A Comparison of Successful and Less Successful Rehearsal

A Comparison of Successful and Less Successful Rehearsal Strategies Utilized in Choral Adjudicated Sight-Singing

by

Andrea L. Riggs, B.M.Ed, M.M.Ed.

A Dissertation in Music Education

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

Of Texas Tech University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Janice Killian Chair of the Committee

Hansel Burley

Keith Dye

Bill Gelber

Peter Martens

Peggy Gordon Miller

Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2011

Texas Tech University Andrea L. Riggs, May 2011

2011 Andrea L. Riggs


ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Words seem inadequate to express my sincere gratitude towards the members of my

committee who have tirelessly supported this endeavor. I would like to thank Keith Dye for

his keen eye and thoughtful suggestions, Bill Gelber for his insightful comments and

encouragement to continue researching, Hansel Burley for his unique perspective and

challenge for precision and accuracy in analysis, Peter Martens for his thought provoking

questions and Janice Killian for her dedication to excellence, time and expertise throughout

my graduate studies.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge and thank the graduate students, faculty and

educators that offered their eyes, thoughts, and years of experience towards the categories

which resulted in the real-time observation instrument used in this study. I would like to

thank professors Dr. Bruce Wood, Dr. Susan Brumfield, Prof. Carolyn Cruse, graduate

students Daniel Todd, Donna Hogan, John Wayman, Anna Plagman, Brad Green, and choral

directors Pat Banks, Natalie McCollough, and Laine Keller.

Finally, such an academic endeavor could not reach its start, much less conclusion,

without the continual prayer, love and support of numerous family and friends. My most

heartfelt gratitude is extended to my loving sisters Ione, Christina and Alicia for their

ceaseless encouragement and love, to my parents Ben and Charlotte Evans who have shown

much perseverance through the years, Grandma Hazel who has known and supported this

dream for the whole of my life, and finally for those who have gone on before, but who

inspired me to pursue my dreams, the late Raymond Bazemore, Ron Shirey, Memaw (Ione

Logue) and Granddad Dr. Bob Evans.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………....ii

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….vi

List of Tables……………………………………………………...…………………………vii

CHAPTER 1: Introduction……………………..……………..…………………………...….1

Purpose…………………………………………………………………….…………..2

Significance……………………………………………………………………………3

Limitations…………………………………………………………………………….3

CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature …………………………...……………...………………5

Teacher Preparation for Sight-reading Instruction……………………………………5

Development of Observation Instrument……………………………………………..7

Sight-Singing Methods and Materials………………………………………………...8

Time Allocation………………………………………………………………………9

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………..12

CHAPTER 3 Methodology……………………...…………...………………………………13

Research Questions…………………………………………………………………..14

Participants and Setting………………………………………………………………15


iv

Sight-singing Guidelines and Music Selection………………………………………15

Instruments and Procedures………………………………………………………….16

Preparation Periods……………………..……………………………………………21

Sight-Singing Form………………………………………………………………….23

Data Collection………………………………………………………………………26

Data Development…………………………………………………………………...27

CHAPTER 4 Results……………………………..………………………...………………..28

Frequency and Significance of Verbal Instructions………………………………….30

Significance of Utilized Verbal Strategies and Successful or Less Successful

Ratings……………………………………………………………………………….35

Significance of Observed Rehearsal Strategies……………………………………...38

Sequence of Study Types, Study Strategies and Successful Ratings……….………..41

CHAPTER 5 Discussion and Conclusions…………………..………………………………49

Research Questions and Notable findings…………………………………………...51

Discussion of the Overall Rehearsal period…………………………………………52

DiscussionofVerbalandInstructionalMethodsUtilizedbyasignificantnumber ofdirectors……………………………………….……………………………………………..…………..54 Discussion of underutilized verbal and instructional strategies that yielded successful ratings…………………..……………………………………………………………56

Discussion of underutilized verbal and instructional strategies that did not result in successful or less successful ratings………………………………………..………..57


v

Discussion of rehearsal strategies utilized by a significant number of directors…………………………………………………………………..…………..58

Discussion on the sequence of study types and frequency rehearsal strategies and the frequency of use………………………………….………………..…………………60

Conclusions………………………………………………………….……………….60

Implications for Further Research………………………………………….......……61

REFERENCES…………....…………………………………………………………………63

APPENDEX A………………………………………………………………………………66

APPENDEX B……………………………………………………………………………….67

APPENDEX C……………………………………………………………………..………..68


vi

ABSTRACT

Theabilitytosight‐readmusicalnotationindependentlyisconsideredtobea

fundamentalskillforthechoralmusician(Fine,2006;Henry,2004,2008;Norris,2004).

Since proficiency in sight-singing takes time to master, the director must adjust the routines

and techniques to the needs of the students, trying a variety of strategies to achieve the

desired results. Students in turn must be willing and able to accept, internalize and execute

the instructions from their director at the appropriate time (Conway, 2008; Floyd, 2006;

Henry, 2008). The purpose of this study was to observe and compare the rehearsal strategies

used by the directors of middle and high school choirs at adjudicated sight-singing events.

The goal of such observations was to determine what teacher strategies were currently being

used to facilitate sight-singing, and what (if any) strategies were more or less beneficial

during the study period before adjudicated sight-singing. For the purposes of this study, data

analysis focused on those strategies and sight-singing elements that differed between

successful and less successful choral sight-singing as observed during a one-time adjudicated

setting in which a rating was given. Results were stated in terms of frequency of occurrence

and statistical significance in comparison to successful and less successful sight-singing

ratings.


vii

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Initial Distribution of Participants……………………………………………………… 15

3.2 Distribution of Participants After Eliminating the Rating of 2………………………..…26

4.1 Division of Successful and Less Successful Choirs by School Classification……………………………………………………………………………..…..30

4.2 Verbal Instruction Usage in Descending Order of Frequency…………………………...31

4.3 Director Initiated Time Request……………………………………………...……...…..34

4.4 Frequency of Elements Mentioned and Corresponding Rating…………………...…….37

4.5 Utilized Sight-Singing Rehearsal Strategies……………………………………………..39

4.6 Total Frequent of Utilized Rehearsal Strategies………………………..……..………...43

4.7 Total Number of Implementations of a Rehearsal Strategy and Rating Received……………………………………….…………………………..…………………44

4.8 Rehearsal Strategies and Ratings From Middle School Choirs………………..………..45

4.9 Rehearsal Strategies and Ratings From High School Choirs……………………....…….46


1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The ability to sight-read musical notation independently is considered to be a fundamental

skill for the choral musician (Fine, 2006; Henry, 2004, 2008; Norris, 2004). Without the

knowledge and understanding of musical notation, the singer would be left limited in his/her

abilities to reproduce notation from a score without having first heard it. In order for directors

to teach students to accomplish this task, they must have a thorough musical knowledge,

score reading abilities, conducting skills and the ability to communicate and impart their

knowledge into skill-sets for their students. Choral festivals and performance assessments

are used across the United States to demonstrate the National Standards in choral

performance and sight-singing (Norris, 2004). As this nation continues to place a high regard

towards achievement, it would stand to reason that directors must choose instructional

strategies that are most effective and efficient in order to help both the individual and the

ensemble fully realize their musical potential and to achieve musical success with both sight-

singing and repertoire.

From informal observations during my own teacher training and teaching experiences, I

came to realize that the beginning teacher is expected to not only teach sight-singing skills to

his/her students, but also effectively utilize the instructional periods prior to adjudicated

sight-singing. Since proficiency in sight-singing takes time to master, the director must

adjust the routines and techniques to the needs of the students, trying a variety of strategies to

achieve the desire results. Students in turn must be willing and able to accept, internalize and

execute the instructions from their director at the appropriate time (Conway, 2008; Floyd,

2006; Henry, 2008). To further complicate the issue, choirs differ in terms of age, experience

and musical ability. Within each choir there are also subsets of students whose experience


2

and musical skills are individually different than those of the larger group. The learning

process for each choir would appear to be different, and therefore the strategies utilized by

said choirs should reflect those differences. Since the sight-singing process does not begin in

a formal adjudicated choral setting, and since learning is an independent process, research

has often focused on sight-singing methods, materials, time usage, and individual sight-

singing strategies (Cox, 1986; Killian, 2005; Yarbrough, 2007). However, when choral

sight-singing skills are evaluated, a group setting is often utilized which warrants further

investigation into strategies and techniques used by directors and students during the group

sight-singing process (Demorest 2001, 2004).

Purpose The purpose of this study is to observe and compare the rehearsal strategies used by

the directors of middle and high school choirs at adjudicated sight-singing events. The goal

of such observations is to determine what teacher strategies are currently being used to

facilitate sight-singing, and what (if any) strategies are more or less beneficial during the

study period before adjudicated sight-singing. The following questions will be addressed: 1)

how do directors and students use preparation periods before sight-singing, 2) what sight-

singing techniques yield successful or less successful ratings, and 3) are there different or

similar preparatory strategies implemented for middle school sight-singing as compared to

high school sight-singing.


3

Significance of This Study

The results of this study would be of potential benefit for the following groups of

people: 1) university faculty of music education majors, as they teach students to learn,

prepare and execute sight-singing strategies and routines 2) current choir directors who seek

to improve the success of their students and to further their own professional growth, 3)

student teachers as they prepare to enter the field, 4) and new music educators, as they

become aware of the learning diversity within their own schools and community

Limitations of This Study

For the purposes of this study, data analysis will focus on those strategies and sight-

singing elements that differ between successful and less successful choral sight-singing as

observed during a one-time setting in which a rating is given. Observations will be limited to

real-time recording by a human observer and only include the sight-singing portions of a

state-wide choral festival. Numerous sight-singing instructional and preparation periods

would need to be observed and analyzed in order to get a more complete picture of how

directors initially prepare their students for sight-singing, and specifically how or if there are

techniques used specifically for the adjudicated sight-singing process. Since the process of

sight-singing instruction presumably takes place throughout the school year, adjudicated

festivals are a snap-shot of the work that has preceded the event and therefore may limit the

broad generalization of techniques used to teach sight-singing as successful or less

successful. This study will be limited to the sight-singing techniques used on one particular

day and event, and may or may not be indicative of the successful or less successful

strategies used on a daily basis.


4

The statewide festival employs a panel of three adjudicators that must meet stated

guidelines and training sessions as outlined in the University Interscholastic League

Constitution and Contest Rules (2010). While these adjudicators are similarly trained and

qualified, the participating adjudicators differ from festival to festival across the state. Even

though sight-singing is objective, variations in panel member training and individual

expectations for sight-singing preparedness must be taken into account when comparing

successful and less successful strategies with ratings.

Unlike prior observational studies, this study does not attempt to identify the

following: the amount of time spent on a particular sight-singing strategy, student

participation or attentiveness, rating accuracy, or sight-singing repertoire components. This

study sought to focus on the occurrence or non-occurrence of specific instructional strategies

as observed during the instructional periods preceding adjudicated sight-singing.


5

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Existing literature regarding the process of sight-singing covers various aspects

related to this study. Previous literature regarding choir directors’ instructional strategies for

sight-singing primarily focused on the high school level teaching of sight-singing (Daniels,

1988; Floyd, 2006; Killian & Henry, 2005; Smith, 1998). More recent studies have started

to include the middle school director’s sight-singing teaching techniques as well (Demorest

2001, 2004; Kuehne, 2007). Common themes for both bodies of research include teaching

strategies, sight-singing methods, materials, and time-allocation.

Teacher Preparation for Sight-Singing Instruction

While one would presume the undergraduate experience would adequately prepare a

choir director to teach sight-singing, research indicated that teachers perceived their music

teacher training to be less than adequate to address the music learning needs in the real

classroom (Ballantyne, 2004; Floyd, 2006; Keuhne, 2007). Keuhne (2007) investigated the

sight-singing instructional preparedness and practices of 131 middle school choir directors

who belonged to the Florida Vocal Association. When questioned about who or what was

most influential in their preparedness to teach sight-singing, participants (18%) stated that

undergraduate professors had little or no influence on how they taught sight-singing and that

their own middle and high school choral directors were more influential. Similar responses

in preparedness were reported by Floyd, (2006) who surveyed choir directors that

participated in the Kentucky Music Education Association (KMEA) district choral

performance evaluation. Of the 46 directors listed as having participated, 24 agreed to the


6

questionnaire study. When asked what best prepared the directors to teach sight-singing,

29.17% responded that KMEA and professional development opportunities were their main

sources for sight-singing preparedness, and an additional 29.17% stated their skills for

teaching sight-singing were self taught. Only 4% of participants stated that undergraduate

theory courses or music education courses prepared them to teach sight-singing, while only

8% of respondents said their undergraduate music theory and undergraduate music education

courses were effective in preparing them to teach sight-singing. Ballantyne (2004) surveyed

76 early-career music teachers with less than five years of teaching experience, and found

that only half of the surveyed teachers (55%) indicated that their pre-service classes prepared

them for teaching musical elements such as sight-singing. Participants also indicated that

there was a disparity between the theory of music education that was established in the

undergraduate classroom versus the reality that came with actually teaching various grades

and ability levels. It was apparent that the directors’ own perceptions about sight-singing,

personal observations and experiences were instrumental in determining the role that teacher

preparation courses played in their instructional practices. Additionally, participants

indicated that the university experience was not seen as the most beneficial for teacher

preparation and preparedness for teaching sight-singing in the high school or middle school

choral classroom.

Development of Observation Instruments

Regardless of a teacher’s self-efficacy towards teaching sight-singing and the role

that undergraduate courses played in their teaching abilities, music teachers have long been

observed and their teaching methods researched and documented for decades. While various

situations have allowed the use of audio or video recording during instruction time, initially,


7

observations were made in real-time without the assistance of recording devices. In other

situations, the use of recording devices may be restricted and a manual instrument to record

observed data must be utilized.

The devices used to record music education observations in real-time stemmed from

the seminal research of Cornelia Yarbrough. An early observation form (The Music

Conductor Observation Form) was developed by Yarbrough for use in a study of magnitude

conductor behavior (1975). Madsen and Yarbrough (1985) developed several observation

forms designed to record data concerning director and student behavior in choral and

instrumental rehearsal settings. Data were collected during eight-minute increments of the

rehearsal and researchers were able to utilize the Choral Observation Form to observe for ten

seconds and record data during the subsequent five seconds. The Choral Rehearsal

Observation Form allowed researchers to record director behaviors such as instruction,

singing or other, and student behaviors such as performing, not performing, on-task, and off-

tasks behaviors. The Music Conductor Observation Form (Madsen & Yarbrough, 1985) was

constructed so the observer could focus on conductor behavior. Elements of rehearsal

activity included verbal and nonverbal behavior by the conductor such as instructing, singing

or chanting while the group was performing or teaching and talking while the group was

performing. Nonverbal behaviors included vocal elements such as pitch and volume,

conducting gestures, body language, and eye contact. Both the rehearsal and conductor

observation forms have been used and adapted in varying situations for researchers, have

been part of several published studies (Harris, 1991) and were the template for the design of

this researcher’s own real-time observation form.


8

Sight-Singing Methods and Materials

There has been a long-standing debate as to which sight-singing method should be

used and which method produces the best results, though few studies have addressed their

effectiveness for middle or high school sight-singing (Yarbrough et al., 2007). The

following are common sight-singing methods, though it is not the purpose of this study to

purport that one system is more or less effective than another. There are numerous systems

from which to choose when teaching sight-singing. Among the most widely used systems

include the following: 1) movable do- a system in which the do (the tonic) changes as the

key changes, 2) fixed-do- a system in which the do (the tonic) remains on C regardless of the

key, 3) numbers - a system similar to movable do, except instead of using solfege, numbers

are used and correspond to the scale degree of the key, 4) neutral syllables (e.g. la), 5) note

names such as A, B, C etc. (Demorest, 2001). The choice of which system to use was often

the result of personal experience, familiarity or sometimes the school or district’s policy

(Keuhne, 2007). Research did not conclude that one sight-singing system was more or less

beneficial or successful than another. Henry and Demorest (1994) found that there was no

significant difference when comparing two accomplished choirs that sight-sang using the

movable and fixed do systems respectively, and concluded that both methods seemed equally

effective in the developing of skills and executing of sight-singing. However, in a later

study, Demorest and May (1995) reported that students utilizing the movable do method

scored significantly higher than did students using the fixed do method.

Further research indicated that individual assessments could be an important teaching

strategy to increase sight-singing success. Many directors reported giving an individual

assessment at least once a year (Daniels, 1987; Demorest, 1988, 2004; Johnson, 1987), and


9

Demorest (1988) suggested that including individual sight-singing skills test throughout the

year helped to improve individual sight-singing skills, and therefore improved the overall

ensemble’s sight-singing performance. In Floyd’s 2006 survey of middle school directors,

79% of directors reported that they gave individual sight-singing evaluations, and 74%

reported that students were evaluated more than twice during the year.

Studies indicated that choosing sight-singing materials was a personal choice. Some

directors indicated that they preferred to use choral literature, hymns, or octavos while using

the movable do system instead of method books (Daniels, 1987; Mays, 1993; Smith, 1998).

While there are a variety of sight-singing methods and materials available for purchase,

Demorest’s 2004 survey of choir directors indicated that many directors (72%) utilized

choral literature and created their own sight-singing materials to teach sight-singing skills.

In contrast, Floyd’s (2006) survey of Kentucky choir directors indicated that most directors

used a combination of self-made materials and method books and did not teach sight-singing

skills using choral literature. Kuehne’s (2007) survey of Florida middle school directors

indicated that 64% of directors with class textbooks (which contained sight-singing

instruction in addition to repertoire) utilized the sight-singing portion for class instruction in

sight-singing. Research regarding the type of sight-singing materials or sight-singing

methods utilized did not yield consistent or significant results and perhaps less consequential

than the amount of time spent on actual sight-singing.

Time Allocation

Perhaps a more telling aspect of sight-singing ability is the amount of time allocated

by the director during rehearsals towards sight-singing. Cutietta (1979) reported that sight-

singing skills could be achieved when time were set-aside during rehearsals to focus on the


10

skill. More recent research suggested that the amount of time spent on sight-singing in the

choral rehearsal reached an average of 5-15 minutes (Demorest, 2001, 2004; May, 1993;

Smith, 1998). Buford (2010) found that successful choir directors in Title I high schools

spent approximately 25% of rehearsal time on sight-singing. Demorest (2004) in his national

web-based survey found that directors allocated more time to sight-singing skills during their

rehearsal when they attended large-group festivals that included a sight-singing component

as opposed to directors that did not attend a festival or contest in which a sight-singing

component was included. Kentucky recently added a sight-singing component to their large-

group choral festival in 2002, and Floyd (2006) reported that of those surveyed, directors

spent on average 18% of their rehearsal time on sight-singing and that directors continued to

practice sight-singing even after the festival or contest was completed. Percentages were

reported in order to account for differing lengths of rehearsals; however, the standard

deviation was 7.33%, indicating that there was a substantial variance among the time

directors allocated to sight-singing practice. While there were studies that indicated how

much rehearsal time was devoted to the instruction of sight-singing, few studies investigated

the strategies and techniques used prior to adjudicated sight-singing. Research by Killian &

Henry (2005) compared successful and unsuccessful strategies for high school singers

(N=198) to determine whether having a study period (30-seconds) affected sight-singing

scores and whether the study period benefited a certain proficiency of sight singer (low,

medium or high proficiency). In addition, the study sought to reveal if sight-singers at

differing proficiency levels utilized various study techniques prior to or during sight-singing.

Results suggested that there was a significant difference between sight-singing accuracy for

the medium and high proficiency readers when there was a 30-second study period as


11

compared to the low achieving sight-singers for whom there was no significant difference in

accuracy. Results also showed that high accuracy sight-singers tonicized prior to sight-

singing, used hand signs, sang out loud during the practice time, isolated problem areas and

finished the melody within the allotted time. Less successful sight-singing performance

strategies included abandoning the beat, not finishing the melody, taking eyes off the music

and shifting the body around.

In a seminal study by Yarbrough et al. (2007), time allocation of directors were

recorded and analyzed at an adjudicated concert and sight-singing festival in a large

southwestern state. This study sought to evaluate the time spent during the timed six-minute

and two-minute study periods allowed prior to adjudicated sight-singing for 47 high school

and 37 middle school directors. Schools represented were from urban and suburban schools

and represented the most advanced level and second advanced level performing groups from

their respective schools. Due to the secure nature of this festival, video recording of the

students themselves was not permitted, but the researchers were allowed to video the

directors. The allotted time for director instruction was a combined total of eight minutes

divided into six- and two-minute periods. Results indicated that different instruction was

given for various age groups (middle and high school). Middle school choirs (n=33) used

hand-signs and chanting together and only three choirs used hand-signs alone, while high

school choirs (n=20) used hand-signs alone and (n=21) used hand-signs and chanting

together. Some choirs chose to internally hear, or audiate the pitches and did not chant

aloud. Of the choirs that audiated, eleven middle school choirs audiated and hand-signed

together while only two only audiated. High school choirs that audiated (n=20) also used

hand-signs, while nine audiated without the use of hand-signs. For both middle and high


12

school choirs, there was a dominance of the movable do system; and directors talked 42.46 %

of the time and allowed student response the remaining 52.54% of the time. Results also

indicated that both middle and high school directors rarely addressed the expressive elements

of music prior to the sight-singing. Ratings for the observed district contained an

overwhelming number of superior ratings (76 of 84) received by the choirs.

Conclusions

While there is literature focused on researching the teaching strategies, methodologies

and time devoted to sight-singing, few studies involve the strategies or techniques

implemented during a study period before group adjudicated sight-singing. While research

implies some successful strategies for sight-singing that included keeping the steady beat,

tonicizing, utilizing all of the preparation time, singing through the excerpt, using hand signs,

and keeping the eyes on the music (Killian, 2005; Killian & Henry, 2005; Henry, 2008), such

strategies were focused on individual sight-singing tasks rather than director-led group sight-

singing assessments in which governing rules may not have allowed all named strategies to

be used. In the studies pertaining to the time-use prior to adjudicated sight-singing, there

were general categories about the actions and responses of both the director and students

rather than specific strategies that may have led to the choirs’ sight-singing success. Such

research was the catalyst for the present study in which the researcher compared the rehearsal

strategies used by directors of middle and high school choirs at adjudicated sight-singing

events to determine what specific strategies are currently used to facilitate sight-singing and

what (if any) strategies led to more or less successful sight-singing ratings.


13

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Questions

The initial question that fueled this study asked: are there certain rehearsal strategies

used by directors that yield superior sight-singing results at adjudicated choral festivals in

comparison to the sight-singing strategies that yield less successful sight-singing results at

the same adjudicated festivals? In hopes of drawing closer to the answer, the primary goal of

this study was to observe and compare the rehearsal strategies used by directors to discern

what strategies were currently used, and what, if any, strategies used during the study periods

were more for less beneficial in terms of a choral group’s sight-singing rating.

As stated in chapter two, the issues surrounding the ability to prepare and instruct

sight-singing in an adjudicated group setting are multi-faceted. For this study a mixed-mode

of inquiry was designed using quantitative and qualitative means. Primary questions for this

study examined the following:

1. How do directors and students use the six-minute instructional period prior to

adjudicated sight-singing?

2. What (if any) sight-singing strategies yield successful or less successful sight-

singing ratings?

3. Are there different or similar strategies implemented for middle school

adjudicated sight-singing as compared to high school adjudicated sight-singing?


14

Participants and Setting

Observed adjudicated sight-singing included middle and high school choirs (N=80)

performing in an established state-wide adjudicated choral festival. Observed choirs

included middle school (n= 40) and high school (n=40). Middle and high schools both

contained choirs with varying skill levels and included the following: most advanced, varsity

(V), and the less advanced, non-varsity (NV). Choirs sang in a variety of voicings including:

treble (sopranos and altos singing in two or three parts, tenor/bass (tenors, and basses singing

in two or three parts), and mixed (soprano, alto, tenor and bass singing in two, three or four

part configurations). Participants varied across middle and high school (See Table 3.1).

Table 3.1

Initial Distribution of Participants ___________________________________________________________________________ Middle School Choirs High School Choirs varsity choirs treble 21 tenor-bass 0 mixed 1 non-varsity choirs treble 14 tenor-bass 4 mixed 0

varsity choirs treble 13 tenor/bass 7 mixed 15 non-varsity choirs treble 5 tenor-bass 0 mixed 0

Sight-Singing Guidelines and Music Selection

Choirs participated in a public statewide choral concert and sight-singing festival. All

festivals were coordinated by the same ruling body (University Interscholastic League,

Constitution and Contest Rules) and followed the same rules, sight-sang the same choir-

specific music and had similarly trained and certified adjudicators in every festival across the

state. Because the choral festivals occurred during a small time frame of a few selected

weeks within 24 regions of the state, not all available sight-singing sessions could be


15

observed, so regions were selected whose festival dates, times and locations were accessible

to the researcher.

According to the festival guidelines (University Interscholastic League Constitution

and Concert Rules, 2010) sight-singing procedures were as follows: choral directors and

students were given a six-minute study period in which to prepare a music selection for sight-

singing. Directors were allowed to instruct the students by tapping out rhythms and talking

about any passage in the music, but they were not permitted to hum, sing or reproduce the

music in a tonal manor. Students were allowed to tap, clap, or chant the rhythms and/or

chant their preferred method of sight-singing such as movable do or text. During the initial

six minutes, the tonic chord could be played (but was not required to be played) only once in

broken chord style, but was not permitted to be reproduced by the director or students at any

time prior to the sight-singing performance. Students were permitted to ask questions and

make comments according to their director’s instructions. Neither the director nor the

students were allowed to mark on the score at any time unless the panel of judges directed

them to do so. After the initial six-minute study period, the students sang the piece a

cappella then had an additional two-minute study period in which the above criterion was

adhered to, and then the choir sang the piece again.

Sight-singing attempts were evaluated by a panel of three adjudicators and ranged

from a 1(superior) to a 5(unacceptable). The received scores were averaged and resulted in a

combined score (University Interscholastic League, 2010). Sight-singing selections were

composed specifically for this festival to ensure lack of familiarity, and individual selections

were composed for varied school sizes, voicings (mixed, treble, tenor-bass) and ability level

(varsity, non-varsity). The same selections were used at each festival across the state,


16

lending some consistency to the sight-singing and adjudication process. As a result of using

the same material at multiple venues, audio or video recording was not permitted by audience

members during the sight-singing portion of the festival and not permitted for this research.

Instruments and Procedures

All data were based on real-time observations using a researcher-designed

observation instrument. Observations and data collected for this study focused on the

instruction strategies and procedures utilized during all portions of the adjudicated sight-

singing and were recorded via a researcher-developed written observation form as described

below. All data were recorded on observation sheets designed for each of the four segments

of the sight-singing process including an initial six-minute preparatory period, first sight-

singing attempt, a second two-minute preparatory period, and a second sight-singing attempt.

Both the six-and two-minute periods had identical observation forms, as did the two reading

periods.


17

Figure3.1_____________________________________________________________________________________________________Six Minute and Two-Minute Instruction Observation Form

!"#$%&'()*+,"-$ .&/"-$$ 0-1-$ 23("$

4&5"$%&'()*+,"-$ .&/"-$$ 0-1-$ 23("$

%*),*&('$%#66)76"-$$$$$.&/"-$$ 0-1-$ 23("$$43(&8&9"-$ $$ :"-$ 23$

!"#$%&'()*+(,*#-&.%/($01&&

;"'&((&('$ <)'"$=$ $$$$$$%"8*&3($

>")-+,"$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%#66)76"$ $$$$$$?)@"(8"$ $

.%2%($1(3&!,$(,%+4&

55555555555555555555555555&

4"5A3$"-*)76&-B"@$ $ :"-$ 23$

$ $

C-"-$D)(@$%&'(-$ $ :"-$ 23$

?B)(*$%#66)76"-$ $ :"-$ 23$

?B)(*$EB#*B5$ $ :"-$ 23$

0+@&)*"-$ $ $ :"-$$$ 23$

6*$7&8#-9:",1& & ;%1& '#&

6*$7&?3+(*-F%()A-$$ $ :"-$ 23&

6*$7&>3/"-$)73+*$-"8*&3(-$ :"-$ 23&

6*$7&0--&-*-$-"8*&3(-$$ :"-$ 23$

$ $ $

6*$7$G-36)*"-$A&*8B"-F&(*",/)6$ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&G-36)*"-$,B#*B5$$ :"-$ 23&

6*$7&G-36)*"-$5+-&8$-"8*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&+-"-$B)(@$-&'(-$$ :"-$ 23$

6*$&5"(*&3(-$*,)(-&*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

<,2%$555555555555555555555555555555&&&

.%2%($1(3&!,$(,%+4&

55555555555555555555555555&

& &4"5A3$"-*)76&-B"@$ $ :"-$ 23$ $

C-"-$D)(@$%&'(-$ $ :"-$ 23$

?B)(*$%#66)76"-$ $ :"-$ 23$

?B)(*$EB#*B5$ $ :"-$ 23$

0+@&)*"-$ $ $ :"-$$$ 23$

6*$7$8#-9:",1& & ;%1& '#&

6*$7&?3+(*-F%()A-$ $ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&>3/"-$)73+*$-"8*&3(-$ :"-$ 23&

6*$7&0--&-*-$-"8*&3(-$$ :"-$ 23$ $ $

6*$7$G-36)*"-$A&*8BF&(*",/)6-$ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&G-36)*"-$,B#*B5$$ :"-$ 23&

6*$7&G-36)*"-$5+-&8$-"8*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

6*$&+-"-$B)(@$-&'(-$$ :"-$ 23$

6*$&5"(*&3(-$*,)(-&*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

<,2%$555555555555555555555555555555&&&

.%2%($1(3&!,$(,%+4&

5555555555555555555555555&

4"5A3$"-*)76&-B"@$ $ :"-$ 23$ $

C-"-$D)(@$%&'(-$ $ :"-$ 23$

?B)(*$%#66)76"-$ $ :"-$ 23$

?B)(*$EB#*B5$ $ :"-$ 23$

0+@&)*"-$ $ $ :"-$$$ 23$

6*$7&8#-9:",1& & ;%1& '#&

6*$7&?3+(*-F%()A-$ $ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&>3/"-$)73+*$-"8*&3(-$ :"-$ 23&

6*$7&0--&-*-$-"8*&3(-$$ :"-$ 23$ $ $

6*$7$G-36)*"-$A&*8B"-F&(*",/)6-$:"-$ 23$

6*$7&G-36)*"-$,B#*B5$$ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&G-36)*"-$5+-&8$-"8*&3(-$ :"-$ 23&

6*$&+-"-$B)(@$-&'(-$$ :"-$ 23$

6*$&5"(*&3(-$*,)(-&*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

<,2%$55555555555555555555555555555&&&

=%$>(3&?-1,$:",*#-1&?-"3:9%@&

H3,5$ <&*8B$ I#()5&8-$$$$;6"(@$

<B,)-"-$ 4"J*$ E"-*$ $$$;,")*B"$

43("$ K&-*"($ K3+@$$$$$$$$$$$K331$+AF)B")@$

4"5A3$$$$$$$$$$$$<)'"$*+,(-$$$$$$$$$$GL$#3+$'"*$K3-*$

?B3,@-$ $$$C(&-3($%"8*&3(-$$$$$$088&@"(*)6-$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

%*+@"(*-$0-1$M+"-*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

%*+@"(*$K")@",-$ $ :"-$ 23$

I&,N$C-"@$OB36"$4&5"$ :"-$ 23$?35A6"*"@$<&"8"$ $ :"-$ 23$

P*B",QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ$

A%,2#9@& & K"**",$()5"-&

>3/)76"$I3$ H&J"@$I3$

2+57",-$$ 2"+*,)6$%#66)76"$0+@&)*"$ $ O3,@-$

23("$ $ P*B",QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ$

B3("%/%-,&#-&.*1%$1&

R$>&(+*"$G(-*,+8*&3($<",&3@$ QQQQQQ$>&(+*"$O),(&('$ ?3@"$QQQQQQQQQQQ$

6*$7&$A3-&*&/"$-*)*"5"(*-$ :"-$$ 23$

6*$7$83,,"8*&/"$-*)*"5"(*-$ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&$("')*&/"$-*)*"5"(*-$ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&$5+-&8)6$-+''"-*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

6*$7&)-1"@$L3,$)(#$S+"-*&3(-$ :"-$ 23$

P*B",QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ$

.%/($01C<>1%$)(,*#-1&-#,&3*1,%9@&

B3%(1%&&D*33&*-&#>1%$)%9&$%2%($1(3&1,$(,%+4&EG(@&/&@+)6T$%"8*&3(-T$OB36"$.,3+AT$?6+-*",-U&

E"/&"V",QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ$


18

Figure3.2_____________________________________________________________________________________________________Sight-Singing Observation Form

!"#$%&'()$*+,-$

-./01#2/$

)23.1.40"$$$

$ %.35"$6.#7$872./$ 9$ :$

$ $

$ ;"0"$(<3=$%.53"$$ 9$ :$

'.>0"$%#</#.35$?.#170"$ 9$ :$

$ @.#7$7<3=$".53"$ 9$ :$

%#</#.35$#70$+3"0ABC0$

$ 823=D1#"$$$$$$$$$$82D3#"$ $$E2#7$

;"0"$(<3=F".53"$

$ ,$ E$ G$ +$ :$

%#<#.23</H$

$ ,$ E$ G$ +$ :$

G2B.C0$

$ ,$ E$ G$ +$ :$

%01#.23<C$,""."#<310$

$ 90"$$ :2$

$$$(2@I$$$

%#D=03#"$

)23.1.40$

$ $

$ ;"0"$(<3=$%.53"$ $ 9$ :$

$ '/2DJ$E/0<#7$ $ 9$ :$

%.57#F*0<=$

$ K.".BC0$E0<#$ $ 9$ :$

$ (<3=F".53"$ $ 9$ :$

82AJC0#0$#70$".57#F/0<=.35$ 9$ :$

%#D=03#"$5.>0$DJ$ $ $ 9$ :$

$ $

L$


19

Observations took place in various geographical and regionally zoned areas across a

large southern state. The selected regions within the state represented a diverse population of

rural, urban and suburban settings with choirs from various school sizes, director experience,

and program sizes. These concert and sight-singing festivals are open to a public audience;

however, no audio or video recording was allowed, thus analysis was limited to real-time

observation and note taking. Festival ratings are available publicly during each festival and

are archived for multiple years at http://uilforms.com/csrrptUILpublic.asp.

Two quantitative observation instruments were developed for this study to assess the

use of sight-singing strategies. Recent studies that have attempted to record observations of

adjudicated sight-singing without the use of video or audio equipment are relatively few. A

variety of observation techniques were used in the development of the current Adjudicated

Sight-Singing Observation Form. Initial steps in creating the form began through accessing

the festival’s sight-singing structure for an overall format, resulting in four separate sections

to the observation form: 1) initial preparation period (six minutes), 2) first sight-singing

attempt, 3) second preparation period (two minutes), 4) and final sight-singing attempt.

Careful consideration was made when determining what qualities and techniques

could be observed and recorded in a real-time situation. Data from previous research

utilizing observation forms (Dunn & Baird, 1996; Harris, 1991; Madsen & Yarbrough, 1985;

Yarbrough, 1975; Yarbrough; Yarbrough, 2007) and sight-singing preparation (Killian &

Henry, 2005) in conjunction with personal experiences at similar adjudicated sight-singing

festivals served as the main models for the observation form’s contents and structure.

Elements on the observation sheet were a combination of those presented in the study by

Yarbrough, Dunn and Baird (1996), which included pitch, rhythm, intonation, tone,


20

dynamics, and phrasing. Other elements included represented the successful strategies of

individual sight-singing as outlined by Killian and Henry (2005) and included keeping the

beat, tonicization, eyes on the music, using hand signs, completing the piece, and isolating

difficult passages. Additional categories for observation were considered as a result of

previous research indicating that the aforementioned elements were present and observed in

real-time during sight-singing (Yarbrough,

Orman, & Neill, 2007). In addition, in order to devise and evaluate the observation instrument, I studied

previously videoed mock sight-singing adjudication examples. The resulting video, which

served as a pilot study for my proposal, consisted of middle school choirs (N = 8). The

resulting observation instruments as seen above and in Appendix A utilized the following

categories:

Six-and Two-Minute Preparation Periods

Method- Included any methods of sight-singing utilized by the choirs during the preparation

periods and may have included more than one method including: movable do, numbers, letter

names, fixed do, neutral syllables, words and audiation (hearing the pitches or intervals

internally).

Verbal instructions – Included director focus of student attention on specific musical

information related to sight-singing including: accidentals, blend, breath, chords, dynamics,

form, if you get lost, listen, louder, look ahead, look up, page turns, phrases, rests, tempo,

tone, unison sections, and vowels.


21

Score Navigation Remarks – Included director initiated starting points within the musical

score including: beginning, cadence, measure, page number, syllable and, section.

Director Statements – Included non-musical statements directed towards the choir consisting

of positive and negative statements and asking for questions as well as musical statements

including musical suggestions, or corrective statements.

Timing – Included observations pertaining to the use of the six minutes including warnings

given by the official timer, the use of the entire preparation period and whether the piece

were completed at least once during the instruction period.

Rehearsal Strategy – Included segments of sight-singing preparation in which the director

instructed the students to engage in a particular musical task. Some directors utilized

multiple strategies when sight-singing which were categorized as separate units of

observations. For the purpose of this research, a rehearsal strategy was defined to begin

when instructions from the director focused students’ attention towards a specific musical

task (ie: look at your part, individual score study, sectional study, group study). A rehearsal

strategy was defined as ending when the director initiated a new or different set of

instructions for the students. For this reason, a blank was left open for the observer to write

in additional observed rehearsal strategies.

Rehearsal Strategy Responses - Included director strategies and student responses observed

during the rehearsal periods. Director strategies were categorized as: conducting, counting,

snapping, movement, assistance, isolation of pitches, isolation of rhythms, use of hand-signs,

and mentioning transitions. Student responses included chanting syllables, chanting

rhythms, using hand signs, keeping a steady beat, audiating, and having a set tempo. For


22

each identified rehearsal strategy, director and student responses were observed and

documented as having occurred or not occurred.

Remarks/Observations not listed – This section provided an opportunity for the observer to

document any additional data that was not included in the observation form.

Sight-Singing Form (1st and 2nd readings)

These forms allowed a small amount of data to be collected during tonicization and

during sight-singing and included director and student responses. Director responses

included tonicization technique, vocalization, hand-signs, conducting, body movement and

silent sectional assistance. Student behaviors included the use of hand signs, group breath,

visible beat, and the completion of the sight-singing selection. Events observed during the

actual sight-singing performances were counted as occurring or non-occurring during the

performance of the piece and analyzed in relation to preparation strategies, but were not the

primary focus of this study.

In order to test the sight-singing observation sheet I attended a mock sight-singing

experience for middle school choirs (N= 8 choirs) to test the validity and completeness of the

initial observation form. Data were recorded in real-time by an additional observer and

myself. In addition to the real-time observations, video-recordings were made of the

participating choirs (allowed because it was a mock contest rather than the actual non-

recorded event) and were used to check and validate the data recorded on the observation

forms. The pilot study utilized only middle school choirs and did not provide ratings by

which to make analyses or comparisons, but served to solidify the observation form and

observation procedures. An additional observer recorded data using the observation form for


23

each choir as they presented and then discussed the parameters of the observation form,

making suggestions to ease the data collection process. The videos of the live performances

were reviewed and played through once in order to mimic a real-time situation for recording

observations. This allowed the researcher to practice using the observation sheets in real-

time to check for errors and add additional categories as needed. In addition, a panel of

experts (N = 10, 6 music education graduate students and 4 practicing choral educators)

evaluated the observation forms for clarity and completeness. Changes were made until the

panel reached consensus.

Observations were analyzed to determine what strategies were used during the six-

minute and two-minute preparatory periods before sight-singing. Categories for observations

included (but were not limited to) the following: 1) verbal musical instructions, 2) score

navigation, 3) sight-singing method, 4) score study type, 5) student interaction, 6)

tonicization technique, 7) conducting technique, 8) non-musical verbal statements, and 9)

time limit warnings.

Adjudicated sight-singing ratings were also collected and matched to the respective

observations to determine if certain strategies yielded a more or less successful result. All

festival ratings were open to the public and were available online at

http://uilforms.com/results.asp. Thus, the ratings, along with the region, school name and

director name were available to the public and met the requirements for an IRB exemption.

Events observed during the actual sight-singing performances included tonicization,

conducting, director assistance, and sight-singing techniques. Such observations were

counted during the performance of the piece, but were not the primary focus of this study.


24

The focus of this study was to examine the strategies used during the rehearsal period prior to

actually sight-singing.

Analysis of the observation forms was made to determine if there was differences in

the strategies used during successful and less successful sight-singing experiences as defined

by each choir’s rating. Successful choir ratings were defined as superior, receiving

unanimous ratings of 1 from the panel of adjudicators, the highest rating possible for the

sight-singing portion of the event. Since the purpose of this study was to compare strategies

of successful and less successful choirs, less successful choirs were defined as those choirs

who were scored a 3, 4 or 5 by the adjudicators. Choirs scoring a 2 or a combination score

including a 2 were not considered either successful or less successful since by the sight-

singing rating rubric, a 2 is still considered to be an excellent performance. Defining

“successful” as straight superior ratings and “less successful” as ratings of 3, 4 or 5 allowed a

greater distinction between the two groups. Using these criteria a total (N = 63) choirs were

eligible for this study, and 34 choirs were labeled as “successful“ and 29 were labeled as

“less successful,” see table 3.2 for the divisions between choirs.

Table 3.2 Distribution of Participants After Eliminating the Rating of 2 ___________________________________________________________________________ Middle School Choirs High School Choirs varsity choirs treble 16 tenor-bass 0 mixed 1 non-varsity choirs treble 14 tenor-bass 2 mixed 0

varsity choirs treble 12 tenor/bass 6 mixed 7 non-varsity choirs treble 5 tenor-bass 0 mixed 0


25

The frequency of elements were analyzed with consideration of the choir’s sight-singing

rating to determine if the task or technique used could be associated with successful or less

successful sight-singing techniques. Data comparisons were made for each study period for

each choir to determine if strategies were consistently utilized by the director for varying

choirs within the same school, regardless of gender or ability. Comparisons were also made

between the techniques utilized for the different age levels of middle school and high school

choirs

Data Collection

Data collection began with the onset of the adjudicated choral festivals beginning in

early March 2010 and culminated during the first week of May 2010. As stated previously,

multiple data collection opportunities presented themselves, but due to proximity, time and

travel restrictions, all festival events were not observed. Each day of observation varied in

length, though adjudicator and researcher fatigue was considered by contest organizers,

resulting in breaks and lunch scheduled to occur no less than every three hours regardless of

the festival venue. Breaks lasted between ten and twenty minutes with lunch lasting an hour

on most occasions.

All observed data were recorded in an open audience setting with no interaction

between the researcher and choir members or their directors. When collecting data, the

researcher sat within a designated audience member section, though it was in the same

approximate space as the adjudicators. This allowed the researcher to have a full view and a

similar distance for hearing both the choirs and directors as the panel of adjudicators.

Adjudicators typically sat 10 to 12 feet away from the performing choir in an ensemble

rehearsal hall. The audience members were offered a copy of the sight-singing music prior to


26

a choir’s entrance, which allowed the researcher time to be familiar with the properties of the

music and aided data collection in predicting director or student strategies based on the

musical content.

Data were recorded in two ways: (a) commonly occurring verbal instructions

pertaining to sight-singing were circled as the director said them, (b) observable sight-singing

strategies were recorded as yes/no, indicating that they had either occurred or did not occur.

Remarks or other observations considered unusual or not listed on the observation form were

notated for later analysis. Any tonicization that occurred was notated using solfege and was

later compared to the musical properties of the sight-singing material to determine if it was a

successful or less successful tonicization.

Data Development

The initial level of analysis tracked the choir’s overall earned sight-singing rating.

Choirs were then divided into three subsets that included all first (1) division ratings, choirs

whose ratings included a 2, and all other choirs whose ratings included a 3, 4, or 5. Choirs

were analyzed to determine demographic information regarding each choir including voicing,

number of participants, varsity, non-varsity, middle and high school choirs. Data for the six-

minute and two-minute preparation periods were then examined to determine how many and

which rehearsal strategies were used for each choir (ie: group, clusters, director instructions,

individual study) and then for each rating division. The researcher then tracked the rehearsal

strategy responses that occurred during each rehearsal strategy for both the six-and two-

minute preparation periods. Categories for this analysis for directors included conducting,

counting, snapping, movement, assistance, isolation of pitches, isolation of rhythms, use of

hand-signs, and mentioning transitions. Student responses included chanting syllables,


27

chanting rhythms, using hand signs, keeping a steady beat, audiating, and having a set tempo.

Data were analyzed using Chi Square Goodness of Fit test to determine significance of usage

and rating. In addition data were analyzed using, Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis to account

for alpha inflation.


28

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to observe and examine the instructional period prior to

adjudicated sight-singing and to investigate possible factors that may have influenced

successful and less successful sight-singing ratings. Data gathered for this study were

documented on the researcher-developed Choral Sight-Singing Observation Form and sought

to answer the following questions:

1. How do directors and students use the six-minute instructional period prior to

adjudicated sight-singing?

2. What (if any) sight-singing strategies yield successful or less successful sight-

singing ratings?

3. Are there different or similar strategies implemented for middle school

adjudicated sight-singing as compared to high school adjudicated sight-singing?

This was an observational study of choirs participating in adjudicated sight-singing in

which ratings were received. Total choirs observed (N = 80) were assessed as being

successful or less successful based on their ratings. Ratings ranged from 1 (most

successful) to 5 (least successful). The Results Section compares successful ratings (where

all ratings were 1’s) with less successful ratings (where ratings ranged between 3, 4, or a 5.

Choirs that received a 2 were not classified as either successful or less successful based on

the UIL rating rubric, which resulted in a total of 63 analyzed choirs.

Raw data transcribed from the observation forms resulted in frequency counts of

verbal remarks and rehearsal strategies that occurred or did not occur. Frequency counts for


29

all categories were compared to the ratings received by the total number of analyzed choirs

(N = 63) and then analyzed by school level and corresponding ratings (middle school n = 33,

high school n = 30). Strategies were analyzed for significance (p = or < .05) as determined

by a Chi Square Goodness of Fit test and adjusted for alpha inflation utilizing Bonferroni’s

multiple comparisons correction (p = or < .01).

Results indicated that there was no significant difference (X2 [1, N = 63] = .26, p =

.61) in the number of choirs that received superior ratings (rating of a 1) when compared to

those choirs that received less successful ratings (ratings of a 3, 4, or 5) as seen in table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Division of successful and less successful choirs by school classification ___________________________________________________________________________

Level Successful Less Successful

Middle School 17 16

High School 17 13

Frequency and Significance of Verbal Instructions

The initial question for study asked what strategies directors utilized in the six-

minute instructional period prior to adjudicated sight-singing. Data indicated that successful

and less successful choirs utilized similar strategies during the preparation period prior to

adjudicated sight-singing. As stated in Chapter 2, sight-singing methods have been studied

for their role in the success of choral sight-singing; however, in these observations there were

no significant differences between sight-singing methods used (X2 [1, N = 63] = .26, p = .61)

because all the observed choirs (N = 63) exclusively used the movable do method.

Frequency data were compiled from the Sight-Singing Observation Form into

categories that occurred at least once, as seen in table 4.2 and table 4.3. Results indicated that


30

verbal and aural instructions were not equally utilized. Directors used a variety of

instructions that focused students’ attention towards specific musical information. The most

frequently utilized verbal instructions by observed choirs (N = 63) are listed in numbers one

through six in table 4.2. Initial analysis examined whether an element on the sight-singing

observation form had occurred or did not occur during the preparation period. Data allowed

examination of the number of directors who mentioned or implemented a particular element.

When the total observed choirs for this study (N = 63) were considered, the following

elements were mentioned most often by a significant number of directors.

Table 4.2 Verbal strategy usage in descending order of frequency __________________________________________________________________________ Strategy Frequency of Use

Director gave the starting syllable to each voice section * 59 Director utilized the entire six-minute preparation period* 57

Director guided students through the score using measure numbers* 53 Choirs reviewed the complete sight-singing selection in the time allotted.* 50

Directors told the choir the key signature* 45

Directors commented on the tempo* 41 Directors commented on the formal structure of the sight-singing selection* 33

Directors instructed students to look up 25

Directors played the tonic chord once during the preparation period as opposed to playing tonic immediately prior to singing 23

Directors reviewed material at the page turns 21 Directors referenced page numbers to navigate the score 20

* Indicates Significance (p = < .05)


31

Table 4.2 Continued

________________________________________________________________________

Strategy Frequency of Use

Directors mentioned unison sections within the score 19

Directors referenced the beginning to navigate the score 19

Directors told students the time signature 17

Directors commented on the phrase structure of the music 17

Directors commented on specific pitches 15

Directors commented on breath 14

Directors mentioned accidentals within the score 14

Directors referenced musical sections to navigate the score 14

Choirs had designated student leaders 14

Directors made positive statements towards the students 14

Director made musical suggestions 10

Director referenced solfege syllables to navigate the score 9

Directors encouraged students to listen 7

Directors mentioned dynamic markings 7

Director asked students if they had any questions 7

Director mentioned tone production 5

Director mentioned chord function 5

Director noted the rests within the score 5

Director instructed students to look ahead 5

Director indicated a plan if students got lost 5

Director made corrective statements 5

Directors encouraged students to sing loudly 4

Directors referenced the cadences as a navigational tool 3

Director made negative comments 3

Director referenced the text of the song 2

*IndicatesSignificance(p=<.05)


32

Table4.2Continued_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Strategy Frequencyofuse

Director commented on blend 2

Students asked questions during the preparation period 0


The most frequently mentioned musical element indicated that significantly more

directors (n = 59) told each voice part their starting pitch syllable than didn’t (X2 [1, N = 63]

= 46.28, p < .0001). Of the choirs that received instruction as to their starting syllable, (n =

59), there was no significant difference (X2 [1, N = 59] = .62, p = .43) between those whose

ratings were successful (n = 33) and those whose ratings were less successful (n = 26).

Additionally, data indicated that the four choirs whose directors did not instruct the students

on their initial syllables instructed the students to look at their parts. Schools (n = 4) that did

not receive the starting syllable instruction were all high school choirs whose ratings were

evenly divided between successful and less successful.

A significant number of directors (n = 57) used the entire preparation period (X2 [1, N

= 63] = 39.34, p < .0001) to review the sight-singing material than those who did not use the

whole instructional period (n = 6). However, when ratings were considered, there was no

significant difference (X2 [1, N = 57] = 0, p = 1) between those that used the entire time and

received superior ratings (n = 29) and those that used the entire time but received less

successful ratings (n = 28). Of the six choirs that did not use the whole time, three were

middle school choirs and three were high school choirs. Five of the choirs received superior

ratings, while one choir received less successful results.


33

Results indicated that a significant number of choirs (n = 50) were able to complete

the sight-singing selection at least once during the instruction period (X2 [1, N = 63] = 20.58,

p < .001), though completion did not ensure successful ratings. Of the choirs that received

successful ratings (n = 30) and those that received less successful ratings (n = 20), no

significant difference was found (X2 [1, N = 50] = 1.62, p = .20). Results indicated that only

high school level choirs (n = 13) did not complete their selection in the allotted time (X2 [1, N

=13] = 11.8, p = .001). Of those choirs, five received successful ratings, and eight received

less successful ratings.

Directors managed their time and monitored their students’ progress throughout the

six-minute rehearsal period by instructing the time monitor to state when a certain amount of

time had passed or how much time remained. Results indicated that a significant number of

directors requested time limit warnings (X2 [1, N = 110] = 91.06, p < .001). Data did not

indicate a significant pattern of increments of times requested by the directors; however, data

suggested that the most commonly requested increment of time were the two-and one-minute

warnings as seen in table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Director initiated time requests ___________________________________________________________________________

Requested Increment of Time Number of Timing Requests

None 8

30 seconds have passed 2

4 minutes remaining 10



1 minute remaining 38


34

Further analysis indicated that significantly more directors (n = 45) told students the

key signature (X2 [1, N = 63] = 10.74, p = .001), while 18 directors did not mention the key

signature to students. However, saying the name of the key signature did not provide an

advantage, as there were no significant differences in the ratings (X2 [1, N = 45] = 0, p =1).

Of the 18 choirs that did not receive the key signature instruction, there was no significant

difference (X2 [1, N = 18] = .5, p = .48), between receiving successful ratings (n = 11) and

less successful ratings (n = 7).

Directors had the task of navigating the score with their choirs and used different

techniques to do so. Data indicated that the most frequently used score navigation element

was measure numbers. Measure numbers were mentioned significantly more often (X2 [1, N

= 63] = 28, p < .001) by directors (n = 53) than page numbers (n = 20), starting syllables (n =

9) or a particular section of music (n = 14). There was no significant difference in ratings for

the frequency of use of measures, page numbers or syllables. However, results indicated that

directors who referenced sections of music (n = 14) had significantly more successful ratings

(X2 [1, N = 14] = 5.78, p = .02), than ratings that were less successful.

An additional director-initiated element was to mention tempo for sight-singing as the

students studied the score. Significantly more directors (n = 41) made mention of the

rehearsal tempo during the study period (X2 [1, N = 63] = 5.14, p = .02), than those who did

not (n = 22). Of the directors who mentioned tempo to the choirs, there was no significant

difference between the number of choirs that received successful ratings (n = 19) and the

number of choirs that received a less successful ratings (n = 22). Results indicated that there

was not a significant difference (X2 [1, N = 22] = 2.22, p = .14) in ratings for the 22 choirs

that did not receive tempo instruction. Successful ratings (n = 15) and less successful ratings


35

(n = 7) were not significant in number, nor were there a significant difference between the

number of high school choirs (n = 12) and middle school choirs (n = 10) that did not receive

tempo indications from their directors.

Significance of Utilized Verbal Strategies and Successful or Less Successful Ratings

The second question asked which strategies yielded successful and less successful

ratings. Initial data analysis indicated that there were 38 verbal or oral instructions observed,

of which 32 were not significantly utilized by directors or choirs. However, further analysis

was conducted on the strategies that were used to determine if a utilized strategy yielded a

successful or less successful rating.

One strategy utilized during the preparation period included hearing the tonic chord

played once during the instruction period as opposed to playing the tonic chord only when

the starting pitches were given. Of the choirs that heard the tonic chord played during the

six-minute preparation period, (n = 23) significantly more superior ratings (X2 [1, N = 23] =

8.52, p = .01) were received (n = 19) than less successful ratings (n = 4). Of the choirs that

heard the tonic played and received successful ratings, ten were middle school choirs and

nine were high school choirs. The four choirs that heard the tonic but did not receive

successful ratings were divided into three in middle school and one at the high school level.

An additional verbal element that yielded significant successful results (X2 [1, N = 33]

= 5.94, p = .01) was mentioning the elements of musical form. The choirs whose directors

discussed form (n = 33) received more superior ratings (n = 24) than those that received less

successful ratings (n = 9). Results also indicated that the directors who mentioned the phrase

structure of the music (n = 17) more frequently received successful ratings (n = 14) than


36

those that received less successful ratings (n = 3), a significant difference of (X2 [1, N = 17] =

5.88, p = .02).

Choirs whose directors told them to look up (n = 25) more often received superior

ratings (X2 [1, N = 25] = 7.84, p = .01). Of the choirs that received the instructions to look

up, frequency of occurrence were evenly distributed between middle (n = 10) and high

school choirs (n = 10) that received a successful rating. In addition, of those directors who

reviewed specific sections of the music, more superior ratings were received (X2 [1, N = 14]

= 5.78, p = .02). Table 4.4 shows the frequency use of each element according to the ratings

received.

Table 4.4 Frequency of elements mentioned and corresponding rating ___________________________________________________________________________ Instructional Elements Successful

Ratings Less

Successful Ratings

Director gave the starting syllable to each voice section 33 26

Director guided students through the score using measure numbers

31 22

Choirs were able to completely review the sight-singing material in the time allotted.

30 20

Director utilized the entire six minute preparation period 29 28

Directors referenced the form of the sight-singing* 24 9 Directors told the choir the key signature 23 22

Directors instructed students to look up* 20 5 Choirs heard the tonic played once during the preparation period*

19 4

Directors commented on the tempo 19 22 Directors reviewed material at the page turns 15 6

Directors commented on the phrase structure of the music* 14 3 Directors referenced page numbers to navigate the score 14 6



37

Table4.4Continued

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Instructional Elements Successful Ratings

Less Successful

Ratings

Directors referenced musical sections to navigate the score 12 2

Directors commented on specific pitches 11 4 Directors mentioned unison sections within the score 11 8

Directors referenced the beginning to navigate the score 11 8 Directors mentioned accidentals within the score 10 4

Directors made positive statements towards the students 9 4 Directors commented on breath 7 7

Director made musical suggestions 7 3 Directors mentioned dynamic markings 6 1

Directors told students the time signature 5 12 Director mentioned tone production 5 0

Director mentioned chord function 5 0 Directors encouraged students to listen 5 2

Director referenced syllables to navigate the score 5 4 Choirs had designated student leaders 5 9

Directors mentioned dynamic markings 4 1 Director indicated a plan if students got lost 4 1

Director made negative comments 3 0 Directors referenced the cadences as a navigational tool 2 1

Director asked students if they had any questions 2 3 Director referenced the text of the song 1 1

Directors encouraged students to be loud 1 3 Director commented on blend 1 1

Director instructed students to look ahead 1 4 Director made corrective statements 1 4

Students asked questions during the preparation period 0 0

* Indicates significance (p = < .05)


38

Significance of Observed Rehearsal Strategies

Additional rehearsal strategies were initially analyzed as having occurred or not occurred as

shown in table 4.5. The following table indicates which strategies choirs (N = 63) utilized

during the six-minute preparation period and occur in descending order according to

frequency utilized.

Table 4.5 Utilized sight-singing rehearsal strategies ___________________________________________________________________________ Strategy Total

Director established the rehearsal tempo* 63

Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period* 60

Choirs used Curwen hand-signs* 58

Director isolated and rehearsed music passages * 53

Director isolated pitches or intervals * 52

Director used hand signs during instruction period* 46

Director conducted during the preparation period* 45

Director did not remain stationary* 41

Director assisted sections with their part* 40

Director mentioned and rehearsed transitions in the music* 40

Choirs audiated the sight-singing during preparation period 36

Director isolated rhythmic passages 31

Director counted beats/pulses during the preparation period 22

Choirs chanted rhythms during the preparation period 4

* Indicates Significance (p = < .05)


39

Rehearsal strategies and responses for total observed choirs (N = 63) yielded

significant results in ten categories. A significant number of directors (N = 63) set the tempo

for their choir during the study period (X2 [1, N = 63] = 31.5, p < .001), though there was no

significant difference (X2 [1, N = 63] = .06, p = .81) in the number of successful ratings (n =

34) or less successful ratings (n = 30). Significantly more directors (n = 60) requested

choirs to chant the solfege syllables (X2 [1, N = 63] = 49.78, p < .001) during the practice

period. Results indicated that chanting solfege syllables had no significant bearing (X2 [1, N

= 60] = .16, p = .69), on successful (n = 32) or less successful ratings received (n = 28). In

addition, significantly more directors had their choirs utilize the Curwen hand signs (X2 [1, N

=63] = 42.92, p < .001), though data indicated that there was no significant difference (X2 [1,

N = 58] = .84, p = .36), in the number of successful ratings (n = 33) compared to less

successful ratings (n = 25).

Additional results indicated that directors’ specific actions during the rehearsal period

may have influenced sight-singing results. A significant number of directors isolated pitches

or intervals for their choirs (X2 [1, N = 63] = 25.4, p < .001), though results indicated that

isolated pitches did not yield significant differences (X2 [1, N = 52] = 2.32, p = .13) between

successful ratings (n = 32) or less successful ratings (n = 20). In addition, a significant

number of directors (n =50) isolated and spoke about or demonstrated musical passages with

Curwen hand signs (X2 [1, N = 63] = 20.58, p < .001) though rating results indicated that no

significant difference in ratings occurred (X2 [1, N = 53] = .68, p = .41). A significant

number of directors (n = 40) assisted specific sections such as soprano, alto, tenor or bass (X2

[1, N = 63] = 4.06, p = .04), though when ratings were considered, no significant difference

(X2 [1, N = 40] = .22, p = .64) occurred between successful ratings (n = 18) or less successful


40

ratings (n = 22). In addition to having their choirs use Curwen hand signs, directors (n= 46)

also used the Curwen hand signs to assist choirs (X2 [1, N = 63] = 12.44, p = .001). A

significant number of directors (n = 41) also moved in front of the sections during the

instructional period (X2 [1, N = 63] = 5.14, p = .02). Additional significant findings for study

strategies included the fact that the director (n = 40) mentioned transitions within the music

(X2 (1, N = 63) = 4.06, p = .04), and a significant number of directors (n = 45) conducted

during the study period (X2 [1, N = 63] = 10.74, p < .001).

The following data measured how rehearsal strategies were divided between middle

and high school students and how those strategies were divided among successful and less

successful ratings. When director strategies were analyzed according to school level (middle

or high school usage), similar results emerged. However, when middle school results were

isolated, two differences were noted. Middle school directors did not move from section to

section as often (X2 [1, N = 33] = .48, p = .49), and there were not a significant number of

middle school directors who mentioned transitions within the music (X2 [1, N = 33] = 0, p =

1).

When isolating high school data, three differences emerged. During the study

period, fewer directors conducted their choirs (X2 [1, N = 30] = 2.7, p = .10) and fewer

directors assisted sections (X2 [1, N = 30] = .04, p = .84) than did middle school directors. In

addition, high school directors did not utilize Curwen hand signs as often during the study

period although the difference was not large enough to be statistically different.(X2 [1, N =

30] = 1.64, p = .20).

Sequence of Study Types, Study Strategies and Successful Ratings

Data collected also included the number and sequence of study types directors used


41

during the instructional period. The study types included (a) director led instruction, (b)

individual student score study, (c) group score study (which included the whole choir

together), and (d) cluster score study (which included voice parts rehearsing independently as

a small group or as a section-soprano, alto, tenor, bass etc.). Data indicated that choirs that

received successful ratings began the rehearsal period with director led instruction (n = 30)

interspersed with student individual study time (n = 24). The most frequent study type for

choirs with successful ratings was the group study (n = 30). Data indicated that directors

gave verbal instructions between study types and then resumed with the whole choir’s group

study. Choirs with successful ratings received instructions and rehearsed in a group setting

on an average of four times during the rehearsal period. Data indicated that the sequence of

rehearsal strategies may have played a role in the rating. Successful choirs (n = 34) most

frequently began with students silently studying their part (n = 24) while they used hand

signs (n = 30), followed by group study in which the choir chanted their part on solfege.

After further instructions from the director, successful choirs resumed their study by chanting

on solfege or had the tonic played and then audiated their parts.

Results indicated that choirs that received less successful ratings had a mixture of

study types and a variety of sequences. Data indicated that less successful choirs on average

utilized two study types during the six-minute instructional period. Data indicated that half

of the less successful choirs (n = 15) began their study period without director instruction or

individual study time, and instead, they immediately formed clusters to study or began as

whole group study. Data also indicated that less successful choirs that were director led or

had individual study time (n = 10) utilized group or cluster study as their only other means of

study, except for four less successful choirs whose sequence utilized individual study, formed


42

clusters and then rehearsed as a whole group.

Results indicated that choirs who received less successful ratings had a mixture of

study types and a variety of sequences. Data indicated that less successful choirs on average

utilized two study types during the six-minute instructional period. Data indicated that half

of the less successful choirs (n = 15) began their study period without director instruction or

individual study time, and instead, they immediately formed clusters to study or began as

whole group study. Data also indicated that less successful choirs that were director led or

had individual study time (n = 15) utilized group or cluster study as their only other means of

study. Four choirs utilized individual study, formed clusters and then rehearsed as a whole

group.

Directors instructed choirs multiple times throughout the different study types to

engage them in a particular rehearsal strategy. Data indicated the frequency that a particular

strategy was used during the course of the instructional period. The rehearsal strategies data

in table 4.6 show the total number of times a director mentioned or performed a rehearsal

strategy with his/her choir during the six-minute preparation period. Observations were

tabulated and analyzed according to frequency and rating received. Results are displayed in

descending order of frequency in table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Total frequency of utilized rehearsal strategies _________________________________________________________________________

Rehearsal Strategy

Total Frequency Implemented

Choirs used Curwen hand-signs 118

Director established the rehearsal tempo 104 Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period 91


43

Director isolated pitches or intervals 74

Director isolated and rehearsed music passages 69 Director conducted during the preparation period 65

Director did not remain stationary 63 Director used hand signs during instruction period 63

Director assisted sections with their part 53 Director mentioned and rehearsed transitions in the music 47

Choirs audiated the sight-singing during preparation period 46 Director counted beats/pulses during the preparation period 34

Director isolated rhythmic passages 30 Choirs chanted rhythms during the preparation period 3

In further analysis, observations were grouped and analyzed according to ratings received.

An additional chi square analysis was performed on the data in table 4.7 to determine if

choirs that utilized a certain strategy had more successful ratings than choirs that received

less successful ratings.

Table 4.7 Total number of implementations of a rehearsal strategy and ratings received ___________________________________________________________________________

Rehearsal Strategy

Frequency of Use and

Successful Rating

Frequency of Use and

Less Successful

Rating

Choirs used Curwen hand-signs* 73 45 Director established the rehearsal tempo 56 48

Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period 46 45 Director isolated pitches or intervals 43 31

Director conducted during the preparation period* 41 24 Director isolated and rehearses music passages 36 33

Director used hand signs during instruction period 36 27 Director changed proximity to students 34 29


44

Choirs audiated the sight-singing during preparation period* 32 14

Director mentioned and rehearsed transitions in the music* 31 16 Director assisted sections with their part 25 28

Director isolated rhythmic passages 16 14 Director counted beats/pulses during the preparation period 14 20

Choirs chanted rhythms during the preparation period 0 3

* Indicates significance (p = < .05)

Choirs that had successful ratings had a higher mean average (M = 31.93) while

choirs with less successful ratings had a lower mean average (M = 26.93). Frequency counts

and analysis indicated that four specific strategies were used more often by choirs that

received more superior ratings: (a) hand signs (X2 [1, N =118] = 6.18, p = .01), (b) audiation

(X2 [1, N = 46] = 6.28, p = .01), (c) directors who continually conducted during the study

period (X2 [1, N = 65] = 3.94, p = .04), and (d) directors who mentioned transitions within

the music (X2 [1, N = 47] = 4.18, p = .04).

Ratings were also analyzed according to the frequency of a rehearsal strategy utilized

by middle and high school choirs. Table 4.8 displays the findings for middle school choirs in

descending order, while table 4.9 displays the identical information for high school choirs.

Table 4.8 Rehearsal strategies and ratings for middle school choirs. ________________________________________________________________________

Rehearsal Strategy

Frequency of use and

Successful Ratings

Frequency of use and Less Successful

Ratings

Choirs used Curwen hand-signs 34 25 Director established the rehearsal tempo 29 28

Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period 23 25 Director conducted during the preparation period 19 15


45

Director used hand signs during instruction period 19 15

Director isolated pitches or intervals 18 15 Director assisted sections with their part 15 13

Director did not remain stationary 14 7 Choirs audiated the sight-singing during preparation period 12 8

Director isolated and rehearses music passages 11 16 Director counted beats/pulses during the preparation period 7 15

Director mentioned and rehearses transitions in the music 7 8 Director isolated rhythmic passages 6 7

Choirs chanted rhythms during the preparation period 0 2

* Indicates significance (p = < .05) When ratings were analyzed according to school level, there were no significant differences

in the frequency of total utilized strategies for the middle school choirs (n = 33) as seen in the

above in table 4.8.

Table 4.9 Rehearsal strategies and ratings for high school choirs _______________________________________________________________________

Rehearsal Strategy

Frequency of use and

successful ratings

Frequency of use and less successful

ratings

Choirs used Curwen hand-signs* 39 20

Director established the rehearsal tempo 27 20 Director isolated pitches or intervals* 25 16

Director isolated and rehearses music passages 25 17 Director mentioned and rehearses transitions in the music* 24 8

Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period 23 20 Director conducted during the preparation period* 22 9

Choirs audiated the sight-singing during preparation period 20 6 Director did not remain stationary 20 12

Director used hand signs during instruction period 17 12 Director assisted sections with their part 10 15


46

Director isolated rhythmic passages 10 7

Director counted beats/pulses during the preparation period 7 5 Choirs chanted rhythms during the preparation period 0 1

* Indicates a significantly used strategy ( p = < .05)

However, the high school choirs (n = 30) displayed four elements that yielded

significant results. Choirs that used the Curwen hand signs (n = 39 vs. n = 20) received

significantly more superior ratings (X2 [1, N = 59] = 5.5, p = .02).. Of the high school choirs

that audiated (n = 26), significantly more choirs (n = 20) received superior ratings (X2 [1, N =

26] = 6.5, p = .01) compared to those that received less successful ratings (n = 6).

Significantly more successful ratings (X2 [1, N = 31] = 4.64, p = .03) were received by high

school directors who conducted (n = 22 vs. n = 9). In addition, significantly more successful

ratings (X2 [1, N =32] = 7.04, p = .01) were received by directors who mentioned transitions

within the music (n = 32) than by directors who mentioned transitions but received less

successful ratings (n = 24).

In summary, results indicated that the following strategies were utilized by a

significant number of directors:

- Movable do system was utilized to facilitate sight-singing

- Directors gave starting syllables to each voice part

- Directors utilized the entire preparation period

- Directors used measure numbers to navigate and guide students through the score

- Directors told students the key signature

- Directors commented on tempo

- Directors requested the time monitor

- Directors established the rehearsal tempo


47

- Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period

- Choirs used Curwen hand-signs

- Directors isolated and rehearsed music passages

- Directors isolated pitches or intervals

- Directors used hand signs during the instruction period

- Directors conducted during the instruction period

- Directors did not remain stationary

- Directors assisted sections with their part

- Directors mentioned and rehearsed transitions in the music

Results also indicated that the following strategies were utilized by choirs, which received

successful sight-singing ratings of a 1.

- Directors played the tonic once during the instruction period and prior to singing

- Directors mentioned the musical form

- Directors mentioned the phrase structure of the music

- Directors told their choirs to look up

- Directors rehearsed specific sections of the score

- Choirs used Curwen hand signs

- Choirs audiated during the instruction period


- Directors mentioned transitions in the music

- Choirs initially had individual or director led study time

In addition, less successful choirs exhibited the following characteristics.

- Choirs abandoned hand signs


48

- Director did not play the tonic prior to the tonic played before sight-singing

- Directors did not continually conduct

- Directors were more stationary

- Directors did not discuss form as often

- Choirs immediately began group study rather than receiving instruction from

directors or individually studying the score


49

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This was an observational study of choirs participating in adjudicated sight-singing in

which ratings were received. Ratings ranged from 1 (most successful) to 5 (least successful).

Total choirs observed (N = 80) were assessed as being successful or less successful based on

their ratings. Choirs that received a 2 were not classified as either successful or less

successful based on the UIL rating rubric and not included in the analysis.

The purpose of this study was to observe and compare the rehearsal strategies used by

the directors of middle and high school choirs at adjudicated sight-singing events.

Observations focused on verbal instructions and rehearsal strategies utilized prior to sight-

singing. The goal of such observations was to determine what teacher strategies were

currently being used to facilitate sight-singing, and what (if any) strategies were more or less

beneficial during the study period before adjudicated sight-singing. The following questions

were addressed: (a) how do directors and students use preparation periods before sight-

singing, (b) what sight-singing techniques yielded successful or less successful ratings and

(c) if there were different or similar preparatory strategies implemented for middle school

sight-singing as compared to high school sight-singing.

Analysis focused on (a) the frequency and significance of observed strategies, (b) the

comparison of utilized strategies to the ratings received and (c) the comparison of utilized

strategies between middle and high school choirs.

Research Questions and Notable Findings

The initial question which asks how directors and students use the preparation period

prior to adjudicated sight-singing is multi-faceted. Directors generally used the entire


50

preparation period and utilized a variety of strategies to navigate the score and instruct the

choir. Directors led the instructional period and rehearsed the sight-singing material through

verbal, aural and kinesthetic means. The subsequent question regarding which sight-singing

techniques yielded successful and less successful ratings is best answered by looking at the

notable finding of this research. Successful choirs and their directors used the following

aural elements, verbal elements and rehearsal strategies during the six-minute rehearsal

period prior to adjudicated sight-singing.

- Directors played the tonic once during the instruction period and prior to singing.

- Choirs audiated during the instruction period

- Directors mentioned the musical form

- Choirs used Curwen hand signs


- Directors mentioned transitions in the music

- Choirs initially had individual or director led study time

Less successful choirs exhibited the following characteristics during the six-minute

preparation period prior to adjudicated sight-singing.

- Director did not play the tonic prior to the tonic played before sight-singing

- Choirs abandoned hand signs

- Choirs immediately began group study rather than receiving instruction from directors or individually studying the score.

- Directors did not discuss form as often - Directors did not continually conduct

- Directors were more stationary


51

The final question regarding the similarities or differences in utilized strategies for

middle or high school students can be answered in the negative. This study asserts that the

strategies were similar for both middle school and high school choirs, though the success of

those strategies was not always evenly distributed.

Discussion of the overall rehearsal period

Observed choirs’ rehearsal strategies were quite similar in content, though not all

directors utilized all of the same rehearsal strategies. With the exception of one choir,

students were responsive to their director and complied with the requests made to chant

syllables, use hand signs and rehearse the sight-singing. Choirs appeared to be orderly and

well rehearsed in the procedures and expectations of the sight-reading room. Directors had

the option of requesting a time monitor to warn them of the passing of time or the amount of

time remaining. One could speculate that the director-initiated timing request could indicate

that directors wanted to manage or effectively utilize their time. Other implications for

utilizing the time monitor would be to pace the rehearsal to ensure there was enough time to

complete the sight-singing selection. The most frequently requested times were a two-

minute and one-minute warning prior to the end of the six-minute preparation period.

All choirs utilized the movable do method. Previous research (Demorest & May,

1995) suggested that choirs that utilized the movable do system scored significantly higher

than choirs utilizing other sight-singing systems. However, since all choirs utilized the

movable do system, analysis on its effectiveness could not be made. Initial analysis

suggested that ratings were evenly distributed among the varied age and experience levels of

the observed choirs, though this finding is contrary to the findings of Yarbrough (2007) in

which the majority of choirs received superior ratings (ratings of a 1) than any other rating.


52

The difference could be in that Yarbrough’s (2007) study a choir was rated successful when

the average rating was a 1. The current study only considered a choir successful when all

three adjudicators rated the choir as earning 1s. Perhaps this population of choirs was more

diverse in their sight-singing abilities the sight-reading material was more difficult, or

perhaps more choirs were less prepared than the ones found in other studies.

Discussion of verbal and instructional methods that were utilized by a significant number of directors.

Directors continually interacted with the choirs and generally rehearsed the score for

the entirety of the rehearsal period. Overall, directors (n= 57) utilized the entire six minutes

available to them prior to the first sight-singing attempt. Using the whole time could indicate

that the director wanted the choir to have as much time as possible to study the score before

sight-singing. Of the six choirs that did not utilize the whole time, five received superior

ratings, which could indicate that the director knew the sight-signing capabilities of the choir

and perhaps did not feel additional rehearsal time would benefit the choir. Regardless of

whether the director utilized the allotted time, not all choirs were able to negotiate the

material in the given time. While the majority of choirs were able to complete the piece at

least once during the instructional time, 13 of the 30 high school choirs were unable to do so.

Prior research (Killian & Henry, 2005) indicated that finishing the sight-singing selection in

the time allotted resulted in more successful sight-singing of individual sight-readers.

However, in the current study, successful and less successful ratings were evenly distributed

between choirs that completed the sight-singing selection during the allotted time.

Various factors contributed to choirs (n = 13) not finishing the piece. It should be

noted that the high school selections were lengthier, chromatic and contained a modulation

whereas the middle school pieces were shorter, and did not change keys. Of the 13 choirs that


53

did not finish the piece, all were high school choirs. Two specific instances that contributed

to choirs not completing the piece remained vivid: one choir was noncompliant with their

director, while another choir required note for note assistance prior to sight-singing.

Directors typically rehearsed or navigated the score with their choirs by using measure

numbers. Other common options for navigation included using page numbers, solfege

syllables, and starting at the beginning. The significant use of measure numbers indicates to

the researcher that measure numbers were a productive and efficient way to have a group

navigate the score under a time pressured situation.

Perhaps it was the time constraint that caused directors to implement verbal and aural

elements to assist their choirs. Verbal elements such as stating the key signature, starting

solfege syllables and discussing the form of the piece were regularly divulged to ensembles.

Fundamental musical information about the score such as the key signature could be

advantageous for students to accurately sight-sing by triggering prior learning as well as

visual cues for a specific key. For instance, middle school sight-singing pieces are required to

be in one of the following keys; C major, F major or G major (University Interscholastic

League Contest Rules and Regulations, 2010). If students have been practicing sight-singing

in only those keys, they could be aware of the visual tendencies of their voice part, whether

do is on a line or space, or the visual perception of the thirds, fourths and fifths that would be

present within a score. Knowing the key signature could also help high school singers

manipulate the accidentals that occurred in their music. Accuracy of information could be

another reason for directors to tell choirs fundamental information such as their starting

solfege syllables though giving the starting syllables, stating the key signature and discussing

the form, though, doing so did not result in more successful ratings. In addition, since this


54

was a timed event, directors could simply have wanted to save time by stating the

information rather than asking for it.

Regardless of the six-minute rehearsal structure, a significant number of directors

commented on the speed at which choirs were practicing or should sight-sing. Data did not

indicate the exact speed at which each choir sang or chanted solfege syllables. Remarks by

the directors included statements such as “be careful not to rush,” “keep the tempo steady,”

and “let’s pick up the tempo just a little.”

Even though five instructional strategies were utilized significantly more often, none

of them resulted in significantly more successful ratings than less successful ratings. What

does this finding say to the music educator? Even though directors can impart knowledge to

their students about a score, and lead them through sight-singing procedures in a timely

fashion, it may still not be enough to receive successful sight-singing ratings. Further

discussion is warranted about the other strategies that were not utilized by a significant

number of choirs, but did result in significantly more successful ratings for those who used

them.

Discussion of underutilized verbal and instructional strategies that yielded successful ratings.

A key finding in this research suggested that choirs that heard the tonic played prior

to the playing of the starting pitches had significantly more successful ratings than less

successful ratings. Considering that pitch is a primary element in sight-singing, it was

surprising that only 23 of the 63 analyzed choirs heard the tonic chord played during the

instructional period. The sight-reading rules (University Interscholastic League Contest

Rules and Regulations, 2010) state that the tonic may be played once during the instruction


55

period prior to hearing the starting pitches, but that it may not be reproduced by the director

or students at any time. While two-thirds of the choirs did not hear the tonic, of those that

did, a significant number (n=19) did receive successful ratings. With the stipulation that the

director or students could not reproduce the tonic once it was heard, it was possible that

directors chose not to have students hear the tonic for fear that students would forget the rule

and repeat the pitches they had heard and face disqualification. It is also conceivable that

directors had already given their students a tonic pitch prior to them entering the sight-

singing room and that students had a reference pitch in mind before they were handed the

music. Other thoughts on the matter state that sight-singing is an intervallic relationship that

one can internalize without ever hearing the actual pitch, and once a tonic is given, the

conceived intervals are transferred to the actual sung pitches (Gordon, 2003).

Directors had a limited time in which to impart information to their students. Choirs

with successful sight-singing ratings were instructed on the musical form of the piece, which

not only appeared to conserve time, but also let the student prepare for the elements of an

upcoming section of music, whether the material would be new or repeated. Successful

choirs also were not only instructed about the overall form of the piece, but of phrase

structure as well. Directors with successful sight-singing ratings took the time to also review

specific sections of the music with their choir. In addition to playing the tonic and knowing

the structure of the music, choirs with successful ratings were also instructed by their

directors to “look up.” It is surprising that more choirs did not utilize this verbal comment,

though the group expectation may have been set prior to the director and students entering

the sight-singing room and there was no need to mention to students to watch the director for

cues and assistance throughout the instructional period a sight-singing period. Choirs that


56

looked up had the advantage of seeing their director’s tempo, beat pattern or Curwen hand

sign assistance if necessary. Students who did not look up could not benefit from any

assistance given by the director.

Discussion of underutilized verbal and instructional strategies that did not result in successful or less successful ratings.

It is important to examine the verbal elements that were not utilized by the majority

of directors in order to gain some insight into the sight-singing process. The following

verbal elements occurred so infrequently data analysis could not be performed. The one

strategy not utilized by any student was to ask a question. The invitation for students to ask

questions was only given by seven of the 63 directors, but even then, no students asked

questions. Though not an exhaustive list, these results seem to suggest several scenarios: (a)

there was not time for students to ask questions, (b) directors did not want to give students

the opportunity to ask questions and disrupt the rehearsal concentration, (c) students were

completely prepared for the sight-singing, (d) students did not know what to ask, or (e)

students were afraid to ask a question in an open forum.

Other verbal elements such as comments about unison sections, dynamic marking

and accidentals were seldom utilized. This could be in part because those elements were

more closely related to specific musical selections for middle school and high school choirs

and could not be applied to all observed choirs. Sight-singing correct pitches and rhythms

may be the initial stages of sight-singing, but there were some directors that chose to mention

other aspects of the music to their students. Some directors commented on the blend and

balance of voices as they rehearsed, and others referenced the text of the song as an

indication of where to breathe. Still others insisted on correct tone production and musical


57

sight-singing as part of their rehearsal instruction. There was no indication that the use or

omission of the aforementioned verbal elements contributed or detracted from the success of

a choir’s sight-singing rating. Surprisingly, only 21 of the 63 directors reviewed material

found at the page turns. Considering that every sight-singing selection had at least one page

turn, it was surprising to the researcher that this simple strategy was not mentioned nor

reviewed prior to sight-singing more frequently. Though it is plausible that directors had

addressed this skill during prior rehearsals.

Discussion of rehearsal strategies utilized by a significant number of directors.

Fourteen additional rehearsal strategies were observed and identified as having

occurred or not occurred, of which ten were significantly utilized. However, the use of a

strategy did not indicate that the choir would earn a successful sight-singing rating. Four

strategies that yielded significantly more successful ratings than less successful ratings were

also utilized by a significant number of directors. Choirs whose directors used hand signs,

moved from behind the music stand, mentioned transitions and conducted received more

successful ratings than less successful ratings. However, when total utilized strategies were

separated into experience levels, two differences emerged for middle school choirs. Directors

did not move as often as high school directors. This could be in part because they more

frequently used hand signs and placed the music open on the music stand to do so more

effectively. In addition, directors did not mention transitions as often as high school choirs,

nor did they move around the sight-reading room as frequently. Plausible explanations could

be that middle school music was more straightforward and did not contain as many

transitional moments. High school directors differed in that they did not conduct the choir

as frequently, nor did they assist the sections as often. Perhaps directors concentrated on


58

watching the score and listening to choirs to ensure they were accurately chanting their parts.

High school directors did, however, ambulate more frequently in front of each section as they

were rehearsing. Directors also did not use hand signs as often as their middle school

directors. This difference may be in part because high school students may have more

experience with sight-singing than middle school students and may not need the visual

assistance or cues as often from their directors.

Discussion on the sequence of study types and frequency rehearsal strategies and the frequency of use.

The mere use of a strategy may not have caused the strategy to be successful or less

successful, so the researcher counted the frequency with which a director utilized a rehearsal

strategy throughout the rehearsal period. Four rehearsal strategies emerged from the data

analysis as significant. Consistent with prior research (Killian & Henry, 2005), choirs

received more successful ratings when they used hand signs throughout the rehearsal period

than when they abandoned hand signs. Choirs whose directors conducted throughout the

rehearsal period also received significantly more successful ratings in addition to choirs

whose directors mentioned and rehearsed transitions within the score. Choirs that audiated

during the rehearsal period also received more successful ratings than those that audiated and

received less successful ratings.

When considered as independent levels of study, no rehearsal strategy provided more

successful ratings than less successful ratings at the middle school level. This could be in

part because students in middle school are younger, typically less experienced and in the

initial stages of sight-singing development than their high school counterparts. Rehearsal

strategies used by middle school choirs yielded similar numbers of successful and less


59

successful ratings for hand sign use, director establishing tempo, choirs chanting solfege,

directors conducting, directors using hand signs, director isolating pitches and director

assisting sections. Though not significantly different, there were twice as many successful

ratings for choirs whose directors moved from behind the music stand. There was no

difference in the number of successful ratings for those choirs that used hand signs, had their

director conduct or studied transitions. It should be noted that choirs whose directors verbally

counted the beats (1, 2, 3, 4 etc.) during the preparation period received twice as many less

successful ratings than successful ratings.

While the frequency of utilized strategies for middle school choirs yielded no

significant differences between the frequency of a strategy and the rating received, the high

schools’ frequency and ratings comparisons did yield four successful trends. Consistent with

previous research, (Daniels, 1986; Demorest & May, 1995; Henry & Demorest, 1994; Killian

& Henry, 2005) high school choirs that used Curwen hand signs throughout the rehearsal

period received more successful ratings. Perhaps the abandonment of hand signs led to less

accurate pitch and therefore less successful ratings. Directors with successful ratings also

isolated pitches or intervals for their choirs. This method was used most often with

accidentals and larger skips (such as doh-fah). Directors demonstrated the initial pitch with

Curwen hand signs and then moved sequentially up or down the scale until the second pitch

was reached and then proceeded to move between the two pitches. This practice leads one to

ascertain that the high school choir could internalize the represented pitches. Choirs whose

director rehearsed transitions with them also received more successful ratings. This finding

could indicate that transitional passages in sight-singing are important and should be

reviewed by both the director and students prior to sight-singing. Transitional material


60

included moving from large sections (“A” to “B”), reviewing accidentals, and transitioning to

another mode or another key. Except for form, these musical elements were not included in

the middle school selections and may account for why this element was significant for only

the high school choirs.

Perhaps the most surprising successful rehearsal strategy was the use of audiation by

the high school choirs. Of the 26 choirs that utilized this strategy, 20 received successful

ratings. It should be noted that audiation was used in conjunction with chanting syllables and

using the Curwen hand signs. While this strategy was used in middle school, ratings were

more evenly distributed between successful and less successful choirs. The question remains

whether audiation is an appropriate strategy for middle school choirs in their formative years

of learning to sight-sing, though when implemented at the high school level resulted in

successful results.

Conclusions

Because data presented provides only a snapshot of the sight-singing process and

abilities of the observed choirs as documented during one adjudicated sight-singing

opportunity, generalizations to other settings or other singers should be made with caution.

There are potentially a myriad of factors within the dynamic of the daily class routine that

has an effect on student strategies and achievements in the sight-reading room. Regardless,

there is much to learn from these observations in regard to the current practices of choir

directors and their student’s responses to utilized sight-singing strategies. Directors appeared

to utilize similar strategies regardless of ability level, choir voicing or educational level. The

frequency of use was significant for ten of the fourteen rehearsal strategies. However, it

appears that the use of specific rehearsal strategies did not guarantee successful ratings.


61

Namely, even though a choir or director implements a particular task (chanting syllables,

using their hand signs, being rhythmically accurate) properly, the ability to accurately

produce pitches that match the identification may not be related to the system of

identification. It was not in the mere routine and execution of a strategy that rendered a choir

successful or less successful. More research is needed to understand the processes necessary

for teachers to impart to students learning how to sight-sing and not to only identify. For the

novice music educator, these findings should serve as an illustration to teach how intervals

sound, and that identification does not indicate that a student has the understanding or ability

to accurately reproduce the written score into accurate singing without any instrumental aid

or aural assistance.

Implications for Further Research

As adjudicated sight-singing opportunities become more difficult to access and

observe due to the secure nature of education and the sight-singing portion of the contest, the

question arises how one may best observe and collect data during adjudicated events. The

collected data also give rise to the question on how to best study the process of teaching

sight-singing in addition to what successful teachers do and what they teach.

Future studies could include daily observations of the process of sight-singing and

dialogue with directors on their process for teaching sight-singing.

It would be interesting to repeat this study with video and audio recording, though rules

currently do not allow for that to take place. However, a similar study on a larger population

would be beneficial.

Finally, one must ask to what extent does a one shot study provide adequate insight

into the effectiveness of sight-singing and rehearsal strategies? Data did not indicate the


62

circumstance with which a director or choir came to the sight-reading room, only what

occurred during the instruction period. One must also consider the point at which a choir

began the sight-singing journey and at what point they arrived. Data did not indicate the

number of years students had been in choir, nor did it indicate the number of years a director

had taught or whether they had previously been successful or less successful in the sight-

reading room.

It is the hope that work from this study would make a small contribution to how

educators view the importance of sequence and the use of a variety of rehearsal strategies to

prepare for sight-singing. Perhaps some of the data here can help to encourage newer

strategies and methods for teaching sight-singing and reduce the misconception that using or

not using a certain strategy will yield specific sight-singing results. Perhaps this work can

fuel others to dive into the process of sight-singing with the end result of life-long music

readers as the goal.


63

REFERENCES

Ballantyne, J., Packer, J. (2004). Effectiveness of pre-service music teacher education programs: perceptions of early-career music teachers. Music Education Research. 6(3). 299-312.

Buford, D. (2010). Investigation of music literacy teaching strategies among selected accomplished choral directors in Title I high schools. (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech University, 2010).

Cox, J. W. (1986). Choral rehearsal time usage in a high school and a university: A comparative analysis. Contributions to Music Education, 13(1). 7-23.

Daniels, R. (1988). Sight-reading instruction in the choral rehearsal. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. 26(1). 32-40.

Demorest, S. M. (1988). Improving sight-singing 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: Teachings sight-singing in the choral rehearsal. London: Oxford Press.

Demorest, S. M. (2004). Choral sight-singing practices: Revisiting a web-based survey. International Journal of Research in choral Singing. 2(1). 3-10.

Demorest, S. M. & May, W.V. (1995). Factors related to the individual sight-singing performance of choir members in four Texas high schools. Texas Music Education Research. Accessed on May 1, 2010.

Fine, P., Berry, A., Rosner, B. (2006). The effect of pattern recognition and tonal predictability on sight-singing ability. Psychology of Music. 34(4). 431-438.

Floyd, E., & 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.

Goolsby, T.W. (1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced, novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 286-303.

Goolsby, T.W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of three career levels and pre-service teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 21-40.

Goolsby, T.W. (1999). A comparison of expert and novice music teachers’ preparing identical band compositions: An operational replication. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 174-187.


64

Gorelick, B. (2001). Planning the perfect choral rehearsal. Music Educators Journal, 88:3, 28-33-60.

Henry, M.L. (2004). The use of targeted pitch skills for sight-rinding instruction in the choral rehearsal. Journal of Research in Music Education. 52(3). 206-217.

Henry, M.L. (2008). The use of specific practice and performance strategies in sight- singing instruction. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. 26(11).

Henry, M. & Demorest, S. (1994). Individual sight-singing achievement in successful choral ensembles. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. 13(1),4-8.

Killian, J. N. & Henry, M. (2005). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful strategies in individual sight-singing preparation and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education. 53(3). 51-65.

Kuehn, 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.

Madsen, C.K. & Yarbrough, C. (1985). Competency based music education. Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Music Publishing.

May, J. (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.

McClung, A. C. (2001). Sight-singing systems: Current practice and survey of all- state choristers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. 20(1). 22-24.

Norris, C. E. (2004). A nationwide overview of sight-singing requirements of large- group choral festivals. Journal of Research in Music Education. 52(16). 16-28.

Reifinger, J. L. (2009). An analysis of tonal patterns used for sight-singing instruction in second-grade general music class. Journal of Research in Music Education. 57(3). 203-216.

University Interscholastic League, (2010, May 2) Vocal Sight-Reading Procedures. Retrieved from, http://www.uil.utexas.edu/music/TMAAVocalSR.html.

Wristen, B. (2005). Cognition and motor execution in piano sight-reading: A review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. 24(1). 44-56.

Yarbrough, C. (1975). Effect of magnitude of conductor behavior on students in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23, 134-146.

Yarbrough, C. & Madsen, K. (1998). The evaluation of teaching in choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 469-481.


65

Yarbrough, C. & Henley, P. (1999). The effect of observation focus on evaluations of choral rehearsal excerpts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 308- 318.

Yarbrough, C. (2007). Time usage by choral directors prior to sight-singing adjudication. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. 25(2), p. 27-35.


66

APPENDEX A

Data Compellation- Verbal Instruction

Verbal Instruction Middle

SchoolMiddleSchool

HighSchool

HighSchool

HighSchool

MiddleSchool

Total

1's 3's 1's 3's Total Total Utilized

KEY 10 14 13 8 21 24 45

TIME 1 8 4 4 8 9 17

STARTING SYL 17 16 16 10 26 33 59

TONIC 10 3 9 1 10 13 23

FORM 11 6 13 3 16 17 33

PHRASES 4 1 10 2 12 5 17

TONE 2 0 3 0 3 2 5

TEMPO 10 13 9 9 18 23 41

CHORDS 2 0 3 0 3 2 5

PITCH 1 0 10 4 14 1 15

TEXT 0 0 1 1 2 0 2

LISTEN 2 1 3 1 4 3 7

PG TURN 10 2 15 4 19 12 31

UNISON SEC 8 6 3 2 5 14 19

DYNAMICS 2 1 4 0 4 3 7

REST 1 0 3 1 4 1 5

LOUD 0 0 1 3 4 0 4

BLEND 0 1 1 0 1 1 2

BRETHE 4 3 3 4 7 7 14

LOOK UP 10 3 10 2 12 13 25

LOOK AHEAD 1 3 0 1 1 4 5

IF YOU GET LOST 3 0 1 1 2 3 5

ACCIDENTALS 0 0 10 4 14 0 14


67

BEGINNING 8 7 3 1 4 15 19

MEASURE 16 13 15 9 24 29 53

PG # 3 0 11 6 17 3 20

SYLLABLE 1 2 4 2 6 3 9

SECTION 3 1 9 1 10 4 14

CADENCE 1 1 1 0 1 2 3

STUDENTS ASKED QUESTIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

STUDENT LEADERS 2 4 3 5 8 6 14

DIR USED WHOLE TIME 14 16 15 12 27 30 57

COMPLETED PIECE 17 16 13 4 17 33 50

DIR POSITIVE 9 3 0 1 1 12 14

CIR CORRECTIVE 1 3 0 1 1 4 5

DIR NEGATIVE 3 0 0 0 0 3 3

DIR MUSICAL 4 3 3 0 3 7 10

DIR ASKED FOR QUESTIONS 2 3 2 0 2 5 7


68

APPENDEX B

Data Compellation – Rehearsal Strategies

Rehearsal Strategies MiddleSchool

High School

Middle School

High School

1’s 1’s 3’s 3’s

Director established the rehearsal tempo 17 17 16 13

Choirs used Curwen hand-signs 17 16 14 11

Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period 16 16 16 12

Director isolates pitches or intervals 16 16 10 10

Director mentions and rehearses transitions in the music 15 16 10 7

Director conducted during the preparation period 15 15 12 5

Director isolates and rehearses music passages 12 15 6 11

Director does not remain stationary 12 14 12 9

Choirs audiated the sight-singing during preparation period 12 13 12 6

Director uses hand signs during instruction period 10 11 7 8

Director isolates rhythmic passages 10 10 7 7

Director assists sections with their part 8 6 6 10

Director counted beats/pulses during the preparation period 5 5 9 3

Choirs chanted rhythms during the preparation period 0 0 3 1


69

APPENDEX C

Data Compellation- Rehearsal Strategy

Total Frequency Used

Rehearsal Strategy Frequency 1's Frequency 3's Total

Implemented

Choirs used Curwen hand-signs

73 45 118

Director established the rehearsal tempo

56 48 104

Choirs chanted solfege during the preparation period

46 45 91

Director isolates pitches or intervals

43 31 74

Director conducted during the preparation period

41 24 65

Director isolates and rehearses music passages

36 33 69

Director uses hand signs during instruction period

36 27 63

Director does not remain stationary

34 29 63

Choirs audiated the sight-singing during preparation period

32 14 46

Director mentions and rehearses transitions in the music

31 16 47

Director assists sections with their part

25 28 43

Director isolates rhythmic passages

16 14 30

Director counted beats/pulses during the preparation period

14 20 34

Documents

A Comparison of Successful and Less Successful Rehearsal