The Way We Do the Things We Do: A Survey of Middle-School Choral Educators' Sight-Singing Attitudes and Influences.

Abstract

This study explored the rationale for sight-singing instructional choices of chorus teachers at the middle school level and sought to determine teachers' commitment to teaching music literacy Three research questions formed the basis of the study: (1) what is the prevalence of sight-singing instruction in choral music classes, (2) what is the rationale for sight-singing instruction, (3) when do teachers first learn the sight-singing method they use. Members of a state music educators' association were asked to complete an online questionnaire. The majority of respondents self-reported the inclusion of sight-singing instruction for all their ensembles for a duration of five to fifteen minutes, which is similar to data previously reported in high school classrooms. When asked where they first learned the method they currently use, most teachers said that it was at the middle school level. The prevalence of this response indicates the life-long impression that early music learning may have on future music educators, though few specified their middle school teacher as an influence on their current methods selection. The data indicates that respondents employed a variety of methods, and that movable Solfege was the most frequently cited primary method, eachers' personal philosophies were determined to be more important than influences such as curriculum standards, festival requirements or previous methods professors.The ability to sing music at sight, or sight-singing, is a fundamental skill for developing musical independence in Western music. For example, music reading is included as one of the National Standards for Arts Education (MENC, 1994) and numerous choral method books include music reading instruction as an important part of the curriculum (Bartle, 2003; Brinson, 1996; Collins, 1999; Phillips, 2003; Roe, 1994). Yet research on sight-singing in the choral classroom has identified considerable variability in the amount of time or effort teachers spend on music reading (Daniels, 1988; Demorest, 2004; Hales, 1961; Johnson, 1987; Kuehne, 2007; Von Kampen, 2003). Further, high school students evince poor sight-singing performance overall (Demorest & May, 1995; Gaston, 1940; Henry & Demorest, 1994). There is an increasing interest in accountability in the music classroom in the last fifteen years, with more time and resources now devoted to performance-based assessment than ever before (Demorest, 2001). Yet few studies have examined sight-singing instructional practices to see what influence these changes might have had on teachers' approaches to music instruction, and research is even more scant relative to sight-singing instruction at the middle school level.The middle school years represent a time of great physical, emotional and academic development for student singers. The period marks the beginning of adolescence and bridges the formative elementary years of general music to the often performance-based experiences of high school ensemble study. Middle school may provide a further foundation for music appreciation and music skill development. During this time, music-making becomes a part of a personal identity (Gembris, 2006), and students who elect to participate in performance studies gain skills for a lifetime. The examination of instructional practices by choral teachers at the middle school level reveals the extent of commitment to skills such as sight-singing, as well as how influences of a teacher's philosophy, choice of method, and time spent teaching that skill affect instruction.Most of the literature is devoted to the investigation of sight-singing instruction in high school settings, with emphasis given to sight-singing instruction, methods and Solfege systems, and materials. In surveys, teachers have reported varying amounts of time spent sight-singing at the secondary level, usually reported as between 12-33% of class time (Daniels, 1988; Johnson, 1987) or 5-15 minutes (Demorest, 2001, 2004; Kuehne, 2007; May, 1993; Smith, 1998). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.