<%BANNER%>

Effect of Fixed-Do and Movable-Do Solfege Instruction on the Development of Sight-Singing Skills in 7- and 8-year-old Ch...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024398/00001

Material Information

Title: Effect of Fixed-Do and Movable-Do Solfege Instruction on the Development of Sight-Singing Skills in 7- and 8-year-old Children
Physical Description: 1 online resource (142 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Holmes, Alena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: music, sight, solfege
Music -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Music Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: EFFECT OF FIXED-DO AND MOVABLE-DO SOLFEGE INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIGHT-SINGING SKILLS IN 7- AND 8-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN By Alena V. Holmes May 2009 Chair: Timothy S. Brophy Major: Music Education The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of movable-do and fixed-do solfege instruction on the development of sight-singing skills of 7- and 8-year-old children. The main research question was: What effect does pedagogical approach have on children's sight singing achievement? Participants (N=181) for this study were students from twelve second grade classes from six schools in north central Florida. Four classes from two schools were randomly assigned to Experimental Group One that participated in movable-do solfege instruction. Four classes from two other schools were randomly assigned to Experimental Group Two that participated in fixed-do solfege instruction. Four classes from the remaining schools were assigned to be the Control Group which did not receive any solfege instruction, but participated in other singing and music reading activities. Participants in the experimental groups received solfege instruction for 10 sessions of general music classes, each 20 minutes in length. During the treatment period two different approaches to the solfege instruction were used: (1) movable do instructional approach, which was based on Conversational Solfege method developed by John Feierabend and influenced by Koda acutely pedagogy and Gordon s Music Learning Theory; and (2) fixed-do approach to the instruction based on Russian solfege textbooks by Frolova and Metalidi and Petcovskaya, which are traditionally influenced by French solfe gravege methodology. The children were individually tested prior to instruction and then again after the completion of 10 sessions. The children sight-sang randomly selected tonal patterns made of syllables do, re, mi and sol, mi and la. Sight-singing performance was evaluated for pitch and contour accuracy. To control for the effect of developmental tonal aptitude on sight-singing achievement, the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation was administered prior to instruction. To control for singing voice development, the Singing Voice Development Measure was administered before and after experimental treatment to find out how the level of singing voice development affects sight-singing performance. Results revealed a significant improvement in sight-singing achievement for both experimental groups. Children who participated in movable-do solfege instruction demonstrated highest scores on the post-tests and greatest gain in sight-singing achievement. MANCOVA test for total score on sight-singing post-tests revealed a significant effect for the pedagogical approach (F = 4.24, df = 2, 176, p < 0.05), school (F = 13.98, df = 3, 176, p < 0.001). Singing Voice Development Measure pre-test (F = 6.86, df = 6, 176, p < 0.001) and scores on sight-singing pre-test (F = 21.63, df = 1, 176, p < 0.001). Multiple regression procedures revealed that the number of solfege sessions (p < 0.001), the level of Singing Voice Development (p < 0.001) and scores on sight-singing pre-test (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of scores on sight-singing post-test. Tukey Pairwise Comparisons among pedagogical approaches yielded significant mean differences (p < 0.01) between movable-do and fixed-do pedagogy.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alena Holmes.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Brophy, Timothy S.
Local: Co-adviser: Robinson, Russell L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024398:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024398/00001

Material Information

Title: Effect of Fixed-Do and Movable-Do Solfege Instruction on the Development of Sight-Singing Skills in 7- and 8-year-old Children
Physical Description: 1 online resource (142 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Holmes, Alena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: music, sight, solfege
Music -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Music Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: EFFECT OF FIXED-DO AND MOVABLE-DO SOLFEGE INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIGHT-SINGING SKILLS IN 7- AND 8-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN By Alena V. Holmes May 2009 Chair: Timothy S. Brophy Major: Music Education The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of movable-do and fixed-do solfege instruction on the development of sight-singing skills of 7- and 8-year-old children. The main research question was: What effect does pedagogical approach have on children's sight singing achievement? Participants (N=181) for this study were students from twelve second grade classes from six schools in north central Florida. Four classes from two schools were randomly assigned to Experimental Group One that participated in movable-do solfege instruction. Four classes from two other schools were randomly assigned to Experimental Group Two that participated in fixed-do solfege instruction. Four classes from the remaining schools were assigned to be the Control Group which did not receive any solfege instruction, but participated in other singing and music reading activities. Participants in the experimental groups received solfege instruction for 10 sessions of general music classes, each 20 minutes in length. During the treatment period two different approaches to the solfege instruction were used: (1) movable do instructional approach, which was based on Conversational Solfege method developed by John Feierabend and influenced by Koda acutely pedagogy and Gordon s Music Learning Theory; and (2) fixed-do approach to the instruction based on Russian solfege textbooks by Frolova and Metalidi and Petcovskaya, which are traditionally influenced by French solfe gravege methodology. The children were individually tested prior to instruction and then again after the completion of 10 sessions. The children sight-sang randomly selected tonal patterns made of syllables do, re, mi and sol, mi and la. Sight-singing performance was evaluated for pitch and contour accuracy. To control for the effect of developmental tonal aptitude on sight-singing achievement, the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation was administered prior to instruction. To control for singing voice development, the Singing Voice Development Measure was administered before and after experimental treatment to find out how the level of singing voice development affects sight-singing performance. Results revealed a significant improvement in sight-singing achievement for both experimental groups. Children who participated in movable-do solfege instruction demonstrated highest scores on the post-tests and greatest gain in sight-singing achievement. MANCOVA test for total score on sight-singing post-tests revealed a significant effect for the pedagogical approach (F = 4.24, df = 2, 176, p < 0.05), school (F = 13.98, df = 3, 176, p < 0.001). Singing Voice Development Measure pre-test (F = 6.86, df = 6, 176, p < 0.001) and scores on sight-singing pre-test (F = 21.63, df = 1, 176, p < 0.001). Multiple regression procedures revealed that the number of solfege sessions (p < 0.001), the level of Singing Voice Development (p < 0.001) and scores on sight-singing pre-test (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of scores on sight-singing post-test. Tukey Pairwise Comparisons among pedagogical approaches yielded significant mean differences (p < 0.01) between movable-do and fixed-do pedagogy.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alena Holmes.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Brophy, Timothy S.
Local: Co-adviser: Robinson, Russell L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024398:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EFFECT OF FIXED-DO AND MOVABLE -DO SOLFEGE INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIGHT-SINGING SKILLS IN 7AND 8-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN By ALENA V. HOLMES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Alena V. Holmes 2

PAGE 3

To my parents: Regina Kozhyna and Vladimir Kozhyn 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been po ssible without the guidance and amazing support I received from the members of my dissertation committee. I have to start with Dr. Timothy Brophy, the committee chair. He has been an outst anding mentor and an in spirational model to draw from. I would like to e xpress my deepest appreciation for all your guidance, endless support, patience, understanding, and inspiration throughout the research process and years of doctoral study. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Robinson for giving me the opportunity to teach at the University of Florida during my doctoral program. This was an invaluable experience that prepared me well for the teaching profession in the university setting. It has been such an honor and a blessing to study and work under the umbrella of such a distinguished professor as Dr. Hoffer, an icon in the Music Education field. My deepest gratitude for all the mentorship you gave me through the years of my doctoral study. My appreciation also goes to Dr. Ellis for being very supportive and understa nding, and for opening new worlds of musical experiences by introducing me to the great pleasur es of playing the organ. I offer my sincere gratitude to Dr. Dana for graciously accepting to serve on my committee and participating in the reviews. Of course, I could not have done any of the re search without the part icipation and help of the six amazing teachers who vol unteered to apply the sight-si nging methods in their regular music classrooms: Mrs. Kathleen Kaminsky, Mrs. Annette Short, Mrs. Jolene Jones, Mr. Joshua E. P. White, Mrs. Lou Hyatt, and Mr. Marco Thomas, and all the wonderful children who participated in the research. Their cont ribution made a world of difference. Thanks to my new true friend Dr. Annie Stinso n for editing this dissertation and for her support in helping me settle in my new work envir onment in Wisconsin. I am deeply grateful to 4

PAGE 5

my parents, Regina Kozhyna and Vladimir Koz hyn, for passing on to me their love of music and the yearning for an advance degree. They have devoted their lives helping me and my son, and have supported me in all of my endeavors. My thanks go out to my son Anthony, who was so patient with his always busy mother. Finally, I would like to thank my dearest special friend Khalid Yasin who unfailingly gave me his support through all these y ears. Without his belief in me, and unconditional help and love, my dream to finish the dissertation and earn this degree would probably have never become a reality. 5

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................10ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .13Need for the Study..................................................................................................................13Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....23Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....23Definition of Terms................................................................................................................24Significance of the Study........................................................................................................25Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........25Delimitations...........................................................................................................................262 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................27Philosophical Rationales.........................................................................................................27David J. Elliot: Praxial Music Education........................................................................27Johann Henrich Pestalozzis Pedagogical Principles......................................................29Theoretical Rationales......................................................................................................... ...29Developmental Theories..................................................................................................30Instructional Theories......................................................................................................32Edwin Gordons Music Learning Theory........................................................................33Historical Overview of the Development and Use of Solfege...............................................36Teaching Music Literacy in the United States........................................................................38Research....................................................................................................................... ...........42Development of Music Reading Skills............................................................................42Effect and Contribution of Solfege Syllables..................................................................49Effect of Tonal Pattern Training......................................................................................55Fixed-Do or Movable-Do?..............................................................................................61Summary..........................................................................................................................683 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................7 2Subjects...................................................................................................................................72Demographics.........................................................................................................................73Teachers..................................................................................................................................74Reliability Procedures.............................................................................................................75 6

PAGE 7

Independent Variables............................................................................................................76Instructional Treatment...................................................................................................76Movable-Do Solfege Instruction.....................................................................................76Fixed-Do Solfege Instruction..........................................................................................80Control Groups................................................................................................................81Dependent Variable............................................................................................................. ...81Sight-Singing Achievement.............................................................................................81Testing Procedures..........................................................................................................82Judging and Scoring........................................................................................................84Summary of the Procedures....................................................................................................864 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........91Variables and Analyses of Data..............................................................................................91Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................... .....92Analyses of Covariance, Regre ssion Analyses, and Tukey Tests..........................................955 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ....114Summary...............................................................................................................................114Conclusions...........................................................................................................................115Research Questions............................................................................................................. ..116Discussion.............................................................................................................................117Implications for Music Education........................................................................................119Recommendations................................................................................................................ .121For Teachers..................................................................................................................121For Researchers.............................................................................................................122 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL..........................................................125B PARENTAL CONSENT......................................................................................................126C SAMPLE OF MOVABLE-DO SOLFEGE LESSON..........................................................127D SAMPLE OF FIXED-DO SOLFEGE LESSON..................................................................128E TONAL PATTERNS FOR SIGHT-SINGING TESTS.......................................................129F TESTING SCRIPT............................................................................................................... 130G SCORING SHEET FOR SIGHT-SINGING TEST.............................................................131REFERENCES............................................................................................................................132BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................141 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Levels and sublevels of skill learning sequence................................................................333-1 2006-07 Demographic data about the state, the school district, and the participating schools................................................................................................................................883-2 2006-07 Ethnic distribution of students in Florida, the school district and the participating schools................................................................................................................................883-3 Percentage of students, by st ate, district and participating school, who scored 3 and above on the 2006-07 state assessments.......................................................................................893-4 Time line.................................................................................................................. ..........894-1 Descriptive statistics for th e IMMA tonal subtest scores ( N = 181)..................................984-2 Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test re sults for the IMMA tonal subtest ( N = 181)........984-3 Number and percentage of children at various levels of Singing Voice Development Measure pre-test (SVDM pre-test).....................................................................................994-4 Number and percentage of children at various levels of Singing Voice Development Measure post-test (SVDM post-test)...............................................................................1004-5 Descriptive statistics fo r the distribution of pre-test scores by school and pedagogy.....1014-6 Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results for the pre-test scores by school and pedagogy..........................................................................................................................1024-7 Descriptive statistics fo r the distribution of post-test scores by school and pedagogy....1034-8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results for the post-test scores by school..............1054-9 Descriptive statistics for total si ght-singing pre-test and post-test ( N = 181 ) ..................1064-10 Descriptive statistics for th e distribution of pre-test pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment........................................................................................................1074-11 Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results for the distribution of pre-test pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment............................................................1084-12 Descriptive statistics for th e distribution of post-test pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment........................................................................................................1094-13 Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results for the distribution of post-test pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment............................................................110 8

PAGE 9

4-14. MANCOVA for total post-test with SVDM posttest, IMMA tonal subtest, pre-test scores and number of solfege sessions as covariates ( N = 181)......................................1114-15 Distribution of scores on si ght-singing total pre-test by th e level of SVDM pre-test ( N = 181)..................................................................................................................................1114-16 Distribution of scores on si ght-singing total post-test by th e level of SVDM post-test ( N = 181)..................................................................................................................................1114-17 Significance level matrix for Tukey a Pairwise Comparisons among pedagogical approaches for total post-test score ( N = 181).................................................................1124-18 Regression analysis for to tal sight-singing score versus number of solfege sessions, IMMA tonal subtest score, SVDM pre-test score and total pre-test score......................112 9

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 The 12 steps of Conversational Solfege.............................................................................903-2 Singing Voice Developmental Measure (Rutkowski, 1996).............................................904-1 Difference between pre-test a nd post-test total scores means........................................1134-2 Interaction plot for total sight-singi ng post-test with SVDM post-test. .........................113 10

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECT OF FIXED-DO AND MOVABLE -DO SOLFEGE INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIGHT-SINGING SKILLS IN 7AND 8-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN By Alena V. Holmes May 2009 Chair: Timothy S. Brophy Major: Music Education The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of movabledo and fixed-do solfege instruction on the development of sight-singing skills of 7and 8-year-old children. The main research question was: What e ffect does pedagogical approach have on children's sight singing achievement? Participants ( N =181) for this study were stude nts from twelve second grade classes from six schools in north central Florida. Four classe s from two schools were randomly assigned to Experimental Group One that particip ated in movable-do solfege instruction. Four classes from two other schools were randomly assigned to Experimental Group Two that participated in fixed-do solfege instruction. Four classes from the remaining schools were assigned to be the Control Group which did not r eceive any solfege instruction, but participated in other singing and music readi ng activities. Participants in the experimental groups received solfege instruction for 10 sessions of general mu sic classes, each 20 minutes in length. During the treatment period two different approaches to the solfege inst ruction were used: (1) movable do instructional approach, which was based on Conversational Solfege method developed by John Feierabend and influenced by Kodly pe dagogy and Gordons Music Learning Theory; and 11

PAGE 12

12 (2) fixed-do approach to the instruct ion based on Russian solfege textbooks by Frolova and Metalidi and Petcovskaya, which are traditionally influenced by French solfge methodology. The children were individually tested prior to instruction and then again after the completion of 10 sessions. The children sight-sang randomly selected tonal patterns made of syllables do, re, mi and sol, mi and la Sight-singing performance was evaluated for pitch and contour accuracy. To control for the effect of developmental tonal aptitude on sight-singing achievement, the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation was administered prior to instruction. To control for singing voice development, the Singing Voice Development Measure was administered before and after experimental treatment to find out how the level of singing voice development affects si ght-singing performance. Results revealed a significant improvement in sight-singing achievement for both experimental groups. Children who participated in movable-do solfege instruction demonstrated highest scores on the post-tests and greatest gain in sight-singing achievement. MANCOVA test for total score on sight-singing post-tests reveal ed a significant effect for the pedagogical approach ( F = 4.24, df = 2, 176, p < 0.05), school ( F = 13.98, df = 3, 176, p < 0.001). Singing Voice Development Measure pre-test ( F = 6.86, df = 6, 176, p < 0.001) and scores on sightsinging pre-test ( F = 21.63, df = 1, 176, p < 0.001). Multiple regression procedures revealed that the number of solfege sessions ( p < 0.001), the level of Si nging Voice Development ( p < 0.001) and scores on sight -singing pre-test (p < 0.001) were significant pred ictors of scores on sightsinging post-test. Tukey Pairwise Compar isons among pedagogical approaches yielded significant mean differences (p < 0.01) between movable-do and fixed-do pedagogy.

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Need for the Study Is it possible to imagine language arts clas srooms in an American public school where students are taught to speak and li sten but not how to write or r ead? On the other hand, it is not so difficult to find music classr ooms where students are taught to sing songs by rote and listen to musical works but are not taught the basic skills of reading and notating music. The ability to read and notate music is considered to be an essential ingredient of musical understanding and vital to independent musical performan ce. However, research indicates ( Miller, 1980 ; Scott, 1996) that not only ordinary people but even many singers are unable to read the music they perform: How many Americans are prepared for the musical experience? How many Americans can read music? How many Americans are even minimally capable of following the course of a Brahms symphony, to say nothing of a Mozart sonata, or even the finer points of a Gershwin tune? I would guess a fraction of one percent. Music desperately needs a prepared public, joyfully educat ed ears. Right now, music is an orphan; and it will always be that orphan until we get a grip on a methodology of music education for the young. (Bernstein, as cited in Bluestine, 2000, p. xv) The ability to read music enables students to participate in a wi de range of musical experiences. If students are able to read music on their own, they are more likely to actively and independently enjoy music. Damrosch (1894) emphasized the value of that skill and states that it is only by learning to sing at sight that entrance can be gain ed to the vast treasure house of music, just as the treasures of literature can only be gained by those who are able to read (p. 36). The National Standards for the Arts (Consortiu m of National Arts Education Associations, 1994) is a document which outlines standards for ar ts education in American schools. The nine content standards for music affirm what every pub licly educated child in United States should be able to achieve as a result of music instruction in Gr ades K through 12. The first standard states 13

PAGE 14

that students should be singing, al one and with others, a varied repertoire of music (p. 1), and the fifth standard states that st udents should have skills in rea ding and notating music (p. 2). In spite of the existence of these National Standards for the Arts, the reality in meeting these goals and standards may be less than adequate. Hoffer (2001) states that most teenagers cannot read even simple music. He describes three National Assessments of Music Performance which document that fewer than 20% of 17-yea r-olds are capable of sight reading a simple musical phrase. Research findings and national assessment data indicate that the goal of teaching students to sing does not appear to be fully met. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (1997) f ound that only 58% of the eight h-grade students in 268 schools across the United States were able to sing the so ng America with rhythm that was assessed as adequate or better, and only 35% of the students were able to sing with pitch and intonation that was assessed as adequate or bett er. Levinowitz, Barnes, Guerrini Clement, DApril, and Morey (1998) assessed childrens singing voice develo pment in grades Grades1 through 6. The results of the study indicated a decrease in students' sk ill in using their singing voices over the past few decades. They found that 75% of the populati on of children fall within the "presinger," "speaking-range singer," and uncertain singer" categories of the Singing Development Voice Measure (Rutkowski, 1991). Byos (1999) study of classroom teachers and music specialists perceived ability to implement the National St andards for Music Education indicates that a shortage of instructional time a nd the lack of training were the reasons given by teachers for not implementing some of the standards. The placement of music reading in the music education program is essential. Mursell (1956) reasoned: To learn to read music is to learn to understand music. The whole value of symbols is to help us to understand music better. Without an understanding of the symbols, musical 14

PAGE 15

understanding is bound to lag, just as without symbols called numbers, arithmetical understanding is bound to lag. Bu t if musical understanding lags musical growth lags. So the teaching of music reading is a must in a program planne d to promote musical growth (p.137). Music reading is a very complex task. Petzol d (1960) defines that sk ill as the process of reading and interpreting various kinds of music symbols and converting these symbols into sound. Musically literate students are able to perform more complex tasks than merely mechanically reproducing notated pitches on an instrument or just naming notes and intervals they see in notation. Gordon (2007) emphasizes that to read music notation in the truest sense of the meaning one must audiate. Audiation is th e process of mentally hearing and comprehending music, even when no physical sound is present. He also states that j ust like language literacy includes the ability to listen, sp eak, read, and write language with comprehension, music literacy includes the ability to listen, spea k, read, and write music notation with comprehension (p. 42). McPherson and Gabrielsson (2002) state that when reading musical notation, thinking in sound involves an ability to inwardly hear and comprehend notati on separately from the act of performance" (p. 103). This concept highlights the important distin ction between seeing not ation and responding mechanically to produce the notated sound in cont rast to seeing the musical notation and being able to hear the notation inwardly before reproducing it on instrument (McPherson and Gabrielsson, 2002). Feierabend (1997) supports th is assertion and states that the ability to identify "letter names" (i.e., F, A, C, E, D#, etc. ) when looking at notes on a staff and to press the corresponding keys on an instrument should not be confused with true music literacy. True music literacy involves the developm ent of the ability to hear what is seen and see what is heard. Kodly (1954) wrote, We should not allow anyone even to go near an instrument until he or she 15

PAGE 16

can read and sing correctly. This is our only hope that one day our musicians will be able to sing on their instruments (p. 2). Music educators define sight-s inging as the ability to conve rt music notation into sound upon initial presentation. Sight-singing practice includes very complex skills that require the singer to combine music pitches with rhythms, dynamics, and articulation symbols. Research indicates ( Costanza and Russell, 1992 ; Miller, 1980 ; Scott, 1996) that sight-singing instruction remains one of the weakest components in the teaching of choral music. Philips (1996) is concerned that children learn to sing mainly by rote imitation. When note reading is taught, it is often from a theoretical rather than a functional approach. Many vocal music students arrive in the high school chorus without the basic skills needed to sight-read accurately (p. 32). Research surveys have found that although most teachers have a positive attitude towards the teaching of music reading, few spend the time to teach the skills (Johnson, 1987; Daniels 1988; May 1993). The results of Scotts (1996 ) doctoral dissertation support this assertion. The study consisted of a holistic, crit erion-referenced sight-singing test for high school sopranos based on the voluntary national standards for c horal music education. Subjects included 120 high school sopranos from four Illinois high school s. Results indicated that none of the singers could sight-sing at the achievement levels established by the Musi c Education National Conference. Such findings raised the question of the reas on and responsibility for such sight-singing deficiencies. One body of research ( Henry & Demorest, 1994 ; Johnson, 1987 ; Parker, 1979; Szabo, 1992) suggests that many elementary and s econdary music teachers fail to develop classroom strategies for teaching and assessing students individual sight -singing skills. Furby (2008) suggests that many teachers of singing were probably not taught in a way that emphasized 16

PAGE 17

the importance of sight-singing, and so the cycle repeats; teachers c ontinue to teach as they were taught and neglect sight-singing prac tice. Another body of research ( McClung, 1996; Smith, 1998; Verrastro & Leglar, 1992 ) assumes that some teacher preparation programs fail to provide music education majors with the necessary a nd appropriate methods and sequences to teach sight-singing effectively. Many music programs make an effort to teach students how to sing and how to read music notation, but there appears to be a difference in what educators want students to achieve and what they are actually achieving. Perhaps one reason for this is teachers limited knowledge of effective and sequential instructional methodology that successfully teaches music reading skills and can be easily implemented in the general music classroom. One way to achieve the goal of teaching skil ls in music reading and writing and sightsinging, as well as developing audi ation, is through the sequentia l and regular use of solfege instruction. Gordon (2004) suggests that the most rational and effec tive way to learn to read and write tonal patterns and rhythm patterns is thr ough the use of neutral syllables followed by the introduction of the tonal and rhythm syllables kn own as solfege. In 1934 Melville Smith wrote, solfege really is an essential of musicianship. we might perh aps logically carry this idea still further and say that without solfege the musician ship of any individual runs the danger of being defective, or at least incomplete (p. 16). The term solfege, or solfeggio, originally referred to the si nging of scales, intervals, and melodic exercises to solmization syllables. The term solmization is derived from the work of the Benedictine monk Guido DArezzo (c. 990-1050) who us ed the initial syllables of the first six lines of a hymn to St John attributed to Paulus Diaconus of the eighth century. Each phrase of this hymn begins successively one note higher than the preceding one with the sounds of the hexachord using the syllables Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, and La, and the original sounds being the 17

PAGE 18

hexachord C, D, E, F, G, A. By the mid-17th century, the seventh tone Si completed the octave. Do replaced Ut in most European countries when the Guidonian syllables assumed a fixed position and Ut became C. Hughes and Gerson-Kiwi (2001) defines solmization as the use of syllables in association with pitches as a mnemonic device for indicating melodic intervals. Many systems of this sort exist in the principal musical cultures of the world; they serve as aids in the oral transm ission of music, and may be used either for direct teaching or as a means of memorizing wh at has been heard. A solmization system is not a notation: it is a method of aural rather than visual recognition (p. 1). In France during the 19th century solfege develo ped into an elaborately systematic regimen in basic musicianship. The French solfege trad ition has served as a point of departure for numerous methods of teaching basi c musical skills developed in ot her countries, among them the approaches to music education of Zoltan Kodly and Emile Jaque s-Dalcroze. Solmization is recommended by many music educators, such as Zoltan Kodly (movable do) and Emile JaquesDalcroze (fixed-do) for the ease in singing of syllables, its aid in memorization, and its indication of tonal functions. Mursell a nd Glenn (1931) also state their support for using solfege through the Tonic Sol-fa system to de velop the concept of tonality: By far the commonest device for emphasizing te ndential effects and bu ilding a system of tonal expectation is th e application of the sol-fa syllabl es. In England the system is known as the Tonic Sol-fa, a teaching device whic h involves, among other things, a notation of its own. In America, school music teachers use th e sol-fa syllables, largely without the rest of the system, because they are easily applied and so far represent the simplest device for practical application. .The va lue of the sol-fa system lies in its power of defining and bringing before the learner the tona lity element in music (pp. 164-167). Divergent approaches to solfege have contin ued to be a matter for debate in the 20th century, especially be tween the approaches of fixed-do and movable-do. Campbell (1991) explains the major difference between the fixe d-do and the movable-do systems: movable-do refers to the relative system by such the tonic of any key is do. By contrast, Fixed-do is 18

PAGE 19

absolute in its designation of pitc hes, so that C is always do regardless of whether it serves as the tonic (pp. 50-51). Research findings on the effectiveness of di fferent sight-singing approaches yielded mixed results. In the 1950s, Siler (1956) asserted that a movable-tonic system was the worst system for teaching sight-singing and that the best suited sy stem was one that employed a fixed-do system. Bentley (1959) challenged Siler's assert ion and concluded that the movable-tonic system was more effective for teaching sight-singing skills. Collins (1979) surveyed 346 college and university music departments that held full memb ership in the National Association of Schools of Music. Results from the 233 surveys returned indicated that prefer red sight-singing systems included movable-do, using either syllables or numbers as a means for solmization, and the neutral syllables. A study by Henry & Demorest (1994) investigated the level of individual sight-singing achievement in two choirs rec ognized for outstanding group sight-singing. One choir used the fixed-do system of sight-singing and the other used the moveable-do system. Results showed no significant difference in sight-singing achievement between these two systems. Demorest (2004) analyzed the re sponses to a web-based survey by 221 middle and high school choral directors. Hi s results showed that 64% favor ed the moveable-do system, 21% favored numbers, and the remaining 15% fixed-do, neutral syllables, or other systems. In 1993, Steve Larson came to the following conclusion: It is impossible to say--in the abstract--that any one solfge sy stem is superior to another. Specific solfge systems should be chosen for specific students, for specific educational objectives, and for specific repertoires. And every solfge system has the honor of being the best system for at leas t one given purpose (p. 115). Collins (1993) indicates that the diversity of appr oaches used to teach music reading in American schools is both a blessing and a curse: Educators have the right, to a degree, to choose the approach they desire to use in teaching their classes. That is the bl essing. On the other hand, singers who are exposed to several 19

PAGE 20

different teachers and approaches may become very confused and finish their tenure in secondary school unable to rea d. That is the curse (p. 236). Notwithstanding, Collins declares that students mu st be taught to read music. He states that there are two cardinal rules for developing sight-singing skill. First, it must be taught using sequentially-ordered objectives, moving from the known to the unknown. Secondly, proficiency in sight-singing will only come through repeated series of exposures to instruction over time (usually two years). In elementary schools, children are generally introduced to solfege and the instructors choice of teaching approach, and the curriculum usua lly determines a particular solfege system. Several research studies support th e use of solfege instruction with elementary grade students. Yarbrough, Green, Benson, and Bowers (1991) re ported that, when performing a vocal echo task, solfege was the most effective response mode among using la and using la with hand signs in improving pitch-matching accuracy with problem singers in Grades K, 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. Reinfinger (2007) found solfege to be helpful on a sight-singing task. In his study, groups whose instruction included the use of solfege had the highest means on the post-test for familiar patterns of both groups that used loo when singing the patterns, and the solfege group had the greatest effect size of pre-test to post-test gain ( d = 2.60). Reinfinger concluded that the use of solfege helped the second-graders sing cont ours correctly on the patterns th at were practiced. However, solfege is not usually the primary focus of le ssons and the lack of sequential and regular instruction is obvious. Peddell (2005) examined activities in elementary general music classrooms in Pennsylvania. Results indicate th at solfege was being used only occasionally (in approximately 25-50% of the lessons). However, Peddell reports that elementary music teachers consider solfege as a ra ther important activity ( M = 2.85 out of 4 on a 4 point scale, where 4 were considered by subjects as very important activity). 20

PAGE 21

Giles (1991) emphasizes the importance of th e development of sight-singing skills in elementary musical training: I f students have not yet been exposed to Kodly or Orff instruction, middle school or junior high is now too late to begin (p. 26). Gordons research has led him to conclude that music aptitude does not continue to devel op significantly after approximately age nine; the aptitude level ac quired by age nine remains basically the same throughout life. Therefore, the qu ality of instruction through grade three, both inside and outside the music classroom, is of particular importance. In a longitudinal study of students in grades one through six, Petzold (1960) found that by the third grade many children had reached a plateau in auditory perception. He also determin ed that first-grade students can develop aural understanding and can successfully participate in music reading activities. Research findings indicate that the early years are critical for mu sical learning and it is th e responsibility of public schools to provide the ground and the climate to flourish the childs musical development. Kodly (1974) emphasized that if the child is no t filled at least once by the life-giving stream of music during the most susceptible period between his sixth and sixteenth years it will hardly be of any use to him later on. Often a single ex perience will open the yo ung soul to music for a whole lifetime. The experience cannot be left to chance; it is the duty of the school to provide it (p. 120). Below the age of fifteen, everybody is more talented than above it; only exceptional geniuses continue to develop (p. 122). Although numerous pedagogical approaches are available for general music educators, teachers who at least partially fa miliar with the conven tional applications of traditional methods such as Dalcroze, Kodly and Gordon, make solfeg e an integral component of their curriculum. Peddell (2005) reported that teach ers with advanced le vels of specialized pedagogical training (Orff, Kodly, Dalcroze,and/or Gordon) use solfege more frequently then teachers without any 21

PAGE 22

specialized pedagogical training. Although these methods have multifaceted applications, sightsinging is a vital element of thei r educational procedures. When using the Dalcroze method, for example, teachers will have students sight-sing with a non-chromatic fixed solfege system. On the other hand, the Kodly and Gordon appr oaches apply movable solfege, using la for the tonic of the relative minor. Even though the Orff-Schulwe rk method is not generally associated with solfege like the Dalcroze and Kod ly methods, solfege instruction is still a part of the instruction. John Feierabend developed an eclectic method of teach ing music literacy called Conversational Solfege (2001). Conversational Solfege is a sequential music program that develops music literacy skills through a 12-stage pr ocess that culminates in one's ability to write original musical thoughts (compose). In Conversa tional Solfege, Feierabend combined elements of the Kodly method and Gordons learning theory. Feierabend (2001) explained, As American music educators strive to develop an appropriate adaptation of the Hungarian Model, they will do well to investigate the work of Edwi n Gordon for the insight it has to offer (p. 286). Both Gordon and Kodly advocate the use of m ovable-do solfege, sequenced instruction, and singing before playing instruments. With the Conversational Solfege approach, music literacy starts with traditional music and an "ear-beforeeye" philosophy. The ulti mate goal is to develop independent musicians who can hear, understa nd, read, write, compose, and improvise. It is important to realize th at in many countries (France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, the former Soviet Union republics, countries of Latin America, and many others) the fixed-do approach is the most common approach of teachi ng music literacy and it has been successfully implemented in public schools and music institu tions. Ozeas (1991) states that the fixed-do system is gaining increased use in American cons ervatories of music such as Julliard, Curtis Institute, Oberlin Conservatory, and Carnegie Mellon University. According to Smith (1987), 22

PAGE 23

the practice of solfege is vital to the educational proce ss but, unfortunately, its use is declining in music education training: The effectiveness of solfeggio as a reading devi ce is historically indubitable; it has existed as long as western music itself. Prominent music educators, from the Greeks to Guido, from John Curwen to Lowell Mason, have r ecognized that solmi zation facilitates the reading of music. And, solmization today, in Kodly and some ear-training courses, remains a potent force in music education. But in the last half of this century, the use of solfeggio in its historic matri x, the choral ensemble, has not b een maintained with vigor (p. 16). Purpose of the Study This study investigated the e ffect of movable-do and fixeddo solfege instruction on the development of sightsinging skills of 7and 8-year-old children. During the experimental portion of the study two different approaches to the solfege in struction were used: (1) the movabledo approach, based on the Convers ational Solfege met hod developed by John Feierabend and influenced by Kodly pedagogy and Gordons Music Learning Theory; and (2) the fixed-do approach, based on Russian solfege textbooks that are traditionally influenced by French solfege methodology. The purpose of the study was not to compare the two methods but rather to find the effect of different pedagogical approaches on the development of sight-singing achievement of 7-and 8-year-old children in rather typical American school settings. Research Questions The main research question was: What effect do two pedagogical approaches ha ve on children's sight-singing achievement? The following sub-questions were: 1. What is the effect of sequential and regular movable-do solfege in struction on childrens sight-singing achievement? 2. What is the effect of sequential and regular fixed-do solfege instruction on childrens sightsinging achievement? 23

PAGE 24

3. What is the relationship between the level of singing voice development as measured by the Singing Voice Development Measure (R utkowski, 1990, 1996) and sight-singing performance? 4. What is the relationship between sight-singi ng achievement and (1) tonal aptitude; and (2) number of solfege sessions? Definition of Terms AUDIATION. The process of mentally hearing and co mprehending music, even when no physical sound is present. FIXED-DO SOLFEGE. The sight-singing approach of de signating the degrees of the scale by syllables do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si (ti) in which do is always fixed at C (or 261.6 hertz). INTERMEDIATE MEASURES OF MUSIC AUDIATION (IMMA). A developmental music aptitude test appropriate for students in grades one through six, consists of two subtests: tonal and rhythm. MOVABLE-DO SOLFEGE. The sight-singing approach in which do refers to the tonal center of a given piece in a major key. The syllables do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti and their chromatic counterparts are use to indicat e function, rather than pitch. MUSIC READING. The ability to interpret the symbols of musical not ation into proper sounds. SIGHT-SINGING is the process of read ing music notation and then reproducing the sounds it represents by singing without reference to a mechanical pitch source (Reinfinger, 2007). SINGING VOICE DEVELOPMENT MEASURE (SVDM). A nine-point ra ting scale, developed by Rutkovsky (1990, 1996) that provides music educator s with a consistent and definite rubric for measuring singing voice development ba sed on the range of the singing voices. SOLFEGE. A pedagogical solmization technique for the teaching of sight-singing in which each note is sung to a special syllable called a solfege syllable. The seven syllables normally used for this practice in English-speaking countries are: do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, and ti. Solfege in the European sense is the study of music theory, mu sic form, and analysis. It used in a much broader sense, to encompass almost all of musicianship and score-reading. SOLMIZATION.A system that uses syllables to represent the tones of musical scale. TONIC SOL-FA. A system of musical not ation based on movable-do solfege developed by John Curwen Every tone is given a name according to its relationship with other tones in the key: The usual staff notation is replaced with anglicized solfege syllables ( do, reh, me, fa, so, la, te ) or their abbreviations ( d, r, m, f, s, l, t ). 24

PAGE 25

Significance of the Study This study aimed to identify effective pedagogi cal strategies and promote the development of important music literacy sk ills such as music reading, wr iting, sight-singing and audiation during the childs elementary school years. So lfege instruction has existed since the beginning of eleventh century and the eff ectiveness of solfege as a sight reading device is historically unquestionable. Several researcher s investigated and compared th e impact of different solfege and other approaches to sight-singi ng instruction, but most of th e studies were limited to middle, high school choral ensembles or undergraduate students. Only a few studies (Reinfinger, 2007; Yarbrough, Green, Benson, and Bowers, 1991; Mart in, 1987) have examined the effect of singing with solfege syllables on young childrens sight-singing ab ility. There are no studies investigating the effect of sequential solfege in struction on elementary childrens sight-singing achievement. This study sought to add to the current body of knowledge concerning music learning in young children, particular ly as it pertains to the contri bution of sequent ial instruction of movable-do and fixed-do solfege to the development of sight-singing skills. Because the methodology of this study includes two approa ches to solfege, movable and fixed, the application of the findings will be useful to educational practices not only in United States but in many other countries. The findings from this study may contribute to the wider spread of Feierabends Conversational Solfege method in the United States and abroad, and to the development and popularization of the fixed-do so lfege method applicable for American public education. Limitations The duration of the study was limited to only on e semester. The duration of experimental treatment was limited to 10 sessions. Due to the time limitation, the development of sight-singing within a five note range was investigated. 25

PAGE 26

This study was limited to public-school students in second grade and included schools in north central Florida only. Intact classes were used without the random ization of participan ts among classes; the treatment condition used by each school was assigned randomly. Generalizations about the effects of solfege in struction can only be limited to the specific teaching methodology used in the study. Delimitations This study was not concerned with: the development of rhythmic skills and knowledge of basic music theory; students previous musical a nd educational experiences; backgrounds and teaching styles of participating teachers. 26

PAGE 27

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Philosophical Rationales When considering the implementation of in structional approaches, researchers and educators must have a clear philoso phical rationale that provides a sense of direction, perspective and consistency in practical implications. Elliot (1995) comments: Like a good map, a good philosophy can show us the best routes to our de stination based on careful considerations of the territory we want to travel. It may also point us to routes and destinations we never considered (p. 9). David J. Elliot: Praxial Music Education David Elliot developed a new, praxial philosophy of music education. His philosophy underlines that "music making lies at the heart of what MUSIC is and that music making is a matter of musical knowledge-in-acti on, or musicianship. Music education ought to be centrally concerned with teaching and learning musiciansh ip" (p. 72). Elliot explains that the word praxis is a noun derived from the verb prasso, which means to do or to act purposefully (p. 16). The focus of music education philosoph y, and thus music educa tion instruction, should be "musicing, which takes several different forms: singing or performing on an instrument, improvising, composing, arranging, or conducting. In other words "musicing" in all its forms has to be active, involved, and ongoing rather than passive, objective, or simply observational. In Elliots praxial philosophy, the content of the music curriculum is musicianship. Musicianship is demonstrated in action, not in words (p. 54). Elliot states that while musicianship is procedural in essence, four ot her kinds of musical knowle dge contribute to this essence in surrounding and supportive ways (p. 54). Four other kinds of musical knowing 27

PAGE 28

include formal musical knowledge, informal musical knowledge, impressionistic musical knowledge and supervisory musical knowledge. The praxial philosophy of music education holds that formal knowledge have to be filtered into teaching-learning situation parenthetically and contextually (p. 61). The issue of teachi ng music notation deserves separate comment in Elliots philosophy: music literacy, or the ability to decode a nd encode a system of musical notation, is not equivalent of musicianship. It is only one part of the form al procedural dimensions of musicianship. Moreover, lite racy should also be taught a nd learned parenthetically and contextuallyas a coding problem to be gra dually reduced within th e larger process of musical problem solving through active music making (p. 61). Regarding the implications for current study, both approaches to solfege instruction employed here are based on ideas of the praxial philosophy of musicianship. Elliot writes that: musicianship develops only through active mu sic making in curricular situations that teachers deliberately design to approximate the salient conditions of genuine musical practices. The name I give to this kind of teaching-learning environment is curriculum-aspracticum (p. 72). The goal of solfege instruction is to devel op music literacy, not in the context of the mechanical reading of letter names while looking at notes on a st aff or pressing the corresponding keys on an instrument, but rather the ability to hear what is seen on a staff paper and see what is heard. As Elliot points out, lite racy should be taught as a coding problem to be gradually reduced within the larger process of musical problem solving through active music making (p. 61). All of the inst ructional activities in both types of solfege instruction in that study involve active music lear ning and music making: sing ing, moving, decoding, reading, writing, and composing. All instru ctional activities were organi zed in sequential order with gradual increase in complexity and difficulty level. 28

PAGE 29

Johann Henrich Pestalozzis Pedagogical Principles One of the basic premises upon which movabledo solfege instruction is based is that students should learn with their ears before lear ning with their eyes. This idea was developed by Johann Henrich Pestalozzi (1746) who formulat ed education theories that influenced the philosophy of elementary education. Pestalo zzian pedagogical principles were brought to America by William C. Woodbrig e (1794). According to Mark and Gary (2007), the Pestalozzian principles, as applied to American music education, are as follows: 1. To teach sounds before signsmake the child sing before he learns written notes or their names; 2. Get the child to observe by hearing a nd imitating sounds, their resemblance and differences, their agreeable and disagreeable effects, rather than explaining these things to him. With this principle, the child is ca lled upon to the difficult task of attending to all at once; 3. Teach but one thing at a timerhythm, mel ody and expression are taught and practiced separately before the child is called upon to the difficult task of attending to all at once; 4. To make children practice each st ep of each of these divisions, until they are master of it, before passing to the next; 5. To give the principles and theory afte r practice, and as an induction from it; 6. To analyze and practice the elements of articul ate sound in order to apply them to music; 7. To have the names of the notes correspond to those used in instrumental music (p. 27). Pestalozzian principles infl uence theories and methodologies of many prominent music educators, such as Dalcroze, Kodly, Gordon, and many others. Theoretical Rationales A theoretical understanding of childrens development and learning processes is crucial in designing and implementing any method or instru ctional strategy. Campbell and Scott-Kassner (2006) note that theories of l earning, teaching, and instruction are embedded in nearly every musical experience (p. 16). Solfege is an instru ctional procedure intended to develop childrens 29

PAGE 30

musical literacy and audiation that will help them to become independent musicians who can hear, understand, read, write, compose, and improvi se. Theories about how children learn, when certain learning is developmentally appropriate, what is the sequen ce of the learning process, and how to present concepts effectively are fundamental for guiding every musical experience. Developmental Theories Developmental theories provide a foundati on for the development of instructional materials and for making curriculum decisions. Piagets Stage Theory of Cognitive Development serves as a starting place for researchers and teachers. Piaget outlines a four-stage theoretical structure for understa nding child development. He observed that children progress through four stages of intelle ctual development: (1) sensorim otor (ages zero to two), (2) preoperational (ages two to seven), concrete ope rations (ages seven to eleven) and (4) formal operations (ages eleven through adulthood). Iden tifying the level at whic h students are operating helps teachers to tailor an appropriate sequence of instruction and teaching style to meet the students needs. This study focuses on 7-and 8-year-old students, according to Piaget, this age group falls into the concrete operational stage. The ability to conserve is acquired at this stage and intelligence is demonstrated through logical and sy stematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects. As children progress into the stage of concrete operations they become capable of realizing the invariance of one musical element when anothe r is altered; they begin to recognize pattern when it has been sang in differe nt tempo or meter, etc. Campbell and ScottKassner (2006) outline that, according to Piagets principles, age eight is the turning point in a childs cognitive development. This is one reason why children of this particular age are included in this study, it is assumed that children of this age are able to conserve musical 30

PAGE 31

elements and that they have had plenty of prelim inary musical experiences up to that time so it is developmentally appropriate to introduce staff notation and note reading. Bruner (1960) developed the theory of Modes of Representation. His position on cognitive development focused on three different modes of cognitive processing which are related to early, middle, and late stages of development: enac tive, learning through a se t of actions; iconic, learning through images and graphs; and symbolic, learning by going beyond what is immediately perceptible in the environment and based upon an abstract, discretionary and flexible thought. Campbell and Scott-Kassner suggest that lear ning to read notation can be divided into three stages corres ponding to Bruners model. Instruction may begin with arm and body movement to represent melodic contours (enactive), followed by line graphs that trace these contours (iconic), and e nding with the reading and writi ng of notation itself on the staff (symbolic) (p. 20). One of Vygotskys (1962) major contributions is an idea termed the zone of proximal development or ZPD. The ZPD is the ra nge between a childs level of independent performance and the level of pe rformance a child can attain wi th expert guidance. Vygotsky believed that learners were only able to grasp a con cept of a certain complexity above their current level of understanding. Vygot skys initial concept of scaffold ing was similar to that of a construction site. You need to stand on something to reach the desired height. Scaffolding is a process through which a teacher gives aid to the student in her/his ZPD as necessary. Vygotsky proposed that teachers give studen ts the tools necessary to constr uct a metaphorical scaffold for themselves within their own ZPD, and therefore reach the height needed to grasp the concept at hand. 31

PAGE 32

When teachers design instructional procedur es, including solfege, it is important to consider Vygotskys, Bruners, and Piagets theo ries. Instruction and activities should be developmentally and cognitively age appropriate according to Piagets stages of development and Bruners mode of cognitive growth, and reachable but challenging enough within each students ZPD. Instructional Theories Ausubel (1963) explained that there are two particular and distinct types of learning: reception and discovery learning. Within each of these types of learning, Ausubel (1963) distinguished between rote learni ng and meaningful learning. Mate rial learned by ro te is learned and retained by laws of associationism, while mean ingful learning is relat able and anchorable to relevant and more inclusive con cepts in cognitive structure (p. 42). During reception learning, content is presented as a whole in its final form and the learner must internalize the material. In discovery learning, what is learne d is not directly presented; ra ther, the learner independently discovers it so that it might be internalized (p.16). Two important factors are involved in ones readiness to learn any given concept: the particular level of cognitive functioning and the development of adequate sophistication a nd background knowledge. Ausubel argues that teachers must consider the role of readiness in relation to the sequenc ing of instruction and curriculum must be organized along sequential line s, i.e., pupils acquire readiness for each new unit of subject matter as a result of mast ering the preceding seque ntially related unit. Gagn (1977) underlined the eight-category hi erarchical theory of learning. Students progress from simple learning experiences at th e beginning of the hierarchy to more complex ones at the end; it is possible, however, to work backward from any one objective of learning in order to determine what prerequisite skills are necessary. While progress through the sequence may move forward or backward, it is not recomme nded that instruction skip over intermediate 32

PAGE 33

steps in the sequence; otherwise, it can be a contributing factor to th e students confusion. Gagn explains that in order for instruction to be effective, the teacher should follow a preplanned sequence to avoid the omission of pre-re quisite capabilities along any route of learning. Edwin Gordons Music Learning Theory Edwin Gordons Music Learning Theory was par tially influenced by Gagns hierarchical theory of learning. Like Gagns theory, Gor dons theory is hierarch ical in nature and progresses through eight levels of learni ng, beginning with aural communication and understanding and leading to ge neralization and creativity. Music Learning Theory helps educators to understand how children learn music. Based on an extensive body of research and practical field testing Music Learning Theory is a comprehensive method for teaching audiation, a term developed by Gordon which means the ability to think music in the mind with understanding. Music Learning Theory outlines eight Skill Learning Sequences. The levels and sublevels of this sequence are outlined in the table 2-1. Table 2-1. Levels and sublevels of skill learning sequence Discrimination Inference Aural/Oral Generalization (Aural/Oral Verbal Symbolic) Verbal Association Partial Synthesis Creativity / Improvisation (Aural/Oral Symbolic) Symbolic Association (Reading Writing) Theoretical Understanding (Aural/Oral Verbal Symbolic) Composite Synthesis (Reading Writing) Gordon (2007) emphasizes that the first and most elementary level of discriminative learning is aural/oral which serves as the readin ess for every other step in the sequence. The main purpose of teaching at that level is to develop listening and perf orming vocabularies in 33

PAGE 34

music. Gordon likens the listening and performi ng vocabularies in music to the listening and speaking vocabularies in language. At the aural/ oral level of learning students immediately learn a variety of tonal patterns in various tonalities (p. 103). At the verbal association level of music lear ning, children are taught associate tonal solfege with tonal patterns and rhythm solfege with rhythm patterns. The movable-do tonal system with a la -based minor is suggested because whether or not pitches represent the same function and tonality, the same syllable names, as they relate to a resting tone, are gi ven to pitches with the same relative sounds (p. 108). Like labeling or naming objects in spoken language, children learn to label familiar objects that they have learned during the aural/oral level of learning. Children also learn the following terms to iden tify tonal and rhythm patterns during verbal association learning: major, minor, duple, trip le, tonic, dominant, macrobeat, and microbeat. The partial synthesis level func tions in two ways. As student s assimilate aural/oral and verbal association levels, they become more aware of the intrinsic logic of tonal syllables within and among tonal and rhythm patterns. Second, at th e partial synthesis level, children begin to audiate tonal and rhythm patterns in the series. Teaching at the pa rtial synthesis level of learning involves learning to discriminate among a series of tonal patterns and rhythm patterns, not just individual patterns. Some exercises may include setting up series of patterns in contrasting tonalities or meters for children to compare. Chil dren listen to two series of rhythm patterns and decide whether the first or second was in duple or triple meter. Musical labels, e.g. macrobeat, microbeat, duple, triple, major, minor, tonic, and dominant learned at the verbal association level would be very helpful in the audiation of contrasting t onalities or meters. In this regard, learning at a partial synthesis level requ ires that children make inferences for themselves based on familiar tonal and rhythm content. 34

PAGE 35

At the symbolic association leve l of learning, children are taught to read and write the tonal and rhythm content in both familiar and unfamiliar order. Gordon states that learning to read and write music notation helps st udents better understand what they can already audiate. Students learn to read and write music by associ ating notational symbols with the syllables and sounds of patterns they represent, audiating patterns; tonality and meter that they are reading or writing. Gordon refers to this pr ocess as notatio nal audiation. Composite synthesis is the highest level of discrimination learni ng. At this level, students learn to simultaneously audiate the tonality or meter as the child r eads or writes tonal or rhythmic notation. At this stage of musical learning, musica lly intelligent reading and writing is possible. Children are not just able to audiate familiar tona l or rhythm patterns, they are also able to audiate the underlying tonality or meter of those patterns. The most elementary level of inference le arning is generalization which has three sublevels: aural/oral, verbal, and symbolic. At the generalization-aura l/oral level of learning, children identify two sets of familiar or unfamiliar sets of musical patterns as being either the same or different. At the gene ralization-verbal level of learning, children infe r tonal syllables or rhythm syllables from patterns heard performed on a neutral syllable. At this level of learning, children are capable of identifying the tonality or meter of a series of patterns heard performed using neutral syllables. At the generalization-sy mbolic level of learni ng, children are expected to read, without the help of the teacher, a mix of familiar and unfamiliar tonal patterns or familiar and unfamiliar rhythm patterns, and to identify th e tonality or meter they audiate as they read (p. 138). The next level of inference or generalization learning is creativity/improvisation. Gordon made a distinction between musical responses th at are creative responses and those that are 35

PAGE 36

improvised responses. According to Gordon, cr eativity is a matter of premeditation, while improvised responses are a matter of immediat e reaction based upon restrictions of harmonic chord progression and meter. Like the genera lization level of infere nce learning, there are aural/oral, verbal and symbolic sublevels with in the creativity/improvisa tion level of learning (pp. 128-132). Theoretical understanding, the firs t step in Gordons skill lear ning sequence, also has three sublevels: aural/oral, verbal, and symbolic. Here, verbal explanations of music notation are taught after one has successfully developed listening, performing, r eading, and writing vocabularies in music. Skills learned during theoretical understanding may include the identification of intervals, scales, letter names, musical form, and chord structure. Musical understanding or musical meaning is a critical component of music learning theory. An important aspect of musical understa nding is the audiation of musical syntax, or the order and arrangement of pitches and durations that give rise to tonality and meter in music. Gordon stresses the importance of this aspect when he states that syntax cannot be taken from music: Syntax must be given to music through audiation (p. 147). Gordon believes that the ability to audiate tonal and r hythm syntax through audiation is a prerequisite for musical understanding, musical appreciation, and aesthetic responses to music. The instructional methods of fixed-do and movable-do solfege are based on sequenced learning. Movable-do solfege instruction uses an adapted version of th e Conversation Solfege method developed by John Feierabend. This method is based upon Music Leaning Theory and follows all the steps of Gordons learning sequences. Historical Overview of the Development and Use of Solfege Bridges (1982) provides a hist orical perspective on the de velopment of the fixed and movable solfege systems. In her article, she belittles the ongoing dispute between supporters of 36

PAGE 37

the two major systems and contends that proper application of the solfege syllables can only be attained through better understanding and knowle dge of the setting-up and the circumstances surrounding the development of the two system practices. Bridges argues that establishi ng aural-visual concepts of bot h absolute and relative pitch relationships are important in t eaching music reading. However, the real issue is in that the same sol-fa syllables which certain countries have adopted as names for sounds of absolute pitch are used elsewhere (notably in countries whic h identify absolute pitc h sounds by alphabetical letter names) to denote sounds of relative pitch (p. 11). She goes on furt her to cite a quote from Erzsebet Szonyi who stated: Both fixed and relative systems have been employed side by side and have been of considerable use to music teachers right up to the present day. However, it should be understood that one and the same system cannot be used to indicate two separate ideas; i.e. sol-fa syllables for both definite and relative pitch at the same time. Where sol-fa syllables are used to indicate pitch (i.e. in France and Italy), they cannot be employed for relative notation. It is then necessary to resort to another notation system (p. 11). Bridges asserts that solfege syllables were in troduced as early as the eleventh century by a Guido dArezzo, who developed a system (referred to as gamut ) of mnemonics which enabled singers to pitch correctly the notes of any gi ven hexachord written in staff notation without having to depend on the tuned monochord for any note other than the starti ng note (p. 12). That is, solfege syllables were originally used as a movable system to enhance relative pitch. Later on, between 1600 and 1854, music theorists a dvocated a simplifie d version of the gamut which came to be called the Lancashire of Eng lish sol-fa. This version discarded ut and re and used fa, sol and la twice, followed by mi to indicate what we woul d now call the seventh scale degree of a major scale (p. 12). France and Italy have extended the original six syllables to seven and applied the syllables as an absolute-pitch system: 37

PAGE 38

By the beginning of the seventeen th century, a seventh syllable, si had been added to the original six, and the Italians had substituted do for ut because it was more singable. In both France and Italy letter names for sta ff notation had been abandoned and sol-fa syllables were used for the definite pitch sound of the scale of C (p. 13). In other words, the function of the sol-fa syll ables had changed in these countries as they no longer represented relative pitch concepts (p. 13). On the other hand, the Germanic countries have developed a more advanced absolute-pitch system: The sol-fa syllables were discar ded but the letter names were re tained for absolute pitch in the Guidonian tradition. By adding to each lette r is for a sharp and es for a flat the Germans improved on the English use of letter names because they had a syllable for every note of the chromatic scale (p. 13). The debate between the two so lfege systems arose in England during the late nineteenth century with the adaptation of the French abso lute-pitch system by Dr. James Kay (Education Secretary) and his protg John Hullah and th e introduction of John Curwens tonic sol-fa system. Bridges noted that both Kay and Hulla h had been ignorant of the implications of transplanting the French sol-fa pitch nomenclature into England, substituting it for letter names, and imposing it into a long-established practice of using sol-fa. On the other hand, Curwins development of Sarah Glovers system of teaching with a complete sol-fa scale, allowed people to sight-sing easily and in any key and any m odulations. It was during this time that the terminology fixed/movable do came into existen ce (p. 14), and the debate between these two systems started to develop and the deba te continues until the present day. Teaching Music Literacy in the United States In the United States at the beginning of th e eighteenth century, an interest in teaching sight-singing occurred because of the need to improve the congregational singing of hymns. In 1721 the Reverend John Tufts (1689-1750) wrote Introduction to the Singing of Psalm-Tunes which included an explanation of the rudiments of music and an altered fo rm of musical notation intended to facilitate music reading. This book adapted the fasola (English sol-fa) notation, in 38

PAGE 39

which traditional notation was substituted with the first letters of the four solmization syllables. It was this book, and many others like it, that led to the develo pment of the singing school, thus introducing Americans to instruction in music literacy. Most singing schools took place in churches, where music teachers or singing masters taught interested worshippers how to sing by not e. Collins (1993) indicated that the students were taught to sing in parts and to read music using sung fasola solmization singing. The emphasis was on music reading, vocal production, and style of performance. The importance of these singing schools and the popularity of music soci eties led to the inclus ion of music in public school education. Lowell Mason, a director of one of the most famous singing schools in Boston, had a profound influence on the developm ent of a music school curriculum. He advocated that children shoul d first become comfortable w ith singing and sounds of music before learning music reading. In contrast to the fasola patterns that were popular at the time, he also advocated the use of movable-do solfege. He devised a course of st udy for each of the three categories of music-reading instru ction: rhythm, melody, and dynamics. Meanwhile, with the introduction of music educ ation to the general public, a debate was arising regarding the importance of sight-singing instruction and musical lite racy. Description of the approaches to music reading which ex isted during the years 1885 was provided by Edward Bailey Birge (1928). The first approa ch caused students to learn as many songs as possible with the teachers aide. This approach, which is based on the Pest alozzian tradition of sound before sign, was called the rote-note, or the rote song method. The other method emphasized that the students shoul d initially learn how to read mu sic before they attempt to sing songs from various music te xts. Phillips (1984) writes: Thus the debate began between methods that advocated immediate tr aining in note reading and those that advocated a rote -to-note approach. In conflic t were solmization systems in 39

PAGE 40

use. This period was marked by nonconformity in music instruction, a practice that has continued to the present day (p. 13). It is important to note that after the Civil War, general mu sic was taught in most cases by elementary classroom teachers in fifteen-minute da ily periods. With the little time allocated to music instruction, it became crucial for teachers to become efficient in their teaching. According to Birge, no other person embodied the spirit of efficiency more than Sterrie A. Weaver (18531904): He aimed to be able to hand a child a piece of music and have him sing it without help. Such skill demanded a tonal and rhythmic voca bulary every detail of which the pupil must be ready to use. Eye and ear must be perfect ly coordinated. Each tone of the vocabulary was taught by imitation and related to all th e other tones. The singing was done by the entire class or by individua ls as called for (pp. 125-126). According to Thompson (1942), Weaver grew up in New Haven, Connecticut, where he attended singing schools. He began his career by teaching and organizing several singing schools throughout that region. Weaver had a goal to teach all children how to read music individually, without the aid of another person. At that time, th is goal was considered to be drastic since, even though music reading was ta ught everywhere, only a small fraction of the children could actually read music with accuracy Weaver believed that classroom singing by itself was not sufficient and that singing instru ction should also include individual singing through the development of tonal and rhythmic vo cabularies. His techni ques involved teaching separately the tonal and rhythmic aspects of music. Tonal instruction began with the first five notes of the major scale and do was constantly shifted in order to teach tonal independence. In the eighth grade, tonal instru ction included short diatonic an d arpeggiated tonal phrases or patterns. In the earliest grad es, tonal instructions began on do, but later any starting pitch was used. Weaver found that this process stimulat ed independent tone thinking. Rhythm was taught through imitation using seven different tim e motions, one for each grade. Weaver has 40

PAGE 41

been a pioneer in adapting tests and measures in music reading and in attempting to measure music performance through sight reading. His me thod of classroom singing, together with his special emphasis on individual singing, is ba sed upon his own research and the study of childrens natural capabilities. All of Weave rs techniques were ultimately collected and published in 1890 as the Individual Sight-singing Method. Around the beginning of the 20th century, the focus of music education began to shift away from an emphasis on teaching music read ing skills towards teaching children to enjoy music through singing (Mark and Gary, 2007). With the launch of Sputnik in the late 1950s, th e Soviet Union proved su perior in the area of space technology which gave us a wake-up call that resulted in a complete revision of the American public education system. Some of these changes included restructuring the school music curricula. The Yale Seminar on Music Education, the Manhatta nville Music Curriculum Project and the Tangelwood Symposium were all con ceived out of the need to address the issues facing music instruction in the 1960s. But, unf ortunately, the expecta tion that music reading would be integrated into all aspects of the musi c learning process was not fully realized. Zoltan Kodly (1882-1967) was instrumental in bringing back the value of the tonic sol-fa method. Kodlys ideas were first exposed in the United States in 1966 wh en he and his colleague Szorny participated in the International Society fo r Music Education conference in Interlochen, Michigan, and presented lectures at the Stanfo rd Symposium. The Kodly Musical Training Institute was established in September 1969 in Welle sley, Massachusetts, as the result of Denise Bacon's 1967-68 year of study in Hungary. Si nce that time and until present, many teacher training institutions are adapting the Kodly concept of music e ducation to American culture. One of the objectives of Kodlys musical training is to make music known to children, to help 41

PAGE 42

them become musically literate in the fullest se nse of the wordable to read, write, and create with the vocabulary of music (Abramson, Choksy, Gillespie, Woods, 1986, p. 72). The tools employed in Kodlys practice are (1) tonic sol-fa, (2) hand signs, and (3) rhythm duration syllables. Since the late 1960s and until pres ent day, Kodlys certified music teachers successfully use tonic sol-fa (or movabledo solfege) in their music classrooms. With the introduction of the National Standard s for Arts Education in 1994 and the focus on music literacy in Standard 5, there was a driv e to teach music reading skills in general music classes. According to Von Kampen (2003), the profession has done well at giving students a great experience in the performance medium, but too often it has been at the expense of a foundational approach to aural and written music instruction. Ad ler (1997) further stated We often fail to train our students ears while we teach their fingers and minds (p. 9). Research This part of the literature review examines th e research related to the purpose and research questions of the study. Development of Music Reading Skills Petzold (1960) suggests that music reading depends on three perceptual levels: (1) auditory perception of musical sounds; (2 ) the visual perception of mu sical symbols; and (3) the integrative, internalized pro cess through which the individual or ganizes previous auditory and visual perceptions of given stimuli in order to react to these same stimuli as they appear in new learning situations. Petzold (1960) studied prob lems in childrens perception of symbols in music reading, using a sample of forth-, fifth-, and sixth-grad e children in Madison, Wisconsin, public schools. Phase I of his study employed a te n item individual test of music reading devised by the author. Students were give n visual presentations of tona l configurations consisting of three, four, five and six notes and then the starti ng pitch had been given, the students were asked 42

PAGE 43

to sing the pattern. When the first task was co mpleted, a second visual presentation of the same pattern, now accompanied by an aural presentation of the pattern, was prov ided to the student; the subject was asked to sing what was hear d and seen. Petzold came to the following conclusions: (1) children in elementary school have considerable diffi culty in reading tonal configurations found in the songs they sing; (2) children are not always able to make their voices go the right way; (3) children may be aware of the general shape of a configuration but not perceive internal changes; (4 ) when presented with an unfam iliar configuration, children may change it to a familiar one or just guess; and (5) children may respond to aural items more easily than visual ones. Phase II of the study used especially compos ed song containing ten items to individually test the pupils ability to read music. An extensive analysis of song materials from music text appropriate for each grade was made and test it ems were prepared according to the findings. This second phase of Petzolds study was concerned with which of the two methods resulted in more rapid learning of a song. One procedure involved learning five confi gurations contained in a song before attempting to learn the song. A second procedure involved learning a song and then the five configurations contained in the song. Petzold found that average fourth-grade students profited from tonal conf iguration practice, gifted students derived little from the practice, and average sixth-grade students did not profit from the practice at all. Also, gifted fourth-grade students were not influenced by the presence or absence of the practice on tonal configurations prior to lear ning the song. All other groups benefited significantly from practicing the tonal configurati ons before learning the song. Tonal configurations were identified best by average fourthand sixth-grade students if they ha d previously seen the 43

PAGE 44

configurations in a song. The gifted students had highe r scores than the average students in all situations. Based upon the two phases of the study, Petzol d (1960) came to several conclusions: (1) no significant differences were found between boys and girls in terms of the ability to read music; (2) older children were ab le to learn to read the song at a faster rate; (3) no significant differences were found between grade levels in abil ity to learn to read to nal configurations; (4) the relative level of achievement in reading tona l configurations with no external assistance was relatively low for all grades; (5) musically supe rior children learned all the material more rapidly; 6) little music reading growth took place between the four th-grade and the sixth-grade; and (7) the major source of music reading diffi culty may be traced to inadequate aural understanding of th e musical sound. Petzolds conclusions show that prior practice on tonal configurations enabled students to learn the song more effectively. He suggests that greater emphasis be placed on assisting children to recognize the shape and design of tona l configurations when learning to read music notation. He recommends that th e relationship between auditory and visual perception needs to be more clearly established. Many reading er rors made in this study were caused by the subjects inability to hear internally what the stimulus should sound like, and, consequently, were unable to control the voice. Petzold (1963) suggests that the music program of the school must include a variety of activitie s designed to stimulate and challenge the child if children are to develop an aural understanding of musical sounds. This synopsis parallels with that of Pestalozzians philosoph y of sound-to-symbol and with Gor dons theory of the auditation or development of inner hearing and as the precursor to visual symbols. 44

PAGE 45

The purpose of Bluestines (2007) study was to acquire unders tanding of the hierarchical stages of learning to comprehens ively read tonal notation. This study compared four approaches of teaching music reading. The subjects in ea ch group learned how to read familiar tonic, dominant, and cadential patterns, in major and minor tonalities, in is olation and in various series. The study highlighted the following differences among the four approaches: Students read (1) whole patterns; (2) individual p itches within patterns; (3) whol e patterns, followed by individual pitches within patterns; and (4) individual pitche s within patterns, followed by whole patterns. Students in third-, fourth -, and fifth-grades ( N =100) from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, participated in the study. From Octobe r 2005 until March 2006, four groups received 32 instructional sessions of tonal music reading, two 20-minutes sessi ons per week. The researcher taught each of the four groups. At the end of the treatment, a test of sight-readi ng and a test of sight-singing were administered. The sight-s inging test consisted of four etudes rated independently by three judges using a fivepoint continuous rating scale designed by the researcher. No significant di fferences were found among the groups mean for either test. The researcher concluded that no one method of teaching tonal music reading used in the study is superior to any other. Also the author noted that among students who are beginning tonal reading instruction, sight-reading and sight-s inging are virtually unrelated skills. Bobbitt (1970) developed a programmed method of music reading pedagogy for use in the elementary school. His ideas were based on B.F. Skinners operant conditioning theory: Nothing must be presented to the subjects that cannot be used immedi ately and within the context of the lesson, e.g., rhythm studies s hould include only those pe riodicities that are employed in melody exercises; in terval studies should include only those intervals that are found in material covered to th e date. Further, the pace of instruction must be carefully controlled to obviate the chan ce of distraction or boredom And, most important [ sic ], the appearance of each new item must be immediatel y reinforced by its application in such a manner that the pupil realizes he is making use of the information himself (pp.144-145). 45

PAGE 46

Bobbitts system was established upon the prem ise that music reading should begin with the learning of intervals not limited to a certain t onality or pitch class scale. He challenges the notion of solfege, stating that students are unabl e to break away from solmization and are unable to apply it to contemporary (atona l) music. The fifthand sixgrade students met once weekly for about 30 minutes and were involved in activit ies such as unison and two-part responses to aural and visual rhythmic and pitch stimuli a nd visual identification and recall of notation. Bobbitt used a carousel slide projector to present a sequence of slides containing rhythmic and melodic information. He concluded that the programmed approach to learning can aid in the understanding of structural hearing due to effect ive treatment of the large amount of drill work required. Bobbit recommended the use of si nging, as opposed to using an instrument, as a means of teaching music reading. It is possible, and not at all unusual, to play an instrument quite well without understanding structural na ture of the music or even being aware of the laws governing the melodic progression of a give n part (p. 154). He contended that the use of voice in the development of music reading ensures the stud ents active involvement with the process of learning to read music. The instruction shoul d follow a disciplined r outine and should begin no later than third or fourth grade. At the conclusion of the 20 to 25 30-minute lessons, fifth-grade students in his experiment were able to identify and sing octaves, perfect fourths and major and minor thirds. Prior to these lessons, the childr en were unable to consistently recognize these intervals. Bobbit believed that a continuation of such a program would lead to music literacy. In a study using first-grade students, Klemis h (1970) compared two methods for teaching music reading. The subjects were 102 firstgrade children from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, public schools. The pre-test and post-test developed by the researcher consiste d of oral and written 46

PAGE 47

responses. Tonal patterns taught were taken from song material, and numbers were used rather than solfege. The first teaching method made use of a simple visual repr esentation of the total patterns with hand movement, body movement, a nd pseudo notation (not using the staff or conventional notation). This was in prepara tion for the use of conventional notation. The second teaching method employed the use of the music staff with filled-in note heads. Klemish concluded that first graders can lear n to read music since 69.6% of them were able to acquire over half of the total possible points on the post-test while only 39.2% scored over one half of the maximum points on the pretest. The effect of the methods was not significant however examination of the difference between the groups showed that some skills developed better under one method than another. Under method one, students developed better skills in identification of melodic direction, aural matchi ng, aural-visual matching and singing patterns. Under method two, which includes using conventional notatio n right away, students scored higher in recognition of patterns, writi ng notes dictating from the piano, and visual matching. Klemish suggests that since there was no significant difference between the two methods that it is not necessary to use pseudo not ation prior to the use of conventional notation. However, researcher recommends that many techniques used in method one, such as hand and body movements, may supplement to clarif y the concept of melodic direction. Walker (1981) investigated the different me thods employed to teach music reading to 8and 9-year-old children. He us ed two different types of invent ed notations prior to introducing traditional staff. During three half-hour sessions, one group ( n = 21) read a worksheet on which patterns of pitches were indicated with dots placed high or low across a horizontal plane. Half of the session was dedicated to readin g rhythm, the other half to pitch. Results indicated that this group of children learned quickly and demonstr ated by singing with the neutral syllable la that 47

PAGE 48

the placement of the dots indicated higher and lo wer pitches, although spec ific pitches were not indicated. A second group ( n =24) read a worksheet on which pa tterns of pitches were indicated with letters representing solfege syllables (tonic solfa) and acted in response by singing with solfege. The letters were written without indi cation of high or low by their visual placement. Because the children had no prior experience with so lfege, they could not interpret if the next sound was supposed to be higher or lower. A te acher sang each pattern, which eliminated the necessity for the children to read the notation. During stage two of the experiment, traditional staff notation was introduced and practiced in th ree half-hour sessions, with each group using the same material. The students were shown a patte rn of notes on a staff written on the chalkboard which the teacher pointed to while singing with la or solfege, depending on the group. Two types of tests were administered: (a) li stening to prerecorded patterns produced by a tone generator using sine waves and then iden tifying the correct notation from four possible choices; and (b) listening to patterns played on a metallophone and then writing down the correct staff notation of the sounds that were heard. Re sults from the identification of correct notation test indicated that the group usi ng dots placed high and low on the page before using standard notation performed significantly better than the gr oup using solfege letters as an introduction to standard notation. There was no significant difference between th e two groups on the second test which included the note-writing task. Kyme (1960) compared the effectiveness of different approaches on the skill of reading music. Experimental groups were taught to read music through the use of shape notes. Three control groups used other methods such as sol-fa syllables, numbers, and instrumental training. Results revealed that the experimental groups we re statistically signifi cantly superior to the control group. Kyme concluded th at in the light of this evidence, music educators may wish to 48

PAGE 49

reappraise the shape note system of teaching sigh t-singing, a system in use for over 150 years in the Southeastern United States (p. 8). Hutton (1953) investigated the effect of audio-visual aids on teaching sight-singing. The goal was to compare two methods of teaching si ght-reading with fourth-grade students. The control group was taught w ithout the use of any special visual ma terials. In rare cases, only the staff was used to show the relative distance be tween notes. The experimental group was taught sight reading with the aid of flash cards, musical games, and slides. The flash cards contained from two to six notes representing intervals us ed in songs taught during the year. Slides contained melodic patterns and simple folk tunes such as Old McDonald. The slides contained only the music, no words or titles were present. Both class and individual singing were used and the exercises done during flash card drills was re lated to the learning of new songs. While both groups improved in the sight-singing, on average, the students taught by method two showed a greater increase ( M = 8.21) in their sight-sin ging ability then student s taught by method one (M = 7.71). Hutton concluded that the use of audio-vi sual materials accelerate d the learning process of sight-singing for fourth-grade students. Effect and Contribution of Solfege Syllables Reifingers (2007) examined the effect of inst ruction with song-related tonal patterns on second-graders pitch reading accu racy. Second-grade students (N = 193) in three urban elementary schools in Pennsylvania received sightsinging instruction for 15 sessions of general music classes, each 25-minutes in length. At the beginning and end of each session, the children read notation and sang four-note tonal patterns. Also during each session a new song with an activity was learned by rote and sung. In th e 16th session, all 15 patte rns were reviewed. Instructional treatment included singi ng the patterns with solfege or loo and singing a related or unrelated song. Four treatment conditions we re randomly assigned to the classrooms: (1) 49

PAGE 50

solfege/related song; (2) so lfege/unrelated song; (3) loo /related song; (4) loo /unrelated song. The children were individually test ed at three points in time on th eir ability to read and sing the patterns: a pre-test prior to inst ruction; a post-test af ter the 16th sessions of instruction, and a retention test that followed an additional eight weeks of no sight -singing instruction. To assess sight-singing achievement, students were tested on their abil ity to sight-sing both familiar patterns that they practiced in class and unfamiliar pa tterns, that they did not practiced in class. Sight-singing performance was evaluated for pitch and contour accuracy. The instruction resulted in a significant impr ovement in sight-singing achievement for all groups. Reifinger concluded that the performance in sight-singing remained statistically stable for the students because of non-significant differen ces from post-test to retention test for all treatment groups. Significant improvement in singi ng unfamiliar patterns i ndicated that skills were transferred. Results of research indicated that treatment effectiveness differed according to pattern type. For familiar patterns, contour accuracy scores were significantly higher in the solfege condition; however, for unfamiliar patterns contour accuracy scores were significantly higher in the loo condition. Learning related songs during instruction period had no significant effect on students ability to sight-sing the patterns. Yarbrough, Green, Benson and Bowers (1991) exam ined the impact of solfege syllables and hand signs on pitch matching accuracy. In this study solfege syllables and hand signals were employed as the means to explore the effect of these different response modes on childrens pitch-matching accuracy. A total of 163 children in Kthird and seventheigthth grades were selected as the subjects of this study, based on their inability to match pitch as assessed by a pretest. All children received eight weeks of inst ruction in hand signals a nd solfege syllables prior to the post-tests. The subjects at each grade level were randomly assigned to one of the three 50

PAGE 51

different response modes: using hand signals, si nging with the solfege syllables, or singing with the neutral syllables la The investigators found that the subjects correct responses among the three groups were not significantly different. However, a simple ra nk-order of correct responses by grade level under each response mode revealed that: (1) the kindergarte n students were the only ones helped by the neutral syllable la ; (2) the first-graders we re the ones who benefited most from the hand signals, and (3) the second, third-, seventhand eighthgrade subjects accomplished the most with the solfege syllables. The researchers concluded that in spite of no statistically significant differen ces found in the study, solfege sylla bles seemed to help children to sing more accurately than hand signals or the single syllable la They also suggested that a pitch-matching approach beginning with a neutra l syllable in kindergarten, adding hand signals and solfege in the second and third grades, and fading hand signs thereafter might be effective (p. 32). Martin (1987) investigated the contribution of tonal (solfege) syllables, hand signs, and letter representations of tonal syllables, as well as high and low levels of tonal aptitude and school readiness, to the development of verbal a nd symbolic tonal syllable skills of first-grade students ( N = 65). During the first part of the study, all groups echoed tonal patterns during the first nine minutes of every class meeting. Each group received three 30-minute music classes per week. The experimental treatment lasted for 18 sessions during each part of the study. Group I echoed the patterns with tonal syllables; and Grou p II echoed the patterns with tonal syllables accompanied by hand signs; and Group III echoed the patterns with tonal sy llables accompanied by hand signs while viewing letter representations of the patterns on a card. The patterns were randomly chosen from a 378-item list of threeand four-note tonal patterns developed by the researcher using the syllables do, re, mi, sol and la A singing range of middle C to A was used. 51

PAGE 52

During the second part of the study, all groups continued to echo tona l patterns during the first nine minutes of class but also saw the patt erns written in note heads on a staff. Group I did not use hand signs, while Group II and Group III did use hand signs. Additionally, every other class meeting, Group III viewed le tter representations on the staff instead of note heads. Researcher-constructed tests were given at the co nclusion of each part of the study. Tests I and III required the student to listen to a tonal patter n sung with a neutral syllable and sing it back with the correct pitches and solfege syllables. Test II requi red the student to look at a tonal pattern written in note heads on a card, listen to the starting pitc h, and sing the correct pitches with solfege syllables. The data from the Metr opolitan Readiness Tests, the Primary Measures of Music Audiation (PMMA), and three researche r-constructed tests were subjected to a threeway analysis of variance. The results showed that only tonal aptitude as measured by PMMA, had a significant effect on test scores. No method was found to be significantly better. Cousins and Persellin (1999) studi ed the effects of using hand signs on the ability of firstgrade children to accurately recall and sing a song. Forty-seven first-graders in a suburban elementary school in San Antonio, Texas, served as the subjects of this investigation. During 25minute music classes which met two or three ti mes a week for a 10-week treatment period, the children participated in singing and music reading activities. The first class ( n = 24) was taught to sing and read music notation using the Cu rwen hand signs in conjunction with solfege syllables. The second class (n = 23) was taught to sing and read music notation using solfege syllables without Curwen hand signs. Both classes participated in ope ning activities, scorereading exercises, and singing games. To assess singing accuracy on pre-tests and pos t-tests, the children individually sang an eight-measure song which was first modeled by th e piano and then by a female voice. Two 52

PAGE 53

music teachers rated their singing accuracy using the Childrens Vocal Accuracy Scale developed by the researchers and based on the Singing Voice Development Measure (Rutkowski, 1990, 1996). No significant difference wa s found between the two groups on post-test singing accuracy, indicating that there was no advant age in using hand signs. The mean pre-test score for students in the Curwen hand signs group was 7.8 and their m ean score for the post-test was 9.0. Students in the solfege-only group also showed a gain in vocal accuracy. The mean pre-test score of students in the pre-test for the solfege-only gr oup was 6.7 compared to 7.6 for the post-test. Cousins and Persellin stated that the size of th e tested sample, the 10-week treatment period, and the 50 minutes of music instruction per week may not have been sufficient to produce detectable effects. Autrys (1976) study compared the sight-singing improvement of two groups, one using movable-do solfege alone and one using solfege with hand signs. Control and experimental groups consisted of two college classes (two music fundamentals classes and two elementary music methods classes) a nd fifth-grade classes. The college classes were Control groups used solfege only, and experimental groups used solfeg e with hand signs. To minimize the effect of teacher differences, all classes were taught by the same teacher. The experiment, however, could only reflect group achievement, and although impr ovement in sight-singing occurred, results showed that the use of hand sighs alone could not account for the improvement from pre-test to post-test. Cassidy (1993) investigated the effects of different type s of syllable systems used during practice on sight-singing performance with college elementary education majors ( N = 91). Each group practiced sight-singing using one of the following five methods: (1) solfege and Curwen 53

PAGE 54

hand signs; (2) solfege alone; (3) letter names of the lines and spaces; (4) the neutral syllable la ; and (5) words of songs which were us ed instead of pr actice exercises. Results indicated that improvement in sight-s inging appeared in all experimental groups, with post-test scores of subjec ts using solfege coupled with Curwen hand signs and subjects using solfege alone scoring signi ficantly better( p < .05) than s ubjects using staff letter names and those using the neutral syllable la. However, Cassidy counted a response as correct if the correct solfege syllable or lette r name was used regardless of the pitch accuracy. For these observations, if a note was a written sol and the subject used the term sol, used the term "G," or demonstrated the appropriate Curwen hand sign, it was counted as correct regardless of whether the pitch produced was actually sol Therefore, accuracy of use of strategies was determined without regard to pitch but rath er by terms or movements used in relationship to the printed page (p. 298). That gave the solfege and letter-name groups an a dvantage over the other groups. If any of the students in the neutral-syllabl e group lacked the vocal ability to respond with the correct pitch, no other indicators could be used to determine sight-singing performance. Because of this, the validity of these scores to measure performance in singing is questionable. Boldens (1967) experimental study examined the extent of influence of the piano keyboard, syllables/letter, and r ecorder on the growth of insight-singing and rhythm reading. The study involved 348 elementary education majo rs at Michigan State University. All participants in the study were enrolled in a Music Foundations course, one of the two required music courses for education major students. The course consisted of nine sections, three groups of three classes each. Each class within a gr oup received instruction in one of the training methods. Although the syllables/lett er method proved to be the most effective of the three, the degree of difference between the methods was not significant. Research finding also indicated 54

PAGE 55

that the amount of musical trai ning did not have an effect on the sight-singing growth of the group. The results of this study indicate th at sight-singing and r hythm reading can be accomplished by using the piano keyboard, syllables/letters, or the recorder. Effect of Tonal Pattern Training Many researchers (Belmondo, 1986; Gamble, 1989; Grutzmacher, 1987; MacKnight, 1973; Dell, 2003, Bernhard, 2003) have promoted the concep t that students tend to learn tonal patterns as a means of learning how to read tonal notation. Many scholars believe that experienced sightreaders do not just see notes as isolated stimuli but are capable of mentally arranging the notes they see into patterns. Research by MacKnight (1973) into the eff ects of tonal pattern training on the aural achievement of fourth-grade instrumental stude nts is often cited (Bergonzi, 1991; Bluestine, 2007) as one of the important studies regarding Gordons Musi c Learning Theory. MacKnight sought to discover an interaction between music ap titude and pattern training and its influence on musical achievement. He selected a sample of ninety fourth-grade students enrolled in the instrumental program from three elementary school s. These students were then stratified on the basis of their musical aptitude, as measured by MAP, and their academic aptitude as measured by the Lorge-Thorndike intelligence test. Du ring the 32-week instru ctional period, both the experimental and control groups were taught us ing the same pitches, rhythm, meters, key signatures, tempos, and dynamics. The experimental group learned new pitches aurally before notation was introduced. Melodies used contained the t onal patterns learned by rote. Th e control group used the singleinstrument traditional method Breeze Easy Students in the control group were taught each new note as it was presented with not ation in the method book. MacKnight found that the students in the experimental group scored significantly higher (F = 18.76, p < .05) than those in the control 55

PAGE 56

group on the Watkins-Farnum Performance scale. According to MacKnight, tonal pattern instruction supports the development of music reading skills to a greater extent than note identification instruction. Gamble (1989) studied the effects of three di fferent approaches to teaching tonal music reading to beginning clarin et students. In his study three gro ups were used: one group learned to read stepwise methods; another group learned to read arpeggiated patte rns; and the third group learned to read individual pitches apart from pa tterns group. All three gr oups received 15 weeks of reading readiness exercises a nd then an additional 15 weeks of treatment. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the subj ects were tested on their abilities to audiate and perform familiar and unfamiliar melodies from notation. The group that had received arpeggiate d pattern instruction performed significantly ( p = .002) higher than the group had received no pattern instruction; however, there was no major difference reported be tween the group that had been taught to read stepwise patterns and the group had been taught to read arpeggiated patterns. Richardson (1971) compared the effectiveness of teaching tonal pattern and song material in a specific sequence on the ability of students in second-grade to read tonal notation. In this investigation two experimental groups of subjects learned tonic major patterns (and rote songs with melodies that outlined a tonic major chord) before they learned stepwise patterns, and two control groups learned the same pattern but in random order. All songs and patterns were taught in the key of D major, no other key or tonal ity was used. Each group met for three 25-minute weekly sessions for 18 weeks. Following the administration of the treatment, Ri chardson tested the subjects on their ability to (1) recall and notate (with no visual prompt ) patterns they had learned; (2) sing familiar patterns seen in notation; (3) vi sually recognize patterns presente d in a notable melody; and (4) 56

PAGE 57

distinguish the melodic direc tion of notated patterns. Ri chardson reported a significant difference between the groups ( p < .05) in favor of the experime ntal group but only on the ability to differentiate melodic direction. The perfor mance of the groups did not differ much on the other tasks. Jarjisian (1981) studied the effects of pentatonic and diatonic instruction content, socioeconomic status, and music ap titude on the rote-singing achieveme nt of first-grade subjects. She discovered that subjects who received both diat onic and pentatonic patte rn instruction scored significantly higher than those w ho received one or the other. Additionally, subjects with high aptitude sang significantly more accurately than those with low aptitude. Jarjisian found both diatonic and pentatonic patterns to be useful, because diatonic patt erns assisted in developing the students sense of tonal center, whereas the pentatonic patterns encouraged a sense of melodic contour. The researcher concluded that using both pentatonic and diatonic patterns provides students with the rich atmosphere for musical growth. Grutzmacher (1985) considered the development of a sense of tonal ity, investigating the relationship between tonal pattern instructi on and the development of tonal concept and performance achievement in beginning instrumentalis ts. Forty-eight subjects in either fifthor sixth-grade were randomly assigned to experimental and cont rol groups. The experimental treatment included the teaching of ten tonal patterns, first aurally and then visually. Each tonal pattern was learned aurally using solfege syllables, and accompanied by tonic, subdominant, and dominant harmonies. Activities included playin g scales and arpeggios using harmonization and vocalization. New fingerings were introduced through their use in familiar tonal patterns, proceeding from an aural introduction to notation. The control group was instructed using a notation-based method. Activities included playing scales and ar peggios from notation without 57

PAGE 58

harmonization or vocalization, as in the expe rimental group. New ma terial consisted of concurrent presentation of new notes through fingering and reading notation. The Iowa Test of Music Literacy (ITML, Gordon, 1970: Tonal test le vels 1 and 2) was used to measure each students ability to discriminate between shor t melodies in major or minor tonalities and recognize musical notation from performed melodi es. ITML together with the Music Aptitude Profile (MAP) Tonal Imagery subtes t (Gordon, 1965) served as pre-te sts. These three tests were used as covariates to control for the possible effects of varying mu sical aptitude among the students in the two groups. These tests were re-administered as pos t-tests, along with a researcher-developed Melodic Sight -reading Achievement test to se rve as dependents variables. The results of the study indica te a significant difference ( p < .0001) between the melodic sight-reading scores of the expe rimental and control groups, with the experimental group scoring significantly higher. There was also a significant difference( p < .0001) between the experimental and control groups on the ITML test 1 post-test, with the experimental group better able to aurally identify major and minor tonalities Results indicate that tonal pattern instruction taught through harmonization and vocalization imp roved the melodic sight-reading skills of beginning band students, and improved their und erstanding of major and minor tonalities. Dell (2003) studied the effects of singing and tonal pattern in struction on the accuracy of intonation performance skills of beginning string students. His re search addressed two questions: (1) would there be a difference in the intonation performance post-test scores of the groups instructed using the Aural-Based, AuralBased with Tonal Pattern Enhancement, and Notation-Based methods; (2) how might the intonati on performance scores differ as a function of treatment, pitch discrimination and prior experience while controlling fo r music aptitude. One hundred sixty eight fifthand sixt hgrade beginning string students in their first and second year 58

PAGE 59

of study served as subjects for the study. These st udents were members of nine intact classes in seven schools of two suburban school distri cts of Columbia, South Carolina. Three methodologies were used: Aural-Based Method, Au ral-Based with Tonal Pattern Enhancement Method and a Notation-Based Meth od. Intonation Performance Scor es incorporating both pitch matching and intonation performance served as the dependent variable. An ANCOVA was used to determine the effect of me thodology on intonation performance skills, using the IMMA tonal subtest as a covariate. The re sults indicated that the studen ts taught using Aural-Based and Aural-Based with Tonal Pattern Enhancement in struction performed w ith greater intonation accuracy than those taught using Notation-Based instruction. Bernhard (2003) study investigat ed the effects of tonal trai ning, using standard method book melodies, on the melodic ear playing and si ght reading achievement of beginning wind instrumentalists. Forty-two sixth-grade band st udents were assigned ra ndomly to one of two experimental groups (n = 21) or one of two control groups ( n = 21). All groups received instruction from the researcher, during regularly scheduled 45-minute band classes, twice a week for a period of 10 weeks. Instru ctional materials consisted of 22 traditional beginning method book melodies. The experimental groups received tonal trai ning (the use of vocalization and solfege syllables to emphasize sensitivity to pitch rela tionships), while the control groups received traditional training. For each melody, the experiment al groups: (a) listened to the researcher sing the melody using the syllable loo ; (b) sang the melody using the syllable loo ; (c) listened to the researcher sing the melody using solfege syllabl es; (d) sang the melody using solfege syllables; (e) performed the melody instrumentally by ear; and (f) performed the melody instrumentally by sight. The control groups: (a) visually identified pitch letter names of the melody; (b) visually 59

PAGE 60

identified associated fingerings or slide posi tions; and (c) performed the melody instrumentally by sight. Post treatment analysis of subjects' ear-p laying and sight-reading achievement revealed that tonal training significantly affected ear-playing achievement (p < .001), but did not significantly affect sight -reading achievement (p > .05). These results suggest that tonal training, using standard method book melodies, can pos itively contribute to beginning wind instrumentalists' melodic ear-playing achieveme nt without preventing the development of melodic sight-reading achievement. Vande Wege (2005) conducted a study to determine whether pa ttern instruction, specifically those designed by Gordon in his Learning Sequence Activities, affects the development of singing voice in ch ildren. Did first-grade studen ts who received tonal pattern instruction experienced greater gains in singing voice development than students who did not receive tonal pattern in struction? Subjects ( N = 63) came from four inta ct first-grade classes from a semi-rural school district in Michigan. Two classes served as th e experimental group and two classes served as the contro l group. For 18 weeks, all student s received instruction from a music specialist for two 42-minute sessions. The tonal aptitude of all students was determined prior to treatment, using Gordon's Primary Measures of Music Audiation (PMMA). All students were individually preand post-tested with Rutkowski's Singing Voice Development Measure (SVDM). The experimental group received 11 weeks of pattern instruction for the first five or ten minutes of each music class. A t-test was pe rformed on gain scores to determine if pattern instruction had an effect on the singing voice deve lopment of first-grade students. No significant difference was found according to treatment. 60

PAGE 61

Fixed-Do or Movable-Do? Buchanans (1946) research was one of the pioneer studies to compare movable-do and fixed-do solfege methods of teaching sight-singin g. Buchanan seemed most concerned with the use of rote teaching and by the fact that so ma ny people can read and wr ite language, but can not read or write music. In the preface to his study, Buchanan stated the following: What passes for sight singing may be more accurate ly described as sight guessing, ai ded by piano or voice, which provides a model to be imitated (p. iii). The fi ve age groups available in the choir system at Westminster Church of Detroit took part in e xperiment of comparing the fixed-do and movabledo solfege (tonic solfege). The age groups were a dult, high school girls, girls 11 to 13, boys 8 to 12 and girls 8 to 10. Each of these groups was divided into two subgroups, one half being taught fixed solfege and the other half tonic solfege. The fixed solfege and tonic solfege sections of each of the five age groups were matched as much as possible by pairs, age, experience, gender and talent. A sight-singing test consisting of 62 notes in 8 test it ems was given to 82 subjects. The 41 fixed solfege participants were matched with the 41 tonic solfege participants for age, intelligence, previous training and musical talent. Comparison of the percentages of subjects who made higher scores on a sight-singing test during the post-test than on the pretest reveals that both groups improved and the average improvement was greater in the case of movabledo solfege instruction. The improvement of the tonic solfege participants was better than that of the fixed solfege subjects at every age level except the youngest, where the averag e score of the fixed solfege subjects was raised by the high score of a single unusually talent ed subject. Improvement in si ght-singing was found to be greatest in the ages 10 to 17. Sight-singing skill was found to have a close relationship to school achievements and intelligence ratings, a lesser relationship to piano tr aining and very little relationship to choir experience. Both fixed and tonic solfege subjec ts acquired theoretical 61

PAGE 62

knowledge of key signatures. Flash cards, for drill in key signatures, were used with all subjects. The major conclusion of this study is that more improvement in sight-singing may be expected to result from lessons in movable do solfege than from fixed-do solfege. In the 1950s, two scholars resear ch and debated about the bes t system for teaching sightsinging. Siler (1956) purported th at the systems in current use (German, French and English) were all defective and not suited well for the international language of music. He further asserted that movable-do is the worst system for teaching sight-singing or music reading. His system, safelo, was one that approximates a fixed-do system. The vowel a is used for all the white keys (key of C major). If a pitch is raised, the vowel e would be substituted, and if the pitch is lowered, the vowel i is used. Th e ascending chromatic scal e would be sung thus: da, de, ra, re, ma, me, fa, fe, sa, se, la, le, ta, te, da. The descending chromatic scale would be sung da, do, ta ,to, la, lo, sa, so, fa, fo, ma, mo, ra, ro, da. Bentley (1959) challenged Silers assertion. Be ntley regarded tonic so lfa as a most useful means of aural training and teaching music r eading, enabling even the person who has never played an instrument to interpret accurate ly the staff notation of the musical score. In summarizing the various systems used for teaching sight-singing, Phillips (1984) primarily contrasts advocates of the fixeddo and movable-do systems. He lists many distinguished proponents of the fixed-do system, for example, Robert Shaw, Robert Page and Thomas Hillbish. Phillips conc luded, Advocates of the fixed-do system note that seventeen different names are all a singer needs to learn for th e entire scale, contrasti ng with a possibility of seventeen names of each pitch in movable do (p. 16). Phillips also summarized the work of Edwin Gordon with regards to teaching aural skil ls and music reading. Phillips notes that in contrast to Shaw, Page, and Hillbish, Gordon strongly advocates the use of movable-do. 62

PAGE 63

Over thirty years after th e Siler/Bentley debate, Smit h, Houlahan, and Tacka (1992) engaged in a similar written argument over solmi zation systems. Smith (1991) noted that the reasons many theory teachers choose certain methods to teach sight-singing have relatively little to do with a systems pedagogical value. Scholar suggests that teachers choose what they were taught, choose to teach what is taught in Europe or choose to teach what they assume all great performers use. Smith listed pros and cons of the fixed-do systems and the movable-do systems, and concludes that the movable-do syst ems, specifically the do-tonic, are the most appropriate for teaching aural skills, including sight-singing, to college students. He outlines five specific criteria for choosing a solmization system: analytical orientation, au ral orientation, consistency, singability, and st ylistic flexibility. According to Smith, the movable do-tonic system fulfills each of these criteria. This syst em is appropriate for sight-singing atonal music as it is for singing tonal music. Also the unders tanding the structural functions of pitches (analytical orientation) and fac ilitating the use of the ear firs t and the eye second are another important criteria fulfilled by the do-tonic system. Houlahan and Tacka (1992) responded to Smiths opinion by providing comments and support for their own argument that movable laminor is the better system for teaching sightsinging. These scholars cited the Bartok and Kod ly philosophies, current research, and their own teaching experience as support for their posit ion (p. 148). Smith (1992) wrote an authors reply to Houlahan and Tacka, pointing out some similarities of the do-tonic and la-minor systems. The results of Pembrook and Riggins (1990) re search indicate that there is no general consensus concerning which method of sight-singing is the most advantageous. Data were obtained from 306 institutions from forty-five different states. In their study of freshman and 63

PAGE 64

sophomore sight-singing teachers, they found that a majority of teachers used a movable system: 34 of 116 respondents use movable-do with laminor, and 31 of 116 respondents use movabledo with dominor (p. 236). The most frequently used systems of all 518 respondents were the scale-degree systems. Second in ranking was movable-do (dominor), followed by neutral syllable such as la These data indicate that there is a preference for movable systems among college teachers of sight-singing. However, wh ile a majority of teachers marked the scaledegree system, or the movable-do system, all nine systems of sight-singi ng, including fixed-do were chosen at least once. Taggart and Taggart (1994) surveyed colleges and universities in the United States to determine practices of sight-sin ging pedagogy in higher education in stitutions. According to the results of the research, mova ble-do (la-based minor) was the most commonly used system, followed by movable-do (do-based minor), follow ed by numbers. Advocates of the movable-do /la-based minor system reported four major strength of the system: (1) the assistance in functional hearing; (2 ) the advantages of mi to fa and ti to do always being half steps; (3) clarity between the modes; and (4) confid ence in the systems effectualness. However, they noted that this system has a disadvantage when it comes to the singing of chromatic music. The instructors who use movable -do/do-based minor stated that this system is useful for understanding scaledegree function and reinforcement of tonal harmony; however, the system is also difficult for singing atonal and chromatic musi c. Proponents of the number system claimed that this system is very simple to use, helps one to understand functional harmony, and fac ilitates the learning of intervals. However, teachers noted that numbe rs are not the most vocal-friendly choice. Advocates of the fixed-do system stated that this system helps to devel op perfect pitch and it is 64

PAGE 65

universal and adaptable to all genres of music. Neglect of relative pitch development and lack of modulation facilitation were discusse d as weaknesses of the system. Larson (1993) examined the reasons for choos ing a particular system for teaching sightsinging. Larson addressed the fact that many pr oponents of a particular system choose their system based upon how many syllables they presume the student will have to learn. He provided extensive examples to illustrate how many rules are necessary for using both movable and fixed systems. Students must actually learn many func tions for the same syllable, since the same syllable will not have the same harmonic function in all music. Larson concluded that different systems for sight-singing may be necessary for specific students, for specific educational objectives, and for specific repertoires (p. 115). Although, he does purport that one system may be the best system for a specific purpose, he maintains that the do-based minor is the better choice for teaching sight-singing in th e context of scale-degree function. May (1993) investigated the methods, the typi cal amount of class time, and the printed texts used to teach melody reading by high school choral directors in Texas. May found out that the movable-do system was used by the majority (82.3%) of survey participants. The Relative Minor method was used by 68.75% of the respondent s to teach melody reading in minor keys. Results indicate that nearly 80% of the 192 directors involved in the study reported that they taught sight-singing four to five da ys each week. The mean score of rehearsal time used for such instruction was 11.76 minutes with 80% of the directors spending more than ten minutes a day. Music educators generally (92% of the time) used their performance literature for sight-singing materials. Henry and Demorest (1994) measured the indi vidual sight-singing abilities of students in Texas high school choirs with a record of out standing group sight-singing success in the Texas 65

PAGE 66

state contest. They found no difference be tween students with moveable-do and fixed-do training, but a significant differe nce in performance related to years of piano instruction. Demorest and May (1995) continued on with Henry and Demorest's study and found out that singers using movable-do solfege achieved significantly higher sc ores than those using fixed-do syllables; however they cautione d that these results may have been confounded by the skills of the teachers using various methods. McClung (2001) conducted a survey of 2,115 members of senior high all state choruses from six southeastern states. The survey c onsisted of one question: "In which sight-singing system have you received the most instruction? This study produced the following results: (a) the melody pitch numbers was the sight-singi ng system in which the largest number of respondents received most sight-singing instruction (58%); (b) the movable-do system was the second most frequently chosen method (19%); (c ) the neutral syllables method was used by 13 % of respondents; (d) other methods 6%; and (e) fixed-do 4%. However, McClung indicated that this finding conflicts with the results of Smith's (1998) survey of high school music instructors in Florida which concluded that moveable-do was the most frequently used system (44%) in that state. It also conflic ted with the results of May's (1993) survey of high school choral music instructors in Texas that indicated that the wi dely used sight-singing system was moveable-do (82%). Smith (1998) examined teachers experience, preparation, opinion of ability, teaching procedures, and attitudes in re lation to sight-singing instruction in high schools in Florida. Nearly half of the teachers regard ed their college preparation for t eaching sight-singing as fair or poor. Indeed, over 50% felt their training was not satisfactory, and 80% would have preferred more instruction in sight-singing pedagogy. While a majority of directors claimed that their 66

PAGE 67

college sight-singing class was the most benefi cial class for them in teaching sight-singing, almost 60% stated that they did not use the syst em of sight-singing they were taught. A large majority (97%) of the respondent s to the survey also indicated that they thought choirs who sight-sing on a regular basis learn music faster. The results indicate that the average teacher spent between five and fifteen minutes, three da ys a week for teaching sight-singing, and the systems most commonly used were moveable-do (la-minor), intervals by singing a familiar tune and scale degree numbers. Few respondents used fixed-do or modified scale degree numbers. Seventy percent of the teachers used drills unconnected to the choral literature. Brown (2001) examined the effects of fixed a nd movable sight-singing training on undergraduates ability to sight-s ing non-rhythmic, twenty-note passa ges in four music contexts: diatonic, modularity, chromatic, and atonal. The purpose of the study was to determine the most effective sight signing system for university music students by examining how students who either trained under a fixed or a movable sight signing system differ on pitch and label accuracy when sight-singing twelve melodic passages from various compositional styles. Students (primarily music majors) completing a second-year ear-training course were selected from fouryear universities accredited by Natio nal Association of Schools of Mu sic. Results indicate that students of the movable system scored significantly higher on pitch accuracy for the chromatic music category and the simple complexity level while students of the fixed system scored significantly higher on label scor es for the atonal music category and the difficult complexity level. The main effect between the two systems and the three-way interaction effect among systems, music categories, and complexity leve ls were not statistical ly significant on the dependent measures. For the secondary analysis, variables of influence were regressed on sight67

PAGE 68

singing ability. The results show that students wh o play keyboard as their primary instrument, who train in a separate non-inte grated aural-skills class, who have perfect pitch, or who have more years of private-lessons instruction have a significantly higher level of sight-singing ability. The research done by Killian and Henry (2005) indicates that ther e is no significant relationship between sight-singing system and overall success. Overall accuracy scores on sightsinging test were significantly higher with more preparation time. Analysis of the tests also indicates that high scored singers tonicized (vocally establish th e key), used hand signs, sang out loud during practice, physically kept the beat and finished practicing the melody within 30 seconds. Such characteristics as private voi ce or piano lessons, playing an instrument, membership in instrumental ensemble, sight-singing individually outside of class, and individual sight-singing tests had significan t effect on the attainment of high scores on sight-singing test. Summary Review of the studies on the development of music reading reveals that music reading depends on the auditory perception of musical sounds. Children respond to aural items more easily than visual ones. Reading errors caused by the childrens inability to audiate and also result in the inability to control the voice. Additionally, the development of music reading ability is influenced by the visual perception of musical symbols. Childre n can be aware of the general shape of a configuration but at the same time not perceive internal changes. It is important to put a greater emphasis on assisti ng children to recognize the shape and design of tonal configurations when learning to read mu sic notation. Furthermore, it is dependent on internalized process through which the individua l organizes previous auditory and visual perceptions of given stimuli. Pr ior practice on tonal configurations enabled students to learn a song more effectively. 68

PAGE 69

Results of the studies support the idea of early music read ing experiences. Music reading instruction should follow a disciplined routine and should begin no later than thirdor fourthgrade. Klemishs (1971) study concluded that firs t graders are ready to learn to read music and, as per Hutton (1953), the use of audio-visual mate rials accelerated the le arning process of sightsinging. Studies investigating the effect of instruction with use of solfege syllables on development of sight-singing skills revealed the following results: Martins (1987, 1991) research outlined that for the first-grade students, tonal aptitude rather than a ny of the three instructi onal methods (aural, with hand signs and combined aural with hand signs and with visual representation of notation) determines how good they score on tests of verbal and symbolic generalization of tonal skills. Cousins and Persellin (1999), Martin (1987) and Autrys (1976) studies revealed that there was no advantage to using hand signs in sight-singing instruction. Reifingers (2007) research indicated that instruction with tonal patterns in a general music setting was effective in improvi ng the sight-singing ability of second-grade students. The use of solfege during instruction was more effective than the use of a neutral syllable such as loo in helping students learn to sight-sing. However, a significantly greater gain with the use of solfege was evident only for the patterns that were practiced in class. Tonal pattern instruction is a key component of solfege instruction. A review of the research (Belmondo, 1986; Bernhard, 2003; Dell, 2003; Gamble, 1989; Grutzmacher, 1987; MacKnight, 1973) on the effect of tonal patterns revealed that it has a positive effect on the development of the following skills: (1) music reading skills; (2) melodic sight-reading skills and 69

PAGE 70

understanding of major and minor tonalities; (3) intonation accur acy for string students; and (4) melodic ear playing achievement. Bluestines (2007) found no evidence that a ny of the four methods of teaching sightreading used in the study, which included (1) whole patterns, (2) individual pitches within patterns, (3) whole patt erns, followed by individual pitches within patterns, and (4) individual pitches within patterns, followed by whole patterns, was superior to any other at generalizationsymbolic level. Based on the results of the study, no method of teaching symbolic association and composite synthesis deserves to be unequivocally recommended over any other. Debates over which systems of sight-singing is the most appropriate have continued throughout this century, facing the fact that there is no proof that one system is superior over another in all circumstances. Research on co mparing different sight-singing approaches has been done mostly with choral ensembles and und ergraduate students. Teachers usually choose the sight-singing approach that th ey were taught, some choose to teach what is taught in Europe, or choose to teach what they assume all great perf ormers use. This lite rature review indicates that there is a preference for m ovable systems among college teacher s of sight-singing. Alan C. McClungs (1998) survey of 2,115 members of se nior high all state choruses from six southerneastern states produced the following results: (a) the melody pitch numbers was the sight-singing system in which the largest number of respondents recei ved most sight-singing instruction (58%); (b) the movable-do was the second most fr equently chosen method (19%); (c) neutral syllables method was used by 13% of re spondents; (d) other met hods 6%; and (e) fix-do 4%. Smith's (1998) survey of high school music in structors in Florida co ncluded that moveabledo was the most frequently used system (44%) in that state. Henry and Demorest (1994) measured the individual sight-singing abilities of students in Texas high school choirs and found 70

PAGE 71

no difference between students with moveable-d o and fixed-do training. Demorest and May (1995) expanded on Henry and Demorest's study and found out that singers using moveable-do solfege achieved significantly higher scores th an those using fixed-do syllables. The recent research done by Killian and Henry in 2005 concl udes that there is no si gnificant relationship between a sight-singing system and overall succe ss. Overall accuracy scores on sight-singing tests were significantly higher with more preparation time. The review of the literature le d the investigator to the c onclusion that the movable-do approach is the most popular in the United States but evidence s uggest that it is not absolutely superior in the development of sight-singing abilities. Te achers should choose the approach appropriate for the region (country) they are teaching and for specific educational objectives. 71

PAGE 72

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Approval to conduct this study wa s initially obta ined from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Florida. Upon receiving the IRBs appr oval, the request was then sent to The Department of Research, A ssessment and Student Information in one of the school districts in Central Florida. Once that was accomplished, final approval to conduct the study was solicited from the principals of the schools. Eight music teachers in the di strict were interested in participating in this study. In order to represent diversity but at the same time equality between the different experimental and control groups, six schools were chosen to take part in the study. Permission was then secured from the principals and the classroom teachers. Because the program in this study became part of the regular music curriculum for the second grade classes, all of the children in those clas ses participated in all facets of the program. However, data was only collected from those students who returned c onsent forms signed by their parents/guardians. Subjects The selection of the participating schools was influenced by several factors. Based on information obtained from the Florida Depart ment of Education Bureau of Education Information and Accountability Services, the sele cted schools in the control and experimental groups were similar in school grade (in Florida s chools are assigned a grade based primarily upon student achievement data from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ), number of students on free/reduced-price lunc h, number of students with Li mited English Proficiency and number of students with disabili ties. Another important consideration was teachers familiarity with solfege; this method has not been used with their students prior to the experiment. Also teachers agreement and enthusiasm towards the experiment played an important role in the selection process. Out of the six selected schools, two schools were randomly assigned to 72

PAGE 73

movable-do experimental groups, two other scho ols were randomly assigned to fixed-do experimental groups and two schools were ra ndomly chosen to be the control group The investigation took place during the spri ng semester of the 2008 school year and involved 181 participants aged seven and eight from six public elementary schools (K-5) in North Central Florida. Sample si ze affects the statistical power of the test so the researcher used Gpower software (2001) to run a Statistical Po wer Test to compute the required sample size for three groups with error probability = .5 and power level (1) = 80. The results indicate that in order to meet conventional power, a sample of 159 subjects was needed and this sample exceeded the power minimum. Research was conducted with 12 intact second -grade classes. Four classes from two schools were randomly assigned to movable-do Experimental Group One that participated in movable-do solfege instruction. Four classes from other two schools were randomly assigned to fixed-do Experimental Group Two that participated in fixed-do solf ege instruction. Four classes from the remaining two schools were assigned to be the Control Group, which did not have any solfege instruction, but participated in ot her singing and music reading activities. Demographics Table 3-1 provides demographic information rela ted to the students in the State of Florida and in the participating district and schools during the 2006-07 school year. The individual schools in which the study was conducted had grad es K-5 enrollments ranging from 228 to 784. The number of students who were economically disadvantaged wa s lowest in School A at 30.7% followed by School D at 41.5% and hi ghest in School B at 80.3%. The other three participating schools had a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students than those reported for the state and district. The number of students who were English Language Learners (ELL) was relatively low across all schools and with School F having the hi ghest percentage at 4.2% and 73

PAGE 74

three of the participating schools having a percentage of 0.4% or less. The six schools did not vary considerably in the number of students who were disabled and were in close proximity to the state and district averages. A breakdown of the ethnicity of the students in the schools can be seen in Table 3-2. The overall student population of the state indicated a majority of white (46.8%) students and a minority of black (23.1%) students. At the dist rict level, the number of black students was higher at 36.7% with a lower Hispanic populat ion of 5.6%. The ethnic breakdown in Schools AD mirrored that of the state with even higher ma jority of white students; School F approximated more closely the district average while School E reversed that distribu tion with a much higher black population at 62.4%. To further assess the nature of each school, assessment data concerning the students general academic achievement were obtained. Table 3-3 shows the percentage of students who scored 3 or above on the 2006-07 state assessm ents in writing, math, and reading. The performance of the students at the participating schools can be compared to the performance of the students in the state and the participating district. In genera l, students in School A performed considerably above the state/district averages. In School C, students scored higher than the state/district averages in readi ng but tended to perform similarly in the other two assessments. In the other participating schools, st udents performed comparably to th e state/district averages to some degree. Teachers The general music teachers had to meet the follo wing criteria in order to participate: (1) a minimum of three years experience in teaching second-grade general music; (2) no previous experience in teaching solfege to the current s econd-grade classes; (3) and a current teaching assignment in which they taught at least two diff erent second-grade music classrooms within the 74

PAGE 75

same building. Six elementary music teachers with diverse teaching experience agreed to participate and use solfege inst ruction within their second-grad e music classes during the spring 2008 school year. The first teacher has a bachelors and a masters degree in music education. She has taught music for 12 years, and possesse s an Orff-Schulwerk Level 1 certificate. The second teacher has a bachelors degree in musi c education, has taught music for six years and holds an Orff-Schulwerk Level 1 certificate. Th e third teacher has a bachelors and a masters degrees in music education and ha s been teaching music for three years. The forth teacher has a bachelors degree in music education, has taught music for 23 years and holds an OrffSchulwerk Level 1 certificate. The fifth teacher had a bachelors degree in music education and a masters degree in music performance and had been teaching music for eight years. The sixth teacher has bachelors degree in music education, Orff-Schulwerk Level 1 certificate, and has taught music for 32 years. All six teachers stated that they did not used solfege instruction with their second-grade classes before but had used literacy activities and singing games in the past. All had well-equipped music rooms with piano, CD player, set of Orff instruments, whiteboard with music staff, etc., for their classes. Reliability Procedures The researcher scored all of the singing te sts for each participant. Two expert music educators served as judges. Each listened to the recordings of the ch ildren singing on the sightsinging pre-tests and post-tests and recordings of the children singing th e song Row, Row, Row Your Boat. One judge was a PhD candidate in music education and the other held a PhD in music education. Both of the judges had previous experience teaching elementary music. Each judge scored 50% of the tests. 75

PAGE 76

Independent Variables Instructional Treatment The independent variable in this study was the pedagogical approach used to teach sightsinging skills. Three different pe dagogical approaches were used in the music classes. In Experimental Group One, students were engaged in movable-do solfege activities based on John Feierabends (2001) Conversational Solfege approach. In Experime ntal Group Two, students learned sight-singing using the fi xed-do approach. In the control group, students participated in music activities that included singing and sight -singing without the benefit of any solfege instruction. The students regular music teacher provided the instructiona l treatment in each of the classes during the regularly scheduled music peri od. In this district, mu sic classes were held once a week for 45-minutes. A 20 to 25-minute por tion of 10 of the sessions in the experimental groups were devoted to solfege activities. The remaining time in the music lesson was used for other activities selected by each individual music teacher. Consistency among the music teachers in implem enting the instructional procedures in the experimental groups was accomplished through preservice and in-service training and through in-progress monitoring of the classes by the researcher. Preservice and in-service training involved discussions and practices on how to lead and assess solfege instruction. Lesson plans for the solfege portion of the lesson was provided by the researcher to each teacher. Examples of the lesson plan are provided in Appendix C and D. Movable-Do Solfege Instruction Four classes were randomly assigned to the movable-do experimental condition. Movabledo instruction was based on the Conversational Solfege method developed by Dr. John M. Feierabend, chair of music education at the University of Hartford s Hartt School. Feierabend (2001) states: The simple premise on which th is method is based is the same one which is 76

PAGE 77

advocated for the teaching of foreign languages. One should learn with his/her ears before learning with his/her eyes (p. 9). The sequen ce of this method involves a 12 step process to teach music literacy. This teaching method brings students from the readiness step to the step of creating music through inner hearing and then transferring their musical tho ughts into notation. Feierabend emphasizes that, through Conversat ional Solfege, children will lear n to aurally understand music, and after that they have done so, they can asso ciate this aural understa nding to the notation. Conversational Solfege Level 1 pr esents patterns, rhymes, and traditional folk songs based on simple rhythm and tone sets. Only the tonal portion of the Conversati onal Solfege Level 1 was taught in the classes. All of the 12 steps were ta ught in experimental classes; however, not all of the suggested exercises were implemented dur ing the experimental treatment due to time limitations and, in certain cases to the difficulty level. As recommended in the teaching manual, tona l patterns were used in every lesson to initially develop new skills. Inner hearing activi ties were also included in almost every lesson. The first set of tonal patterns was based on the pitches do, re and mi. Sol and la were introduced in the second part of the experiment al treatment. As Feierabend states: The simple set of tones that occur in traditio nal folksongs was found to be do, re and mi. There were very few authentic folksongs found based on only sol and mi. Although several authentic songs based on la, sol, and mi were discovered, do, re and mi were chosen as the first tones because the presence of the resti ng tone seemed more indicative of our tonally based musical culture (pp. 9-10). The following is a brief explanation of 12 steps of Conversational Solfege: Readiness: (1) Rote. At this stage all songs are taught by rote. They all contain tonal patterns that will be studied later by the students. Tonal patterns can also be echoed on a neutral syllable. 77

PAGE 78

Conversational Solfege: (2) Rote During this stage th e tonal syllables are introduced. The teacher will sing the melody patt erns with the tonal syllables; the students repeat it with syllables. Through repetition the students will b ond the tonal syllables with the aural labels. (3) Decode (familiar). This serves as an evalua tion to determine whether the students have bonded the tonal patterns with the correct syllables. Th e teacher sings a pattern on a neutral syllable and the students must repeat the pattern with the co rrect tonal syllables. The patterns used are the same patterns taught in the rote stage. Aural reca ll and decoding skills are used during this stage, but not inference thinking. (4) Decode (unfamiliar). This is the next evaluation stage. Students need to generalize their use of the syllables with unfamiliar patterns and songs. The same procedure is followed as above with the teacher singing the pattern on a neutral syllable followed by the students repeating the patter n with the correct syllables. Students are required to use aural decoding skills and inferential th inking. (5) Create. At this st age, students are encouraged to develop original musical thoughts. Original tona l patterns are created by the students using tonal syllables. Reading: (6) Rote. During this stage students are introduced to nota tion symbols. The teacher sings the notated pattern and the students repeat the pattern while looking at the notation. (7) Decode (familiar). During this stage, another evaluation is made to see if the students have bonded the notation for the tonal pattern with the co rrect syllables. Once again the patterns used are the same ones that have been previously pr esented. Visual recall and decoding skills are required, but not inferential thinking. (8) Decode (unfamiliar). This is another evaluation stage to see if students have bonded notation for tonal patterns with corre ct syllables and are capable of generalizing their knowledge of the tonal syllable s to unfamiliar patterns. An unfamiliar pattern is notated and the students are asked to think firs t, and then sing it using the correct syllables. 78

PAGE 79

This requires visual decoding skills and infere ntial thinking. A common te rm for this is sightreading. Writing: ( 9) Rote. At this stage, students learn to write notation. They copy familiar written melodies and songs while being instru cted in proper manuscript techniques. (10) Familiar. During this stage students use decoding and writing skills. A familiar melody is sung, on neutral syllables, or played on an instrument and students are expected to guess the syllables (decode) and write the notation. Aural and visual decoding is required. (11) Unfamiliar. This stage requires the use of aural and visual decoding skills, as well as inference thinking, and is commonly referred to as dictation. At this time, the teacher sings on neutral syllables or plays an unfamiliar pattern or phrase from a song on an in strument. The students must think the tonal syllables and then write down the pattern. (12) Create. This is th e final stage where the students must conversationally create a melody through in ner hearing, decode that melody, and finally transfer it to musical notation. This skill is usually referred to as composition. Figure 3-1 demonstrates the steps and seque nce of Conversational Solfege. In this study, movable-do pedagogy was base d on an adaptation of John Feierabends Conversational Solfege Level 1 due to the limited available time. Prior to the tonal solfege instruction, Feierabends methodology included the si nging of variety of folk songs and rhythm patterns instruction. C onversational Solfege Level 1 is a one -year program, so this study was certainly a condensed and limited version of that approach. Instructi on started with tonal patterns utilizing the pitches do, re and mi All of the 12 steps of Conversational Solfege have been sequentially utilized in the instruction. Pitches sol and la were introduced only during the second half of experimental treatment. 79

PAGE 80

An Example of the movable-do lesson plan based on Conversational Solfege can be found in Appendix C. Fixed-Do Solfege Instruction The fixed-do approach used in this study was based on the contemporary Russian Solfege method historically influenced by French fixed-do solfege methodology. Exercises and pedagogical approaches were adapted from two textbooks: Solfeggio Podgotovitelny Class by Frolova (2006) and Solfeggio dlya 1 classa detskoy muzykalnoy shkoly by Metallidi & Pertcovskaya (2003). This method is more vi sual than Conversational Solfege and includes introduction to basic music theory. Introduction to notation began with the first lesson. Exercises for the reinforcement of pitch memory were part of every lesson. Every music lesson started with the game Thi s is the sound of middle do. This game reinforced the memory of Middle C (middle do) and challenged the children to recognize pitches that were higher or lower of Middle C. Lessons also included the singing of the C major scale, first as a pentachord with five notes ( do, re, mi, fa, sol sol, fa, mi, re, do ) and then as a whole scal e. From the first lesson, notes do (C) on the treble clef on the ledger line and re (D) were introduced and children were encouraged to sing exercises co mprised of combinations of do and re. As the lessons progressed, children were singing exercises with three, then four, fi ve and six notes respectively. Children were also taught some of the concepts of basic music theory such as steps, leaps, and melodic direction. During each lesson, children were singing notation from the blackboard and flashcards. Many lessons included teaching music writing on wipe-off slates with a single five line staff. Every lesson included the following sequence: 1. Game: This is the sound of middle do. 2. Introduction of a new note visually first then aurally. 3. Sight-singing exercises (si ght-singing notation from the board and flashcards). 4. Games with music reading. 5. Music writing exercises. 80

PAGE 81

An example of the Fixed-do lesson is presented in Appendix D. Control Groups In the control group, students participated in music activities, including singing and music reading activities, without any solf ege instruction. The researcher did not provide lesson plans or special instructions. As a condition for the sc hool selection, the teachers must not have taught solfege prior to the commencement of the expe riment. The teachers who taught control group classes were encouraged to teach classes as th ey would have taught it before, without teaching sight-singing with the use of the solfege syllables. Dependent Variable Sight-Singing Achievement The main dependent variable in this expe riment was sight-singing achievement. The students demonstrated sight-si nging ability by reading and singi ng six randomly selected threenote tonal patterns (see Appendix E) Pre-test 1 and post-test 1 included three tonal patterns of random combination of the pitches do, re and mi Pre-test 2 and post-te st 2 included three tonal patterns of random combination of the syllables sol, la and mi. The patterns were practiced during the experimental treatm ent with the experimental groups and before the test administration with all groups including the cont rol group. The notation of each pattern showed three pitches notated using blackened note-heads on five-line staff in the key of C major. No bar lines or key signatures were used. Patterns were printed as flash cards with staff lines one inch apart, using large, bold, black print on a piece of paper measuring 11 x 8.5 inches. A complete list of the tonal patterns can be found in Appendix E. 81

PAGE 82

Testing Procedures At the beginning of the experiment and pr ior to starting the instructional treatment, Gordons tonal subtest of the Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation Test (IMMA) was administered to assess the participants developm ental tonal aptitude. Raw scores were used for statistical analysis rather th an using converted scores based on norms. The IMMA is a standardized measure of musical aptitude designed for use with children in grades one through four. While the test includes t onal and rhythm subtests, only the tonal subtest was used for this study. This subtest took about 20 mi nutes to administer. It consis ted of a recording of 40 threenote pattern pairs for which the listener must decide if the second pattern in the pair is the same or different from the first. All tones are isoc hronous and the tempo is consistent, requiring the listener to discriminate exclusively by pitch. Following the administration of the IMMA te st, the Singing Voice Development Measure (SVDM) was then administered to the child ren. SVDM, developed by Rutkowski (1990, 1996), is a nine-point rating scale for classifying deve loping singers based on the range of their singing voices. A higher level on the scale indicates an increasing level of control over the singing voice, (Brophy, 2000). Figure 3-2 demonstrates an explanation of the SVDM rating scale. In order to measure each childs singing voice development, the criterion song Row, Row, Row, Your Boat (a song in D-major) was taught and then performed by each child individually in a testing room. The performan ce of each child was recorded. According to the research findings of Levinowitz, Barnes, Guerri ni, Clement, Pasquale D'April and Morey (1998), SDVM was recommended for use at all elementary le vels (Grades K-5) as a tool to evaluate the singing content standard, particularly when children sing a short, familiar, major song. The researcher and two judges rated the performan ces of Row, Row, Row Your Boat using the SVDM. The inter-judge reliability for SVDM between judges was .87. 82

PAGE 83

A pre-test and post-test in si ght-singing was administered by the researcher by having each student individually sightsing tonal patterns from th e list in Appendix E. The pre-test took place prior to the commencement of the instructional treatment and the post-test after the 10-week instructional period. To facilitate the process of individual testing, the children were initially introduced to the researcher by their music teacher prior to the pre-tests. Classroom visits by the researcher prior to the experiment helped the ch ildren become familiar with the investigator and the procedures of testing. A ll sight-singing tests were audio-r ecorded using an Olympus Digital Recorder and then the audio file s were transferred to a computer and downloaded onto CDs for later scoring by the judges. Individual testing was conducted in a quiet, well-lighted room. In most of the schools, the teachers offices were used for this purpose, but in school B another classroom was used for testing. During testing, the researcher and the child we re seated facing each other on opposite sides of a desk or small table. The researcher sang the starting pitch for each pattern. A glockenspiel was used to help the researcher maintain th e accuracy of the starti ng pitch. The pre-tests occurred during January and February of 2008, before implementation of experimental treatment. All of the children used loo to sing the patterns during the pre-test. Prior to the pretest, the researcher explained th e test procedures to the whol e class and children practiced singing the patterns after the rese archer. The researcher showed a flash card of a three-note pattern which was taken from the stack of the patt erns used in the test. The children listened to the researcher singing the notes while point ing to each corresponding note on the flash card. Then the children sang the same pattern while the researcher was pointing to each note. The first pre-test, which included the pitches do, re and mi, and second pre-test, which included the pitches sol, la and mi, were administered on two different days. 83

PAGE 84

At the beginning of the individual testing, the child was told that he or she would first practice some patterns in the same way as he or she practiced it w ith the whole class. Immediately following that practice, the rese archer said, Now you try it, sang the starting note, and pointed to each note again while the ch ild sang it. This was repeated for one more practice pattern. Following that, the researcher told the child to choose any pattern from the stack and try to sing on your own. The child randomly selected a pattern; the researcher then showed a flash card of the patter n and sang the starting pitch of th e pattern. The researcher then pointed to each of the th ree notes as the child sang them. A ll of the three patterns were presented this way in random order. No specific feedback on performance was gi ven during the test, but each child was praised for his or her attempt. The standardized testing script can be found in Appendix F. As each flash card was shown, the researcher wrote down the pattern number on the scoring sheet for further scoring of the test s. Each childs singing was assigned a number on the digital recorder. That number was al so written down on the scoring sheet. The sight-singing post-tests took place dur ing May and June of 2008. The testing procedures were the same as for the pre-tests ex cept that the child ren in the experimental groups were given the option of singing the patterns with solfege, or loo The children in the control group were asked to sing on loo As in the pre-test, post-test one included the pitches of do, re and mi and post-test two included the pitches of sol, la and mi. Post-test one and post-test two were administered on two different days. Likewise, the patterns we re practiced before the test with the whole class and then individually. Judging and Scoring As there were two sight-singing pre-tests, tw o sight-singing post-tes ts, and an SVDM pretest and post-test for each of th e 181 participants, a total of 1086 tests were scored. The sightsinging tests were compiled in random order of th e schools and classes and then burned to CDs. 84

PAGE 85

Each class had a separate CD with a special code on it (for example A1). Each class also had a separate scoring sheet with the number of the child on the left si de and the notes of the pattern that the child sang as it was recorded on CD. The example of the scoring sheet can be found in Appendix G. The CD and the scoring sheet were organized in a separate paper folder and then given to the judges. The SVDM tests were al so compiled in random order of the schools and classes and then burned onto separate CDs. The scoring sheets, with ex planation of the rating scale of the SVDM were also given to the judge s. The folders with the CDs and scoring sheets for each class were given to two judges who scor ed 50% of the recordings for each test. The researcher scored all of the tests. To help facilitate objectivity in the scoring, two judges had no knowledge of which class or which experimental group the material were fr om, nor did the judges know from which of the two testing conditions (pre -test or post-test) the recording came. The judges were informed that some children used solfege and some used loo when singing and that it w ould vary by recording. Also the judges were advised to ignore the na me of the solfege syllable each child was singing and determine the correctness based on pitch only. This was partic ularly important in the cases when the pitch and the solfege syllable did not match. For example, if the child used the wrong solfege syllable, but sang the co rrect pitch, it was counted as corre ct and if the child used the correct solfege syllable, but sang an incorrect pitch, it was counted as incorrect. Each sight-singing test included data on note accuracy and contour ac curacy in order to evaluate different dimensions of sight-singing performance Note accuracy was determined by counting the number of pitches th at were sung correctly. The reco rdings included the example of the starting pitch sang by the researcher so the ju dges could hear the starting pitch. For each test a maximum possible score of 9 c ould be obtained, with a maximum combined score of 18 on test 85

PAGE 86

one and test two for the pitch accuracy dime nsion. The contour accuracy was identified by counting how many note-to-note co ntours were sung correctly. Performance was evaluated on whether the students singing follo wed the contour of the pattern, i. e., whether the next note went higher, lower, or stayed the same, without regard for pitch accuracy. This way, within a threenote pattern, there were two contours to be asse ssed yielding a maximum possible score of 6 for each test with a combined total of 12 on test one and test two. The composite score for each of test1 and te st 2 carry a maximum of 15 points with a maximum total score for both tests of 30 points. The researcher e xplained the scoring process to the judges individually. After the scoring sheets were coll ected, the researcher calculated the mean score for each child and en tered it to a separate spreadsh eet onto MINITAB software for further statistical procedures. Summary of the Procedures The length of time needed to conduct this st udy as designed was to have been a minimum of 24 weeks, with the treatment time lasting for at least 12 weeks. However, the experiment was completed in only 10 weeks due to a prolonged I RB and informed consent process, holidays, state-mandated testing, etc. Table 3-4 demonstrates the time line for the study. Prior to the instructional treatment, the st udents took the IMMA tonal subtest during their regular music class. The students were then i ndividually administered the SVDM. Prior to the first instructional session one class period was needed in order to explain and familiarize the children with testing procedures for pre-test 1. The students were then individually pre-tested on their ability to sight-sing the tonal patterns made of do, re and mi for the pre-test 1. Another class period was needed to explain and familiari ze the children with testing procedures for pretest 2 and the children were then individually tested on their ability to sing tonal patterns made of sol, la and mi for pre-test 2. Ten weeks of solfeg e instruction, each 20-25 minutes long, were 86

PAGE 87

then implemented in each experimental school. In the control group classes, music instruction remained the same as usual with no solfeg e instruction. At the beginning of the 18th week, children were post-tested for SVDM. Prior to po st-test 1, the researcher reviewed the testing procedures and tonal patterns with every class during their schedul ed music lesson. The post-test 1 was then administered to each child individu ally. The same procedure was followed for posttest 2 i.e., review with the whole class followed by individual testing. 87

PAGE 88

Table 3-1. 2006-07 Demographic data about the state, the school district, and the participating schools Economically Disadvantaged, % English Language Learners (ELL), % Disabled, % State 45.4 11.8 14.7 District 44.3 2.3 19.4 School A 30.7 0.3 16.1 School B 80.3 0.4 18.4 School C 50.4 1.5 19.4 School D 41.5 2.5 17.0 School E 65.0 0.4 19.2 School F 64.5 4.2 17.9 Table 3-2. 2006-07 Ethnic distribution of stude nts in Florida, the school district and the participating schools Asian, % Black, % Hispanic,% White, % American Indian, % Multiracial, % State 2.3 23.1 24.2 46.8 0.3 3.3 District 3.8 36.7 5.6 49.3 0.2 4.3 School A 7.1 24.5 5.5 54.8 0.6 7.4 School B 0.4 19.3 1.8 74.1 0.9 3.5 School C 0.8 15.5 6.7 70.3 0.3 6.2 School D 3.4 26.9 7.4 55.9 0 6.5 School E 6.3 62.4 2.0 24.9 0.2 4.1 School F 7.6 40.0 5.9 38.1 0.8 7.6 88

PAGE 89

Table 3-3. Percentage of student s, by state, district and partic ipating school, who scored 3 and above on the 2006-07 state assessments Writing, % Math, % Reading, % State 93 63 57 District 93 61 59 School A 99 85 85 School B 94 51 57 School C 96 67 80 School D 91 72 73 School E 90 64 65 School F 98 61 63 Note: The scores for the writing assessment range fr om 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest), whereas those for math and reading assessments range from 1 to 5. Table 3-4. Time line Weeks 1 2 3-4 5-6 7-9 10 11-17 18 19-20 21-22 IMMA SVDM SightSightTreatSpring TreatSVDM SightSighttonal subtest pretest singing pretest 1 singing pretest 2 ment period break ment period posttest singing posttest 1 singing post-test 2 89

PAGE 90

Figure 3-1. The 12 steps of Conversational Solfege. READINESS 1) Rote CONVE RS ATIONAL SOLFEGE 2) Rote 3) Decode Fam iliar 4) Decode Unf a m iliar 5) Create READING 6) Rote 7) Decode Fam iliar 8) Decode Unf a m iliar WRITING 9) Rote 10) Decode Fam iliar 11) Decode Unf a m iliar 12) Create The 12 Steps of CONVERSATIONAL SOLFEGE 1 Pre-Singer does not sing but chants the song text 1.5 Inconsistent Speaking Range Singer som etim e s chants, so m eti m es sustains tones and exhibits som e sensitivity to pitch but rem a ins in the speaking voice range (usually A to a) 2 Speaking Range Singer sustain s ton es and exhib its som e sensitiv ity to pitch but rem a ins in the speaking voice range (usually C to c) 2.5 Inconsistent Limited Range Singer wavers between speaking and singing voice and uses a lim ited ran g e when in sin g in g voice ( us ua l l y F to f ) 3 Limited Range Singer exhibits consistent use of lim ited singing range (usually D to d ) 3.5 Inconsisten t Init ial Ra nge Singer som e ti m e s only exhibits use of lim ited singing ran g e, but other tim e s exhibits use of initial sin g in g ran g e ( usuall y A to a ) 4 Initia l Range Singer exhibits consistent use of initial singing range (usually B-flat to b-flat ) 4.5 Inconsistent Singer som e ti m e s only exhibits use of initial singing range, but other tim es exhibits use of extended singing range (sings beyond the register lift: B-flat and above) 5 Singer exhibits use of consistent extended singing range (sings beyond the register lift: B-flat and above) Figure 3-2. Singing Voice Developm ental Measure (Rutkowski, 1996). 90

PAGE 91

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents the procedures used to analyze the data collect ed and the results of these analyses. Data from the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation (IMMA) tonal subtest, the Singing Voice Development Measure (S VDM), and sight-singing tests were collected from 181 participants in accordance with the procedures outlined in Chapter 3. The analyses were guided by the research questions outlined in Chapter 1: What effect does pedagogical approach have on children's sight-singing achievement? The following subquestions guided this analysis: 1. What is the effect of sequential and regular movable-do solfege in struction on childrens sight singing achievement? 2. What is the effect of sequential and regular fixed-do solfege instruction on childrens sight singing achievement? 3. What is the relationship between the level of singing voice development as measured by the Singing Voice Development Measure (Rutkowski, 1990, 1996) to sight-singing performance? 4. What is the relationship between sight-si nging achievement and tonal aptitude and number of solfege sessions? Variables and Analyses of Data The dependent variables of this study were the scores on two sight-singing tests. The independent variables were (a) pedagogical a pproach; and (b) the le vel of singing voice development. Covariates for the study were (a ) tonal aptitude; and (b ) the number of solfege sessions. The statistical approaches used in this study include descriptive statistics, the KolmogorovSmirnov test of normality, analyses of covariance regression analyses and the post-hoc Tukey test. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to compare the empirical cumulative distribution function of sample data with the distribution exp ected if the data were normal. If the observed 91

PAGE 92

difference were sufficiently large, the test would reject the null hypothesis of population normality. The Pearson r correlation coefficient was used to cal culate inter-judge reliabilities: the coefficient between the researcher and judge one was significant ( r =.91, p < .001) and coefficient between researcher and judge two was also significant ( r = .93, p < .001). Descriptive Statistics Scores on tonal subtests of I MMA were obtained from all participants. Raw scores were used for statistical analysis ra ther than using converted scor es based on norms. Descriptive statistics for the IMMA scores are shown in Ta ble 4-1. The mean scores for the various groups assigned to different pedagogy technique were: M = 31 for movable-do groups; M = 32.74 for fixeddo groups and M = 32.21 for control groups. The dist ribution of the IMMA scores had normal skewness and kurtosis and data from th e Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests indicated that there was no significant deviation from normality. Th e results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are shown in the Table 4-2. Because the p-value of the test resu lts are greater than .05 ( p > .05), it can be concluded that the distri bution of scores of the sample is normal. Table 4-3 shows the SVDM pre-test data. Rutkowskis rating scale includes nine levels; however, judges rated the children at seven of the nine levels. No child was rated at th e lowest levels of th e scale: Pre-singer and Inconsistent Speaking Range Singer. Out of th e total 181 participants, 26% of children were categorized as Singer, 12.2% as Inconsistent Singer, 19.9% as Initial Range Singer, 9.4% as Inconsistent Initial Range Singer, 20.4% as Limited Range Singer, 5% as Inconsistent Limited Range Singer and, 7.2% as Speaking Range Singer. School A and School B respectively had the largest and the smallest number of children, who scored as Singers on the SVDM scale. 92

PAGE 93

Results of the SVDM post-test indicate that children perf ormed the song Row, Row, Row Your Boat with an improved level of singing voice development. This shows that childrens singing voice developed slightly ac ross the period of th e study. Out of the total 181 participants, the judges categorized 33.1% of children as Sing er, 17.7 as Inconsistent Singer, 14.4 as Initial Range Singer, 13.2 as Inconsiste nt Initial Range Singer, 14.9 as Limited Range Singer, 2.8 as Inconsistent Limited Range Singer, and 3.9 as Sp eaking Range Singer. These results corroborate other research findings that suggested small-grou p and individual strategies employed in weekly class meetings significantly contribute to ch ildren's acquisition of use of singing voice (Rutkowski, 1996; Rutkowski & Mill er, 2003). Table 4-4 presents the post-test SVDM results. Descriptive statistics for the distribution of pre-test scores are shown in Table 4-5. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of norma lity are shown in Table 4-6. The results indicate that: (a) the movabledo groups total pre-test scores were normally distributed (Z = .06, p > .15); (b) the fixed-do groups to tal pre-test scores had markedly positive skewness and kurtosis (< 1), and differed signif icantly from normal distribution ( Z = .12, p < .01); and (c) control groups total pre-test scores had ne gative skewness and kurtosis(< 1), and differed significantly from nor mal distribution ( Z = .14, p < .01). The mean for pre-test 1 (patterns with do, re and mi ) is greater for all groups then the mean for pre-test 2 (patterns with sol, la and mi ). The highest mean for the total pretest score was in control groups ( M = 7.14, SD = 6.07), followed by movable-do groups ( M = 5.97, SD = 3.97). The lowest mean score was in fixeddo groups ( M = 5.24, SD = 3.83). At the end of the three-month treatment period, sight-singing post-tests were administered. The procedures for the post-tests were exactly the same as those for the pre-test and as described in Chapter 3. Descriptive statistics for the distri bution of the post-test scores are shown in Table 93

PAGE 94

4-7. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality is demonstrated in Table 4-8. It indicates that all of the po st-test scores for both the m ovable-do and fixeddo groups were normally distributed, whereas post-test for the control groups had markedly positive skewness and kurtosis (< 1), and differed sign ificantly from normal distribution ( Z = .14, p < .01). It should be noted that one of the classes in School E was a special class fo r gifted and talented children and sight-singing scores in that class were significantly higher then those in other classes. Descriptive statistics for the di stribution of scores for total sc ore on pre-test and post-test and the difference in scores means are shown in Table 4-9. Results show that the movable-do groups scores increased by 9.79 points from the pr e-test to the post-te st, from the pre-test M = 5.97 to the post-test M = 19.33. The fixed-do groups scores increased by 8.48 points, from the pre-test M = 5.24 to the post-test M = 13.72. The control groups scores increased by 1.53 points, from a pre-test M = 7.14 to the post-test M = 8.67. The control groups also made a small gain in their sight-singing achievement (pre-test M = 7.14, post-test M = 8.67, difference 1.53). Each sight-singing test was rated by the res earcher and the judges on two dimensions of sight-singing performance: Pitch Accuracy a nd Contour Accuracy. Ta ble 4-10 presents the descriptive statistics and Tabl e 4-11 presents the data from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test scores for Pitch Accuracy and Contour Accuracy for the various schools ca tegorized by pedagogical treatment on the pre-test. Table 4-12 presents th e descriptive statistic and Table 4-13 presents the data from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test scores for Pitch Accuracy and Contour Accuracy for the various schools categorized by peda gogical treatment on the post-test. The maximum score for Pitch Accuracy is 18 and that for Contour Accuracy is 12. Results of descriptive sta tistics indicate that movabl e-do groups ended up with highest gain in Pitch 94

PAGE 95

Accuracy scores (pre-test M = 4.28, posttest M = 9.49) and Contour Accuracy scores (pre-test M = 1.69, post-test M = 6.27). Fixed-do groups also had a re latively good gain in the Pitch Accuracy (pre-test M = 3.82, posttest M = 7.99) and Contour Accuracy (pre-test M = 1.42, post-test M = 5.81). The control groups demonstrated a small gain in their scores for Pitch Accuracy (pre-test M = 4.85, post-test M = 5.53) and Contour Accuracy (pre-test score M = 2.28, post-test score M = 3.14). Pearson correlation among the Note Accuracy scores and those for Contour Accuracy on the pre-test is r = 0.74 ( p < .001) and on post-test r = 0.82 ( p < .001). The high correlation between those scores implies a positive associa tion between the results on Note Accuracy and Contour Accuracy. It indicates that large values of Pitch Accuracy scores tend to be associated with large values of Contour Accuracy scores and small values of P itch Accuracy score are associated with small values of Contour Accuracy scores. To identify the relationship between the le vel of singing voice development and sightsinging performances, the means on Sight-singing pretest and post-test were calculated for each level of singing voice development. These data are in Tables 4-14 and 4-15. The sight-singing scores mean on pre-test and on post-test is higher for higher categories of singing voice development. Analyses of Covariance, Regre ssion Analyses, and Tukey Tests The primary statistical procedures used were multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and regression analysis. MANCOVA a llows one to control for the effects of supplementary continuous independent variables covariate s, such as SVDM post-test, IMMA tonal subtest, pre-test scores and number of so lfege sessions. The nested MANCOVA was used. The variable school was nested within the variable pedagogical approach The nested procedure provided two critical statistica l calculations: (1) differences among the movable-do, fixed-do and 95

PAGE 96

control groups; and (2) the effect of school (or the teacher, since there was one music teacher per school) within the peda gogical approach. Table 4-16 demonstrates the results of the MANCOVA procedures. Significance was set at < .05 for all analyses. MANCOVA results for pedagogical approach revealed that Wilks was significant (F = 4.24, df = 2, 176, p < .05). MANCOVA results for the schools among pedagogical approach revealed that Wilks was also significant ( F = 13.98, df = 3, 176, p < .001). Covariate analyses re vealed a significant Wilks for SVDM Pre-test ( F = 6.86, df = 6, 176, p < 0.001), for Sight-singing Pre-test ( F = 21.63, df = 1, 176, p < 0.001) while IMMA scores were non-significant ( F = 0.21, df = 1, 176, p = .64). Results indicate that there was significant (p < .001) variability among the schools within the pedagogical approach and difference between pedagogical approaches wa s also significant (p < .05). It is likely that the teacher effect, di fference in student preparation as well as other factors within the schools, had an impact on si ght-singing achievement. In other words, the variability may be due to differences between the schools, as well as to variability among the pedagogical approaches. A posteriori comparisons of means were conducte d using Tukeys Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test and demonstrated in Tabl e 4-17. The significance le vel for all analyses was < .05. Tukey Pairwise Comparisons proce dures among Pedagogical Approaches yielded significant mean differences (p < 0.01) between movabledo and fixed-do pedagogy. Regression procedures were then applied to th e results of the post-te st total sight singing tests with the number of solfege sessions, IMMA raw score, and the SVDM pre-test as the predictor variables. This analys is revealed that all of the vari ables, except IMMA tonal subtest 96

PAGE 97

scores, were significant predictors of score on sight-singing post-test. The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 4-18. An interaction plot is a simple line graph fo r examining interactions between variables. The resulting profiles are parallel when there is no interaction and nonparallel when interaction is present. Figure 4-1 demonstrates an interaction plot for total sight-singing post test with SVDM post-test and pedagogy as independent variables. It shows the le vels of SVDM post-test on the X axis and the mean for total score on sight-sin ging post-test on the Y axis. As it demonstrated in the Figure 4-2, there is a little interaction between the three types of pedagogy. 97

PAGE 98

Table 4-1. Descriptive statistics fo r the IMMA tonal subtest scores ( N = 181) Pedagogy N M* SD Minimum Maximum Movable-do School A 26 31.42 3.06 24 38 School B 25 30.56 5.41 10(25) 38 Total 51 31 4.35 10(25) 38 Fixed-do School C 40 32.18 2.86 12(23) 38 School D 35 33.29 2.83 27 39 Total 75 32.74 2.85 12(23) 39 Control School E 26 32.00 5.73 17 39 School F 29 32.41 3.95 22 39 Total 55 32.21 4.84 17 39 Maximum points possible = 40 for the IMMA Table 4-2. Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results for the IMMA tonal subtest ( N = 181) Pedagogy Skewness Kurtosis K-S (Z) K-S p-Value Movable-do School A -0.26 0.61 0.09 0.15 School B -2.24 8.32 0.17 0.07 Total -2.18 9.99 0.12 0.08 Fixed-do School C -0.11 -0.24 0.04 0.15 School D -0.66 0.44 0.09 0.15 Total -1.10 1.34 0.11 0.05 Control School E -1.16 0.98 0.15 0.15 School F -0.72 0.73 0.07 0.15 Total -1.10 1.34 0.11 0.12 98

PAGE 99

Table 4-3. Number and percentage of children at various levels of Singing Voice Development Measure pre-test (SVDM pre-test) Note : S Singer, IS Inconsistent Singer, IRS In itial Range Singer, IIRS Inconsistent Initial Range Singer, LRS Limited Range Singer, ILRS Inconsistent Limited Range Singer, SRS Speaking Range Singer Pedagogy Number of Children S N/% IS N/% IRS N/% IIRS N/% LRS N/% ILRS N/% SRS N/% Movable-do School A 26 17/65.4 2/7.7 4/15.4 1/3.8 1/3.8 0 1/3.8 School B 25 2/8.0 1/4.0 6/24.0 3/12.0 6/24.0 4/16.0 3/12.0 Total 51 19/37.3 3/5.9 10/19.6 4/7.8 7/13.7 4/7.8 4/7.8 Fixed-do School C 40 9/22.5 8/20.0 10/25.0 4/10.0 6/15.0 1/2.5 2/5.0 School D 35 7/20.0 7/20.0 9/25.7 3/8.6 5/14.3 2/5.7 2/5.7 Total 75 16/21.3 15/20.0 19/25.3 7/9.3 11/14.7 3/4.0 4/5.3 Control School E 26 7/26.9 2/7.7 5/19.2 1/3.8 9/34.6 0 2/7.7 School F 29 5/17.2 2/6.9 2/6.9 5/17.2 10/34.5 2/6.9 3/10.3 Total 55 12/21.8 4/7.3 7/12.7 6/10.9 19/34.5 2/3.6 5/9.1 Combined Total 181 47/26.0 22/12.2 36/19.9 17/9.4 37/20.4 9/5.0 13/7.2 99

PAGE 100

Table 4-4. Number and percentage of children at various levels of Singing Voice Development Measure post-test (SVDM post-test) Pedagogy Number of Children S N/% IS N/% IRS N/% IIRS N/% LRS N/% ILRS N/% SRS N/% Movable-do School A 26 17/65.4 5/19.2 1/3.8 2/7.7 0 0 1/3.8 School B 25 4/16.0 4/16.0 7/28.0 2/8.0 5/20.0 2/8.0 1/4.0 Total 51 21/41.2 9/17.6 8/15.7 4/7.8 5/9.8 2/3.9 2/3.9 Fixed-do School C 40 13/32.5 11/27.5 6/15.0 3/7.5 7/17.5 0 0 School D 35 12/34.3 6/17.1 6/17.1 3/8.6 6/17.1 0 2/5.7 Total 75 25/33.3 17/22.7 12/16.0 6/8.0 13/17.3 0 2/2.7 Control School E 26 9/34.6 2/7.7 4/15.4 4/15.4 6/23.1 0 1/3.8 School F 29 5/17.2 4/13.8 2/6.9 10/34.5 3/10.3 3/10.3 2/6.9 Total 55 14/25.5 6/10.9 6/10.9 14/25.5 9/16.4 3/5.5 3/5.5 Combined Total 181 60/33.1 32/17.7 26/14.4 24/13.2 27/14.9 5/2.8 7/3.9 Note : S Singer, IS Inconsistent Singer, IRS In itial Range Singer, IIRS Inconsistent Initial Range Singer, LRS Limited Range Singer, ILRS Inconsistent Limited Range Singer, SRS Speaking Range Singer 100

PAGE 101

Table 4-5. Descriptive statistics for the distribution of pre-te st scores by school and pedagogy Pedagogy n M SD Minimum Maximum Pre-test 1* Movable-do School A 26 4.02 3.16 0 12 School B 25 2.94 1.94 0 8 Total 51 3.49 2.66 0 12 Fixed-do School C 40 2.65 2.01 0 8 School D 35 3.33 3.21 0 13 Total 75 3.05 2.63 0 13 Control School E 26 4.56 3.88 0 15 School F 29 3.10 2.00 0 8 Total 55 3.79 3.27 0 15 Pre-test 2* Movable-do School A 26 2.92 2.00 0 8 School B 25 2.02 2.21 0 9 Total 51 2.48 2.13 0 9 Fixed-do School C 40 2.02 1.86 0 7 School D 35 2.43 3.02 0 14 Total 75 2.19 2.47 0 14 Control School E 26 4.50 4.29 0 14 School F 29 2.31 2.00 0 8 Total 55 3.34 3.42 0 14 Pre-test 1&2** Movable-do School A 26 6.94 4.46 0 14 School B 25 4.96 3.15 0 14 Total 51 5.97 3.97 0 14 Fixed-do School C 40 4.67 2.35 0 9 101

PAGE 102

Table 4-5. Continued Pedagogy n M SD Minimum Maximum School D 35 5.76 4.96 0 25 Total 75 5.24 3.83 0 25 Control School E 26 9.06 7.70 0 29 School F 29 5.41 5.00 0 13 Total 55 7.14 6.07 0 29 Max. = 15, ** Max. = 30 Table 4-6. Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test resu lts for the pre-test scores by school and pedagogy Pedagogy Skewness Kurtosis K-S (Z) K-S p-Value Pre-test 1 Movable-do School A 0.51 0.30 0.10 0.15 School B 0.99 1.10 0.13 0.15 Total 0.86 1.05 0.06 0.15 Fixed-do School C 0.95 0.33 0.10 0.15 School D 1.28 1.51 0.11 0.15 Total 1.41 2.43 0.11 0.04 Control School E 1.13 1.09 0.12 0.15 School F 0.56 -0.92 0.12 0.15 Total 1.24 1.88 0.12 0.04 Pre-test 2 Movable-do School A 0.60 0.27 0.06 0.15 School B 1.54 2.76 0.14 0.15 Total 0.96 0.84 0.08 0.15 Fixed-do School C 0.84 0.07 0.08 0.15 School D 2.09 5.41 0.16 0.03 Total 2.07 6.48 0.12 0.02 102

PAGE 103

Table 4-6. Continued Pedagogy Skewness Kurtosis K-S (Z) K-S p-Value Control School E 0.82 -0.47 0.16 0.08 School F 0.99 1.27 0.07 0.15 Total 1.42 1.60 0.15 0.01 Pre-test 1&2 Movable-do School A 0.82 1.69 0.08 0.15 School B 0.95 1.46 0.12 0.15 Total 1.02 1.99 0.06 0.15 Fixed-do School C -0.12 -0.54 0.07 0.15 School D 1.84 5.42 0.15 0.04 Total 2.07 8.74 0.12 0.01 Control School E 1.06 0.58 0.17 0.05 School F 0.42 -0.54 0.09 0.15 Total 1.59 3.02 0.14 0.01 Table 4-7. Descriptive statisti cs for the distribution of posttest scores by school and pedagogy Pedagogy n M SD Minimum Maximum Post-test 1* Movable-do School A 26 10.31 3.10 3 14 School B 25 7.82 3.51 0 13 Total 51 9.09 3.51 0 14 Fixed-do School C 40 9.27 3.08 3 14.5 School D 35 6.34 3.86 0 15 Total 75 7.94 3.79 0 15 Control School E 26 5.98 4.28 0 15 School F 29 4.28 3.00 1 11 Total 55 5.80 3.57 0 15 103

PAGE 104

Table 4-7. Continued Pedagogy n M SD Minimum Maximum Post-test 2* Movable-do School A 26 9.02 3.18 0 13 School B 25 4.24 3.85 0 13 Total 51 6.68 4.24 0 13 Fixed-do School C 40 6.97 3.36 1 13 School D 35 4.31 3.83 0 14 Total 75 5.83 3.79 0 14 Control School E 26 4.86 3.80 0 15 School F 29 2.45 2.00 0 8 Total 55 3.59 3.16 0 15 Post-test 1&2** Movable-do School A 26 19.33 4.92 3 28 School B 25 12.06 6.70 0 26 Total 51 15.76 6.86 0 28 Fixed-do School C 40 16.31 5.12 5 24 School D 35 10.66 6.80 0 29 Total 75 13.79 6.60 0 29 Control School E 26 10.85 7.28 0 28.5 School F 29 6.72 7.00 2 13 Total 55 8.67 5.91 0 28.5 Max. = 15, ** Max. = 30 104

PAGE 105

Table 4-8. Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results for the post-test scores by school and pedagogy Pedagogy Skewness Kurtosis K-S (Z) K-S p-Value Post-test 1 Movable-do School A -1.08 0.97 0.145 0.15 School B -0.58 -0.17 0.072 0.15 Total -0.74 0.01 0.098 0.15 Fixed-do School C -0.35 -0.83 0.140 0.05 School D 0.33 -0.61 0.085 0.15 Total -0.20 -0.91 0.086 0.15 Control School E 0.71 -0.20 0.101 0.15 School F 0.95 0.35 0.128 0.15 Total 1.06 0.81 0.119 0.05 Post-test 2 Movable-do School A -0.68 1.01 0.065 0.15 School B 0.85 0.18 0.145 0.15 Total -0.08 -1.03 0.066 0.15 Fixed-do School C 0.04 -0.98 0.060 0.15 School D 0.84 0.15 0.084 0.15 Total 0.23 -0.82 0.054 0.15 Control School E 1.31 1.41 0.152 0.12 School F 1.10 1.68 0.108 0.15 Total 1.77 3.72 0.139 0.01 Post-test 1&2 Movable-do School A -1.30 3.92 0.164 0.07 School B 0.13 -0.31 0.056 0.15 Total -0.53 -0.34 0.108 0.14 Fixed-do 105

PAGE 106

Table 4-8. Continued Pedagogy Skewness Kurtosis K-S (Z) K-S p-Value School C -0.68 -0.17 0.118 0.15 School D 0.61 0.23 0.096 0.15 Total -0.22 -0.66 0.097 0.09 Control School E 1.19 0.90 0.216 0.01 School F 0.39 -0.98 0.097 0.15 Total 1.66 3.27 0.157 0.01 Table 4-9 Descriptive statistics for total si ght-singing pre-test and post-test ( N = 181 ) Pre-test Post-test Pedagogy n M* SD M* SD Difference Score Mean**s Movable-do School A 26 6.94 4.46 19.33 4.92 12.39 School B 25 4.96 3.15 12.06 6.70 7.10 Total 51 5.97 3.97 15.76 6.86 9.79 Fixed-do School C 40 4.68 2.35 16.31 5.12 11.63 School D 35 5.76 4.95 10.66 6.80 4.90 Total 75 5.24 3.83 13.72 6.60 8.48 Control School E 26 9.06 7.70 10.85 7.28 1.79 School F 29 5.41 3.40 6.72 3.42 1.31 Total 55 7.14 6.06 8.67 5.90 1.53 *points possible = 30 **Difference Score Meansdifference between post -test score means and pre-test score means 106

PAGE 107

Table 4-10. Descriptive statistics for the distribution of pre-te st pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment Pedagogy N M SD Minimum Maximum Pre-test Pitch Accuracy Movable-do School A 26 5.02 2.84 0 12 School B 25 3.52 2.24 0 9.5 Total 51 4.28 2.65 0 12 Fixed-do School C 40 3.51 1.95 0 7 School D 35 4.07 3.09 0 15 Total 75 3.82 2.56 0 15 Control School E 26 6.00 4.81 0 17 School F 29 3.83 4.00 0 13 Total 55 4.86 3.86 0 17 Pre-test Contour Accuracy Movable-do School A 26 1.92 1.85 0 8 School B 25 1.44 1.32 0 4.5 Total 51 1.69 1.61 0 8 Fixed-do School C 40 1.16 1.03 0 4 School D 35 1.69 2.17 0 10 Total 75 1.42 1.68 0 10 Control School E 26 3.06 3.21 0 12 School F 29 1.59 2.00 0 5 Total 55 2.28 2.49 0 12 107

PAGE 108

Table 4-11 Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results fo r the distribution of pre-test pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment Pedagogy Skewness Kurtosis K-S (Z) K-S p-Value Pre-test Pitch Accuracy Movable-do School A 0.22 0.21 0.04 0.15 School B 0.71 0.75 0.08 0.15 Total 0.51 0.23 0.05 0.15 Fixed-do School C -0.19 -0.50 0.06 0.15 School D 1.33 3.25 0.10 0.15 Total 1.14 3.85 0.09 0.11 Control School E 0.65 -0.12 0.10 0.15 School F 0.07 -0.79 0.05 0.15 Total 1.06 1.44 0.10 0.15 Pre-test Contour Accuracy Movable-do School A 1.47 3.41 0.09 0.15 School B 0.38 -0.71 0.07 0.15 Total 1.31 3.30 0.06 0.15 Fixed-do School C 0.67 0.04 0.06 0.15 School D 2.03 5.21 0.17 0.01 Total 2.36 8.56 0.15 0.01 Control School E 1.34 1.21 0.21 0.01 School F 0.74 0.36 0.05 0.15 Total 1.93 4.29 0.16 0.01 108

PAGE 109

Table 4-12. Descriptive statistics for the distribution of post-te st pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment Pedagogy N M SD Minimum Maximum Post-test Pitch Accuracy Movable-do School A 26 11.54 3.10 0 16 School B 25 7.36 3.82 0 15 Total 51 9.49 4.03 0 16 Fixed-do School C 40 9.33 3.17 3 14 School D 35 6.31 4.34 0 17 Total 75 7.99 4.06 0 17 Control School E 26 7.11 4.34 0 17 School F 29 4.10 4.00 1 7 Total 55 5.53 3.66 0 17 Post-test Contour Accuracy Movable-do School A 26 7.79 2.22 3 13 School B 25 4.70 3.18 0 11 Total 51 6.27 3.12 0 13 Fixed-do School C 40 6.97 2.39 0.5 10.5 School D 35 4.34 2.84 0 12 Total 75 5.81 2.91 0 12 Control School E 26 3.73 3.28 0 12 School F 29 2.62 2.00 0 7 Total 55 3.15 2.58 0 12 109

PAGE 110

Table 4-13. Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results for the distribution of post-test pitch and contour accuracy scores by school and treatment Pedagogy Skewness Kurtosis K-S (Z) K-S p-Value Post-test Pitch Accuracy Movable-do School A -2.16 6.94 0.16 0.10 School B 0.14 -0.17 0.09 0.15 Total -0.67 -0.24 0.11 0.15 Fixed-do School C -0.68 -0.34 0.09 0.15 School D 0.42 -0.21 0.08 0.15 Total -0.29 -0.64 0.08 0.15 Control School E 0.80 0.30 0.16 0.1 School F -0.00 -1.23 0.08 0.15 Total 1.27 2.07 0.13 0.03 Post-test Contour Accuracy Movable-do School A 0.42 0.50 0.08 0.15 School B 0.39 -0.42 0.08 0.15 Total -0.15 -0.32 0.09 0.15 Fixed-do School C -0.66 -0.02 0.09 0.15 School D 0.65 0.38 0.07 0.15 Total -0.16 -0.74 0.06 0.15 Control School E 1.12 0.82 0.14 0.15 School F 0.93 0.78 0.08 0.15 Total 1.53 2.79 0.13 0.04 110

PAGE 111

Table 4-14. MANCOVA for total post-test with SVDM posttest, IMMA tonal subtest, pre-test scores and number of solfege sessions as covariates ( N = 181) Source DF Seq SS MS F p Pedagogy 2 162.59 74.35 4.24 0.016* School (pedagogy) 3 1125.73 245.14 13.98 0.0005** SVDM pre-test 6 721.94 120.32 6.86 0.0005** IMMA raw 1 255.75 3.67 0.21 0.648 Number of sessions 1 2030.79 35.82 2.04 0.155 Total pre-test 1 1054.10 379.20 21.63 0.0005* Error 162 2839.79 17.53 Total 176 8190.69 Note. p < .05; ** p < .001; S = 4.18683; R-Sq = 65.33% Table 4-15. Distribution of scores on sight-singing total pre-te st by the level of SVDM pre-test ( N = 181) Level N M* SD Singer 47 9.31 6.19 Inconsistent Singer 22 5.88 2.89 Initial Range Singer 36 5.72 4.45 Inconsistent Initial Range Singer 17 5.64 2.59 Limited Range Singer 37 4.28 2.66 Inconsistent Limited Range Singer 9 2.50 1.69 Speaking Range Singer 13 2.69 2.24 points possible = 30 Table 4-16. Distribution of scores on sight-singing total post-te st by the level of SVDM post-test ( N = 181) Level N M* SD Singer 61 17.50 5.89 Inconsistent Singer 31 15.33 5.75 Initial Range Singer 26 11.30 4.88 Inconsistent Initial Range Singer 24 8.14 5.34 Limited Range Singer 27 8.37 5.26 Inconsistent Limited Range Singer 5 5.10 2.96 Speaking Range Singer 7 2.28 2.29 *points possible = 30 111

PAGE 112

Table 4-17 Significance level matrix for Tukey a Pairwise Comparisons among pedagogical approaches for total post-test score ( N = 181) Pedagogy Fixed-do Movable-do M 13.79 15.76 Control Group 8.67 0.90 0.99 Fixed-do 13.79 0.01* Note. p < .05 Table 4-18. Regression analysis for total sight-singing score vers us number of solfege sessions, IMMA tonal subtest score, SVDM pre-test score and total pre-test score Predictor Coef SE Coef T p Number of sessions IMMA raw score SVDM pre-test Total pre-test 0.60 -0.07 2.7936 0.54723 0.084 0.091 0.4415 0.09029 7.12 -0.81 6.33 6.06 0.0005** 0.417 0.0001** 0.0005** **p < .001; S = 4.7932; R Sq = 54.3 % 112

PAGE 113

1 2 0 2 4 6 8 10Pre-test Post-testMovable-do Fix-do Control Groups Total Scores Mean Fixed-do Figure 4-1. Difference between pre-test and post-test total scores means. 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 20 15 10 5 0 SVDM post-testMean CG FD MD PedagogyInteraction Plot for Total 1&2 post-testData Means Figure 4-2. Interaction plot for total sight-singing post-test with SVDM post-test. The Y-axis presents mean for total sight-singing post-test The X-axis presents levels of SVDM post-test. 113

PAGE 114

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the ef fect of different peda gogical approaches to solfege instruction on sight-singing achievement in 7and 8-year-old children. Participants included six experienced music teachers and 181 s econd grade students in twelve music classes in a public school system in North Central Flor ida. Each school was randomly assigned a treatment condition with each teach er in that school applying that specific treatment. Four classes from two schools were randomly a ssigned to movable-do groups; these students participated in movable-do solfege instruction. Four classes from two other schools were randomly assigned to fixed-do groups; these students participated in fixed-do solfege instruction. Four classes from the remaining two schools were assigned to be the control group. These students did not receive any solfege instruction; rather, they participat ed in other singing and music reading activities. The solfege instruction was carried out in ten twenty-minute sessions during regular music classes in the spring 2008 school semester. Prior to the instructional treatments, all children were given a battery of assessments. The Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation (IMMA) test was administered to measure tonal ap titude; the Singing Voice Development Measure (SVDM) was given to provide a measure of singing voice development. Two researcherdesigned sight-singing tests provided a measure of sight-singing skill. Instructional procedures to so lfege instruction were standard ized and scripted; lesson plans for every lesson in each experimental condition were provided by the researcher to the teachers. The music teachers who carried out the experimental instructional treatments participated in preservice and in-service training. Following the instructional treatment period, the two sight114

PAGE 115

singing tests and the SVDM were re-administered to assess the treatment effects. The recordings of all sight-singing tests and the SVDM test were randomly prepared for scoring. Three judges, blind to all conditions, independent ly listened to the performances and scored the tests according to a pre-set scoring procedure. Each sight-singing test was rate d by the judges in two dimensions of sight-singing performance: pitc h accuracy and contour accurac y. Results indicated that the movable-do solfege groups had the best im provement. MANCOVA procedures revealed significant ( = .00, p < .001,) variability among the schools within the pedagogical approach, and significant ( = .00, p < .05,) differences among pedagogi cal approaches. Regression procedures revealed that SVDM pre-test scores number of solfege sessi ons, and results on pretest scores, were significant predictors of scores on the sightsinging post-tests ( p < .001). However, tonal aptitude, as measured by IMMA tonal subtests was not a predictor of sightsinging achievement ( p = .41). Conclusions The present findings lead to the following conclusions: Solfege instruction in a general music setti ng was effective in improving the sight-singing ability of 7and 8-year-old students. Pitch accuracy and contour accuracy improved significantly in all experimental classes. The use of movable-do solfege during instruction was more e ffective than that of fixeddo solfege instruction in helping the students learn to sight-sing. Variability between the schools within the peda gogical approach sugge sts that the teacher effect and other uncontrolled fact ors within each individual school were very influential in childrens sigh-singing development. Sight-singing achievement correlated with singing voice development as measured by SVDM. Childrens singing voice development improved after experimental treatment. Tonal aptitude, as measured by the IMMA tonal subtest, wa s not a predictor of sightsinging achievement. 115

PAGE 116

Research Questions The first research question which guided this st udy was: What is the effect of sequential and regular movable-do solfege in struction on childrens sight-sing ing achievement? The results of the study reveal that mova ble-do instruction based on Conve rsational Solfege method was highly beneficial for the students. Ten sessions of solfege instruction significantly improved sight-singing achievement in singing tonal patterns of do, re, mi, and sol, la, mi of 7and 8-yearold children. Their scores increa sed by 9.79 points from the pre-test ( M = 5.97) to the post-test ( M = 15.76). Teachers indicated that children really enjoyed the solfege activities recommended in the Conversational So lfege method and were eager to learn more. The second question was: What is the effect of sequential and regular fixed-do solfege instruction on childrens sight-singing achieveme nt? Fixed-do solfege instruction was also helpful in improving the students sight-singing abilities. The re sults indicate that the sightsinging scores increased by 8.48 points from the pre-test M = 7.14 to the post-test M = 13.72. According to the teachers fee dback, children enjoyed playing th e game This is the sound of middle do, writing music notation, notating short music dictations, and creating new patterns. The third research question was: What is the relationship between the level of singing voice development as measured by the Singing Voice Development Measure (Rutkowski, 1990, 1996) to sight-singing performance? Sight-singi ng achievement was significantly correlated with singing voice development as measured by SVDM ( p < .001). Results indicate that children with higher levels of singing voice developmen t demonstrated better results on sight-singing tests. For example, the mean score for children identified as Singers was M = 17.5 on the posttest versus M = 2.28 for children identified as Speaking Range Singers. It is important to note that childrens singing voice development impr oved after experimental treatment in both movable-do and fixed-do groups. During the experimental treatmen ts, children were involved in 116

PAGE 117

approximately 20 minutes of singing activities. These results corroborate other research findings (Rutkowski, 1996; Rutkowski & M iller, 2003) that suggest that small-group singing activities contribute to children's acquisition of the use of singing voice. The final research question was: What is the relationship between sight-singing achievement, tonal aptitude, and the number of solfege sessions? Tonal aptitude, as measured by the IMMA tonal subtest, was not a predictor of sight-singing achie vement. However, the results indicate that the number of so lfege sessions influenced the scores on sight-singing tests. Children who attended all solfege sessions typically demonstrated better sight-singing achievement than the children who had missed some lessons. Discussion Even though the groups which used the movabl e-do solfege approach had the highest gain in sight-singing achievement, the researcher believes that no system can explicitly be regarded as the most effective approach in teaching sight-sin ging to 7and 8-year-old children. The studys findings reveal that effectiv e sight-singing pedagogy may have more to do with the school context and teachers and childrens previous musical experience than with the sight-singing system itself. In other words, the process and th e teacher appear to be more influential than the tool (sight-singing pedagogical approach). Ev en though teachers had the same lesson plans, and the same class size, and their classes met at approximately the same time (around10-12 a.m.), the variability among the schools was highly significant ( = .00, p < .001,). This outcome supports Justus (1974) statement: It matters little which method one chooses, the real importance lies in the instructors confidence in his plan, his diligence in applyi ng it, and his trust in his students ultimate ability to achieve succes s. Know what you want to do or ganize for it. work hard at it. and things will happen which w ill amaze both you and your singers (p. 10). 117

PAGE 118

It appears that the teaching method is impor tant, but school contex t, students musical background, and the teachers know ledge, skills, enthusiasm, and organizational skills are as crucial. A number of unexpected difficulties influenced th e duration of this experimental treatment. The waiting period for obtaining the permission of the IRB, the school district, and the school principals, and the consent of the parents/ guardians, was approximately two months. Administration of the testing pro cedures took a longer time than expected. Most of the teachers expressed interest to continue the study in the following fall 2008 semester; however, unexpected budget cuts forced the school district to eliminate half of the instructional time/load allocated for music. Most of the teachers who participated in the study were either forced to change schools, or, in some cases, career paths. As a result of the budget cuts, this research study had to be discontinued at the end of spring 2008. After the completion of the instructional tr eatment and data collection for the study, the researcher met with each of the t eachers who carried out the solfeg e instruction in order to solicit comments about the instructional treatments and recommendations for future research All teachers stated that the children in their classes were excited to learn solfege. The teachers thought the pitches of do, re, and mi and sol, la, and mi were appropriate for instruction of second graders. Teachers also thought that 20mi nutes of solfege instruction was appropriate and manageable for children at this grade level. The teachers who carried out the movable-do solfege instruction indicated that the children really enjoyed playing decoding games, creating new patterns and writi ng tonal patterns. The favorite activities of child ren in fixed-do groups were writing music notation, playing the game This is the sound of middle do, and creating patterns. Af ter evaluating the results, 118

PAGE 119

the researcher observed that while many children in fixed-do expe rimental groups were able to name the syllables correctly, they were unable to sing the correct pitches. While the main goal of solfege instruction is to de velop audiation, i.e., the ability to internally hear the notation patterns, it is important to note that even t hough some children were unable to sing pitches and counters correctly, they were able to recognize the notes. This is a skill that could possibly benefit them in future instrumental study. The researcher believes that introducing the pedagogy of teac hing solfege in music teacher training programs is necessary. As indicated in several research studies (McClung, 1996; Smith, 1998; Verrastro & Leglar, 1992), some teacher preparation programs fail to provide music education majors with the necessary and appr opriate methods and sequences to teach sightsinging effectively. In teacher preparation progr ams, we need to emphasize the importance of teaching music literacy skills and to teach sight-singing methodology which can be easily implemented in the general music classroom. Th e researcher has been incorporating solfege pedagogy in her undergraduate courses, which ha s resulted in the students consistent implementation of solfege instruction in their lesson plans, field study experiences, and student teaching. Implications for Music Education Music education professionals continually strive to improve their teaching methods and elevate the music and academic achievement of th eir students. Previous research studies have documented the need to improve sight-singing sk ills among children in all grades. Researchers have examined various aspects of teaching and learning sight-singing in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of instructional prac tices. Accordingly, the researcher specifically investigated the effect of pedagogical approach on the developmen t of sight-singing achievement of second grade children. The results revealed that the overall improveme nt in sight-singing was 119

PAGE 120

considerable for all groups, with significantly greater im provement for students in the experimental groups, indicating that the solfeg e instruction improved second grade students sight-singing performance in a general music setting. Even though this study was limited to only ten so lfege sessions, the pi tch accuracy and the contour accuracy in singing tonal patterns of the pitches of do, re, mi and sol, la, mi improved significantly in all experimental schools as well childrens singing voice development. Based on the results of the study and reflections of par ticipating teachers, the Conversational Solfege method proved to be a very effective method for teaching sight-singing at the elementary school level. The researcher recommends for teachers explore, learn, and implement Conversational Solfege during their regular music classes. The re searcher further believes that the systematic, regular, and consistent usage of solfege instruction will greatly help to build music programs that enables students to become independent musical thinkers who can hear, understand, read, write, compose, and improvise. Zoltan Kodly (1974) wrote: "Often a single experience will open th e young soul to music for a whole lifetime. This experience cannot be le ft to chance. It is the duty of the school to provide it (p.120). Music classes in elementary school s should engage children in music activities that nurture th e love and understanding of music. When children grow up, most of them will become consumers of music at some le vel; hopefully, some of them will continue to be active music-makers. The ability to read mu sic will help students to acquire musical independence in many different ways. The ability to sight-sing will enable students to produce music with the most natural instrument, their voice, and will help them to become musically literate in the true sense of the word. 120

PAGE 121

Feierabend (1997) indicated that tr ue music literacy is when so meone is able to hear what is seen and see what is heard. If teachers provide students w ith sequential and regular sightsinging experiences throughout their elementary years, most students will develop these music literacy competencies to a reason able degree and possibly continue their participation in music. The national standards for music education prom ote the goal of teaching students how to sing and read music notation. School music classes the only place where most children will have the opportunity to develop these skills Music teachers need to keep in mind that by teaching sightsinging and music reading skills in their classrooms, they plant the seeds for their students lifelong involvement with music. Recommendations For Teachers To extend the findings of the present study, th e researcher believes that the following recommendations should be considered. Prior to learning music reading and sight-singi ng, children need to develop a variety of basic music skills, including: (a) the ability to match pitch; (b) aural perception (ability to hear same or different sounds or patterns); (c) singing voice developed at the level of Limited Range Singer or higher (according to the Singing Voice Development M easure) ;and (d) sufficient repertoire of folk songs and singing games. An organized, sequential and developmentally appropriate curriculum is needed. A systematic structure, regular and consistent usag e, and developmentally a ppropriate materials are crucial in the development of sight-singing skills. Developmen t of music reading and sight singing skills is a multi-level and lengthy process. Starting with second grade students, teachers should dedicate at least 10-15 minutes of each music lesson to solfege instruction. This would help students to become rather proficient si ght readers by the time they enter middle school. 121

PAGE 122

A sound before symbol approach, or, in anot her words, learning to understand music by ear before learning to read and write music, shoul d be emphasized in teaching sight-singing and music reading. Students need to have a vari ety of musical experi ences and intuitively comprehend musical sounds first, and then link this knowledge to an understanding of musical symbols. As many educators recommend, students should have multiple aural experiences with music before notation is introduced. The fixeddo approach requires vi sual reinforcement and theoretical training from the begi nning; however, it also requires a variety of experiences with music before the introduction of symbols. Visual and kinesthetic reinforcement is n ecessary in every music lesson. Every lesson should include a variety of music activities, including singing, m oving, listening, reading, writing, and composing, thus providing a multi-se nsory approach to music instruction. Inclusion of acapella singing (singing wit hout accompaniment) is highly recommended. The teacher, not the piano or CD, should be the vocal model for the children. For Researchers Most elementary classroom teachers seem to make pedagogical decisions about which sight-singing method to use with little empi rical evidence; they ar e often guided by their previous training and/or personal preference. This study offers a starting platform and provides useful, practical information rega rding fixedvs. movable-do. Th e fact that the experimental treatment was only for 10 sessions limits the strength of the findings to some extent. A longitudinal study investigating th e best sight-singing pedagogy fo r elementary age children is necessary. The results of this study indicate a high variabilit y between the schools within the pedagogical approach which show th at teacher characteri stic did affect the results of the study. To control for the teacher effect it is suggested using the same teacher for experimental groups One and Two, to teach both movable-do and fixed-do solfege. 122

PAGE 123

The sight-singing instruction and the tests in the current study included only five pitches: do, re, mi, fa, sol, and la. Studies which include more pitches in different keys in sight-singing patterns and exercises are needed. The results also revealed that movable-do so lfege instruction base d on the Conversational Solfege method resulted in better sight-singing achievement. However, it is not significant enough to recommend the exclusive us e of that method. More resear ch is needed to clarify the best sight-singing pedagogy for elementary schoo l children. A year-long study about the effect of Conversational Solfege method on sight-s inging ability is recommended for future investigations. It would be beneficial to test the progress of childrens sight-singing development as they advance through each of the 12 steps of that approach. The Conversational Solfege sequence begins with do, re, mi patterns; however, Kodlys sequence starts with sol-mi patterns. Thus, future research might attempt to discover which sequence is more effective in terms of childrens musical development. The development of other skills as a result of solfege instruction can also be the focus of future investigations. For example, what are the effects of solf ege instruction on the development of the students verbal association and verbal generaliz ation skills? It practical to study how different types of music activities benefit the developmen t of sight-singing skills. For example, how does writing music notation or/and dictation reinforce st udents aquisition of sight-singing skill? During the fixed-do solfege instruction in th e present study, children learned basic music theory. The question is: How much exposure to theoretical foundations is necessary for successful development of sight-singing skills, an d to what extent? Al so, how effective are 123

PAGE 124

fixed-do solfege games such as This is th e sound of middle do in developing pitch reinforcement and pitch memory? The assessment of sight-singing instruction of elementary children can be another subject for investigation. The researcher admits that more patterns should be presented to the children so as to ensure more accurate results. The use of combinations of familiar patterns (the ones that were practiced in class) and unfamiliar patterns (those that they never practiced) could be beneficial to validate the results of the study. During the sight-singing te sts in this study, the children may have recognized some of the patte rns that were practiced in class and possibly recalled the sounds of those pa tterns by using long-term memo ry. In these instances, the children may not have been sight-singing in the st rictest sense of the term Investigation of the optimal length and number of tonal patterns fo r sight-singing assessment can be another theme for investigation. The Conversational Solfege method is based on the movable-do approach of teaching sight-singing in elementary school level. To date, there is no American adaptation of the fixed-do solfege method for elementary sc hool; therefore, ther e is an opportunity for educators and researchers to develop a fixed-do sequential met hod for teaching sight-singing at the elementary level. Future researchers need to continue to ex amine different instructional approaches and practices for teaching music literacy skills in elementary general music classroom. The vital goal of this research is to have more student s benefit from sight-singing pedagogy, and to help them to reach higher levels ofmusical understanding and enjoyment. 124

PAGE 125

APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 125

PAGE 126

APPENDIX B PARENTAL CONSENT 126

PAGE 127

APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF MOVABLE-DO SOLFEGE LESSON (Adapted from Conversational Solfege by John Feierebend) Lesson 2 Rote Solfege Activities (Duration -20 minutes) Objective Introduce the tonal patterns by ro te with solfege syllables. De velop the bond of tonal patterns with aural labels. 1. Echo This Pattern Teacher sings tonal patterns with neutral syllable loo Tonal patterns include different combinations of do, re and mi. Students repeat each tonal pattern with the same neutral syllable. 2. Echo Me Teacher sings tonal patterns with solf ege syllables (all 24 combinations of do, re and mi ). Students repeat each tonal pattern with solfege syllables. 3. The Missing Link Teacher sings a pattern of do, re and mi with solfege syllable for the class to inner hear and memorize. Teacher sings the pattern ag ain, leaving out one tone. Students are asked to sing the tone that was left out. Do the same exercise with other pattern s. If the children sing the wrong tone, repeat the pattern again. 4. Decoding Game. a. Teacher sings four tonal patterns with solfege, students echo it. b. Fifth tonal pattern teacher sings on neutral syll able loo, students are expected to decode it and sing with correct solfege syllables. c. If the students have trouble decoding it, teacher helps them. Repeat this game with all 24 patterns. 5. Human Piano Divide the class into groups. Assign each group a pitch do or re or mi Ask each group to sing the assigned t one when they are pointed to. Play familiar patterns and C loset Key song on human piano. 127

PAGE 128

APPENDIX D SAMPLE OF FIXED-DO SOLFEGE LESSON Lesson 2 ( Duration minutes) Objective Reinforce the recognition and pitch matching ability of note do. Introduce notes writing techniques: notes on line and in sp aces. Introduce tonal pattern of do, re and mi aurally and visually. Procedures: 1. Teacher emphasizes that note do is a musical note so it has particular sound. Teacher sings the song This is a sound of middle do. Children join singing This is the sound of middle do. 2. Game Is this a sound of note do ? Teacher sings different notes and asks children to recognize if this is a sound of do. If not, children say no and show with their hand if it is lower then do or higher then do. 3. Teacher shows how to draw a note do on a ledger line on the boar d. Teacher sings This is the sound of middle do while pointing at the note on the board. Children join in singing that song. 4. Teacher introduces a friendly neighbor note re, which lives under the music staff and a step above do. 5. Teacher emphasizes that because re lives one step above the do, so the sound of re will be one step higher then do. Teacher sings the sound of re and asks children to try to match it. 6. Teacher draw the patterns of do, re, do; do, do, re; do, re, re; re, do, do; re, do, re; re, re, do. 7. Teacher sings these tonal patterns while po inting at each note on the board. Children echo teacher as teacher continue to point at each note on the board. 8. Human Piano a. Divide the class into groups. b. Assign each group a pitch do or re c. Ask each group to sing the assigned tone when they are pointed to 9. Teacher gives students plastic boards and asks to write note do on the ledger line. 10. Teacher explains how to write note re. Students write the note re on their plastic boards. 11. Teacher sings tonal pattern of do, re, do; do, do, re; do, re, re; re, do, do; re, do, re; re, re, do and asks students to wr ite it on their boards. 128

PAGE 129

APPENDIX E TONAL PATTERNS FOR SIGHT-SINGING TESTS Test 1 do, do, re re, re, do mi, mi, do do, re, do re, do re mi, do, mi do, re, re re, re, mi mi, mi, re do, do, mi re, mi, re mi, re, mi do, mi, do re, do, do mi, do, do do, mi, mi re, mi, mi mi, re, re do, re, mi re, do, mi mi, do, re do, mi, re re, re, do mi, mi, do Test 2 mi, mi, sol sol, sol, mi la, la, mi mi, sol, mi sol, mi, sol la, mi, sol mi, sol, sol sol, sol, la la, la, sol mi, mi, la sol, la, sol la, sol, la mi, la, mi sol, mi, mi la, mi, mi mi, la, la sol, la, la la, sol, sol mi, sol, la sol, mi, la la, mi, sol mi, la, sol sol, la, mi la, sol, mi 129

PAGE 130

APPENDIX F TESTING SCRIPT Pre-test Testing Script I WANT TO SEE HOW WELL SECOND GRADE STUDENTS INSCHOOL CAN LEARN HOW TO READ MUSIC NOTES AND SING THEM CORRECTLY. TODAY I BROUGH YOU SPECIAL FLASHCARDS WITH MUSIC NOTES. (Show the stack of the patterns) LOOK AT THIS PATTERN ON FLASHCARD! [Show the first pattern from the stack] I AM GOING TO SING THIS PATTERN FO R YOU AND SHOW YOU THE NOTES I AM SINGING ON THE MUSIC STAFF. [Sing the pattern with syllable loo and point on each note] AFTER I SING THE PATTERN I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SING IT BACK TO ME WITH THE SAME PITCHES AS YOU LOOK AT THE MUSIC STAFF. [Show the same pattern to the child. As the student sing point to each note.] NOW LETS PRACTICE SINGI NG OTHER PATTERN. FI RST TRY TO PRACTICE MATCHING YOUR VOICE TO TH E SOUND OF THE FIRST NOTE. [Researcher sing the first note, child echo it] NOW LISTEN HOW I SING THE PATTE RN, THEN YOU TRY TO SING IT. [Show another pattern; sing it and poin t to each note in the pattern. YOU TRY IT. Point to each note again as the student sings. NOW YOU ARE READY TO TRY SOME ON YOUR OWN. [Proceed with three more patterns in ra ndom order, except practice patterns.] 130

PAGE 131

APPENDIX G SCORING SHEET FOR SIGHT-SINGING TEST Child # Pattern # Notes on the Pattern Pitch Accuracy (Max. 3) Counter (Max. 2) Total Score (Max. 5) Pattern 1 mdd 1 Pattern 2 mrd Pattern 3 rrd Pattern 1 rmd 2 Pattern 2 rmm Pattern 3 dmm Pattern 1 mrr 3 Pattern 2 mrm Pattern 3 drm Pattern 1 rmr 4 Pattern 2 rdm Pattern 3 rdr Pattern 1 rrm 5 Pattern 2 drm Pattern 3 drd Pattern 1 mrr 6 Pattern 2 drr Pattern 3 drm Pattern 1 mdr 7 Pattern 2 mdd Pattern 3 mmd Pattern 1 mmd 8 Pattern 2 drd Pattern 3 dmr Pattern 1 mdr 9 Pattern 2 ddr Pattern 3 ddm Pattern 1 mrr 10 Pattern 2 mrm Pattern 3 drm Pattern 1 mrd 11 Pattern 2 rrd Pattern 3 mmd Pattern 1 mmd 12 Pattern 2 mrd Pattern 3 mdd Pattern 1 mdr 13 Pattern 2 mdd Pattern 3 mmd Pattern 1 mmd 14 Pattern 2 drd Pattern 3 dmr 131

PAGE 132

REFERENCES Abramson, R., Choksy, L., Gillesp ie, A., & Woods, D. (1986). Teaching music in the twentieth century. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Adler, S. (1997). Sight singing pitch interval rhythm (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school learning. New York: Grune and Stratton. Autry, M. R. (1976). A study of the effect of hand signs in the devel opment of sight singing skills. Unpublished doctoral dissert ation, University of Texas, 1976. Belmondo, D. J. (1986). A study of the effectiveness of partial synthesis as a readiness for tonal music reading (Doctoral dissert ation, Temple University, Pe nnsylvania, 1986). Retrieved July 7, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 8627427). Bentley, A. (1959). Fixed or movable do? Journal of Research in Music education, 7 (2), 164168. Bergonzi, L. S. (1991). Effect of finger placement markers and harmonic context on the development of intonation performance sk ills and other aspects of the musical achievement of 6-th grade beginning string students (Doctoral dissert ation, University of Michigan, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (10A), 3551. Bernhard, H. C. (2003). The effects of tonal trai ning on the melodic ear pl aying and sight reading achievement of beginning wind instrumenta list (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (06), 2015. Birge, E. B. (1928). History of public school music in the United States Boston: Oliver Ditson Company. Bluestine, E. M. (2000). The ways children learn music: An introduction and practical guide to music learning theory Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc. Bluestine, E. M. (2007). A compar ative study of four approaches to teaching tonal music reading to a select group of students in third, fourth, and fifth grade (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Pennsylvania, 2007). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database (Publication No. AAT 3268133). Bobbitt, R. (1970). The developm ent of music reading skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18 143-156. Bolden, J. I. J. (1967). The influence of selected factors in growth in sight singing and rhythmic reading (Doctoral dissertation, Mi chigan State University, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International 20(06A), 2278. 132

PAGE 133

Bozone, J. M. (1986). The use of sight singing as a prestudy aid for the improvement of the sight-reading skills of second-semester class piano student s (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1986). Retrieved J une 17, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Pub lication No. AAT 8625526). Bridges, D. (1982). Fixed and movabl e doh in historical perspective. The Australian Journal of Music Education, 30 11-15. Brophy T. S. (2000). Assessing the developing child musician: A guide for general music teachers. Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc. Brown, K. D. (2001). Effects of fixed and mova ble sightsinging systems on undergraduate music students' ability to perform diatonic, modul atory, chromatic, and atonal melodic passages (Doctoral dissertation, Univ ersity of Oregon, 2001). Retr ieved September 6, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations da tabase. (Publication No. AAT 3035562). Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education New York: Vintage. Buchanan, W. (1946). Comparison of fixed and movable solfge in teaching sight singing from the staff (Doctoral dissertati on, University of Michigan, 1946). Retrieved September 6, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 0002027). Byo, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers and music specialists perceived ab ility to implement the national standards fo r music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47 (2), 111-123. Campbell, P. S. (1991). Lessons from the world: A cross-cu ltural guide to music teaching and learning. New York: Schirmer Books. Campbell, P. S., & Scott-Kassner, C. (2006). Music in childhood: From preschool through the elementary grades (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cassidy, J. W. (1993). Effects of various sight singing strategies on nonmusic majors pitch accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41 (4), 293-302. Collins, I. H. H. (1979). Current attitudes and tr ends in the teaching of sight singing in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Pennsylvania, 1979). Retrieved September 7, 2008, from Dissertations & Thes es: Full Text databa se. (Publication No. AAT 7924034). Collins, D. L. (1993). Teaching choral music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Collins, D.L. (1999). Teaching choral music (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Consortium of National Arts E ducation Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education : What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. 133

PAGE 134

Constanza, A.P., & Russell, T. (1992). Methodologies in music education In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. (pp. 498-508). New York: Schirmer Books. Cousins, S. B., & Persellin, D. C. (1999). The e ffect of Curwen hand signs on vocal accuracy of young children. Texas Music Education Research 17-20. Damrosch, F. (1894). Popular method of sight-singing New York: G. Schirmer, Inc. Daniels, R. D. (1986). Relationshi ps among selected factors and the sight-reading ability of high school mixed choirs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34 279-289. Daniels, R. D. (1988). Sight -reading instruction in the choral rehearsal. Update: The Applications of Research in Music Education, 6 (2), 22-24. Dell, C. E. (2003). Singing and tonal pattern in struction effects on beginning string students' intonation skills (Doctoral dissertation, Univ ersity of South Carolina, 2003). Retrieved August 22, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations data base. (Publication No. AAT 3084778). Demorest, S. M. (2001). Building choral excellence: Teac hing sight-singing in the choral rehearsal New York: Oxford. Demorest, S. M. (2004). Chor al sight-singing practices: re visiting a Web-based survey. International Journal of Rese arch in Choral Singing, 2 (1), 3-10. Demorest, S. M., & May, W. V. (1995). Sight-sin ging instruction in the choral ensemble: Factors related to individual performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43 (2), 156167. Elliot, D.J. (1995). Music Matters. A new Philosophy of Music Education New York: Oxford University Press. Feierabend, J. (1997). Developing music literacy : An aural approach for an aural art. Early Childhood Connections 3 (4), 33-38. Feierabend, J. (2001). Conversational Solfege. Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc. Frolova, Yu. (2006). Solfeggio Podgotovitelny Class (7th ed.). Rostov-na-Donu: Fenix. Furby, V. J. (2008). Process and product: The si ght-singing backgrounds a nd behaviors of firstyear undergraduate students (D octoral dissert ation, The Ohio State University, Ohio). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from Disserta tions & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3312962). G*Power 3. (2001). Available at: http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf .de/aap/projects/gpower/ (Last accessed, October 10, 2007). 134

PAGE 135

Gagne, R. (1977). The conditions of learning New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wiston. Gamble, D. K. (1989). A study of the effect of tw o types of tonal patter ns instruction on the audiational and performance skills of firstyear clarinet students (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, PA). Dissertation Abstract International, 50 (04), 893. Giles, M. M. (1991). Choral reading built on the basics. Music Educators Journal, 77 (6), 26-29. Gordon, E.E. (1970). Iowa tests of music literacy Iowa city, IA: The bureau of educational research and service. Gordon, E. E. (1982). Intermediate measures of music audiation Chicago: G.I.A. Publications, Inc. Gordon, E. E. (1986). Manual for the Primary measure of music audiation and the intermediate measures of music auditaion music aptitude tests for kindergarten and first, second, third, and fourth grade children. Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc. Gordon, E. E. (2004). The aural/visual experience of music literacy Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc. Gordon, E. E. (2007). Learning sequences in music: A contemporary music learning theory Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc. Gordon, E. E. (2007). Advanced measures of music audiation Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc. Grutzmacher, P. A. (1985). The effect of tonal pattern training on the au ral perception, reading recognition and melodic sight. Reading, achieve ment of first year instrumental music students (Doctoral dissertati on, Kent State University, Oh io, 1985). Retrieved August 22, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 8514172). Henry, M. L., & Demorest, S. M. (1994). Individual sight-singing achievement in successful choral ensembles: A preliminary study. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 13 (1), 4-8. Hoffer, C. R. (2001). Teaching music in the secondary schools (5th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Hornbach, C.M., & Taggart, C.C. (2005). The re lationship between developmental tonal aptitude and singing achievement among ki ndergarten, first-, second-, and third-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53 (4), 322-331. Houlahan, M., & Tacka, P. (1992). The Americaniza tion of solmization: A response to the article by Timothy A. Smith, A comparison of peda gogical resources in solmization system. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 6 137-151. 135

PAGE 136

Hughes, A. & Gerson-Kiwi, E. (2001). Solmization. In grove music online Oxford Music Online, www.oxfordmusiconline.com.lp.hscl.uf l.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/ 26154 (Last accessed March, 1, 2008). Hutton, D. (1953). A comparative study of two met hods of teaching sight singing in the fourth grade. Journal of Research in Music Education, 1 119-126. Jarjisian, C. (1981). The effects of pentatonic and/or diatonic pitch pa ttern instru ction on the rote-singing achievement of young children (D octoral dissertation, Temple University, Pennsylvania, 1981). Retrieved January, 2, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 8124581). Johnson, G. B. (1987). A descriptive study of the pitch-reading methods a nd the amount of time utilized to teach sight-singi ng by high school choral teacher s in the North Central region of the American choral directors associati on (Master.Ed. dissertati on, The University of Nebraska, 1987). Retrieved September, 6, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 1331350). Justus, L. D. (1974). Who says your singers cant so-fa? Choral Journal, 14 (9), 9-13. Killian, J. N., & Henry, M. L. (2005). A comparis on of successful and unsuccessful strategies in individual sightsinging prep aration and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53 51-65. Klemish, J. J. (1971). First graders can read! Music Journal, 29 (7), 56. Kodly, Z. (1954). 55 Two-part exercises New York: Boosey and Hawkes. Kodly, Z. (1974). "Music in the kindergarten", The selected writings of Zoltn Kodly London: Boosey and Hawkes, Kyme, G. H. (1960). An experiment in teachi ng children to read music with shape notes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 8 3-8. Labuta, J. A., & Smith, D. A. (1997). Music education: Historic al contexts and perspectives Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Larson, S. (1993). The value of cognitive models in evaluating solfege systems. Indiana Theory Review, 14 73-116. Levinowitz, L. M., Barnes, P., Guerrini, S., Cl ement, M., D'April, P., & Morey, M.J. (1998). Measuring singing voice development in th e elementary general music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46 (1), 35-47. Macknight, C. B. (1973). The development and ev aluation of tonal pattern instruction in music reading for beginning wind instrumentalist (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1973). Retrieved November, 18, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No AAT 7314655). 136

PAGE 137

Mark, M. L. (1996). Contemporary music education (3rd ed.). New York: Schirmer. Mark, M. L., & Gary, C. L. (2007). A history of Americ an music education (3rd ed.). Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plym outh, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Martin, B. A. (1987). The effect of hand signs, ve rbal tonal syllables, and letter representations of tonal syllables on the verb al and symbolic acquisition of tonal skills by first-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, The Univ ersity of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, 1987). Retrieved November, 18, 2008, from Dissert ations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 8711585). May, J. A. (1993). A description of current practices in the teachi ng of choral melody reading in the high schools of Texas (Doctoral dissert ation, University of Houston, Texas, 1993). Retrieved September, 6, 2007, from ProQuest Di gital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 9320311). McClung, C. (1996). A descriptive study of learni ng assessment and grading practices in the high school choral music performance classr oom (Doctoral dissert ation, Florida State University, Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (08A), AAG9700217. McClung, A. C. (2001). Sight-singing systems: current practice and survey of all-state choristers Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20 (1), 3-8. McPherson, G. E., & Parncutt, R. (2002). The science and psychology of music performance: creative strategies for teaching and learning Oxford: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E., & Gabrielss on, A. (2002). From sound to sign. In R. Parncutt and G. E. McPherson (Eds.). The science and psychology of music performance New York: Oxford University Press, 99-115 Metalidi, J., & Petcovskaya, A. (2003). Solfeggio dlya 1 classa detskoy muzykalnoy shkoly (2nd ed.). Saint-Petersburg: Ko mpozitor-Saint-Petersburg. Miller, S. D. (1980). Literacy for the begi nning and intermediate high school choir. Choral Journal, 20 (7), 11-14. Mursell, J. L. (1956). Music education principles and problem. New York: Silver Burdett Company. Mursell J. L., & Glenn, M. (1931). The psychology of school music teaching New York: Silver Burdett and Company. Music Educators National Conf erence. (1994). What every young Am erican should know and be able to do in the arts? National standards for arts education Reston, VA: MENC. National Assessment of Edu cational Progress. (1999). The NAEP 1997 arts report card National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. 137

PAGE 138

Ozeas, N. L. (1991). The effect of the use of a computer assisted drill program on the aural skill development of students in beginning solf ege (Doctoral disserta tion, University of Pittsburgh, PA, 1991). Parker R. C. (1979). The relative effectiveness of the TAP system in instruction in sight singing: An experimental study (Doctoral dissertati on, University of Miami, Florida, 1979). Retrieved February, 7, 2009, from Dissert ations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 8014160). Peddell, K. A. (2005). Activities in elementary general music classrooms: Current practices in Pennsylvania (Doctoral dissertation, Univ ersity of Minnesota, Minnesota, 2005). Retrieved January 8, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3198132). Pembrook, R. G., & Riggins, H. L. (1990). Send help! Aural skills instruc tion in U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4 231-241. Petzold, R. G. (1960). The perception of music sy mbol in music reading by normal children and by children gifted musically. Journal of Experimental Education, 28 471-319. Petzold, R. G. (1963). The development of audito ry perception of musical sounds by children in the first six grades. Journal of Research in Music Education, 11 (1), 21-43. Phillips, K.H. (1996). Teaching kids to sing. New York: Schirmer Books. Phillips, K. H. (1984). Sight singing: Where have we been? Where are we going? The Choral Journal, 24, 11-17. Reifinger, J. L. Jr. (2007). The effect of in struction with song-relate d tonal patterns on second graders' pitch reading accuracy (Doctoral dissertation, Indian a University, Indiana, 2007). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from Disserta tions & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3284315). Richardson, H. V. (1971). An experimental study utilizing two procedures for teaching music reading to children in second grade (Doctoral dissertation, The Univ ersity of Wisconsin, 1971). Dissertation Abstract International, 32 3354A. Rutkowski, J. (1990). The measurement and eval uation of children's singing voice development. The Quarterly: Center for Research in Music Learning and Teaching, 1 (1-2), 81-95. Rutkowski, J. (1996). The effectiveness of individual/small-group singing activities on kindergartners' use of singing voice and developmental music aptitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44 (4), 353-368. Rutkowski, J. (1998). Validation of the "Singer Accuracy Measure" Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Music Educator s National Conference, Phoenix, AZ. 138

PAGE 139

Rutkowski, J. (2003). The effectiveness of fre quency of instruction a nd individual/small-group singing activities on first graders use of singing voice and developmental music aptitude. Contributions to Music Education, 30 (1), 23-38. Rutkowski, J., & Miller, M. S. (2003). A longitu dinal study of elementary children's acquisition of their singing voices. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 22 (1), 510. Scott T. B. (1996). The constructi on of a holistic, criterion-refere nced sight-singing test for high school sopranos based on the voluntary nati onal standards for musi c education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois--Urban a-Champaign, 1996). Retrieved September, 8, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 9712431). Siler, H. (1956). Toward an international solfeggio. Journal of Research in Music Education, 4 (1), 40-43. Smith M. (1934). Solfege: An essential in musicianship. Music Supervisors' Journal, 20 (5), 1661. Smith, S. A. (1998). Sight singing in the high school choral rehearsa l: Pedagogical practices, teacher attitudes and university preparation (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, Florida, 1998). Retrieved July, 7, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 9839776). Smith T. A. (1987). Solmization: A tonic for healthy musicianship. Choral Journal, 28, 16. Smith, T. A. (1991). A comparison of pedagogi cal resources in solmization systems. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 5 (1), 1-24. Smith, T. A. (1992). Liberation of solmization: Searching for commonground. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 6, 153-168. Szabo C. E. (1992). A profile of ten high school choral directors and their activities during one week (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State Un iversity, Ohio, 1992). Retrieved February, 7, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 9300377). Taggart C. C., & Taggart B. F. (1994). Sightsinging systems: A su rvey of American colleges and universities. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 6 194-209. Thompson, C. D. (1942). Sterrie A. Weaver: His life and co ntribution to music education Unpublished master thesis, Ea stman School of Music, NY. Vande Wege, R. M. (2005). The effect of t onal pattern instructi on on the singing voice development of first grade students (Master Mu s. dissertation, Michig an State University, Michigan, 2005). Retrieved August, 22, 2007, fr om Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 1428985). 139

PAGE 140

Verrastro, R. E., & Leglar, M. (1992). Music teacher education. In Colwell R., Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 676-96). New York: Schirmer Books. Von Kampen, K. E. (2003). An examination of f actors influencing Nebras ka high school choral directors' decisions to use sight-singing inst ruction (Doctora l dissertation, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2003). Retr ieved July, 7, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3102578). Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Walker, R. (1981). Teaching basic musical conc epts and their staff notations through crossmodal matching symbols. Psychology of Music, 9 31-38. Yarbrough, C., Green, G., Benson, W., & Bowers, J. (1991). Inaccurate singers: an exploratory study of variables affecting pitch-matching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 32 107. 140

PAGE 141

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alena Holmes is an Assistant Professor a nd Coordinator of Music Education at the University of WisconsinWhitewater, where she is teaching music educa tion courses including Early Childhood, Elementary and Middle School Music Methods, Pedagogy and Practice for Teaching General Music K-12 and Music as a World Phenomenon and supervising Students Teacher and Field Study. Originally from Belarus, Ms. Holmes earned a bachelors degree in music education from Belarusian State Pedagogical University, a Mast er of Education degree from the University of Oklahoma and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Florida. Alena Holmes started her career in her native country where she taught elementa ry classroom music, solfege, and piano skills, worked as a musician and singe r with popular bands and concert organizations, and had numerous appearances on popular Belarusian TV and radio shows. She then worked as a singer, musician, and teacher in China, Bahrain, and Italy. During her studies at the Univer sity of Florida Ms. Holmes taught courses Music in the Elementary Classroom and Fundamentals in Arts and Humanities. At the same time, she taught in the Florida public schools and ran her own inn ovative piano/solfege studio. Her instruction at the University of Florida landed her 2006 David Wilmot Prize for Excellence in Music Education. In 1993, while she was a student t eacher at the Belarusian State Pedagogical University in Minsk, Belarus, she was aw arded the Best Music Teachers Award. Ms. Holmes is increasingly active in presenti ng research papers and conducting workshops at music education conferences. She has pres ented at the International Society for Music Education Conference in Malays ia and Italy, Hawaii Interna tional conference on Arts and Humanities, Regional and National conferences of College Music Society, 18th International Kodly Symposium, First and Second Sym posiums on Assessment in Music Education, 141

PAGE 142

142 American Orff-Schulwerk National Conference, National Conference of Organization of American Kodly Educators and American Educational Research Associ ation. Her research interests include the impact of solfege instru ction on musical development of children, music education in Russia and Belarus, music education for general teachers, and the effect of music on second language acquisition.