the aural recognition of sound to its visual representation.
20 Systems for Sight-Singing Instruction
Choral music educators face a much-debated dilemma when deciding upon the best system to be utilized for sight-singing instruction. There are two major headings under which systems of sight-singing instruction can be placed. These include relative solmization, which is utilized to establish tonic or a tonal center and fixed solmization, which denotes absolute pitches (Demorest, 2001). Popular relative systems include movable do-solfége and numbers. Popular fixed systems include fixed-do solfége and interval drill. Other fixed methods include singing on fixed letter names and utilizing a neutral syllable when sight singing. Much research has been completed examining the popularity and efficacy of these sight-singing systems with no definitive results having been obtained. However, experts and teachers alike continue to debate which system should be utilized and advocate for their preferred system.
Movable-do solfége
Movable-do solfége is a system of teaching music reading that ascribes a particular syllable to each scale degree of the major scale. The tonic pitch obtains the name do, the supertonic the name re, the median mi, the subdominant fa, the dominant so, the submedian la, and the subtonic ti. These names are ascribable to notes of the major scale, and change according to the written key of the example. The movable-do system also has a system of syllables in place for use in the case of accidentals. For example, if the fourth scale degree is raised a half step, it is given the name fi, or if the third scale 21 degree is lowered a half step it is given the name me. Many educators, throughout history, have used movable-do solfége, and its precedents to teach music literacy and sight singing.
Scale Degree Solfège Name Pronunciation 1 Do /do_/ Raised 1 Di /di_/ Lowered 2 Ra /r__/ 2 Re /re_/ Raised 2 Ri /ri_/ Lowered 3 Me (or Ma) /me_/ (/m__/) 3 Mi /mi_/ 4 Fa /f__/ Raised 4 Fi /fi_/ Lowered 5 Se /se_/ 5 So /so_/ Raised 5 Si /si_/ Lowered 6 Le (or Lo) /le_/ (/lo_/) 6 La /l__/ Raised 6 Li /li_/ Lowered 7 Te (or Ta) /te_/ (/t__/) 7 Ti /ti_/
Figure 2.1 Movable-do solfége syllables
Fixed-do solfége
Fixed-do solfége is a system in which names are ascribed to the scale degrees of a
C major scale. As with movable-do solfége, the syllables utilized are do, re, mi, fa, so, la and ti. However, in fixed-do solfége the pitch C is always do, the pitch D is always re, and so forth. Fixed-do solfége uses the same system of syllables for accidentals as used in the movable-do system. However, in the fixed-do system these “changed” names are
22 used far more frequently in differing key signatures. Fixed-do solfége has been utilized with great popularity, especially in European music education.
Note Name Solfège Name Pronunciation C do (sometimes "ut" in France) /do_/ C# di /di_/ Db ra /r__/ D re /re_/ D# ri /ri_/ Eb me /m__/ E mi /mi_/ F fa /f__/ F# fi /fi_/ Gb se (sometimes "sal") /se_/ G so (sometimes "sol") /so_/ G# si (sometimes "sil") /si_/ Ab le /le_/ A la /l__/ A# li /li_/ Bb te (sometimes "ta") /te_/ B ti (sometimes "si") /ti_/
Figure 2.2 Fixed-do solfége syllables
Numbers
A number system that has been found useful by many choral directors continues the ideals of the movable-do system without the syllables defined by that method. In the movable number system of pitch reading, students sing the number of the scale degree rather than the designated solfége syllable. In this system the tonic pitch is called one, the supertonic two, the mediant three and so forth. As with the movable-do system, key relationships are important and the tonic pitch of any given key signature is always
23 designated the number one. This system is often used due to the familiarity of numerical relationships, especially in regard to teaching young children concrete distances between scale degrees.
Intervals
The interval system of sight-singing instruction is primarily concerned with the teaching of the intervallic relationships between notes. There are many different ways to teach using this system including drilling intervals, singing interval names, singing on a neutral syllable and singing on letter names. These systems utilized the idea of fixed relationships between pitches and recognizing the intervallic content between these relationships. Although all systems deal specifically with intervallic content, a system based upon the idea of intervallic drill does not include a syllable system or other referential source, but instead relies specifically upon the recognition of specific intervals in a variety of settings.
Comparison of Sight-Singing Systems
With the resurgence in popularity of teaching sight singing, a body of literature surrounding the efficacy and popularity of the differing sight-singing systems has appeared. This work is primarily concerned with two different aspects of sight-singing systems. Many opinions have been written comparing the effectiveness of sight-singing
24 systems along with some experimental studies. Also, surveys have been undertaken to determine which systems are used by directors across the country.
Studies comparing effectiveness of sight-singing systems have led to mixed results. In a doctoral dissertation, Buchanan (1946) compared fixed-do and movable-do solfége while teaching sight singing from the staff. In this study, all students who received systematic instruction in sight singing improved their scores from the pre-test to the post-test. This study concludes that more improvement may be expected from lessons in movable-do solfége than from lessons in fixed-do solfége. Major areas of improvement included the ability to change directions and move from one melodic or choral pattern to another (Buchanan, 1946). Brown also compared movable and fixed sight-singing systems with varied results. Subjects of this study were undergraduate music majors who were instructed using two different systems of sight-singing instruction across four universities. Movable systems of sight-singing instruction led to higher scores on pitch accuracy for chromatic music and simple melodies than fixed systems (Brown, 2001).
In another study, Bricher compared singing on movable-do solfége with singing on neutral syllables. Two different method books were used with seventy students over a nine-week instructional period. At the end of the experiment Bricher observed that “ the group using movable-do solfége showed a marked improvement in melodic pattern singing” (Bricher, 1995). Mann also used movable-do solfége in conjunction with the
Kodály method of music instruction with college music students to great success (Mann,
1989).
25 Demorest and May (1995) tested the sight-singing skills of students in eight Texas choirs. Students were randomly selected from pre-existing choirs at eight schools. Four choirs utilized fixed-do solfége in sight-singing instruction and four choirs utilized movable-do solfége. Individuals from the choirs instructed in movable-do solfége scored significantly higher (12.89/15) than individuals instructed in fixed-do solfége (8.79/15).
Although these were significant results, the authors were quick to observe that differences in instruction, consistency of training and the effect of individualized testing may also have affected the study.
Blum suggests several reasons for the popularity of the movable-do system of teaching sight singing. All of these reasons center on the idea that “people are not able to retain fixed sounds in their memories, only fixed relationships between sounds….[and] these relationships are more important than absolutes” (Blum, 1968). Other advantages to the movable-do system as suggested by Blum include: 1) presents to the eye a set of syllables favorable to good intonation, 2) gives demarcation to scale degrees, 3) characterizes each interval of the scale, 4) expresses modulatory relationships and 5) renders transposition perfectly easy (Blum 1968). Jeno (1971) notes that movable-do is desirous because named relationships between notes remain constant allowing students to sing in any key or mode easily. Finally it must be stated that “if the mental effect of a tone’s function in the key allowed so many to grasp the concepts of pitch center and sing in tune, there is perhaps some validity to including instruction and exercises working toward that understanding” (Weidenaar, 2006).
In the same study that expressed significant relationships for movable-tonic systems, Brown also found significant relationships for fixed sight-singing systems. 26 Students of the fixed-tonic systems scored significantly higher on atonal music and with more difficult melodies (Brown, 2001). Cassidy (1993) examined the effects of sight- singing systems upon the success of non-music majors’ sight-singing abilities. The groups using any solfége system scored significantly higher than those singing on letter names and neutral syllables.
Proponents of the fixed-do solfége are no less committed when advocating for the use of that system. Fixed systems lead to the development of pitch location or the ablility to “develop some sense of the absolute location of pitches in the singers’ voice and memory” (Robinson & Winold, 1992). Middleton argues that fixed-do provides several benefits to music reading including the idea that note names remain constant and that fixed-do solfége helps lead to the development of approximate if not absolute pitch placement (Middleton, 1984). Fixed-do solfége may also be utilized so that works written in a variety of keys can be discussed in a uniform manner. Rather than singing the modulatory relationships of a key in movable-do solfége, fixed-do solfége allows conductors and singers alike to refer to note names in a constant manner (Rawlins, 2005).
The biggest proponents of the fixed system of sight singing refer to the increasing difficulty and lack of tonal center in much of the music of the twentieth century and the idea that developing absolute pitch may be essential to sight singing that type of music successfully (Brown, 2001).
Studies including singing on numbers, use of the actual pitch names as a naming device and the use of intervallic idea are less common than those surrounding the two different types of solfége. Singing on numbers has been found to be a popular system used in a choral setting. Proponents of this system argue its superiority on the basis that 27 it uses familiar numerical relationships to teach new concepts. Also this system is similar to the movable tonic system in that the tonic pitch of a key is labeled number one.
Therefore, the numerical intervals remain constant between scale degrees (Winnich,
1987). The advantages for a using actual pitch names include the idea that students reinforce music reading through the alphabetical labeling of their fixed pitch names and that students can identify notes within their key signatures and learn to understand their pitch function (Brown, 2003).
Barnes (1960) completed a study in which students were drilled for ten hours singing intervals using a tachistascopic drill, where visual representations of intervals are flashed on a screen for a predetermined amount of time. These students significantly improved their ability to sight sing intervals. In addition, a high correlation between the ability to sing intervals and the ability to sight sing a melody was found (Barnes, 1960).
The use of the intervallic idea is supported by the argument that it is useful for all genres and types of music, including twentieth century atonal music. According to McElhran
(1998) traditional methods of teaching sight-reading do not work well when sight reading choral literature, especially modern choral literature. He believes that students must learn to identify and sing a particular interval and that drill of intervals will aid in sight-singing success. Foltz (1976) believes that in order to sing twentieth-century literature new pedagogical techniques must be added to traditional tonal systems. An orientation towards intervallic thinking as well as the use of interval classes (1-12) is necessary for modern sight-singing success. “[Teachers] must integrate singing through intervallic drill so that students can sight sing in any form or genre and become comprehensive musicians” (Foltz, 1976). 28 In addition to research and advocacy positions regarding the efficacy of sight- singing systems, there have been multiple surveys completed regarding the use and popularity of these systems. In an early study of trends of undergraduate sight-singing instruction, Collins (1979) found that many instructors used a variety of systems to teach sight singing. In combination the numbers revealed that 18% of instructors utilized fixed systems of sight singing, 63% used movable systems, 51% used number systems, 45% used neutral syllables and 20% used other systems. Daniels (1986) examined the relationship between group sight-singing success and numerous background variables, including the system used to teach sight singing. This study found that there was no significant relationship between sight-singing system and sight-singing success.
However, there was a significant relationship between sight-singing success and the attitude of the teacher towards sight-singing instruction.
Johnson (1987) surveyed directors in the North Central Region of the American
Choral Directors Association. This descriptive study determined that intervals were used most frequently to teach pitch relationships followed by a number system and finally movable-do solfége. All of these systems were utilized with little difference in percentages, however, they were all used much more frequently than fixed-do solfége
(Johnson, 1987). In another survey of aural skills instruction in United States college and university instructors, 60% favored a movable system, 20% a fixed system and 20% a neural system of sight-singing instruction. The movable system was divided into movable numbers (23%), movable-do solfége with tonic minor (18%) and movable tonic with submediant minor (16%). The overwhelming majority of instructors utilized a movable system with some type of movable-do solfége taking precedence in the 29 categories of movable systems (Pembrook & Riggins, 1990). In a survey of Texas choral directors in 1993, movable-do solfége was found to be overwhelmingly popular.
Movable-do solfége was utilized by 82% of the teachers who responded, an overwhelming majority. Other systems were not found to be as popular, and were used by between 1% and 9% of the sample population (May, 1993).
In a study of high school teachers in Florida, the most popular system was shown to be movable-do solfége, followed by intervallic drill and a movable numbers system.
(Smith, 1998). Demorest (2001) conducted a survey of volunteer teachers from the
United States and Canada administered via the World Wide Web. In this survey only
11% of teachers responded that they did not teach sight singing, leading to the likely assumption that teachers who did teach sight singing were more likely to respond. When answering the question regarding choice of pitch reading system, 58% responded with movable-do solfege, 21% used numbers, 4% used fixed-do solfege and 9% used neutral syllables.
Another recent study surveyed All-State choristers on the practices of their high school teachers as regarded sight-singing instruction. Commonly used melodic systems included interval names, inflected pitch names, non-inflected pitch names, fixed-do solfége, movable numbers, movable-do solfége and neutral syllables. These results were then compared by state of residence. Movable numbers were used with greatest frequency in most states including Alabama (58%), Arkansas (80%), Georgia (70%),
Tennessee (33%) and Mississippi (43%). Only one state within the population of this survey responded that movable-do solfége was used with greatest frequency, Louisiana
(49.5%). When results were combined, inter-state means showed that 58% of 30 respondents used a movable number system, 19% used movable-do solfége, 13% used a system of neutral syllables, 6% used a variety of systems and 4% used fixed-do solfége
(McClung, 2001).
A study of groups who had achieved sight-singing success within the Kentucky
Music Educators Association showed the 75% of teachers utilize the movable-do solfége system of sight-singing instruction (Bradley, 2006). Yarborough, Ormann and Neill
(2007) studied the procedures of teachers during sight-singing instruction. Of the 84 teachers observed (47 high school and 37 middle school) 76 (90%) utilized movable-do solfége during their sight-singing preparation. Data from this study clearly demonstrated that systematic instruction in sight-singing using movable-do solfége resulted in sight- singing success. However, the authors were quick to point out that these results were due to the inclusion of sight singing in daily rehearsals all year long.
Although these studies of sight-singing effectiveness and value to teachers have been completed, there remains no definitive answer as to the best or most popular method of sight-singing instruction. What has been determined through multiple studies is that employing a designated method for teaching sight singing, and presenting it in an orderly and effective way will result in improvement in sight-singing success, regardless of the system utilized. As with any other subject, two cardinal rules of skill building must be followed. Students must be taught using a structured method that moves from the known to the unknown in a cumulative sequential fashion and students must have time to learn to read through a series of exposures to, and respites from, the skill building process. The ultimate goal of any system must be that, upon completion, students should be able to sing at sight most compositions designed for their level (Collins, 1999) 31 Current Trends in Sight-Singing Research
Instructional Time
Increased demands placed upon choral conductors to provide a performance- driven curriculum and exposure to varied musical experiences may have led to a decrease in the amount of instructional time devoted to the teaching of music literacy. “The development of competency in sight reading is a subject that is frequently neglected in the field of choral music” (Daniels, 1988). Demands upon choral conductors are high to produce quality performances as well as to teach the skills of music listening and evaluation. It may be supposed that choral conductors believe that in order to deliver the instructional goals of high quality performance and thoughtful evaluation, instructional time for music reading must be restricted. Numerous surveys and studies have attempted to determine teacher/conductor perception regarding the importance of teaching music reading in an educational setting. Many of these studies have also attempted to determine the amount of time devoted to sight-singing and music-reading instruction and to compare ideology to practice.
Researchers as early as 1961 examined teacher attitude and sight-singing instructional time. Hales (1961) questioned directors on their attitudes and practices regarding sight singing. Seventy percent of respondents believed that sight-singing should be taught in all choral groups, 80% believed it should be part of student’s grades and yet only 37% of instructors listed the music reading as a major component of their
32 choral curriculum. Collins (1979) surveyed collegiate aural skills instructors to determine the amount of time spent in the teaching of sight singing. Of the professors surveyed, 84% professed to teaching sight singing for between one and two hours a week,
12% professed to between three and four hours and no teacher taught five or more hours of sight singing in a week of instructional time.
Surveys of teachers completed by Johnson (1987) and Daniels (1988) found similar results for the amount of rehearsal time committed to sight singing. The subjects for these studies included teachers from the North Central Region of the American
Choral Directors Association and the Southeast Region of the American Choral Directors
Association. Regardless of geographic region, teachers spent between five and eleven minutes of rehearsal time engaged in sight-singing instruction. May (1993) surveyed teachers from the state of Texas. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported teaching sight singing for more than 25 weeks of the school year, 80% reported teaching sight singing between four and five days a seek and 78% spent between six and fifteen minutes a day giving sight-singing instruction. Sight singing appears to be common within the
Texas choral music programs. Smith (1998) surveyed teachers in Florida and found that most teachers committed to including sight singing in their rehearsals approximately three times a week for between five and fifteen minutes. Demorest and May (2001) found that 31% of teachers report teaching sight singing at every rehearsal, 52% of teachers report teaching sight singing at nearly every rehearsal and the average amount of time spent sight singing during a rehearsal period was 9.4 minutes.
In a study of Kentucky choral ensembles, Bradley (2006) surveyed teachers of ensembles who had achieved desirable results (Superior or Excellent rating) in the sight- 33 singing portion of the Kentucky Music Educators Association large group contest. An average of 18% of rehearsal time was spent in sight-singing instruction, with 83% of teachers reporting that this instruction took place at the beginning of the rehearsal. These teachers also stated that teaching sight singing has led to better music literacy amongst their students when reading literature. Seventy-nine percent of the teachers surveyed teach sight singing year round as part of their choral curriculum.
Rather than relying on the accuracy of self-report among teachers, two researchers used real-time observations to report the sight-singing behaviors of practicing teachers.
The two studies had differing results. Szabo (1992) observed ten teachers, each for a week of rehearsal. During the observation period, no teacher utilized rehearsal time for music reading or sight-singing instruction. However, Brendell (1996) in observation of thirty-three Florida teachers, found that the largest percentage of time spent during the pre-literature rehearsal time was spent in the teaching of sight-singing.
Although most teachers agree that sight singing is an important component of the choral curriculum, quantitative studies show that adequate instructional time is not always allotted to ensure musical literacy. Teaching sight singing as an exercise at the beginning of class is not vitalizing the actual need for musical literacy. Sight-singing skills must be integrated into the choral rehearsal and utilized when teaching literature for performance (Demorest, 1998). If sight singing is taught in a meaningful way and within the context of the actual musical needs of the students, it becomes an effective part of the curriculum.
34 Individual Assessment
Studies concerning the effects of particular sight-singing systems have been mostly focused upon group achievement. Measurements of success have been taken at the group or ensemble level. Bennett (1984) has gone so far as to suggest that group achievement may be affected by the presence of a few or even one successful sight singer. A few or even just one good music reader may lead the group with other students following in close imitation. Studies suggest that in order to truly determine music reading or sight-singing skill development, individualized testing must take place.
In a study designed to determine the relationship between group and individual success, 101 students from six Missouri choirs were tested. Three of the choirs had achieved superior ratings (I) during the sight-singing portion of the Missouri Music
Educators Association contest, and three choirs had achieved excellent ratings (II) during the sight-singing portion of the MMEA contest. Two groups were formed based upon ratings earned. A random sample of students was taken and tested at an individual level from each of the six choirs. Scores for members of the “superior” (I) ensemble and the
“excellent” (II) ensemble showed no significant difference in individualized sight-singing proficiency (Nolker, 2006).
In another study contrasting group and individual sight singing achievement,
Demorest and Henry (1994) compared individual backgrounds and success to group success. Subjects were members of choral ensembles who had achieved reputations for successful sight singing. Subjects of groups had movable-do solfége and fixed-do solfége instruction backgrounds, had received varied length of instruction in sight
35 singing, had varying voice parts and choral ensemble participation. Members of groups who had achieved sight-singing success averaged approximately two-thirds accuracy when tested individually. Brittain (1998) also compared individual success and group success. She determined that a group might be largely successful with only a small number of successful individual sight-readers.
Individualized testing has not only been utilized as a descriptive measure of sight- singing success; it has also been used as a teaching strategy by a number of teachers. In a study of six Washington high schools, individual testing was used as a tool to develop sight-singing skill. The subjects had varying levels of experience and were members of a diverse population of choral ensembles. Schools were randomly divided into two groups.
All twelve ensembles involved in the study received group sight-singing instruction. The treatment group received three individualized assessments during the course of the semester in addition to group sight-singing instruction. It was determined that individual assessment and feedback resulted in the improvement of sight-singing performance
(Demorest, 1998).
Another study attempting to determine successful sight singing strategies also found that individualized assessment had an impact upon sight-singing proficiency.
Students were observed during an individual sight-singing assessment and then asked to fill out questionnaires relating information about their musical backgrounds.
Characteristics of high scorers included individual sight-singing tests given by the ensemble conductor of the participant (Henry & Killian, 2005). Finally, in a study attempting to determine the teaching strategies of successful conductors, Bradley (2006)
36 reported that 79% of teachers surveyed included individual assessment as part of their sight-singing instruction.
Although it has been determined that group success and individual success do not always share a significant relationship, and that individual assessment could be used as an instructional tool, many teachers do not make the time for the inclusion of instruction and assessment at an individual level. Only 39% of directors report doing formal evaluation of their students sight-singing proficiency. Evaluation procedures include individual assessment (53%), small group assessment (17%) and other (Demorest, 2001). A valuable evaluation tool, individual assessment may also lead to sight-singing proficiency and may also be related to student motivation and progress.
Contributing Factors
There have been numerous studies that have attempted to determine what factors may be predictors of sight-singing success. Music literacy within the choral curriculum has been found to be important, and the majority of studies in existence are concerned with the place of sight singing within the choral ensemble and the methods and systems utilized to teach it. However, another body of research exists in which factors outside specific instructional practices are related to sight-singing success at both a group and individual level.
In an early study in the investigation of musical achievement, Colwell (1963) examined the relationship between differing levels of ensemble participation and skill building. Students of all age levels were divided into groups that included: vocal 37 ensemble participation, instrumental ensemble participation, instrumental ensemble participation with piano experience and vocal ensemble participation with piano experience. Results suggested that a variety of musical experiences resulted in superior achievement. Instrumental ensemble participants scored higher than vocal ensemble participants, yet vocal ensemble participants who had received piano instruction were found to be superior to instrumental ensemble participants. However, members of instrumental ensembles who had also received piano instruction obtained the highest scores. This research indicates that piano training is the most related factor to the achievement of music literacy.
Tucker (1969) completed a study of junior high students’ music reading ability.
At the conclusion of their junior high ensemble experiences (or lack thereof), students’ aural skills, music reading and sight-singing abilities were tested. This study led to the creation of a hierarchy of experiences that lead to the development of sight-singing and music reading skills. These are ordered as follows: 1) a wide variety of instrumental and vocal experience with approximately six years of piano experience, 2) instrumental experience with approximately six years of piano experience, 3) vocal experience with approximately six years of piano experience, 4) instrumental experience only, 5) vocal experience only, 6) general music experience only and 7) no musical experience.
Another study led to similar results regarding ensemble experience. One hundred sixty-four students from a large, suburban junior high from the Midwest were tested at the fourth grade level. Following the pretest students entered band, choir, orchestra or a combination of ensembles. At the conclusion of their junior high experience a posttest was administered. There was a significant difference between students of instrumental 38 ensembles and choral students. Instrumental ensemble participants scored significantly higher than choral participants in the development of aural skills. Piano study was also determined to be a significant independent factor in the development of aural skills (May
& Elliot, 1980).
Daniels (1986) studied the relationships of selected factors to the sight-reading ability of high school mixed choirs. Twenty schools were tested to determine what musical and demographic characteristics correlated with music reading ability in the choral classroom. The best musical predictors of success included 1) the percentage of students with a piano in their home, 2) the only occasional use of rote teaching within the music classroom, 3) the percentage of all-state choir participants and 4) the percentage of instrumental students within the choral ensemble. Demographic characteristics that influenced sight-singing success included 1) the ethnic makeup of the school, 2) a rural setting, 3) a large high school population and 4) the attitude of the choral director towards sight-singing instruction.
A descriptive study of selected Ohio secondary choral ensembles showed musical characteristics shared by high proficiency ensembles. Six mixed-voice ensembles were randomly selected from Ohio and questioned about student population, program considerations and rehearsal strategies. Characteristics shared by the successful ensembles included 1) a significant number of private instrumental students, 2) a good junior high and elementary program with sequential learning processes, 3) varied performance music selection 4) less time on opening exercise and more time with literature, 5) more time spent on full group rehearsals rather than sectionals, 6) stronger preference for classical music, 7) less talk in rehearsals and 8) more focused on the score. 39 The best predictor of high-proficiency sight singing was the commitment and skill of the director towards the music reading process (Sunderland, 1994).
Henry and Demorest (1994) studied specific characteristics of individuals as they related to sight-singing success as a secondary objective to their comparison of group and individual success. Subjects were students of groups with successful sight singing reputation of both movable and fixed-do solfége backgrounds. Characteristics examined included the length of time in a choral ensemble, voice part, extra-curricular musical training and participation in choral ensembles outside the school curriculum. The only contributing factor toward individual successes was found to be private piano study.
In a related study, Demorest and May (1995) examined the factors related to individual performance. Choral students (n=414) from four different high schools were tested. Students came from a variety of backgrounds, musical and demographic, and the schools utilized both movable and fixed-do solfége. In contrast to previous findings, the strongest predictor of individual success was the number of years of school choral experience. Other strong predictors included the number of years of piano instruction, the number of years of instrumental lessons and the number of years of private voice lessons, respectively. Instrumental experience, when considered in tandem with other variables, was also a strong predictor of success. Finally, the consistency of the teaching method throughout grade and school level may have resulted in higher degrees of success.
Factors related to musical participation were also considered when examining the preparation and performance strategies of successful and unsuccessful sight singers.
Characteristics appearing among high scorers included 1) participation in regional or 40 state honor choirs, 2) private voice or piano lessons, 3) private study of an instrument, 4) membership in an instrumental ensemble and 5) the instructional strategies of the teacher regarding individualized assessment (Henry & Killian, 2005).
Most studies concerned with characteristics of successful sight singers have determined that various musical experiences, especially instrumental experiences, play a definitive role in sight singing and music reading skill. Armstrong (2001) suggests several reasons for the increased sight singing skill of instrumentalists, and the inverse lack of skill found in vocalists who do not play an instrument. His first argument presents a familiar idea. “Through manipulation of a key, the instrumentalist makes an immediate connection between notes on a page, the sound of pitch and the movement of intervals…singers have no key to manipulate.” In support of multiple music experiences
Armstrong argues that “by applying knowledge gained from their instrumental experiences, singers who have had an instrumental background can often provide a level of self-assessment that enhances their sight-reading abilities” (p. 23).
Tonal Context and Other Related Skills
Several studies have attempted to determine the best context and skill-building sequence for sight-singing success. In one such experiment, college students were studied to determine whether sight singing tonal melodies within two contexts affected sight-singing ability. Thirty undergraduate students from three levels of musical training were tested. The two contexts 1) with harmonic accompaniment and 2) without harmonic accompaniment, had a significant effect upon sight-singing success. The assumption for 41 the success of sight singing within a harmonic context is that melodic expectations are a reflection of previous experience with music based upon a tonal harmonic framework.
Furthermore, “sight singing in a tonal harmonic context is more akin to the tasks choral students encounter in a choral setting that unaccompanied sight singing” (Boyle & Lucas,
1990).
Another study suggests that instruction in the skill of error detection may be useful to sight-singing skill building. Brittain (1998) found that error detection was an excellent first step in the teaching of sight singing. This study also indicated that harmonic accompaniment could be a contributing factor to sight-singing success, although results determined that harmonic accompaniment was helpful only for more advanced singers. Finally, Brittain found that group success is nearly always related to a positive attitude of the teacher about sight singing and daily drills. Sheldon (1998) also found a relation between error detection ability and sight singing ability. Aural skills training may have an effect upon error detection of pitch and rhythm in exercises of multiple parts, a skill necessary for successful sight singing.
Targeted pitch skills including scalar, cadential and chordal tasks were examined as possible instructional tools for use in the choral rehearsal. High school students were instructed in fifteen pitch skills emphasizing scale degree and harmonic function. These pitch skills were utilized in two different ways, integrated into specifically targeted melodies or familiar melodies requiring the same skills. The skills were then taught to subjects within a choral rehearsal. All participants scored higher on the posttest than the pretest. There was no significant difference between the treatments, but results suggest
42 that targeting specific pitch skills in both familiar and unfamiliar melodies shows promise as an effective tool for sight-singing instruction (Henry, 2004).
Henry and Killian (2005) examined the relationship of practice and strategy with individual sight singing success. High school singers individually sang two melodies from notation, with and without a thirty second practice opportunity. Overall, accuracy scores were significantly higher with practice time, suggesting that error detection and familiarity with a melody may help increase sight-singing success. Analysis of video recordings indicated that high scorers tonicized prior to melodic reading, used hand signs, sang out loud during practice, physically kept the beat and finished the melody more frequently than low scorers. High scorers also used these behaviors during the final performance of the melody. This study suggests that specific strategies related a tonal and rhythmic framework in preparation of a melody correlate to sight-singing success.
Furby (2005) examined the relationship between written music theory instruction and sight-singing ability. Forty high school students from a large school in the Midwest were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups received traditional sight-singing instruction, and the treatment group received additional instruction in the form of written music theory. The treatment group studied the tonic, dominant and subdominant chords and the use of these chords in an accompanying situation. The treatment group also received instruction in tone tendency and the typical resolution of the pitches of the dominant chord to tonic chord tones. Although there was no significant difference between groups, both groups scored significantly higher on the posttest than the pretest.
This study suggests that a systematic program of instruction will lead to improvement in sight singing. 43 In a study examining the validity of self-report middle school students were examined in their prediction of success and assessment of sight-singing tasks. Results were then compared to the evaluation of independent judges. Students were found to be reasonably accurate at predicting their success of performance. They were found to be more accurate in the evaluation process of their performance. Older students and students who participated in a musical ensemble were generally more able to predict and assess their sight-singing performances. Self-assessment was determined to have a strong correlation with sight-singing success (Darrow, 2005).
Berry, Fine and Rosner (2006) examined the effect of pattern recognition and tonal predictability on sight-singing ability. Twenty-two experienced singers sang their part twice in each of four novel chorales. The chorales contained original or altered melody and tonal or atonal harmony. Results showed that alterations from the original
(tonal) in both melody and harmony increased pitching errors. These results indicate that pattern recognition and harmonic predication are integral to sight-singing success. In the second reading of the melody, singers made fewer errors, showing that familiarity is also related to sight-singing success.
“Sight reading is characterized by high demands on the performer’s capacity to process complex visual [input] under real-time constraints” (Kopiez, Lee, Ligges, and
Weihs, 2006). In a study that characterized high and low achievers of sight reading, the authors determined several musical and non-musical skills that related to sight reading success. These included 1) aural imagery, or the ability to internalize aural skills, 2) various sight-reading experiences, 3) quantity of sight reading experiences, 4) style of
44 thinking and 5) speed of information intake. An acquired expertise through varied and extensive sight-reading practice is an important variable in sight singing success.
Conclusion
Since the beginning of vocal music history, music literacy has been a major educational issue. Teaching music reading and sight singing has been the subject of much educational ideology and debate. Many systems have been developed to aid sight- singing instruction and music reading skill. Studies have verified the importance of teaching sight singing and the systems utilized with the most popularity. Studies have also attempted to determine the efficacy of particular sight-singing systems with no definitive answer to that important question. Finally, current trends in research have led to the analysis of the individual sight-singer, the characteristics of individuals and the effects of different instructional strategies on individual sight-singing success. This study will attempt to determine the characteristics of the individuals who have self- selected to continue their musical experiences into their collegiate education. It will also attempt to determine what musical experience, instructional background and personal behavior is described or exhibited by these subjects while sight reading a melody.
Finally, this study will attempt to discover described and observed characteristics that predict sight-singing success.
45 CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Purpose
The purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to describe the demographic and musical characteristics of choral students entering their first year of undergraduate education. The following questions were answered by descriptive data observed visually and gleaned from questionnaire responses.
1. What are the demographic characteristics of entry-level college choral
musicians?
2. What is the musical background of entry-level college choral musicians?
3. What is the sight-singing background of entry-level college choral musicians?
4. What behaviors are exhibited during sight-singing preparation as observed in
entry-level college choral musicians?
In addition to descriptive data, this study attempted to determine if any of the observed or reported behaviors were correlated with successful sight singing. Tests were conducted to answer the following question.
46 1. Are there demographic characteristics, musical background characteristics or
behaviors that are predictors of sight-singing success?
At some point, the question must be asked, are teachers adequately preparing their students for entry into the university setting? This research will attempt to determine what students are being taught in a secondary school setting and how that preparation influences future success at the university level.
Design
Questionnaire response and videotape observation were used to determine data for the project Process and Product: The Sight-Singing Backgrounds and Behaviors of First
Year Undergraduate Students. This data collection method was selected in order to allow the backgrounds and habits developed by students prior to testing to be analyzed for trends. It also allowed individual backgrounds to be compared to sight-singing success as determined by independent evaluators. Subjects were recruited during choral ensemble auditions prior to the first week of classes at the university. Subjects were tested prior to any instruction at the university level. This design allowed subjects to report and practice techniques learned prior to beginning a musical career at the university level.
Subjects
Subjects for this study (N=40) were limited to first year undergraduate students auditioning for a choral ensemble at a large university in the Midwest. This population 47 consisted of students of varying backgrounds, musical experiences, and sight-singing experience. By their decision to audition for a choral ensemble, subjects demonstrated a desire to continue their musical experiences into adulthood.
Students were recruited after their initial choral ensemble audition by the choral directors and graduate teaching assistants and given the choice to participate in the study.
A letter describing the study and the potential benefits to the field of music education by the researcher was given to each student at the conclusion of his or her choral audition
(See Appendix A). Students self-selected to participate in the study and were shown to another room to complete the study.
Consents for videotaping and audio recording evaluation were obtained, as well as consent for the use of any written information obtained. Consent for the use of publicly available information, including educational major and ensemble assignment was also obtained. Students were informed that their participation was voluntary, they were free to leave the study at any time and that there would be no extrinsic reward for their participation. Students were also informed that this study would have no impact upon their choral audition and that members of the faculty and choral staff would not be informed of their participation in the study (See Appendix B). In order to maintain confidentiality and anonymity, students were assigned a number that was used to match video observations, audiotape evaluations and questionnaire responses.
48 Procedure
After students were recruited and informed consent had been obtained, students entered a room set up for the study. The room contained a video camera, digital audio taping device, music stand with musical example, a pencil, and an Orff style metallophone and mallets. Students were shown into the room and given the following instructions.
1. On the stand you will see a musical example that you will sight sing. It is
written in the key of F major and contains eight measures of four/four or
common time.
2. You will have up to ten minutes to practice the example. During that time you
may do anything you wish to prepare the example. You may make any
amount of noise or use any of the tools in this room to assist you.
3. To your right you will see an instrument similar to a xylophone. I have
removed all the notes other than F. You may use this instrument to play your
starting pitch as often as you like.
4. If you finish your preparation and are ready to move on to the final
performance of the melody prior to the ten-minute time limit, please knock on
the door and I will enter and turn on the audio taping device.
5. At the conclusion of the ten-minute time limit, I will knock on the door and
instruct you to move on to the final performance. At that time I will turn on
the audio taping device.
49 6. I will be video taping your preparation and performance. I will turn on the
video camera and leave the room. Please use the screen attached to the video
camera to be sure you can be seen. Your time will start when I have exited
the room.
7. Do you have any questions or are you ready to begin?
At the conclusion of the scripted directions, subjects were allowed to ask questions regarding the procedure and the example. When subjects felt comfortable and ready to begin, the video camera was turned on and the researcher left the student alone in the room. Subjects were given as much as ten minutes preparation time and then asked to give a final performance of the melody.
After the final performance of the melody, subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding their backgrounds, both demographic and musical (See Appendix
C). Subjects were supplied with the questionnaire and asked to be as thorough as possible when answering the questions on the sheet. At the conclusion of the process, subjects were thanked for their participation and asked if they would like to receive a summary of the results obtained.
Characteristics
The characteristics for which data were collected were grouped into two categories. These categories included observed characteristics and reported characteristics. Observed characteristics were any behaviors noted through video taped 50 observations. After a careful review of the literature, the following variables were defined in the observed characteristic group:
1. Starting Pitch: a counted behavior noting the number of times the subject played
the starting pitch on the metallophone provided.
2. Error Detection: a counted behavior noting the number of times the subject noted
an error while preparing the sight singing selection. The behaviors included but
were not limited to: physical response (wincing, shaking the head), cessation of
singing and returning to error and correcting.
3. Start Again: a counted behavior noting the number of times the subject returned to
the beginning of the musical example.
4. Tonicize Key: a timed behavior noting the amount of time the subject spent
singing either scalar or chordal examples in the tonic key. This behavior could
have been used to establish tonality and train the ear toward the correct tonic
pitch, to fix errors, or to find a specific pitch within the example.
5. Singing: a timed behavior noting the amount of time the subject spent singing
aloud the example or any other singing completed. Also includes any behavior
noting the amount of time the subject spent singing sotto voce, humming or
whistling.
6. Silent Study: a timed behavior noting the amount of time the subject spent silently
studying the musical example.
7. Chant: a timed behavior noting the amount of time the subject spent chanting
either rhythm or pitch syllable systems.
51 8. Writing: a timed behavior noting the amount of time the subject spent writing on
the musical example. Observation of several musical examples with writing
determined that students were writing in solfége syllables, numbers or rhythm
syllables as memory devices and/or visual cues.
9. External Beat: a timed behavior noting the amount of time the subject spent
keeping an audible or visually observable external beat. This could include but is
not limited to clapping, snapping of fingers, tapping of the stand or tapping of the
feet.
Data were obtained on observed characteristics by visual observation of the sight-singing preparation of each subject.
A review of the literature also led to the creation of the questionnaire that yielded the reported characteristics (See Appendix C). The following defined criteria were reported and utilized to determine the generaliziblity of the sample to the population.
1. Major: collegiate undergraduate major
2. Choir: ensemble to which assigned after choral audition
3. State: United States state of high school attendance
4. Age: age at time of study completion
5. Gender: male or female
The following characteristics were reported and utilized to describe the characteristics of first-year undergraduate students auditioning for a choral ensemble and to determine the relationship between those characteristics to evaluated sight-singing success.
52 1. Number of years within a high school choral ensemble and type of ensemble
in which the subject participated including a gender specific choir, a mixed
gender ensemble, a show choir, an honor choir and a community chorus.
2. Number of years within a middle school choral ensemble and type of
ensemble in which the subject participated including a gender specific choir, a
mixed gender ensemble, an honor choir and a community chorus.
3. Number of years of elementary school music participation and type of
elementary music study including general music and choir.
4. Number of years of private voice study.
5. Number of years of instrumental ensemble participation and type of ensemble
in which the subject participated including band and/or orchestra.
6. Number of years of private instrumental study and what type of instrument
was studied by the subject.
7. Whether or not the subject had received sight-singing instruction.
8. Whether or not the subject had been instructed in a specific system of sight
singing.
9. What system was utilized to inform sight-singing instruction including fixed-
do solfége, movable-do solfége, numbers, intervals, neutral syllable, letter
names and other.
10. The grade level during which a specific sight-singing system was utilized by
the subject including: elementary, middle and high school levels in either
choral ensembles or private voice lessons.
53 11. Whether or not students had received specific instruction of strategies to use
in the preparation of a sight-singing example.
Data were obtained from the questionnaire responses and coded by the researcher for statistical use.
Musical Example
An original musical example was developed for the purposes of this study (See
Appendix D). It was written in common time and in the key of F major. Interval content included: ascending minor seconds (2), ascending major seconds (4), ascending minor thirds (2), ascending major thirds (1), ascending perfect fourths (2) ascending perfect fifths(1), descending minor seconds (3), descending major seconds (6), descending minor thirds (4), descending major thirds (1), and descending perfect fourths (1). Rhythmic content included half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes and dotted quarter notes. The range of the piece was a minor seventh from E one half step below tonic to D one major sixth above tonic. The melody was intended to be singable for all students, with the challenges related to intervallic pitch discrimination rather than difficulty with rhythm or with range. The melody was evaluated by three independent experts (a college instructor, a high school choral director and a choral music graduate student) for validity and found to be of appropriate length and difficulty for first year undergraduate students.
54 Audio Evaluation
Two independent judges evaluated audio recordings of each subject to determine sight-singing success. Both judges were graduate students in the field of composition and music theory. These experts had varied experiences teaching aural skills and perceptions for the undergraduate student and a large amount of experience in evaluating undergraduate sight-singing skill.
The researcher created an evaluation form in order to facilitate assessment (See
Appendix E). Subjects were evaluated at two levels: rhythmic and melodic. Rhythmic accuracy was determined on a measure-by-measure basis. A total of eight points could be earned by singing the rhythm correctly for each measure. Melodic accuracy was determined on an intervallic basis. A total of twenty-seven points could be earned by singing each interval correctly. Rather than determining the number of correctly sung pitches within the context of the correct tonality, evaluators judged the number of correctly sung intervals. By judging intervallic relationships, one error did not lead to multiple incorrect responses within the melody, as would have been determined by evaluating correctly sung pitch levels.
Each evaluator received copies of the evaluation form along with instructions for its use. Directions included:
1. Listen to the example one time through without marking. 2. Listen to the example a second time and circle the numbers of intervals sung incorrectly. a. Incorrectly is defined as singing the wrong pitch. Notes sung poorly or with bad intonation but at the correct pitch should still be counted as correct. 55 b. If an interval is sung correctly at the wrong pitch level; it should be counted as correct. 3. Listen to the tape a third time and put an X over any measure sung with incorrect rhythms. 4. For coding purposes, in the corresponding sections “pitch” and “rhythm” put an X in the blanks of incorrectly sung pitches and rhythms.
Each evaluator received a compact disc with all forty audio taped assessments of each subject. Subjects were coded with a number for anonymity and evaluators were instructed to evaluate each student according to the directions included. Verbal instruction to evaluators reminded them trust their own aural judgment as to the correct nature of the interval sung. Judges were also informed that errors associated with a particular syllable system should not be considered incorrect intervallic singing.
Inter-judge reliability was calculated for the aural observations. The number of adjudicated agreements and disagreements were counted for each subject on an interval- to-intervals basis to calculate reliability for intervallic accuracy. Inter-judge intervallic reliability was found at a level of .95 with a range of .89 to 1.00. The number of agreements and disagreements were also counted for each subject on a measure-to- measure basis to calculate reliability for rhythmic accuracy. Inter-judge rhythmic reliability was found at a level of .94 with a range of .63 to 1.00.
Observations
Visual observations were undertaken through the use of Scribe observational software developed by Dr. Robert Duke at the University of Texas (Duke, 2000). This software allowed observers to make real time observations of video taped sight-singing
56 preparation. The software was used to calculate the amount of time spent in specific behaviors as well as the number of times a behavior was attempted. Each of the observed characteristics listed and defined above was entered into the software as a behavior for which to observe. Counted behaviors included starting pitch, starting again and error detection. Timed behaviors included singing, external beat keeping, tonicizing, chanting, writing and silent study. Video recordings were watched three times, allowing for observation and recording of multiple behaviors that occurred simultaneously. The first playback was observed for singing, writing and silent study. The second playback was observed for tonicizing and chanting. The final playback observed all three counted behaviors, starting pitch, starting again and error detection. Also included in the final observation was external beat keeping, which could be kept going throughout all of the previous timed behaviors.
The researcher completed all observations. An independent evaluator, a choral music education doctoral student, completed eight observations (20%) to test for interobserver agreement. Results for reliability were calculated by finding the percentage of matched responses.
In general, interobserver agreement was satisfactory. Eighty-seven point seven percent agreement was found for number of times starting pitch was played. Ninety- three point three percent agreement for error detection was determined. Ninety-seven point three percent agreement for starting again was found. Calculating the number of seconds each behavior was attempted and determining the number of seconds in agreement determined percentages for timed behaviors. The timed behaviors, chanting, writing and external beat keeping received consistent reliability scores of 88.2%, 83.3% 57 and 85.5% respectively. All audible singing behaviors were combined and a reliability of
90.7% was found. Silent study had a fairly low reliability score of 76.3%. However, this may be due to the fact that what one observer described as silent study, another observer marked merely as a break in singing behaviors. Also, the low frequency of silent study within the selected observations led to an issue where the method of determining interobserver agreement was prone to under-represent the actual degree of consistency.
Most observations in silent study were within eight to ten seconds of each other. High percentages of agreement on more frequent behaviors, as well as the similarity of real time observation data in low frequency behaviors, support the consistency of the observation procedure amongst independent observers.
58 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
The subjects comprised forty first-year undergraduate students who auditioned for a choral ensemble at a large Midwestern university. Questionnaire response yielded descriptive data for the sample population. Data were analyzed for thirty-nine students after one subject was eliminated due to observation error. The sample consisted of seventeen men and twenty-two women, four of whom were intended music majors. The students were between the ages of seventeen and twenty-three, and thirty-five students had graduated from high schools in the state of college attendance. At the conclusion of the choral audition eleven students were placed in the mixed choirs (University Chorus and Mastersingers) and twenty-eight students were placed in the more advanced Men’s and Women’s Glee Clubs.
These demographic characteristics were compared to the entire body of auditioning singers to determine differences between the sample and the population.
Population data were determined by examining anonymous audition sheets provided by the university choral directors. The population of auditionees comprised ninety-eight students, forty-one males and fifty-eight females; seventeen were intended music majors. 59 The students were between the ages of seventeen and twenty-three, and eighty-four students had graduated from high schools in the state of college attendacne. At the conclusion of the choral audition, thirty-nine students were placed in the mixed choirs and fifty-nine were placed in the more advanced Men’s or Women’s Glee Clubs. A 2 X
2 chi square analysis showed that a similar proportion of students were placed in each of the choirs for both the sample of forty students and the total population of 58 auditionees who did not participate in the study. Results suggested that the sample was representative of the population of first-year choir auditionees (x2=3.632 , df=1, n.s.).
Student Background: Questionnaire Data
Descriptive data from questionnaire responses for the sample population revealed characteristics of vocal musical background of undergraduate choral singers at the university level. Years of high school participation showed an average participation of
3.36 years (M=3.36, S.D.=1.16). Most students (78.1%) who were questioned had participated in choir for the maximum four years, while only one student did not participate in a high school choral ensemble. Students participated in a variety of choral ensembles including mixed-gender choirs (n=37, 87%), gender specific choirs (n=15,
38%), show choirs (n=9, 23%), honor choirs (n=9, 23%) and church and community choirs (n=8, 21%). Years of middle school participation revealed an average participation of 1.92 years (M=1.92, S.D.=1.29). Approximately 53% of the sample participated for three years, while 23.1% did not participate in a middle school music program. Students participated in mixed-gender choirs (n=23, 59%), general music 60 classes (n=5, 13%) and church and community choirs (n=2, 5%). Fifteen students participated in private voice lessons (38.5%) for an average of one year (M=1.00, S.D.=
1.66).
Descriptive data from questionnaire responses for the sample population revealed the instrumental music backgrounds of choral singers at the university level. Seventeen subjects (43.5%) reported participation in an instrumental ensemble in their background.
Students reported participating in band, (n=11, 28%) orchestra (n=5, 13%) or both (n=2,
5%). Students spent an average of 2.90 years participating in an instrumental ensemble
(M=2.90, S.D.=3.58 ). One student spent twelve years participating in an orchestra while the largest percentage of those participating underwent six years of instrumental ensemble participation (n=7, 18%). Eighteen students had received private instrumental instruction (46%) with average participation of 3.49 years (M=3.49, S.D.=4.95).
Survey responses also yielded data regarding subjects’ backgrounds in the field of sight-singing instruction. Thirty-four students received sight-singing instruction (84.6%) at some point in their backgrounds. Of the thirty-four students responding with an affirmative answer, thirty students (77%) received instruction in high school, five (13%) received instruction in middle school, five (13%) received instruction in private voice lessons and one (2.6%) received instruction in the “other” category. Four students said they had received sight-singing instruction but did not indicate when or where they received the instruction.
Thirty students (77%) responded that they had been instructed in a specific system of sight singing. These methods included movable-do solfége (n=24, 62%), fixed-do solfége (n=4, 10%), numbers (n=5, 13%), letter names (n=3, 8%), intervals (n=12, 31%) 61 and neutral syllables (n=6, 15%). Fifteen students (38%) responded that they had received instruction in multiple systems of music reading and sight singing. Finally, twenty-three students (59%) responded that they had received instruction regarding specific strategies to prepare for sight singing.
In summary, all students had received some musical instruction prior to their audition for a college level choral ensemble. Nearly all students had participated in choral ensembles at both the high school and middle school levels. These students participated in a wide variety of ensembles and general music instruction. Many students had also participated in instrumental ensembles, a few for many years. Several students had received private instruction, vocal or instrumental, and some students had received private instruction on multiple instruments. Many students had also received some form of sight-singing instruction, most using movable tonic solfége or number systems. Only a few of these students had not received instruction in specific preparatory strategies for individual sight singing.
Observation of Sight Singing Preparation
Observational data were obtained through analysis of video recordings of the sight-singing preparation of the sample population. The mean time of sight-singing preparation was six minutes, thirty-two seconds (M=6:32, S.D.=2:37) ranging from 49 seconds to the maximum allowed time of ten minutes.
Counted behaviors included playing the starting pitch, starting again and error detection. The mean count of starting pitch was 10.21 occurrences (S.D.=10.99), with a 62 range of one to fifty-two. There was a similar number of occasions when students started again (M=10.79, S.D.=8.38), with a range of zero to thirty-one. The mean count of error detection was 9.54 occurrences (S.D.=7.32), with a range of zero to twenty-nine.
Timed behaviors included tonicizing, singing, silent study, chanting, writing and external beat keeping. Table 3.1 shows the number of students who engaged in each behavior, the minimum and maximum amount of time in seconds of each behavior and the mean time and standard deviation of each behavior in seconds.
Timed Behavior N Minimum Maximum Mean in Standard Seconds Deviation Tonicize 28 0 121 25.13 30.53 Singing 39 0 595 320.23 152.26 Silent Study 24 0 299 30.51 56.28 Chant 9 0 61 7.26 16.35 Writing 14 0 158 26.38 42.97 External Beat 21 0 197 25.62 45.17
Table 4.1 Means and Standard Deviations for Timed Behaviors of Sample
It is apparent that as a group, students spent most of their preparation time singing, and while most students participated in other behaviors during their preparation, none approached the amount of time spent in audible singing. Many students also tonicized, used silent study and kept an external beat, but generally with much less frequency than singing. Only a few students wrote or chanted for very small amounts of time during the sight-singing preparation.
63 Sight-Singing Outcomes
For this analysis Ordinary Least Squares Regression (OLS) was used in order to test hypotheses while controlling for relevant covariance. In other words, this analysis attempted to determine predictors of sight-singing success while bearing in mind that other variables might also affect the success of the students. 1 Linear regression analysis was completed for the combination of reported variables years of high school choral participation, years of middle school choral participation, years of private vocal instruction, years of instrumental ensemble participation, and years of private instrumental instruction. Linear regression analysis was also completed for the combination of observed variables starting pitch, starting again, error detection, writing, silent study, singing, chanting, tonicizing, external beat keeping and time.
Reported variables related to musical background were found to be a significant predictor of success on sight-singing adjudication accounting for 28% of the variance
(adj.R2= .278). In particular, years of high school choral participation (p=.015) and years of instrumental ensemble participation (p= .024) were significant predictors of sight-singing success. Other areas contributed to the model but were not themselves significant predictors. Analysis of standardized regression coefficients showed years of
1 Regression diagnostics showed that the variables are normally distributed and that error terms were distributed randomly. There was no evidence of heteroskedasticity as observed by histograms of residuals. 64 high school choral participation to be the strongest predictor of sight-singing success
(β=.418)2.
Variable Standardized t Significance Collinearity Coefficient VIF Years of High School Choir .418 2.574 .015 1.39 Years of Middle School Choir .238 1.427 .163 1.46 Private Voice Instruction .257 1.756 .088 1.13 Years of Instrumental Ensemble .364 2.373 .024 1.24 Private Instrumental Instruction .262 1.774 .085 1.15
Table 4.2 Linear Regression of Reported Independent Variables
Observed variables found during video recording observation were found to be a significant predictor of success on sight-singing adjudication accounting for 18% of the variance (adj. R2= .183). No one behavior, however, was determined to be a significant predictor of sight-singing success with a 95% confidence interval. The behaviors error detection (p= .085, β=.477) and singing (p=.176, β=.533) contributed to the model but were not found to be significant predictors of sight-singing success. 3
2 Analysis of Pearson correlation for reported independent variables determined there was no multicollinearity found and these results were confirmed by Variance Inflation Factors that were below 2.50 (Allison, 1999). 3 Analysis of Pearson correlation for observed independent variables determined multicollinearity between the variables time and singing, and the variable time was removed from the linear regression matrix. 65 Variable Standardized t Significance Collinearity Coefficient VIF Singing -.553 -1.386 .176 7.404 External -.059 -.230 .820 3.106 Writing .022 .138 .891 1.177 Chant .211 .854 .400 2.849 Silent Study -.120 -.762 .452 1.153 Tonicize -.127 -.692 .494 1.575 Starting Pitch .009 .046 .964 1.808 Error Detection .477 1.781 .085 3.331 Start Again -.125 -.503 .619 2.868
Table 4.3 Linear Regression of Observed Independent Variables
Independent t-tests also showed a significant difference between groups on the dependent variable score comparing students who had received sight-singing instruction
and those who had not received sight-singing instruction (t(37)=3.248, p=.002). Of course, students who had received sight-singing instruction earned higher scores than those who had not. Students who had not received sight-singing instruction were removed from the model and independent t-tests comparing sight-singing scores of the students who had been instructed using a specific sight-singing system and the students who had not received that instruction were completed. Surprisingly, those students who received instruction in particular systems of sight-singing were not significantly different than
those who utilized no specific system (t(37)=.654, p=.518). However, results showed a significant difference between students who were instructed regarding specific preparatory strategies for sight-singing and those who did not receive that instruction.
(t(32)=3.272, p=.003), with those receiving instruction outperforming other students.
66 High and Low Scorers
In order to take a closer look at the behaviors of successful sight-singers, participating students were divided into quartiles based on their sight-singing score.
Ten students were in the upper quartile (high scorers) and ten scorers were in the lowest quartile (low scorers).
High Scorer Data
Students in the upper quartile were two music majors, five males and five females, all of whom were eighteen or nineteen years old. Nine of the ten high scorers were placed in the second level of choral ensemble, Men’s and Women’s Glee Clubs.
Data revealed the average number of years of high school choral ensemble participation to be 3.90 (M=3.90, S.D.= .316). Only one student did not participate in all four years of high school chorus, but did participate for three years. The average number of years of middle school participation was 2.30 (M=2.30, S.D.= 1.160) with three students completing the maximum three years of choral ensemble participation. Only one member of the high scorers had participated in private voice lessons, for a total of two years (M=.20, S.D.= .632). Five students had participated in an instrumental ensemble for an average of 3.50 years (M=3.50, S.D.= 3.808). Finally, seven students had taken private instrumental lessons averaging 4.90 years of instruction (M=4.90, S.D.= 5.021).
Data were also analyzed regarding subject background in sight-singing instruction. All ten of the high scorers reported receiving sight-singing instruction and 67 90% reported the use of a specific sight-singing system. Analysis of these singers showed that 70% utilized mixed-do solfege, 40% utilized intervallic drill, 10% utilized movable numbers and 10% utilized letter names. Forty percent reported receiving instruction in multiple systems of sight-singing instruction with 30% reporting instruction in both movable-do solfege and intervallic drill. Every high scorer reported being taught specific strategies to prepare a sight-singing example.
The average preparation time for the high scorers was four minutes five seconds ranging from forty nine seconds to eight minutes thirteen seconds (M=4:05, S.D.=2:07).
During video observations, high scorers averaged playing the starting pitch 4.80 times
(M=4.80, S.D.= 3.615), none more than twelve times and students from this group observed an average of 5.50 error detections (M=5.50, S.D.=4.116) also with a maximum of twelve occurrences. High scorers started again an average of 4.60 times (M=4.60,
S.D.= 3.748) ranging from one to fourteen occurrences. Timed behaviors included tonicizing, singing, silent study, chanting, writing and external beat keeping. Table 4.4 shows the distribution of timed behaviors for the high scorers.
Timed Behavior N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation Tonicize 7 0 48 8.20 14.54 Singing 10 24 365 184.80 108.51 Silent Study 5 0 105 19.10 33.30 Chant 4 0 51 12.60 19.51 Writing 5 0 105 29.10 35.48 External Beat 8 0 197 40.20 57.74
Table 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations for Timed Behaviors of High Scorers
68 Low Scorer Data
Scorers from the lower quartile consisted of no music majors, five males and five females, all of whom were eighteen or nineteen years old. Five of the low scorers were placed in the second level of choral ensemble, Men’s and Women’s Glee Clubs and five of the low scorers were placed in the preparatory level of choral ensemble, University
Chorus or Mastersingers. Data revealed the average number of years of high school choral ensemble participation to be 2.60 (M=2.60, S.D.= 1.647). One student did not participate in high school chorus, and five did participate the maximum number of four years. The average number of years of middle school participation was 1.20 (M=1.20,
S.D.=1.317) with three students completing the maximum three years of choral ensemble participation. Only one member of the low scorers had participated in private voice lessons, for a total of two years (M=.20, S.D.=.632). Three students had participated in an instrumental ensemble for an average of 2.70 years (M=2.70, S.D.= 3.523). Finally, three students had taken private instrumental lessons averaging 3.00 years of instruction
(M=3.00, S.D.= 4.853).
Data were also analyzed regarding subject background in sight singing instruction. Only six of the low scorers reported receiving sight singing instruction and
50% reported the use of a specific sight-singing system. 40% utilized mixed-do solfege,
20% utilized intervallic drill, 10% utilized neutral syllables and 10% utilized letter names. Thirty percent reported receiving instruction in multiple systems of sight-singing instruction with 30% reporting instruction in both movable-do solfege and another
69 system. Not surprisingly, only one low scorer reported being taught specific strategies to prepare a sight-singing example.
The average preparation time for the low scorers was six minutes fifty-six seconds with a minimum of one minute twenty-four seconds and a maximum of ten minutes
(M=6:56, S.D.= 2:40). During video observations low scorers averaged playing the starting pitch 13.40 times (M=13.40, S.D.=16.345) ranging from one minute twenty four seconds to the maximum allowed time of ten minutes. Students from this group observed an average of 5.70 error detections (M=5.70, S.D.=3.917) yet started the example from the beginning an average of 16.00 times (M=16.00 S.D.= 11.421). One student restarted the example thirty-one times. Students were observed during their sight-singing preparation for a variety of timed behaviors related to sight singing (see
Table 4.5).
Timed Behavior N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation Tonicize 7 0 78 28.10 33.30 Singing 10 80 595 358.10 150.70 Silent Study 5 0 160 34.40 51.37 Chant 4 0 9 .90 2.85 Writing 5 0 158 15.80 49.96 External Beat 8 0 44 7.00 14.18
Table 4.5 Means and Standard Deviations for Timed Behaviors of Low Scorers
70 Comparison of Groups
Descriptive data revealed that high scorers had participated in choir, instrumental ensembles and private instrumental lessons for more years than low scorers at both the middle and high school levels. More high than low scorers had received sight-singing instruction, been instructed in a specific system of sight singing and received instruction regarding specific strategies for use in preparation for sight-singing performance (See
Table 4.6).
Observation data revealed that high scorers spent less time in the preparation process and exhibited different behaviors when preparing for sight singing. High scorers played the starting pitch less often than low scorers. They were just as likely to notice an error as low scorers, yet did not respond to error detection by starting again as often as low scorers. High scorers spent less time singing and tonicizing than low scorers during the preparation time. However, they spent more time chanting, writing and keeping an external beat than low scorers.
71 High Scorers Low Scorers
Total Sight-Singing Score* Mean 34.90 13.10 Standard Deviation .32 2.35
* t(18) = 29.02, p = .000
Prior Musical Experience— Mean Number of Years H.S. choir 3.9 2.6 M.S. choir 2.3 1.2 Voice Lessons .2 .2 Instrumental Ensemble 3.5 2.7 Instrumental Lessons 4.9 3.0
Sight-Singing Instruction Number of Affirmative Responses Received Sight -Singing Instruction 10 6 System Utilized 9 5 Preparatory Strategies Learned 10 1
Sight-Singing Behaviors— Mean Number of Occurrences Starting Pitch 4.8 13.4 Starting Again 4.6 16.0 Error Detection 5.5 5.7
Sight-Singing Behaviors— Mean Time in Minutes:Seconds Total Time Spent 4:06 6:56 Tonicizing :08 :28 Singing 3:05 5:58 Silent Study :19 :34 Chanting :13 < :01 Writing :29 :16 External Beat Keeping :40 :07
Table 4.6 Descriptive Data for Top and Bottom Scorers on Sight-Singing Test
72 Selected t-tests were performed to compare high and low scorers on variables that the regression analysis showed to be good predictors of successful sight singing. The selected background variables were years of high school choral participation, years of middle school choral participation, private voice instruction, years of instrumental ensemble participation and private instrumental instruction. High and low scorers were also compared on the observed characteristics time, singing and starting again. A significant difference was found between high and low scorers for only one reported
characteristic, years of high school choral participation (t(18)=2.452, p=.025). High scorers participated in high school choir for longer periods of time than low scores.
There were significant differences between high and low scorers on the observed
behaviors time (t(18)=2.639, p=.017), singing (t(18)=2.951,p=.009) and starting again
(t(18)=2.99, p=.008). Low scorers completed all of these significantly related behaviors more often, and for longer periods of time than high scorers.
Summary
What was clear from the data obtained is that all students who participated in the study had received some musical instruction during their secondary school education, most often in a choral ensemble setting. Students auditioning for a choral ensemble at the university level had participated in choral ensembles for a large percentage of their high school years and their junior high school years. Many of these students had also participated in instrumental ensembles. Approximately forty percent of singers auditioning had participated in an instrumental ensemble for the majority of their high 73 school years, and some students had participated in instrumental ensembles for longer than their choral ensemble participation. Many of these students had also received private instruction in their primary instrument, or the piano. Most students who completed the study had received sight-singing instruction at some point in their musical backgrounds. Students used a variety of systems for sight singing with the most common being movable-do solfége. A majority of students had also received instruction in sight- singing preparation strategies. Instruction in sight singing, utilizing a specific system and specific preparatory strategies, strongly relates to sight-singing success. Analysis of reported behaviors showed that the number of years of high school chorus participation was the best predictor of sight-singing success, and that years of instrumental ensemble participation was also a good predictor of sight-singing success.
Students were observed during their sight-singing preparation and data revealed that students spent a large proportion of their time singing. Several students also utilized external beat keeping for a large percentage of the preparation time. Students used the techniques of chanting, tonicizing, writing and silent study with less frequency than other timed behaviors. All counted behaviors (starting pitch, starting again and error detection) were utilized with approximately the same frequency. An analysis of observed behaviors showed no significant predictor of sight-singing success for the sample.
Comparison of high and low scorers showed that increased length of choral and instrumental ensemble participation provided a typical background for successful sight singing. A significant difference between groups was found regarding the number of years of high school participation. Sight-singing instruction utilizing specific preparation strategies can also impact sight-singing success. A significant difference was found 74 between high and low scorers for three observed variables. High scorers spent less time in the preparation process, spent less time singing and started the exercise again less frequently. High scorers were more likely to exhibit non-singing behaviors in the preparation process. Successful students played the starting pitch less often, and spent more time writing and chanting. Analysis of the percentage of time spent in particular behaviors showed that successful sight singers spent significantly more of their time keeping an external beat than did unsuccessful sight singers.
75 CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Summary
Research in the field of sight singing suggests several trends. Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the most effective and popular systems of sight singing instruction. Systems are usually divided into two categories, movable and fixed solmization. Movable systems include movable-do solfége and numbers, while fixed systems include fixed-do solfége, intervals and letter names (Demorest, 2001). Although no system has been determined to be superior to another, effective instruction in any sight-singing system has been shown to have a positive impact upon sight-singing success (Brown, 2001; Demorest & May, 1995; Buchanan, 1946). This suggests that no matter what system is utilized, sight singing is a task that requires dedicated instructional time and practice for effective learning to take place.
Surveys regarding system popularity and instructional time use lead to similar conclusions. Recent surveys suggest the popularity of movable systems, including movable-do solfége (Bradley, 2006; Demorest, 2001; May, 1993; Pembrook & Riggins,
1990) and movable numbers (McClung, 2001). Fixed-do solfége and letter names were
76 used less often by practicing teachers in recent studies. Teachers believe in the importance of using a specific system, and in the importance of sight-singing instruction, yet few teachers delegate large amounts of rehearsal time to its use. Most teachers spend between five and fifteen minutes of rehearsal time engaged in sight singing instruction
(Smith, 1998; May, 1993; Daniels, 1988; Johnson, 1987).
Studies of individual sight singing have become more prevalent in recent years. It has been shown that group success is not synonymous with individual success in sight singing (Brittain, 1998; Demorest & Henry, 1994). Factors contributing to individual success may be related to instructional practice, or to other musical and extra-musical characteristics. Research suggests that a variety of musical ensemble experiences may result in superior sight-singing achievement (May & Elliot, 1980; Tucker, 1969; Colwell,
1963). Piano instruction and practice has been shown to be a musical predictor of success in numerous studies (Demorest & May, 1995; Demorest & May, 1994, Daniels,
1986). Finally, the length of musical instruction, within both ensembles and private lessons, has been determined to be related to sight-singing success (Demorest & May,
1995; Henry & Killian, 2005).
Among specific instructional methods, aural skills training, error detection, harmonic accompaniment, individual assessment, self-report and pattern recognition have also been found to promote to relate to sight-singing success (Berry, Fine & Rosner,
2006; Darrow, 2005, Henry & Killian, 2005; Henry, 2004; Brittain, 1998). A review of relevant literature shows a need for information regarding students in higher education who have expressed a desire to continue their musical education into adulthood.
77 The study Process and Product: The sight-singing backgrounds and behaviors of first year undergraduate students was designed to describe the demographic and musical characteristics of students auditioning for a choral ensemble upon entry into college. The study was also designed to determine the best predictors of achievement on a sight- singing task. Five research questions were developed:
1. What are the demographic characteristics of entry-level college choral
musicians?
2. What is the musical background of entry-level college choral musicians?
3. What is the sight-singing background of entry-level college choral musicians?
4. What behaviors are exhibited during sight-singing preparation as observed in
entry-level college choral musicians?
5. Are there demographic characteristics, musical background characteristics or
behaviors that are predictors of sight-singing success?
The population for the study was first-year undergraduate students who auditioned for a choral ensemble at a large public university in the Midwest. Subjects for the study were forty (n=40) first-year undergraduate students who self-selected to participate in the study. Students were recruited at the conclusion of their choral audition and those who elected to participate moved to another office to complete the sight- singing test and questionnaire. Analysis of collegiate choral ensemble placement showed that there was no significant difference between those who chose to participate in the study and those who did not.
Subjects of the sample completed a sight-singing test of a melody containing eight measures of common time written in the key of F major. Students were instructed that 78 they would have as much as ten minutes to prepare to sing the melody. They were instructed that they could do whatever they wished in the preparation time, given an instrument to play the starting pitch, a copy of the melody, a pencil and were left alone in the room with the video camera. They were told that if they wished to perform the melody prior to the completion of the ten-minute preparatory period they could choose to end their preparation time at any point. Finally, students performed the melody, alone in the room, recorded by an audio recording device. At the conclusion of the sight-singing test, students completed a questionnaire regarding their musical backgrounds as well as their backgrounds in sight-singing instruction.
Data were collected from questionnaire responses, evaluations of students’ audio- recorded sight-singing performances, and video taped observations of students’ preparation behaviors. Reported variables gleaned from questionnaire responses regarding musical background included: years of high school choral ensemble participation, type of high school choral ensemble participation, years of middle school choral ensemble participation, type of middle school choral ensemble participation, years of private voice instruction, years of instrumental ensemble participation, type of instrumental ensemble participation, and years of private instrumental instruction.
Information about prior sight-singing instruction was also gained from the background survey. Data were coded into variables including: received sight-singing instruction, instruction in a specific sight-singing system, type of sight-singing system utilized, when/where sight singing instruction occurred, received instruction in specific preparatory strategies for sight singing. Behaviors observed during the videotaped sight- singing preparation sessions included: singing, tonicizing, chanting, silent study, writing, 79 keeping an external beat, starting again, error detection and playing the starting pitch.
Final sight-singing scores for individuals were determined by two independent evaluators, and high reliability between observers was determined.
Data were analyzed in order to answer each of the five previously developed research questions.
What is the musical background of entry-level college choral musicians?
Students auditioning for university choral programs have both choral and instrumental musical backgrounds. Of the students questioned (n=40) most (78%) participated in choir for the maximum four years of high school and many (54%) participated in middle school choirs for the maximum three years. The average high school participation was 3.36 years and the average middle school participation was 1.92 years. Students participated in a variety of choral ensembles including mixed-gender choirs, gender specific choirs, show choirs, honor choirs and church and community choirs. Thirty-nine percent of students also received private voice lessons for an average of one year.
Forty-four percent of students participated in instrumental ensembles, both orchestra and band programs, for an average of 2.90 years. The largest percentage (41%) of those students participating in an instrumental ensemble participated throughout their middle school and high school careers. Students played many different instruments including violin, trumpet and oboe. Many students (46%) had received private instrumental lessons including lessons on their primary instrument as well as piano and guitar.
80 What is the sight-singing background of entry-level college choral musicians?
Most students (85%) received sight-singing instruction at some point in their musical backgrounds. Most responded that they received instruction in their high school choral ensemble. Students had also received instruction regarding sight singing in middle school, private voice lessons and in a community chorus. Many students (77%) had also been instructed in specific systems of sight singing. Most received instruction in a movable solmization system (90%) including both movable-do solfége (77%) and movable numbers (13%). Other systems utilized were fixed-do solfége, letter names and intervals. However, some students (38%) received instruction in multiple systems of music reading, most using both movable-do solfége and interval training. Sixty percent of students responding received instruction regarding specific preparatory strategies for sight singing.
What are the demographic characteristics of entry-level college choral musicians?
The subjects consisted of a large percentage of non-music majors (89%) and were between the ages of seventeen and twenty-three. Most students (89%) had graduated from high school in the state of college attendance. The population consisted of twenty- two women (56%) and seventeen men (44%). Students were placed in two levels of chorus upon entry into the college program with 28% placed in the mixed choirs and 72% placed in the upper level freshman choirs, Men’s and Women’s Glee Clubs.
What behaviors are exhibited during sight-singing preparation as observed in entry-level college choral musicians?
Data were analyzed for observed behaviors through evaluation of videotapes of sight-singing preparation. Behaviors were divided into two categories, counted and 81 timed observed behaviors. Counted behaviors included playing the starting pitch
(M=10.21), starting the example again from the beginning (M=10.79) and detecting errors (M=9.54). Timed behaviors included tonicizing (M=25.13 seconds), singing
(M=320.23 seconds), silent study (M=30.51 seconds), chanting (M=7.26 seconds), writing (M=26.38 seconds) and keeping an external beat (M=25.62 seconds). Students spent the majority of their preparation time singing, and also spent a substantial amount of time in silent study, writing and keeping an external beat.
Are there demographic characteristics, musical background characteristics or behaviors that are predictors of sight-singing success?
Inferential statistics were used in data analysis to determine what characteristics and/or behaviors are related to sight-singing success. Analysis of the sample population showed two reported variables that predict sight-singing success. These characteristics were years of high school choral participation (p=.015) and years of instrumental ensemble participation (p=.024). T-tests conducted on the variable received sight- singing instruction showed that there was a significant difference between students who had received sight-singing instruction and those who had not (p= .002). Students who had also received instruction in preparatory sight-singing strategies performed significantly better than those who did not received similar instruction (p=.003). Data for the sample population revealed no observed behaviors that significantly predict sight- singing success, although the variables singing and external beat keeping were found to be good predictors.
Analysis of high and low scorers showed significant differences between groups for one reported characteristic and three observed characteristics. There was a significant 82 difference between groups for the observed characteristic years of high school choral participation (p=.025). High scorers participated in choral ensembles for an average of
3.90 years while low scorers participated for an average of 2.60 years. There was also a significant difference between successful and unsuccessful sight-singers for the characteristics time (p=.017), singing (p=.009) and starting again (p=.008). High scorers spent significantly less time preparing (M=4:05) than did low scorers (M=6:56) and also spent significantly less time singing in their preparation time (M=184.80, M=357.10).
Finally, high scorers (M=4.60) started again less often than low scorers (M=16.00).
Discussion
Purpose
The purpose of the study Process and Product: An Investigation of the Sight-
Singing Backgrounds and Behaviors of First-Year Undergraduate Students was to provide information regarding choral musicians entering college and their backgrounds and habits relating to sight-singing practice. It was hoped that the information obtained from the participants in this study would help practicing teachers better prepare their students for college music study, and would help university instructors better understand the skills with which their new students enter the world of higher education.
The history of sight-singing instruction is long and varied, with many methods and systems developed to help singers attain higher achievement and be more prepared to become independent musicians. Many studies have focused upon the skills of secondary
83 school musicians or practicing collegiate musicians. This study differs in that it attempted to catch students in the divide between secondary and higher education. The study was completed with students who had finished their secondary careers, but had not yet received instruction at the university level. This study examined the backgrounds and behaviors of students who had expressed a desire to continue their musical experiences, and had not yet been influenced by a particular college instructor or choral director. It is important for college choral conductors to know and understand the background of the incoming ensemble population, and also to understand how this may relate to sight- singing success at the beginning of the college experience. It is also important for high school teachers to know and understand what musical experiences and sight-singing instruction may lead to independent music making.
Description
First year students auditioning for a choral ensemble reported varied, yet similar, musical backgrounds. All students had received some form of musical instruction prior to the audition for the university choral ensembles. All but one student had participated in a high school choral ensemble, and many students had participated in numerous years of choral participation, private vocal lessons, instrumental ensemble participation and private instrumental lessons. Students had participated in a variety of choral and instrumental ensembles. What is clear from this analysis is that students who choose to participate in music into adulthood do so because of the instruction they received in their elementary and secondary school educations. If music educators desire students who are 84 lifelong musicians, encouraging students’ participation in a variety of musical experiences may foster the desire to continue music participation beyond secondary school education. For the most part students without musical experience do not choose to become involved in a musical ensemble as an adult if they did not participate in music throughout childhood and adolescence.
Students who chose to participate in the study also had varied backgrounds in sight-singing instruction. Most students had received some form of sight-singing instruction prior to the collegiate audition. However, varied backgrounds, systems and instruction in sight singing were found. Students were taught using a variety of sight- singing systems including movable-do solfége, fixed-do solfége, movable numbers, letter names, intervallic drill and neutral syllables. The most prevalent systems were those based upon the movable-tonic system (movable-do solfége and movable numbers) and many students were taught multiple systems of music reading. Some students were taught specific strategies in order to prepare for sight singing, exhibited clearly in the behaviors observed during videotaped preparation. It is clear that a systematic presentation of ideas and systems may be beneficial to students. Perhaps knowledge of students’ sight-singing backgrounds will inform the choices of both secondary school and collegiate educators with regards to sight-singing instruction.
Students exhibited many different behaviors during their preparation of the melody for performance. One student used the provided instrument to play the starting pitch one time, while another student played the starting pitch a total of fifty-two times.
The student who only used the instrument once was able to retain the fixed sound of the tonic pitch within her tonal memory, while the student who played it fifty-two times often 85 could not retain the fixed sound of the tonic pitch for even a few seconds. The need for students to be able to develop and maintain a tonal memory is an important musical skill, as shown during the observed sight-singing preparation. Students who do not have a strong tonal memory may need to rely on an external source until they learn strategies for internalizing pitch sounds.
Another counted behavior, starting again, also showed great variability ranging from no occurrences of starting again to thirty-one restarts. This speaks to the training of students and how they handle error detection or difficult passages. Some students detected an error and fixed only the measure in which they made a mistake. However, some students detected an error and returned to the beginning of the piece after each mistake. Not all students have learned the practice techniques of isolating an error, correcting the error and finally putting the corrected section back within the whole.
Teaching the skill of musical problem solving is important to creating independent and lifelong musicians.
The final counted behavior, error detection, has been shown in the past to bear a strong relationship to sight-singing success. Subjects in the present study exhibited as few as zero and as many as twenty-nine error detections. Error detections were marked by audible or physical responses observed by the evaluator. These included but were not limited to: cessation of singing, verbal behavior (speaking, sighing, cursing), and physical behavior (shaking head, wincing, snapping fingers). Many students made errors that they did not detect, and many students detected an error but did not attempt correction, or were unable to correct it. Although teaching the skill of error detection may be an
86 important first step in building musical literacy, equally important is teaching the skill of error correction.
The most commonly exhibited timed behavior was singing or making audible pitch sounds. Every student performed some audible singing during his or her preparation time. This suggests that students are more comfortable with audible music making rather than the skill of audiation (internal hearing), and may help to inform teaching practices in regards to sight-singing instruction. Teachers may wish to help students develop audiation skills as well as singing and listening skills.
Timed behaviors exhibited with less frequency than singing also had varied usage.
Several students used the skill of external beat keeping with great success. The ability to keep a steady and consistent tempo is clearly tied to music reading, and should be encouraged in all music students. Tonicizing was a skill previously determined as being related to sight-singing success. This research defined tonicizing as any chordal or scalar pattern audibly represented by the subject. Although several students tonicized in order to assist in tonal memory and tonic pitch recognition, many students used tonicization in order to find pitches about which they were unsure, or to assist in error correction.
Many students also used time for silent study. This suggests thought and reflection about the piece and may also suggest audiation, which was not directly observable. Silent study was closely tied with writing for some students. After a visual study of the score, students chose to write visual cues on the musical example to help lead to sight-singing success. Very few students exhibited any type of chanting behavior
(rhythmic or melodic) during their preparation time. Many instructors use chanting in a group setting in order to facilitate successful sight singing, and especially to practice 87 rhythmic elements. The individuals in this study, however, exhibited this behavior with very little frequency.
Individuals in a preparatory setting do not always exhibit behaviors commonly used during group sight-singing practice. Some teachers encourage their students to think about and study the example, write visual cues, chant before singing and keep a steady beat while sight singing in a group setting. Data gathered from this study suggest that students are not always following established patterns that lead to sight-singing success, or perform differently as individuals than in a group setting. It is difficult to ascertain from this study whether they have simply never been taught these behaviors, or if they have chosen not to utilize taught behaviors in an individual setting. One thing has been suggested by this study however: students who exhibited certain behaviors or background characteristics were more likely to be successful sight singers when entering the college choral ensemble.
Factors Related to Sight-Singing Success
Analyses showed that students who had successful performances on the sight- singing test were more likely to have spent more time singing in high school choral ensembles than unsuccessful students. The number of years of high school choral participation was the strongest predictor of sight-singing success. These findings impact the profession of music education and choral conducting positively, as these results suggest that ensemble participation helps to build transferrable musical skills. The results also suggests that students who wish to pursue music into their adult lives would be well 88 served by continuing their musical education throughout their secondary school careers.
The analysis of high and low scorers also suggests that instrumental ensemble experience is related to sight-singing success and may suggest that music literacy is positively impacted by instrumental music experience. These results suggest that varied musical experiences may help to develop musical skills considered important to adult music educators and conductors.
Other musical background factors that were related strongly to sight-singing success were related to instruction prior to entry in higher education. Students who had received sight-singing instruction were better sight-singers. There was also a significant difference in sight-singing score between students who had received instruction in specific strategies in preparation for sight-singing performance and sight-singing success and those who had not. Although these results are hardly surprising, commonly held ideals about the instruction of sight singing are validated. Music educators should be aware that students who are successful sight singers have received instruction in specific strategies regarding sight singing. Although there are factors beyond the scope of sight- singing instruction that may influence sight-singing success, one must assume that skill is developed through instruction and practice.
Among observed behaviors of the sample population, there were no variables that significantly predicted posttest scores. However, t-test analyses of high and low scorers showed that high scorers utilized less time in sight-singing preparation, spent less time singing during their sight-singing preparation and played the starting pitch less often than low scorers. High scorers were also spent larger percentages of their preparation time keeping an observable beat. 89 These results suggest that high scorers were well prepared and could quickly review and practice the sight-singing example. Observers noted that high scoring singers appeared to be more confident and used an organized and product-oriented process to read through the example. For several of the high scorers, the example appeared very easy, and was read with minimal practice time and little audible practice. On the other hand, low scorers were less confident, sang more quietly, made more mistakes and took more time in the preparation of their melody. Often the practice time was poorly organized, and no specific plan was followed to sight sing the example.
These results also suggest that successful sight singers have a better tonal memory. Students who were successful at the sight-singing task played the starting pitch far less frequently, and returned to an accurate tonic pitch more easily than unsuccessful students. The tonal memory displayed by successful students suggests either an innate musical skill or a learned response to sight singing a tonal music example. Finally, students who were successful kept an external beat for a larger percentage of their preparation time, often in tandem with other behaviors (singing, chanting, silent study).
This suggests that the ability to keep a steady beat, the ability to audiate, and the ability to sight sing an example all the way through without stopping may be important skills for students.
Conclusion
Relevance to Educational Practices
Any process or skill that has been linked to educational success must be considered when contemplating optimal teaching practices. Teachers attempting to 90 prepare their students for collegiate choral music programs, or indeed for any adult musical participation, should consider sight-singing instruction and specific pedagogical practices in order to ensure the best possible outcome for their students. This study attempted to determine what behaviors and backgrounds were exhibited by entry-level college choral musicians and related these variables to sight-singing success. Successful singers displayed several behaviors and characteristics that could be used to inform the teaching practices of secondary school teachers, and to inform the expectations and ideals of practicing college choral conductors. Educators should be aware that students are more likely to be successful sight-singers and music readers when they have received specific instruction in sight-singing and in a particular system. Students are also more likely to show signs of music literacy when they have continued participation in both choral and instrumental ensembles. Factors relating to tonal memory, audiation skills and confidence during sight-singing preparation and performance can be practiced and taught during the secondary school music curriculum, and are vital skills for musicians wishing to continue their musical careers into adulthood.
Suggestions for Further Research
Although there were significant findings relating specific factors to sight-singing success, more and differing research is needed in order to truly understand the elusive nature of sight-singing skill. If this study were replicated, it would be interesting to see if results were consistent across universities and school types. Studies with more students, of different demographic characteristics should be completed to determine 91 generalizability of the study. It would also be helpful to more fully investigate different teaching styles and the impact of specific teaching strategies on sight-singing success.
Other studies could be undertaken to examine the role of tonal memory and audiation skills and their relationships to sight-singing success. Although the present study has suggested that skillful sight singers have a strong tonal memory and are able to audiate, no significant relationship between the differing skills has been established. It could be an important study to determine the relationships between these essential musical skills.
In addition, the relationships between error detection and error correction abilities and sight-singing success should be examined. During videotaped observation it was noted that although most students could correctly identify an error, at least some of the time, not all students knew how to effectively correct that error within a singing situation.
Some students used the skills of singing a scale or a chord pattern in order to correct errors, but some students had no skills upon which to fall in order to effectively correct an error within an a cappella setting.
One final suggestion for further research is to examine the relationship between student background and college instructor expectation. There is little research examining the expectations of college instructors regarding the entry-level students. In order that students can best prepare for the higher education experience, and secondary school teachers can assist them towards successful college auditions and choral participation, collegiate expectations should be examined. College choir directors, vocal instructors and music educators should be surveyed as to the desired characteristics of future music students. Once the desirable characteristics of potential adult musicians have been 92 determined, the relationship of those characteristics to the actual background characteristics of entry-level college musicians should be examined. Students and teachers alike should be aware of whether or not they are meeting the expectations of future instructors.
Conclusions
This research has shown that specific musical backgrounds are likely to be found within the population of entry-level college choral musicians. It has also determined that entry-level college choral musicians are likely to have received at least some sort of sight-singing instruction and that many received instruction in movable tonic systems.
The research also determined several behaviors that are likely to be exhibited by students when preparing for sight singing. Finally, this research has shown several characteristics and behaviors that are related to sight-singing success. It is hoped that this research study will help to inform the practices of secondary school level musical instructors and the expectations of the college choral instructor. The improvement of sight-singing pedagogy will help to create self-sufficient and self-motivated learners. As pedagogical practices change and improve, a primary goal of music education will be met and perhaps exceeded.
93 REFERENCES
Allison, P. (1999) Multiple Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Armstrong, M. (2001). Adjudicated Sight-Reading for the Choral Ensemble: An Incentive for Musical Literacy. Choral Journal. 41(10), 21-30.
Banton, L.J. (1995). The Role of Visual and Auditory Feedback During the Sight Reading of Music. Psychology of Music. 23(1), 3-16.
Barnes, J.W. (1960). An Experimental Study of Interval Drill as it Affects Sight-Singing Skill. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms Inc.
Bennett, P. (1984) Tricks, Masks and Camouflage: Is Imitation Passing for Music Reading? Music Educators Journal. 71(3), 62-62,65-69.
Bentley,A. (1959). Fixed or movable do? Journal of Research in Music Education, 7 (2), 164-68.
Berry, A., Fine, P. Rosner, B. (2006) The Effect of Pattern Recognition and Tonal Predictability on Sight-Singing Ability. Psychology of Music. 34 (4), 431-474.
Bland, L. (1984). Sight Singing Through Melodic Analysis. Chicago: Nelson Hall Publishers.
Blum, B.E. (1968). Solmization in nineteenth-century American sight-singing instruction. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts International 30-01A.
Boyle, D.J. and Lucas, K.V. (1990). The Effect of Context on Sight Singing. The Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 106, 1-9.
Bradley, K.D. (2006). Teaching Strategies Related to Successful Sight Singing in Kentucky Choral Ensembles. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education. 25(1), 70-81.
Brendell, J.K. (1996) Time Use, Rehearsal Activity and Student Off-Task Behavior during the Initial Minutes of High School Choral Rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education. 44, 6-14. 94 Bricher, D.M. (1995). The Effects of Two Methods for Teaching Sight Singing on Junior- High School Choir Students’ Sight Singing Achievement. Unpublished M.M. Thesis, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
Brittain, L.M. (1998). Sight-singing pedagogy: Research applied to classroom methods. Choral Journal, 31 (1), 9-18.
Brown, K.D. (2001). Effect of fixed and movable sight-singing systems on undergraduate music students ability to perform diatonic, modulatory, chromatic and atonal melodic passages. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts Insternational, AAT 3035562.
Brown, K. D. (2003) .An Alternative Approach to Developing Literacy Skills In A Transient Society. Music Educators Journal, 90:2 , 46-54.
Buchanan, W. (1946). Comparison of fixed and movable solfège in teaching sight singing from the staff. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1946). Dissertation Abstracts International, 10-04, 0080.
Cassidy, J. (1993). Effects of various sight singing strategies on non-music majors pitch accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education. 41, 293-302.
Choksy, L.(1974). The Kodaly Method: Comprehensive Music Education From Infant to Adult. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Collins, D.L. (1993). Teaching choral music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Collins, I. H. H. (1979). Current attitudes and trends in the teaching of sight singing in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40-05, A2336.
Colwell, R. (1963). An investigation of musical achievement among vocal students, vocal-instrumental students and instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 11, 123-30.
Costanza, A. P. & Russell, T. (1992). Methodologies in music education. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. (pp. 498-508). New York: Schirmer Books.
Coye, N.B. (1938). Sight Singing and Theory in the Junior High School. Music Educators Journal, 25, 32.
Crawford, R. (2007). Psalmody: North America. Grove Music Online. Ed. L. Macy (Accessed [2/19/2008],
Cross, S. & Hiatt, J.S. (2006). Teaching and using auditaion in classroom instruction and 95 applied lessons with advanced students. Music Educators Journal, 92(5), 46-49.
Cutietta, R. (1979). The effects of including systemized sightsinging drill in the middle school choral rehearsal. Contributions to Music Education, 7, 12-20.
Daniels, R.D. (1986). Relationships among selected factors and the sight-reading ability of high school mixed choirs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34 (4), 279-89.
Daniels, R. D. (1988). Sight-reading instruction in the choral rehearsal. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, 6 (2), 22-24.
Darazs, Arpad A. (1973). A Study of the Zoltan Kodály Approach to Music Reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation ,Columbia University, New York.
Darrow, A. (2006). Examining the Validity of Self-Report: Middle Level Singers Ability to Predict and Assess Their Sight-Singing Skills. International Journal of Music Education. 24 (1), 21-29.
Demorest, S. & May V. (1995). Sight-singing instruction in the choral ensemble: Factors related to individual performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43 (2), 156-67.
Demorest, S. M. (2001). What Research Offers Teachers. In Building Choral Excellence: Teaching Sight Singing in the Choral Rehearsal. New York: Oxford University Press.
Demorest, S. M. (1998). Rehearsal Breaks: Integrating Sight Singing into the High School Choral Rehearsal. Choral Journal, 39, 55-58.
Demorest, S. (1998). Improving Sight-Singing Performance in the Choral Ensemble: The Effect of Individual Testing. Journal of Research in Music Education. 46: 182- 192.
Downey, J.C. (2007). Shape-note Hymnody. Grove Music Online. Ed. L. Macy (Accessed [2/19/2008],
Duke, R.A. & Farra, Y. (2000). SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavioral Evaluation. Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Assoicates.
Dwiggins, R. (1984) Teaching sight reading the high school chorus. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, 2(2), 8-11.
Ewars, M. (2004) Computer assisted music instruction as supplemental sight singing instruction in the high school choir. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Champaign-Illinois, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3160882. 96 Foltz, R.E. (1976). Sight singing: Some new ideas on an old institution. College Music Symposium, 16, 95-100.
Foulkes-Levy, L. (2006). Music for everyone: Pedagogical tools for all: Part 1: Introduction and a brief history of solmization syllables. Kodaly Envoy, 32(3), 15- 19,22.
Furby,V. (2003). The effects of learning tonal harmonic function on the sight-singing skill of high school students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State University.
Gordon, E. E. (1997).Learning sequences in music: A music learning theory. Chicago: GIA Publications.
Gregory, T. (1972). The effect of rhythmic notation variable on sight reading errors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 462-8.
Grout, D.J. & Palisca, C.V. (1996). A History of Western Music. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Grushin, Martin. (1997). Professional Sight Singing Technique. Vanderbilt: Jubal Press.
Guzy, G. (1984). Techniques for developing sight reading skills as used by high school choral directors in Ohio. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bowling Green State University: Ohio.
Hales, B. (1961). A study of music reading programs in high school chouses in the Rocky Mountain states. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts International, 22, 2416.
Halfpenny, E., Ho, S., Kurosawa, K. & Wollner,C. (2003). The Effects of Distracted Inner Hearing on Sight-Reading. Psychology of Music. 31 (4), 377-389.
Hanson, J. (1978). Questionnaire: Sight Singing Procedures, Theory & Practice. Journal of the Music Theory Society of New York State. 3(1), 147-56.
Hayes, A.F & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroscedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 709-22.
Henry, M.L. & Demorest, S.M. (1994). Individual sightsinging achievement in successful choral ensembles. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 13 (1), 4-8.
97 Henry, M. & Killain J. (2005). A Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Strategies in Individual Sight-Singing Preparation and Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education. 53: 51-65.
Henry, M. (2004). The Use of Targeted Pitch Skills for Sight-Singing Instruction in the Choral Rehearsal. Journal of Research in Music Education. 52: 206-217.
Hodges, D.A. (1992). The acquisition of music reading skills. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. (pp. 466-71). New York: Schirmer Books.
Horton, J.D. (1974). The relative effectiveness of three systems of sight singing in developing melodic sight singing ablility at the six-grade level. (Doctoral dissertation, Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3512A 00066.
Houlahan, M. & Tacka, P. (1990). A suggested sequence for teaching musical elements based on the philosophy of Zoltan Kodály for a college music theory course. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4, 85-109.
Hughes, A. (2003). European medieval and renaissance systems. Grove Music Online. Ed. L. Macy (Accessed [1/15/2008],
Hughes, A. (2007). Solmization. Grove Music Online. Ed. L. Macy (Accessed [1/19/2008],
Jeno, A. (1971). Growing in music with movable do: Translation of the original Kodaly method. Highland Park, New Jersey: Georgiana Peterson Press.
Johnson, A. (1998). Rehearsal Breaks: Using Literacy Learning Theories to Facilitate Sight-Reading and Music Learning. Choral Journal. 39(1), 37-39.
Johnson, G. J. B. (1987). A descriptive study of the pitch-reading methods and the amount of time utilized to teach sight-singing by high school choral teachers in the north central region of the American Choral Directors Association. (Master's thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1987). Masters Abstract International 26- 01, 0022.
Justus, L.D. (1969). Developing satisfactory techniques for high school vocal students. Choral Journal. 9, 10-23.
Kipiez, R., Lee, J., Ligges, U, & Weihs, C. (2006). Classification of High and Low Achievers in a Music Sight-Reading Task. Psychology of Music. 34 (1), 5-26.
98 Lehmann, A.C. & McArthur, V. (2002). Sight Reading in The Science and Psychology of Music Performance, Creative Strategies for Teaching and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mark, M. (1999) A History of American Music Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
May, J. A . (1993). A description of current practices in the teaching of choral melody reading in the high schools of Texas. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International 54-03, A0856.
May W. V. & Elliot C.A. (1980). Relationships among ensemble participation, private instruction, and aural skill development. Journal of Research in Music Education. 28, 155-61.
McClung, A. C. (1996). A descriptive study of learning assessment and grading practices in the high school choral music performance classroom. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International 57-08A, AAG9700217.
McClung, A. (2001). Sight-Singing Systems: Current Practice and Survey of All-State Choristers. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education. 20: 3-8.
McElhran, B. (1998). Music Reading by Intervals: A Modern Sight Reading and Ear Training Method for Singers, Conductors and Teachers. New York: Brichtmark Music.
Middleton, J.A.(1984). Develop Choral Reading Skills. Music Educators Journal, 70:7, 29-32.
Miller, S. D. (1980). Literacy for the beginning and intermediate high school choir. Choral Journal, 20, (7), 11-14.
Mann, R. (1989). Why Should Elementary Students Have All the Fun? (Kodaly Method at the College Level). Music Educators Journal, 76, 39-42.
McClung, A. (2001). Sight Singing Systems ‘Current Practices and Survey of All State Choristers.’ UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20, 3-8.
McElhran, B. (1998). Music Reading by Intervals: A Modern Sight Reading and Ear Training Method for Singers, Conductors and Teachers. New York: Brichtmark Music.
Middleton, J.A.(1984). Develop Choral Reading Skills. Music Educators Journal, 70:7, 29-32. 99 More, B. E. (1985). Sight singing and ear training at the university level: A case for the use of Kodály's system of relative solmization. Choral Journal, 25 (7), 9-22.
Nelson, J.C. (1970). A comparison of two methods of measuring achievement in sight singing. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 7015629.
Neumann, C. (2006). Music makers: Elementary-The Kodaly method and learning theories. Canadian Music Educator. 47(4), 48-9.
Nolker, B. (2006). The relationship between large ensemble sight reading rating and the individuals’ sight singing success. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education. 43, 3-14.
Norris, C. E. (2003). The Relationship Between Sight Singing Achievement and Melodic Dictation Achievement. Contributions to Music Education. 30 (1), 39-53.
Norris, C. (2004). A Nationwide Overview of Sight-Singing Requirements of Large- Group Choral Festivals. Journal of Research in Music Education. 52: 16-28.
Ottman, R.W. (1956). A Statistical Inversitgation of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Skill of Sight Singing.” Unpublished masters thesis. North Texas College.
Ozeas, N. L. (1991). The effect of the use of a computer assisted drill program on the aural skill development of students in beginning solfège. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52-10, A3553.
Palisca, C.V. (2007) Guido of Arezzo. Grove Music Online. Ed. L. Macy (Accessed [1/15/2008],
Paulk, J. (2004). Perspectives on sight reading choral repertoire. Choral Journal. 45(3), 28-35.
Pembrock,R. G. & Riggins, H. L. (1990). ''Send help!'' Aural skills instruction in U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4, 231-41.
Phillips, K. H. (1984). Sight singing: Where have we been? Where are we going? Choral Journal, 24 (6), 11-17.
Phillips, K. (1996). Teaching Singers to Sight Read. Teaching Music, 3, 32-33.
Phillips, K. H. (2004). Directing the Choral Music Program. New York: Oxford University Press. 100 Rainbow, B. (2007). John Curwen. Grove Music Online. Ed. L. Macy (Accessed [2/15/2008],
Rawlins, R. (2005,6). Sight singing for Instrumentalists. American Music Teacher. 55(3), 26-9.
Robinson R. & Winold A. (1992) The Choral Experience. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc.
Rogers, M. (1996). The Jersild Approach: A Sight singing Method from Denmark. College Music Symposium, 36, 149-61.
Root, F.W. (1931). Methodical Sight-Singing: Lessons in Vocal Culture. Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania: Theodore Presser Co.
Ross, J. & Vuram, A. (2006). Producation and perception of musical intervals. Music Perception. 23(4), 331-44.
Scott, T. B. (1996). The construction of a holistic, criterion-referenced sight-singing test for high school sopranos based on the voluntary national standards for music education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International 57-11, A4684.
Scott, T. M. (1995). Sight-singing in the college-level choral program. American Organist, 20, 68-71.
Sheldon, D.A. (1998). Effects of contextual sight reading and aural skills training on error detection abilities. Journal of Research in Music Education. 46(3), 384-95.
Siler, H. (1956). Toward an international solfeggio. Journal of Research in Music Education, 4 (1), 40-43.
Smith, S. A (1998). Sight singing in the high school choral rehearsal: Pedagogical practices, teacher attitudes, and university preparation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University at Tallahassee.
Smith, T. A. (1991). A comparison of pedagogical resources in solmization systems. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 5 (1), 1-24.
Stebelton, E. (1987). Predictors of sight-reading achievement: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 6 (1), 11-15.
Sunderland, M.R. (1994). A description of selected Ohio secondary choral ensembles with particular attention to sight reading skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
101 Szabo, C. E . (1992). A profile of ten high school choral directors and their activities during one week. (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53-08, A2730.
Tacka. P. (2007). Kodaly. Grove Music Online. Ed. L. Macy (Accessed [2/17/2008],
Tucker, D. W. (1969). Factors related to music reading ability of senior high school students participating in choral groups. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International 31, 2427A.
Weidenaar, G. (2006). Solmization and the Norwich and Tonic Sol-Fa Systems. Choral Journal. 46 (9), 24-33.
White, R. A. (1983). A measure of the effects of a movable number system upon the perception and vocal performance of nontonal music. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International 44-05, A1372.
Wilson, Harry R. (1954). Sing a Song at Sight: A Practical and Rapid Method of Developing Music Reading. Chicago: Hall and McCreary Co.
Winnich, William. (1987). Hybrid Methods in Sight Singing. Choral Journal. 28, 24-30.
Yarbrough, C., Orman, E. & Neill, S. (2007). Time Usage by Choral Directors Prior to Sight singing Adjudication. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education. 27-34.
102 APPENDICES
103 Appendix A
Recruitment Letter
Patricia J. Flowers & Victoria J. Furby The Ohio State University 110 Weigel Hall Columbus, Ohio 43210
Dear Participant:
The study entitled Process and Product: An Investigation of the Sight Singing Backgrounds and Behaviors of First-Year Undergraduate Students has been undertaken in order that singers and teachers of singing might gain a better understanding of what makes successful sight singers. This study will attempt to determine what musical habits and demographic characteristics indicate successful sight singers. Today, we are asking that you participate in this study by completing a sight- singing task and filling out a survey questionnaire relating to your musical background. These tasks will take you approximately twenty minutes to complete and will lead better understanding of the sight singing process and outcome. We expect that the information gleaned from this study will help teachers in deciding what are the necessary skills for students to learn in a choral classroom. Your involvement is important to the success of this study. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. Your refusal will have no bearing upon your choral audition for Ohio State, and the OSU choral directors will not be informed of your participation or refusal to participate. If you have any questions we would be happy to answer them. Thank you for your consideration.
Patricia J. Flowers Victoria J. Furby Music Education Professor Graduate Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University The Ohio State University [email protected] [email protected] 104 Appendix B
The Ohio State University Consent to Participate in Research
Process and Product: An investigation of the sight singing Study Title: backgrounds and behaviors of first year undergraduate students. Patricia J. Flowers and Victoria J. Furby Researcher:
Sponsor:
This is a consent form for research participation. It contains important information about this study and what to expect if you decide to participate. Your participation is voluntary. Please consider the information carefully. Feel free to ask questions before making your decision whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form and will receive a copy of the form.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to determine what pre-performance and performance habits are related to successful sight singing. Also, characteristics, such as whether or not you play an instrument, or whether you learned a specific sight-singing method, will be examined to see if they lead to successful sight singing.
Procedures/Tasks:
You will be asked to prepare and sing a melody consisting of eight measure of common time. You will have a time limit of ten minutes. The ten minute preparation and performance of the melody will be videotaped and the final melody performance will be
105 audio recorded. At the conclusion of the ten minute observation you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire relating to your musical background and skills.
Duration:
This task will take approximately twenty minutes to complete. The melody performance and preparation will last ten minutes, and it will take you approximately ten minutes to complete the questionnaire. You may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop participating in the study, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your decision will not affect your future relationship with The Ohio State University.
Risks and Benefits:
There are no risks to this study. Data will be stored by the researcher and destroyed at the end of the study. The benefits of this study include increased knowledge in the field of sight singing that will allow teachers of singing to learn what methods and skills are most important to teach their students.
Confidentiality:
Efforts will be made to keep your study-related information confidential. However, there may be circumstances where this information must be released. For example, personal information regarding your participation in this study may be disclosed if required by state law. Also, your records may be reviewed by the following groups (as applicable to the research): • Office for Human Research Protections or other federal, state, or international regulatory agencies; • The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board or Office of Responsible Research Practices; • The sponsor, if any, or agency (including the Food and Drug Administration for FDA-regulated research) supporting the study.
Incentives:
There will be no incentives to participate. We hope singers will participate so that they can add to the body of knowledge surrounding the teaching of singing. 106 Participant Rights:
You may refuse to participate in this study without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are a student or employee at Ohio State, your decision will not affect your grades or employment status. This study will have no bearing upon the choral audition you have just completed. The people making the decisions about choral placement will not be informed of your participation or refusal to participate.
If you choose to participate in the study, you may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. By signing this form, you do not give up any personal legal rights you may have as a participant in this study.
An Institutional Review Board responsible for human subjects research at The Ohio State University reviewed this research project and found it to be acceptable, according to applicable state and federal regulations and University policies designed to protect the rights and welfare of participants in research.
Contacts and Questions:
For questions, concerns, or complaints about the study you may contact Patricia J. Flowers, Principal Investigator
[email protected] (614)292-6389 110 Weigel Hall The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210
For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study- related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1- 800-678-6251.
If you are injured as a result of participating in this study or for questions about a study- related injury, you may contact Patricia J. Flowers, Principal Investigator
[email protected] (614)292-6389 110 Weigel Hall The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210
107 Signing the consent form
I have read (or someone has read to me) this form and I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
I am not giving up any legal rights by signing this form. I will be given a copy of this form.
Printed name of subject Signature of subject
AM/PM Date and time
Printed name of person authorized to consent for subject Signature of person authorized to consent for subject (when applicable) (when applicable)
AM/PM Relationship to the subject Date and time
Investigator/Research Staff
I have explained the research to the participant or his/her representative before requesting the signature(s) above. There are no blanks in this document. A copy of this form has been given to the participant or his/her representative.
Printed name of person obtaining consent Signature of person obtaining consent
AM/PM Date and time
108 Appendix C
Questionnaire
Process and Product: An Investigation of the Sight-Singing Backgrounds and Behaviors of First Year Undergraduate Students
Name: ______Age: ______Gender: ______High School Attended: ______State of High School Attendance: ______
Choral Experience: Briefly describe your high school choral experiences including years of involvement (if applicable) ______Briefly describe your middle school choral experiences including years of involvement (if applicable) ______Briefly describe your elementary school musical experiences including years of involvement (if applicable) ______Other Musical Experience: Briefly describe musical experiences outside choral ensemble participation including years of involvement (include instrumental ensembles, music classes and private music instruction) ______Sight-Singing Experience: Did you receive sight singing instruction at any time in your singing career? Yes/No *If no, please proceed to the section on today’s experience. 109 *If yes, please answer the following questions.
Were you taught using a specific sight singing method? Yes/No
If yes, what sight singing method did you use? ______Moveable do solfege ______Fixed do solfege ______Numbers ______Letter Names ______Interval Recognition ______Neutral Syllables ______Other (please specify______)
Where did you learn this sight singing method? ______High school choral rehearsals ______Middle school choral rehearsals ______Elementary choral rehearsals or music class ______Private voice lessons ______Other (please specify______) Were you taught specific strategies to prepare for sight singing? Yes/No If yes, briefly describe the strategies you were taught: ______
Today’s Experience
Briefly describe the process undertaken during your sight singing experience today. Include all methods used and behaviors attempted before and during your final performance of the melody. ______
110 Appendix D
Sight-Singing Test
111 Appendix E
Audio Evaluation Form
Directions:
5. Listen to the example one time through without marking 6. Listen to the example a second time and circle the numbers of intervals sung incorrectly a. Incorrectly is defined as singing the wrong pitch, notes sung poorly or with bad intonation that are sung as the correct pitch should still be counted as correct b. If an interval is sung correctly at the wrong pitch level should be counted as correct 7. Listen to the tape a third time and put an X over any measure sung with incorrect rhythms. 8. In the corresponding sections “pitch” and “rhythm” put an X in the blanks of incorrectly sung pitches and rhythms.
112 Singer Number ______
Pitch: 1. Ascending P5______2. Descending m3______3. Ascending m2 ______4. Ascending M2 ______5. Ascending M2 ______6. Descending M2 ______7. Descending M2 ______8. Ascending M2 ______9. Descending m3 ______10. Ascending M3______11. Descending P4______12. Ascending P4______13. Descending M2______14. Descending m2 ______15. Ascending m3 ______16. Ascending M2______17. Descending M3______18. Descending m2______19. Descending M2______20. Ascending m3 ______21. Descending m2 ______22. Descending M2 ______23. Descending M2 ______24. Ascending P4 ______25. Descending m3 ______26. Descending m3 ______27. Ascending m2 ______Rhythm: Measure 1______Measure 2______Measure 3______Measure 4______Measure 5______Measure 6______Measure 7______Measure 8______
113 Appendix F
Tables
114 Frequency Percent Years 0 1 2.6 1 4 10.3 2 3 7.7 3 3 7.7 4 28 71.8 Total 39 100.0
F.1. Years of High School Participation-Sample
115 Frequency Percent Type 0 1 2.6 1 11 28.2 1,2 5 12.8 1,2,3,4 1 2.6 1,2,3,4,5 1 2.6 1,2,4 3 7.7 1,2,5 1 2.6 1,3 5 12.8 1,3,5 1 2.6 1,4 1 2.6 1,4,5 3 7.7 1,5 2 5.1 2 3 7.7 3 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0
0=No Choir, 1=Mixed Gender Choir, 2= Gender Specific Choir, 3=Show Choir, 4=Honor Choir, 5=Community Choir
F.2. Type of High School Choral Ensemble-Sample
116 Frequency Percent Years 0 9 23.1 1 6 15.4 2 3 7.7 3 21 53.8 Total 39 100.0
F.3. Years of Middle School Participation-Sample
117 Frequency Percent Type 0 9 23.1 1 23 59.0 1,3 2 5.1 1,4 1 2.6 3 3 7.7 4 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0 0=No Choir, 1=Mixed Gender Choir, 2=Gender Specific Choir, 3=General Music, 4=Community Chorus
F.4. Type of Middle School Choral Participation-Sample
118 Frequency Percent Years 0 24 61.5 1 5 12.8 2 5 12.8 4 2 5.1 5 2 5.1 6 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0
F.5. Years of Private Voice Lessons-Sample
119 Frequency Percent Years 0 21 53.8 1 1 2.6 2 1 2.6 4 1 2.6 5 1 2.6 6 7 17.9 7 2 5.1 8 3 7.7 9 1 2.6 12 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0
F.6 Years of Instrumental Ensemble Participation-Sample
120 Frequency Percent Type 0 21 53.8 1 11 28.2 1,2 2 5.1 2 5 12.8 Total 39 100.0 0=No Instrumental Ensemble, 1=Orchestra, 2=Band
F.7. Type of Instrumental Ensemble-Sample
121 Frequency Percent Years 0 21 53.8 1 1 2.6 2 3 7.7 3 1 2.6 5 2 5.1 6 1 2.6 7 2 5.1 8 1 2.6 10 1 2.6 11 1 2.6
F.8. Years of Private Instrumental Lessons-Sample
122 Frequency Percent Type None 17 43.6 Guitar 3 7.7 Guitar &Piano 1 2.6 Oboe & Piano 1 2.6 Piano 13 33.3 Trumpet & Piano 1 2.6 Violin 3 7.7 Total 39 100.0
F.9. Type of Instrumental Private Lessons-Sample
123 Frequency Percent When/ 0 8 20.5 Where 1 22 56.4 1,2 4 10.3 1,2,4 1 2.6 1,4 2 5.1 1,4,5 1 2.6 4 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0
0=None, 1=High School Chorus, 2=Middle School Chorus, 3=Elementary School Music 4=Private Voice Lessons, 5=Other
F.10. Educational Background of Sight-Singing Instruction-Sample
124 Frequency Percent System 0 8 20.5 1 9 23.1 1,2,3,5,6 1 2.6 1,2,5 1 2.6 1,3 1 2.6 1,3,6 1 2.6 1,4 2 5.1 1,4,5,6 1 2.6 1,5 5 12.8 1,6 2 5.1 1.5 1 2.6 2 1 2.6 3 2 5.1 5 3 7.7 6 1 2.6 Total 39 100.0
0=None, 1=Movable-do solfege, 2=Fixed-do solfege, 3=Numbers, 4=Letter Names, 5=Intervals, 6=Neutral Syllables, 7=Other
F.11. Sight-Singing System Utilized-Sample
125 Behavior N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation StartingPitch 39 1 52 10.21 10.988 ErrorDetection 39 0 29 9.54 7.316 StartAgain 39 0 31 10.79 8.383 Tonicize 39 0 121 25.13 30.528 Singing 39 0 595 320.23 152.260 SilentStudy 39 0 299 30.51 56.280 Chant 39 0 61 7.26 16.348 Writing 39 0 158 26.38 42.965 External 39 0 197 25.62 45.169 Score 39 8.5 35.0 24.833 8.770
F.12. Descriptive Statistics of Observed Behaviors-Sample
126 Frequency Percent Years 3 1 10.0 4 9 90.0 Total 10 100.0
Table 13. Years of High School Participation-High Scorers
127 Frequency Percent Type 1 1 10.0 1,2 3 30.0 1,2,4 1 10.0 1,2,5 1 10.0 1,3 1 10.0 1,3,5 1 10.0 1,4,5 1 10.0 1,5 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=No Choir, 1=Mixed Gender Choir, 2= Gender Specific Choir, 3=Show Choir,
4=Honor Choir, 5=Community Choir
F.14. Type of High School Choral Ensemble-High Scorers
128 Frequency Percent Years 0 1 10.0 1 2 20.0 3 7 70.0 Total 10 100.0
Table 15. Years of Middle School Participation-High Scorers
129 Frequency Percent Type 0 1 10.0 1 6 60.0 1,3 1 10.0 3 1 10.0 4 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=No Choir, 1=Mixed Gender Choir, 2=Gender Specific Choir, 3=General Music, 4=Community Chorus
F.16. Type of Middle School Choral Participation-High Scorers
130 Frequency Percent Years 0 6 60.0 1 1 10.0 2 2 20.0 5 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
F.17. Years of Private Voice Lessons-High Scorers
131 Frequency Percent Years 0 5 50.0 6 3 30.0 8 1 10.0 9 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
F.18. Years of Instrumental Ensemble Participation-High Scorers
132 Frequency Percent Type 0 5 50.0 1 3 30.0 1,2 1 10.0 2 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=No Instrumental Ensemble, 1=Orchestra, 2=Band
F.19. Type of Instrumental Ensemble-High Scorers
133 Frequency Percent Years 0 3 30.0 2 2 20.0 6 1 10.0 7 2 20.0 10 1 10.0 15 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
F.20. Years of Private Instrumental Lessons-High Scorers
134 Frequency Percent Type 0 2 20.0 Guitar 1 10.0 Oboe & Piano 1 10.0 Piano 6 60.0 Total 10 100.0
F.21. Type of Instrumental Private Lessons
135 Frequency Percent When/ 0 1 10.0 Where 1 6 60.0 1,2 1 10.0 1,2,4 1 10.0 1,4 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=None, 1=High School Chorus, 2=Middle School Chorus, 3=Elementary School Music
4=Private Voice Lessons, 5=Other
F,22. Educational Background of Sight Singing Instruction-High Scorers
136 Frequency Percent System 0 1 10.0 1 3 30.0 1,4 1 10.0 1,5 3 30.0 3 1 10.0 5 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=None, 1=Movable-do solfege, 2=Fixed-do solfege, 3=Numbers, 4=Letter Names,
5=Intervals, 6=Neutral Syllables, 7=Other
F.23. Sight Singing System Utilized-High Scorers
137 Behavior N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Starting Pitch 10 1 12 4.80 3.615 Error Detection 10 0 12 5.50 4.116 Start Again 10 1 14 4.60 3.748 Time 10 00:49 08:13 04:05 02:07 Tonicize 10 0 48 8.20 14.536 Singing 10 24 365 184.80 108.510 Silent Study 10 0 105 19.10 33.301 Chant 10 0 51 12.60 19.506 Writing 10 0 105 29.10 35.482 External 10 0 197 40.20 57.735 Score 10 34 35 34.90 .316 Valid N (listwise) 10
F.24. Descriptive Statistics of Observed Behaviors-High Scorers
138 Frequency Percent Years 0 1 10.0 1 3 30.0 3 1 10.0 4 5 50.0 Total 10 100.0
F.25. Years of High School Participation-Low Scorers
139 Frequency Percent Type 0 1 10.0 1 4 40.0 1,2 1 10.0 1,3 1 10.0 1,4,5 1 10.0 2 1 10.0 3 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=No Choir, 1=Mixed Gender Choir, 2= Gender Specific Choir, 3=Show Choir,
4=Honor Choir, 5=Community Choir
F.26. Type of High School Choral Ensemble-Low Scorers
140 Frequency Percent Years 0 4 40.0 1 3 30.0 3 3 30.0 Total 10 100.0
F.27. Years of Middle School Participation-Low Scorers
141 Frequency Percent Type 0 4 40.0 1 5 50.0 3 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=No Choir, 1=Mixed Gender Choir, 2=Gender Specific Choir, 3=General Music, 4=Community Chorus
F.28. Type of Middle School Choral Participation-Low Scorers
142 Frequency Percent Years 0 9 90.0 2 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
F 29. Years of Private Voice Lessons-Low Scorers
143 Frequency Percent Years 0 7 70.0 7 1 10.0 8 1 10.0 12 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
F.30. Years of Instrumental Ensemble Participation-Low Scorers
144 Frequency Percent Valid 0 7 70.0 1 1 10.0 2 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0
0=No Instrumental Ensemble, 1=Orchestra, 2=Band
F.31. Type of Instrumental Ensemble-Low Scorers
145 Frequency Percent Years 0 5 50.0 1 1 10.0 2 1 10.0 3 1 10.0 12 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0
F.32. Years of Private Instrumental Lessons-Low Scorers
146 Frequency Percent Type 0 4 40.0 Guitar 2 20.0 Piano 2 20.0 Violin 2 20.0 Total 10 100.0
F.33. Type of Instrumental Private Lessons-Low Scorers
147 Frequency Percent When/ 0 5 50.0 Where 1 4 40.0 1,4 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=None, 1=High School Chorus, 2=Middle School Chorus, 3=Elementary School Music
4=Private Voice Lessons, 5=Other
F.34. Educational Background of Sight Singing Instruction-Low Scorers
148 Frequency Percent System 0 5 50.0 1 1 10.0 1,2,5 1 10.0 1,4 1 10.0 1,6 1 10.0 5 1 10.0 Total 10 100.0
0=None, 1=Movable-do solfege, 2=Fixed-do solfege, 3=Numbers, 4=Letter Names,
5=Intervals, 6=Neutral Syllables, 7=Other
F.35. Sight Singing System Utilized-Low Scorers
149 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation StartingPitch 10 1 52 13.40 16.345 ErrorDetection 10 0 11 5.70 3.917 StartAgain 10 0 31 16.00 11.421 Tonicize 10 0 78 28.10 33.305 Singing 10 80 595 358.10 150.704 SilentStudy 10 0 160 34.40 51.368 Chant 10 0 9 .90 2.846 Writing 10 0 158 15.80 49.964 External 10 0 44 7.00 14.181 Score 10 8.5 16.5 13.10 2.3547
F.36. Descriptive Statistics of Observed Behaviors-Low Scorers
150 HSYears MSYears Pri.Voice IEYears Pri.Inst. High School Pearson 1.000 .337* .192 -.213 -.325* Years Correlation Sig.(2-tailed) .036 .241 .192 .043 N 39.000 39 39 39 39 Middle Pearson School Correlation .337* 1.000 -.173 -.414** .018 Years Sig.(2-tailed) .036 .291 .009 .911 N 39 39.000 39 39 39 Private Pearson Voice Correlation .192 -.173 1.000 -.053 -.074 Years Sig.(2-tailed) .241 .291 .747 .655 N 39 39 39.000 39 39 Instrumental Pearson Ensemble Correlation -.213 -.414** -.053 1.000 .068 Years Sig.(2-tailed) .192 .009 .747 .679 N 39 39 39 39.000 39 Private Pearson Instrumental Correlation -.325* .018 -.074 .068 1.000 Years Sig.(2-tailed) .043 .911 .655 .679 N 39 39 39 39 39.000
F.37. Reported Characteristics Correlation Coefficients
151 Key:A-Time, B-Starting Pitch, C-Error Detection, D-Start Again, E-Tonicize, F-Silent Study, G-Chanting, H-Writing, I-External Beat Keeping, J-Singing
A B C D E F G H I J A Corr. 1.000 .548** .605** .578** .502** .254 -.128 .111 -.056 .894** Sig. .000 .000 .000 .001 .119 .438 .501 .735 .000 N 39.000 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 B Corr. .548** 1.000 .404* .487** .250 -.083 -.130 -.135 -.004 .644** Sig. .000 .011 .002 .125 .615 .430 .414 .981 .000 N 39 39.000 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 C Corr. .605** .404* 1.000 .251 .379* -.249 .033 -.097 .207 .726** Sig. .000 .011 .123 .017 .126 .843 .558 .207 .000 N 39 39 39.000 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 D Corr. .578** .487** .251 1.000 .216 -.012 -.211 -.237 -.229 .687** Sig. .000 .002 .123 .187 .944 .197 .147 .161 .000 N 39 39 39 39.000 39 39 39 39 39 39 E Corr. .502** .250 .379* .216 1.000 -.122 -.047 .186 -.062 .507** Sig. .001 .125 .017 .187 .459 .775 .257 .707 .001 N 39 39 39 39 39.000 39 39 39 39 39 F Corr. .254 -.083 -.249 -.012 -.122 1.000 -.184 -.085 -.207 -.094 Sig. .119 .615 .126 .944 .459 .261 .605 .206 .568 N 39 39 39 39 39 39.000 39 39 39 39 G Corr. -.128 -.130 .033 -.211 -.047 -.184 1.000 -.018 .784** -.161 Sig. .438 .430 .843 .197 .775 .261 .912 .000 .327 N 39 39 39 39 39 39 39.000 39 39 39 H Corr. .111 -.135 -.097 -.237 .186 -.085 -.018 1.000 -.060 -.130 Sig. .501 .414 .558 .147 .257 .605 .912 .718 .429 N 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39.000 39 39 I Corr. -.056 -.004 .207 -.229 -.062 -.207 .784** -.060 1.000 -.054 Sig. .735 .981 .207 .161 .707 .206 .000 .718 .745 N 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39.000 39 K Corr. .894** .644** .726** .687** .507** -.094 -.161 -.130 -.054 1.000 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .568 .327 .429 .745 N 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39.000 F.38. Observed Variable Correlation Coefficients
152 F.39. Histogram Report Test for Heteroskedasticity
153 F.40. P-Plot Test for Heteroskedasticity
154 F.41 Mean Score and Years of High School Participation
155