Running

 Head:  SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   1  

Sight-Singing in the Beginning High School Choral Classroom: A Survey of Virginia High

School Choral Teachers

Joseph Eveler

Florida State University

Submitted June 2012

DIS for Master’s of Music Education

SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   2  
 

Abstract

The purpose of this survey is to establish current practices, behaviors, and attitudes of high

school choral directors in the state of Virginia. As of the submission of this paper the survey has

not been completed; the author plans to distribute the survey in the fall of 2012 to the state choral

directors.
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   3  
 

Sight-Singing in the Beginning High School Choral Classroom:

A Survey of Virginia High School Choral Teachers

The skill of reading music in a choral setting would seem to be necessary to develop

independent, life-long performers. From the earliest incarnations of public school music

education with Lowell Mason, connecting the written pitch to vocalized sound is considered by

most music educators to be a necessary skill (Demorest, 2001). It is even included in our

National Standards for Music Education, content standard number five: “reading and notating

music” (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994). It is also becoming more

and more common for district and state level music assessments to include a sight-singing

component, with 25 states as of 2004 having some form of sight-singing assessment at the

district or state level (Kuehne, 2010).

With sight-singing established as a core skill in choral instruction, it might be assumed

that there are one or two systems and methods that have been universally adopted by music

educators. That, however, is not the case at all. According to Alan McClung there are no fewer

than nine different pitch systems in use today: (1) interval names; (2) inflected letter-names; (3)

non-inflected letter-names; (4) fixed-do; (5) scale-degree numbers with 1 always being tonic; (6)

scale degree numbers with 1 as tonic in major, and 6 as tonic in minor; (7) moveable-do, with

do-based minor; (8) moveable-do with la-based minor; and (9) neutral syllables (McClung,

2001). In his survey of high school all-state choristers from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee McClung found that the most common systems were

scale-degree numbers, moveable-do and fixed-do. In Jane Kuehne’s survey of Florida middle-

school choral educators it was shown that moveable-do is much more common than a fixed-do

system, and that solfege syllables and Curwen hand-signs are highly important (Kuehne, 2007).
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   4  
 

As McClung (2001) concludes, “… the debate over which system is best suited for teaching

sight-singing is frequently intense, emotional, and ultimately based on subjective personal

preference.”

Many factors play a role in the musical development of students, but there are several

factors that serve as strong predictors of students success at reading music. Demorest and May

(1995) found that, even while factoring in different methods, systems, and assessment

procedures, the most important factor was prior school choral experience, followed closely by

piano experience, and instrumental experience, and vocal lessons. Several studies (Daniels,

1986; Henry, 2011; Killian & Henry, 2005; McClung, 2008) found a high correlation between

piano and instrumental skills and high-level performance at sight-singing.

Rose Daniels (1986) surveyed a selection of 20 high schools to determine what factors, if

any, could accurately determine sight-reading ability in the school’s mixed chorus programs. She

selected four major variables: the school, the music curriculum, the chorus teacher, and the

chorus students. Through a detailed look at each variable, she found that the curriculum had least

influence on sight-singing ability. The single best predictor was ethnic make-up of the school.

She lists the following factors, in combination, as being the strongest predictors of sight-reading

ability: the ethnic make-up of the school, a large percentage of choir students with a piano at

home, a school in a rural setting, an occasional use of rote teaching procedures, a large

percentage of all-state chorus participants, large number of students with instrumental experience,

and a chorus teacher who believes that sight-singing is an important objective for high school

music (Daniels, 1986). Of these factors, the one most able to be influenced is the attitude of the

teacher towards sight-singing.

SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   5  
 

While there may not be empirical evidence determining the most effective sight-singing

system, there is research to support specific sight-singing strategies and techniques. Janice

Killian and Michele Henry found that there are desirable strategies during a practice period that

are much more common in high-ability level sight-singers (2005). These strategies include

tonicizing the key out loud, use of hand signs, practicing the example out loud, finishing the

example in the allotted study time, and isolating problem areas. Those students who performed

the examples most accurately also used these strategies most frequently. Strategies considered to

be undesirable, such as abandoning the steady beat, stopping during the melody, and taking eyes

off the music, were found in highest numbers in the low scoring participants. In the lowest

scoring participants the researchers found the 30-second preparation time to be nearly useless. A

lack of instruction in strategies for approaching sight-singing is a key factor in the low

performance (Killian & Henry, 2005). To expand on this finding, Henry conducted a study in

2008 that found even a short thirty-minute cram session of these strategies can improve the sight-

singing performance of low scoring sight-singers, with a 19% increase in their scores from

pretest to posttest. It did not, however, increase the scores of the high scoring participants (Henry,

2008). Henry and Killian’s research showed that the presence of multiple desirable strategies is

directly related to increased scores.

However, McClung found in 2008 that students who were extensively trained in Curwen

hand signs performed no better with or without the use of the hand signs during assessment. In

fact, students with no instrumental experience actually performed better without the use of hand

signs (McClung, 2008). In addition, his research found data to support a commonly held belief-

students with instrumental experience score significantly higher than students without
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   6  
 

instrumental experience. Instrumentalists scored 37% higher in the study than non-

instrumentalists (2008).

There have been several studies dedicated to determining the usefulness of specific sight-

singing teaching strategies. Henry (2004) found that by targeting specific pitch skills students’

mean scores rose significantly. She developed fifteen core pitch skills that were introduced and

practiced over a 12-week period. One group was instructed on the skills using unfamiliar tonal

patterns, while the other group was instructed with familiar melodies exhibiting the pitch skills.

Both groups showed significant gains from pretest to posttest ( (Henry, 2004). In a study with

college undergraduate music majors J. David Boyles and Keitha Lucas (1990) found that a tonal

context during sight-singing (consisting of a prerecorded track providing choral accompaniment)

significantly improved the mean scores of the participants. It also showed that the greatest

improvement occurred at the lowest level of sight-singing skill.

Henry (2011) found that pitch and rhythm skills retain their relative difficulties,

independent of other factors present in the music. She also found that while pitch accuracy was

not affected by rhythmic difficulty, rhythmic accuracy was affected by pitch difficulty. It was

much more common in this study for the participant to complete the pitch skills correctly but the

rhythm skills incorrectly than to complete rhythmic skills correctly but pitch skills incorrectly.

Therefore, Henry writes, “Rhythmic success was found to be a significant predictor of pitch

success” (Henry, 2011).

Kanable (1969) conducted an experiment to compare a sight-singing course taught by a

teacher in a classroom setting and the use of a self-instructional method using written and

prerecorded audio material. The study aimed to find if either method was more effective at

increasing the sight-reading scores of high school choral students. While it was a limited study at
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   7  
 

a summer music camp without any equating of the control and experimental groups, it was

shown that there was no significant difference between either method. Kanable felt that this

information could be used to develop a sight-reading method that tailored to an individual

student’s needs and allow for more targeted instruction, especially for students who seek to

pursue music at the collegiate level (1969).

There has been some research to determine whether the type of assessments being used

affect the performance of students. In most choral classrooms sight-singing is taught to the

ensemble as a whole, but the way in which assessment occurs can very widely. Demorest (2001)

reports from an informal survey that 75% of directors have some kind of singing test during the

year, with 33% of directors testing at least three times per year. Common modes of assessment

include sight-singing alone in rehearsal, alone on tape, alone in front of the teacher, and in

quartets in rehearsal. Henry (2001) tested an assessment method where, rather than score every

single pitch and rhythm uniquely, there is an inventory of pitch skills that would be used to

develop musical examples, and the performer would be graded on the completion of each skill.

The reasoning behind this method is that this would create a quicker and more quantitative

assessment, and therefore useful in a setting where numerous students need to be tested in a short

amount of time. Her study found the test to be highly reliable, and possessed the qualities needed

to be useful to a classroom teacher (Henry, The Development of a Vocal Sight-Reading

Inventory, 2001). This test, known as the Vocal Sight-Reading Inventory (VSRI) is unique in

that it provides specific feedback to the performer and instructor as to the skills that are mastered

by the performer, and those that are not. In 2003 Henry fine-tuned this test, created a

comprehensive test and a leveled test. The comprehensive test, which consists of six melodies

covering all 28 skills, would be useful in a pretest or benchmark situation. The leveled test,
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   8  
 

which consists of melodies of increasing difficulty, could be used to assess progress in certain

pitch skills after the comprehensive test has set a baseline (Henry, 2003).

Henry (2012) did a recent study to find if music technology was a viable choice for

assessing sight-singing, as well as exploring student attitudes towards the use of computerized

assessment. Participants were given a questionnaire regarding their sight-singing experience,

their comfort with sight-singing, self-evaluation of their sight-singing ability, and their views on

using technology in music. All participants were high school students at a summer music camp.

The students were given the questionnaire, then were given a sight-singing assessment through

the SmartMusic 2012 software, and then given a follow-up questionnaire to assess their feelings

of the test, their perceptions of the software, and their likelihood of using this type of technology

in the future. Henry found, regarding instruction and assessment, (1) most instruction in choral

classrooms is happening in a large group setting, with only 12 of 138 participants not reporting

that as a means of instruction; (2) small-group or peer instruction was reported by only 50 of 138

participants; (3) 70% of participants had been assessed at sight-singing as an individual, and

interestingly the number of intermediate and advanced sight-singers reporting individual

assessment was far higher than the beginning-level sight-singers (2012). She also found that

students who had never used computer-based assessment found it an unpleasant experience the

first time, those students who took a class on the software at the music camp had a dramatic shift

of opinion, finding that it “enforced a strict tempo,” “make them better sight-readers,” “easy to

use,” and “provided immediate feedback” (Henry, 2012).

To investigate the implications of individual assessment, Demorest (1998) conducted an

experiment with six high school choirs in Washington state to test the hypothesis: “Choir

students given a regular program of individual testing will show a significantly greater
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   9  
 

improvement in individual sight-singing over students given group sight-singing instruction

alone” (Demorest S. M., Improving Sightsinging Performance in the Choral Ensemble: The

Effect of Individual Testing, 1998). 306 participants from six schools were involved in the study.

Two choirs were used at each school, and each choir was randomly placed in either the control or

experimental group. The control groups received only group instruction, while the experimental

groups also had individual assessment three times over as many months. The study showed a

significant improvement, even over one semester of study, in the group that had used individual

assessment as part of the instructional process. Even when accounting for differences in methods

and school demographics, this study shows a clear path for improvement in individual sight-

singing skills ( (Demorest, 1998).

While the research has found numerous factors that correlate to successful sight-singing,

the most important factor that is directly affected by the teacher is individual student assessment

(Demorest S. M., 2001). And while much has been written about the instruction of sight-singing

as a skill, little has been written about the connection of sight-singing skills to the performance

repertoire that is the majority of a choral rehearsal. This survey of Virginia high school choral

teachers seeks to answer the following questions:

(1) Are teachers instructing students in sight-singing?

(2) If so, how often do they teach sight-singing, and for what amount of time?

(3) Why systems of sight-singing are in use in Virginia high schools?

(4) Are teachers using individual assessment to assess sight-singing?

(5) Are teachers applying the skills taught during sight-singing instruction to the learning

of choral repertoire? If no, why not?

This survey is neither scientific nor experimental, but rather a descriptive look at the
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   10  
 

current self-reported practices of Virginia choral teachers.

Method

An online survey will be emailed to the high school choral teachers in Virginia, via an

email list provided by the Virginia Music Educators’ Association (VMEA).

Survey

1. In what school system do you teach? (County, City, etc.)

2. At what school do you teach?

3. How many years have you been teaching?

4. Do you teach sight-singing to your beginning choir students?

If yes:

5. How frequently do you teach sight-singing?

a. every class d. once every three or four

b. almost every class classes

c. every other class e. once or twice a month

f. once or twice a marking

period

6. How long are your class periods?

a. 30-40 minutes e. 70-80 minutes

b. 40-50 minutes f. 80-90 minutes

c. 50-60 minutes g. 90-100 minutes

d. 60-70 minutes h. longer than 100 minutes

7. How many times a week do you see your beginning choir classes?

a. 1 b. 2
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   11  
 

c. 3 e. 5

d. 4 f. more than 5

8. In the classes you teaching sight-singing, how much time, on average, is spent

specifically on sight-singing instruction?

a. less than five minutes e. 20 to 25 minutes

b. five to ten minutes f. 25 to 30 minutes

c. ten to fifteen minutes g. more than 30 minutes

d. 15 to 20 minutes

9. What system of pitch do you most frequently use in choral class?

a. moveable-do, with a la-based c. fixed-do

minor (C would be do in both C d. scale degree numbers

major and A minor) e. note letter names

b. moveable-do, with a do-based f. neutral syllable

minor (C would be do in both C

major and C minor)

10. What system of rhythm do you use most frequently in choral class?

a. counting of beats (i.e., four quarter notes would be counted “1 2 3 4”)

b. rhythmic syllables (i.e.. four quarter notes would be counted “ta ta ta ta” or similar)

c. counting of individual note values( i.e., four quarter notes would be counted “1 1 1 1”)

d. other (please specify: )

11. How many times a marking period are students assessed on sight-singing individually?

a. 1 c. 3

b. 2 d. 4
SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   12  
 

e. 5 f. more than 5

12. What methods do you use for assessing students individually? Check all that apply.

a. singing in front of class e. singing alone into computer

b. singing alone in front of teacher f. singing in quartets

c. singing alone into recording device g. other (please specify: )

d. recording individuals during

ensemble singing

13. Which best describes the instruction of sight-singing in your beginning choral classes?

a. large group instruction only

b. mostly large group instruction, with occasional small group/peer instruction

c. evenly split between large group instruction and small group/peer instruction

d. mostly small group/peer instruction, with occasional large group instruction

e. small group/peer instruction only

The following statements will be evaluated in a 1-10 scale, 1 being “strongly disagree” and 10

being “strongly disagree”.

14. Sight-singing is a valuable skill to teach all choral students.

15. I teach sight-singing because it is required at District Assessment, All-VA Chorus

auditions, and VMEA Honors Choir Auditions.

16. I teach sight-singing because it is required to create life-long independent musicians.

17. I would not spend as much time on sight-singing if it was not required at certain events.

18. I tend to spend more time on sight-singing instruction right before major events such as

District Assessment and auditions.

SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   13  
 

19. I often reduce time spent on sight-singing instruction before school concerts and

performances.

The following statements will be evaluated on a 1-10 scale, 1 being “never,” 5 being

“occasionally,” and 10 being “always.”

20. I have my students sight-sing without piano accompaniment.

21. I have my students sight-sing with a piano accompaniment.

22. I give a pretest at the beginning of the year to assess my students’ sight-singing abilities.

23. When teaching new repertoire to my beginning choir students I teach them the music by

rote teaching.

24. When teaching new repertoire to my beginning choir students I allow them to write in

pitches based on the system we use for sight-singing and have students read the repertoire

using sight-singing skills.

25. When teaching new repertoire to my beginning choir students I have them read the

repertoire using sight-singing skills without writing in pitches.

26. I teach new repertoire by playing the piano along with the students.

27. I teach new repertoire by having the students sing as a large group a cappella, only giving

starting pitches from a piano, pitch pipe, etc.

28. I teach new repertoire by having students sing in small sections using peer instruction.

If no:

5. What are the reasons for not teaching sight-singing to your students? Check all that apply.

a. I do not feel it is important to c. I do not feel confident teaching

teaching choir. sight-singing.

b. I do not have enough time.

SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   14  
 

d. I have not had enough training in f. Students bore easily during sight-

teaching sight-singing. reading instruction.

e. It prevents me from recruiting g. My program cannot afford the costs

students because it is not enjoyable. of teaching sight-singing.

SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   15  
 

Bibliography

Boyle, J., & Lucas, K. V. (1990). The Effect of Context on Sightsinging. Bulletin of the Council

for Research in Music Education (106), 1-9.

Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National Standards for Arts

Education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts.

Reston, VA: MENC.

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), 279-289.

Demorest, S. M. (1998). Improving Sightsinging Performance in the Choral Ensemble: The

Effect of Individual Testing. Journal of Research in Music Education , 46 (2), 182-192.

Demorest, S. M. (2001). Building Choral Excellence: Teaching Sight-Singing in the Choral

Rehearsal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Demorest, S. M., & May, W. V. (1995). Sight-Singing Instruction in the Choral Ensemble:

Factors Related to Individual Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education ,

43 (2), 156-167.

Henry, M. L. (2001). The Development of a Vocal Sight-Reading Inventory. Bulletin of the

Council for Research in Music Education (150), 21-35.

Henry, M. L. (2003). A Comparison of Testing Formats for Vocal Sight Reading. Texas Music

Education Research , 2-9.

Henry, M. L. (2004). The Use of Targeted Pitch Skills for Sight-Singing Instruction in the

Choral Rehearsal. Journal of Research in Music Education , 52 (3), 206-217.

SIGHT-­‐SINGING  IN  BEGINNING  HIGH  SCHOOL  CHOIR   16  
 

Henry, M. L. (2008). The Use of Specific Practice and Performance Strategies in Sight-

Singing Instruction. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education , 26 (2), 11-

16.

Henry, M. L. (2011). The Effect of Pitch and Rhythm Difficulty on Vocal Sight-Reading

Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education , 59 (1), 72-84.

Henry, M. L. (2012). Vocal Sight-Reading Assessment: Technological Advances, Student

Perceptions, and Instructional Implications. 2012 Texas Music Educators Association

Annual Convention Research Session, (pp. 2-18).

Kanable, B. (1969). An Experimental Study Comparing Programed Instruction with

Classroom Teaching of Sightsinging. Journal of Research in Music Education , 17 (2),

217-226.

Killian, J. N., & Henry, M. L. (2005). A Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Strategies

in Individual Sight-Singing Preparation and Performance. Journal of Research in Music

Education , 53 (1), 51-65.

Kuehne, J. M. (2007). A Survey of Sight-Singing Instructional Practices in Florida Middle-

School Choral Programs. Journal of Research in Music Education , 55 (2), 115-128.

Kuehne, J. M. (2010). Sight-Singing: Ten Years of Published Research. Update: Applications

of Research in Music Education , 29 (1), 7-14.

McClung, A. C. (2001). Sight-Singing Systems: Current Practice and Survey of All-State

Choristers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education , 20 (1), 3-8.

McClung, A. C. (2008). Sight-Singing Scores of High School Choristers with Extensive

Training in Moveable Solfege Syllables and Curwen Hand Signs. Journal of Research

in Music Education , 56 (3), 255-266.