156 RME 1995, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 2, PAGES156-167

In this study, we examined individual sight-singing skills of choir membersin rela-

tion to their private musical training, their choral experience,the difficulty of the
melodic material, and the systemused for group sight-singing instruction. The sub-
jects (N - 414) weredrawnfrom both thefirst and second choirsoffour Texas high
schools. Two schools used thefixed-do systemof sight-singing; the othertwo, the mov-
able-do system.Subjectswererandomlyassigned to two melodyconditions of varying
difficulty. A multiple-regressionanalysis of musical backgroundvariables indicated
that the numberof years of school choir experiencewas the strongestpredictorof indi-
vidual success,followed by years of piano, instrumental, and vocal lessons, respec-
tively. Scoresfor the more challenging Melody Condition B weresignificantly lower
than thosefor MelodyA. An analysis of covariancerevealedthat students in the mov-
able-do groups scored significantly higher than did those in the fixed-do groups.
However, this finding was temperedby the existenceof other differencesbetweenthe
groups regarding private lessons, the consistency of method in the students' early
solfegetraining, and the sight-singing assessmentproceduresused in each school dis-
trict.

Steven M. Demorest
University of Washington

William V. May
University of North Texas

Instruction
Sight-Singing
in the Choral Ensemble:
Factors Related to
Individual Performance

Choral music education is often criticized for its emphasis on per-

formance and rote teaching at the expense of developing music-
reading skills. As Daniels (1988) noted, "The development of com-
petency in sight-reading is a subject that is frequently neglected in
the field of choral music" (p. 22). Surveys and other research on the

Steven M. Demorest is an assistant professor of music education in the School of

Music, Box 353450, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195-3450. William V. May is
an associate dean in the College of Music, University of North Texas, PO Box 13887,
Denton, TX 76203-6887. Copyright ? 1995 by Music Educators National Conference.
 JRME 157

use of rehearsal time and priorities in secondary choral programs have sup-
ported this perception (Daniels, 1988; Flom, 1969; Hales, 1961; Johnson,
1987; Szabo, 1992/1993). Szabo's survey (1992/1993) of randomly selected
high school choir directors around the country revealed that those directors
typicallydid not include sight-singingin their rehearsals.A surveybyJohnson
(1987) indicated that selected directors in the North Central region of the
American Choral DirectorsAssociation (ACDA) agreed on the importance of
sight-reading, but devoted little rehearsal time to developing those skills.
Johnson speculated that inclusion of sight-singingevaluationat contests might
serve to increase sight-singinginstructionaltime.
Johnson's supposition would seem to be supported by May's 1993
study involving Texas high school choirs. In Texas, group sight-singing
is a required portion of University Interscholastic League (UIL) con-
test participation and sight-singing ratings are a part of the choir's
total rating. May described current practice in sight-singing methods,
use of class time, and selected materials in 192 Texas high schools par-
ticipating in UIL contest. Over 86% of the respondents rehearsed
melody reading more than 25 weeks of the school year; 80% practiced
4 or 5 days a week; and 78% practiced between 6 and 15 minutes a
day. Self-selection may have biased the results toward active
sight-singing teachers, since only 24% of the schools surveyed re-
sponded. Nevertheless, sight-singing instruction seems to be a com-
mon practice in Texas schools.
Even when group sight-singing is taught, educators have ques-
tioned how many students in an ensemble are really reading music
and how many are simply following a leader (Bennett, 1984; Middle-
ton, 1984). One impediment to answering that question has been the
lack of reliable and efficient individual evaluation procedures for
sight-singing. Dwiggins (1984) determined that most teachers are
content to do group evaluation or informal observation only. In a sur-
vey by Daniels (1988), 16 of the 20 teachers reported doing individual
evaluation at least once a year. Only 10 of those actually had the stu-
dents sight-sing alone. Ten of the teachers she surveyed included
sight-singing as part of each student's grade, but only two of those
teachers weighted it more than 10%.
The few studies evaluating individual sight-singing performance of
choir members show a wide variety of skills related to a number of dif-
ferent variables. Tucker (1969) investigated the factors related to
music-reading ability of senior high school choir members. He found
that school instrumental experience was more effective than vocal
experience as music-reading training. He also found no relationship
between music-reading ability and years in school choir. Carey (1959)
examined individual sight-singing performance in nine Kansas high
schools. The mean score on a 125-point measure was 67.67, or about
50% success. The highest mean score for any particular group in the
study was 82.62 for students who took piano lessons. Henry and
Demorest (1994) explored individual sight-singing performance in
two Texas high school choirs, each of which had experienced out-
standing group sight-singing success. One choir used the movable-do
158 DEMOREST/MAY

system of solfege; the other used the fixed-do system. The study report-
ed the following findings: (a) there was no significant difference in
individual sight-singing performance between students grouped by
type of solfege training; (b) the distribution of sight-singing scores was
rather broad with a mean score for all subjects of 9.87 out of a possi-
ble 15, or an average of 66% accuracy; (c) the only subject back-
ground variable that was significantly related to individual perfor-
mance was private piano study. Henry and Demorest (1994) conclud-
ed that group success alone was not a valid indicator of individual
sight-singing achievement and recommended that teachers incorpo-
rate more individual testing into their sight-reading programs.
Some of the questions raised by the Henry and Demorest (1994)
study were: (a) If individuals in top choirs perform at an average 66%
accuracy, how would individuals with less sight-singing training per-
form? (b) How would varying degrees of melodic difficulty affect stu-
dents' performance? (c) Are there variables in addition to piano study
that might be related to individual sight-singing performance?
To address some of these questions, we examined members of the
top choir and the second choir from four high schools. (The desig-
nations "top choir" and "second choir" refer to both the choir's stand-
ing in the individual program and the level at which they compete at
state contest.) The students were randomly assigned to one of two
melody conditions, one of which was slightly more difficult than the
other. Students filled out a detailed musical background question-
naire that was used as a basis for a multiple-regression analysis of fac-
tors that might predict individual sight-singing success. The research
questions for the present study were the following:
1. Which musical background variables are the best predictors of
individual sight-singing achievement?
2. Does the presence of an accidental in the melody significantly
lower students' individual sight-singing score?
3. Are there significant differences in individual sight-singing per-
formance due to the type of sight-singing system used?

METHOD

All members of the first and second choirs at four Texas high
schools in two different suburban school districts served as subjects
for this study (N= 414). All four schools were of the same size (more
than 1,600 students) and were located in suburban districts in the
same part of the state. Seven of the eight choirs had received a supe-
rior (highest) rating in Texas UIL sight-singing contest earlier in the
same semester that the data were collected. [The eighth choir re-
ceived an excellent rating (second-highest on a 5-point scale), but had
a history of superior rankings for the previous 3 years, and wasjudged
by the researchers to be of equal quality.] The two schools in District
1 used the fixed-do system, and both schools in District 2 used the
movable-do system of sight-reading. All available members of the
eight choirs were tested during a 2-week period at the end of the
 IRME 159

school year. All subjects completed a questionnaire detailing their

years of school choral experience; years of private lessons on key-
board, voice, or an instrument; and their years of choral experience
outside of school choir (e.g., church choir, community choir). In
addition, the four participating directors completed a questionnaire
describing their methods of instruction, the amount of time their
choirs spent on sight-singing, and their methods of sight-singing eval-
uation.
Students in each choir were randomly assigned to one of two
melody conditions. Both examples were adapted from Ottman's
Music for Sight Singing (1967). The key ofF major was chosen for both
examples so that all voice parts were able to sing in a comfortable
range. Melody A stayed within the key, and Melody B featured an
accidental and ended on a note other than the tonic to increase the
difficulty (Figure 1).
The sight-singing evaluation procedure for the study was similar to
that used in the Texas All-State Choir audition. The investigators
reviewed the entire procedure with the students in each group prior
to individual testing. Subjects went into a practice room, in which
there were two tape recorders and a manila folder with the example.
Written instructions reminded them to turn on Tape 2, give their sub-
ject number, and press the pause button. Then they were instructed
to turn on Tape 1 to hear verbal instructions. Each subject found the
folder that corresponded to his or her voice part and then heard the
tonic chord and first note of the example. The subjects were asked to
practice the melody "as they had been taught." At the end of 30 sec-

Melody A

bC j j LJ I|Ji Jj rj I yJ Ii

Melody B

c J J |J I J | r
or
I

Figure 1. Melodies used to test individual sight-singing performance.

160 DEMOREST/MAY

onds, the students were asked to release the pause button on Tape 2,
were given the tonic chord and first pitch again, and were instructed
to sing the example. Any tempo was considered acceptable as long as
the student was consistent.
All scoring was done from the tape-recorded performances using
the following system. One-half point was deducted for each rhythm
error and one-half point for each pitch error. One full point was
deducted for a tempo change or a repeated note. Subjects were penal-
ized 2 points for starting the exercise over. Each example consisted of
15 notes, so 15 points constituted a perfect score. Scores for each sub-
ject were determined by two independent evaluators who were blind
to the school and choir affiliations of the subjects. An analysis of inter-
rater reliability yielded an r of .96. Given this level of consistency
between the evaluators, it was considered appropriate to average their
ratings to produce a single score for each subject.
RESULTS

The first research question regarding the power of the various

background variables to predict individual sight-singing performance
was examined using zero-order correlation coefficients and multiple-
regression analysis. The former procedure allowed the researchers to
determine the relative importance of the background variables when
each is used alone to predict sight-singing scores. The latter proce-
dure was used to determine the relative importance of each back-
ground variable when used along with all other background variables
to predict sight-singing scores. For the multiple-regression analysis,
variables were entered into the equation using the "Stepwise" option
in the SPSS/PC+ procedure "Regression." Residuals were plotted a-
gainst predicted values, and no relationships among these entities
were found; therefore, it was determined that standard assumptions
of linearity and homogeneity of variance were met. The results (see
Table 1) indicated significant zero-order correlations between sight-
singing scores and four of the five background variables (in order of
magnitude): years of school choral experience, years of piano experi-
ence, years of private voice lessons, and years of outside choral expe-
rience. Multiple-regression analysis created a slightly different picture
due to the interrelationships of the predictor variables (see Table 2).
In both analyses, years of school choral experience clearly was the
most important background variable. Piano experience played a
more important role than did other types of private lessons. The other
background variables also played significant roles in predicting
sight-singing success, with the exception of choral experience outside
school. Given these analyses, one would assume that the greater an
individual's participation in all these activities, the more likely that he
or she would excel at sight-singing.
This finding must be tempered, however, by the fact that all pre-
dictor variables in the analysis accounted for only 27% of the total
variance in sight-singing scores. Experience in the three types of pri-
 JRME 161

Table 1
CorrelationMatrix of All VariablesIncludedin theMultiple-Regression
Zero-Order Analysis
(N -410)

Choirex Piano Instrum Voice Outside

Score .41 .34* .08 .31* .21*

Choirex .18* .22* .41* .13*

Piano -.08 .30* .34*

Instrum -.07 .04

Voice -.25*

Note. Score = averagesight-singingscore; Choirex = years of school choral experience;

Piano= yearsof piano lessons;Instrum= yearsof instrumentallessons;Voice= yearsof voice
lessons;and Outside= yearsof choralexperienceoutsideschool;* p < .01, 2-tailed

Table 2
Stepwise Multiple RegressionAnalysis of the Relationship betweenMusical Training
Variablesand Sight-SingingPerformance( N = 410)

Increment F
Variablesa R R2 in R2 increment B B

School choral experience .41 .18 .18 .628 .35*

Piano lessons .49 .24 .06 41.00* .343 .22*

Instrumental lessons .51 .26 .02 10.74* .461 .14*

Voice lessons .52 .27 .01 5.04* .215 .10*

Choral experience
outside school .52 .27 <.01 1.48 .062 .06

Adjusted R2 = .27 S. E. = 3.31

Note.Regressioncoefficients(B) and standardizedregressioncoefficients(B) are from the

final step of the analysis;a All predictorvariablesin the regressionare measuredin years;
*
p< .05.
162 DEMOREST/MAY
Table3
Mean Individual Sight-SingingScoresby ChoirforBothMelodyConditions(Unadjusted)

MelodyA MelodyB
Choirs M SD n M SD n

Fixed do
School 1
Top choir 8.73 3.40 28 8.86 3.41 28
Secondchoir 7.91 3.78 29 7.46 3.43 27

School 2
Top choir 9.39 4.56 26 9.27 2.30 24
Second choir 9.21 3.23 29 6.57 3.49 29

Total 8.79 3.75 112 7.99 3.36 108

Movabledo

School 1
Top choir 13.90 1.62 31 13.60 1.97 26
Secondchoir 12.48 3.36 21 10.40 3.69 21

School 2
Top Choir 13.35 2.06 30 12.64 2.30 30
Second Choir 10.96 3.33 19 10.47 3.37 16

Total 12.89 2.72 101 12.03 3.06 93

vate lessons in combination contributed in small yet statistically sig-

nificant ways to the relationship. Given the magnitudes of the zero-
order correlations, however, it seems that private lessons-instruction
on instruments other than piano and voice-are only important to
increased sight-singing skill when taken in tandem with piano
and/or voice lessons.
Research question two was examined by comparing the scores
from subjects in melody condition A to those of subjects in the more
difficult Melody Condition B. Table 3 provides the mean sight-
singing scores for both melody conditions. A one-way analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) revealed that the scores for Melody A were signifi-
cantly higher (F= 5.39, p < .05) than were those for Melody B.
Question 3 dealt with possible differences in performance due to
the sight-singing system used. One-way ANOVAs revealed significant
 JRME 163

Table4
ANCOVAfor Main Effect of Sight-SingingSystemwith Yearsof ChoirExperience,Voice
Lessons,and ChoirExperienceOutsideSchoolas Covariates(N - 409)

Source df Sum of squares Mean square F

Covariates 3 1269.731 423.244 45.416*

Choirex 1 561.249 561.249 60.225*

Voice 1 100.945 100.945 10.832*

Outside 1 92.296 92.296 9.904*

Main Effects

System 1 1060.435 1060.435 113.791*

Explained 4 2330.166 582.541 62.510

Residual 405 3774.266 9.319

Total 409 6104.432 14.925

*p<.05.

differences in several background variables between the two groups

of subjects. Years of school choir experience, years of piano, vocal,
and instrumental lessons, and outside choral experience were all sig-
nificantly different for the two groups. Consequently, an analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was done to control for existing differences.
However, a Bartlett-Box F test for homogeneity of variance revealed
that the distribution of years of piano and instrumental lessons was
significantly different for the two groups. This violated the homo-
geneity of variance assumption for the ANCOVA procedure, so these
variables could not be included as covariates. Results indicated sub-
jects in the movable-do choirs scored significantly higher than the
fixed-do choirs for both melodies (see Table 4). This result was inter-
preted with caution, given the potential effects of intervening vari-
ables on the interpretation.

DISCUSSION

The emergence of school choral experience as the best predictor

of sight-singing performance may seem obvious, but that result con-
tradicts previous findings on the role of choral curricula in
sight-singing achievement (Daniels, 1986; Tucker, 1969). Apparently
164 DEMOREST/MAY

the time spent on sight-singing in these choral programs is having a

positive effect. Perhaps the importance of sight-singing in the Texas
state contest system and the resulting attitudes and classroom prac-
tices of the directors also played a part in that result.
Private piano, instrumental, and vocal lessons were all significant
factors in predicting success at individual sight-singing performance.
Of those, keyboard instruction emerged as the most significant pre-
dictor as it has in previous studies (Carey, 1959; Colwell, 1963;
Daniels, 1986; Henry & Demorest, 1994). It may be that the more tal-
ented students tend to choose piano lessons, but the emergence of
piano instruction as a significant positive background variable in
numerous studies suggests that this type of training may help stu-
dents of all ability levels improve their sight-singing. If this is the case,
then perhaps keyboard instruction needs to become a more central
part of the vocal/general music curriculum.
An issue unresolved by the present study was the effect of instru-
mental training on vocal sight-singing skill. Results of previous
research (May & Elliott, 1980) suggest that instrumental experience
has more profound effects than choral experience on the develop-
ment of some musical skills other than sight-singing. Although a
thorough exploration of this notion was beyond the scope of the pre-
sent study, years of private instrumental instruction was found to be
a significant background variable in sight-singing skill development,
but to a lesser degree than years of school choral experience.
Individually, instrumental experience in a student's background did
not predict sight-singing achievement well; however, when consid-
ered in tandem with choral, piano, and private voice experience, it
was a significant predictor. Further investigation of this issue is war-
ranted.
The difference in scores between Melodies A and B was expected
and raises an important issue. Though Melody B featured an acci-
dental, both melodies were far simpler than the choral parts often
found in the literature these choirs perform. What connections, if
any, are there between the literature and the skills we teach?
Research results suggest that student sight-singing performance
might be enhanced by providing a harmonic context (Boyle & Lucas,
1990). Individual evaluation through singing parts in quartets or with
harmonic support may be more reflective of the reading skills need-
ed by choral singers, but it would seem to contradict pedagogical
goals regarding individual musicianship.
The significant differences in individual sight-singing performance
between students using the two different systems (movable and fixed
do) were contrary to the findings of previous research on both group
evaluation (Daniels, 1986) and individual evaluation (Henry &
Demorest, 1994) of sight-singing. In this study, the system of
sight-singing seemed to have an impact on individual performance in
the groups tested, but there were several possible confounding influ-
ences. The design of this study was not sufficiently controlled to
make a judgment about the relative merits of movable-do versus
 JRME 165

fixed-do sight-singing based solely on these results. However, of 192

high schools participating in the Texas UIL contest, 82.3% used
movable do exclusively (May, 1993). Thus, it would seem to be the
most popular sight-singing system, at least in the state of Texas.
The schools chosen for this study were selected because of simi-
larities in size and group sight-singing accomplishment, there were
two teachers for each sight-singing system to somewhat distribute
teacher effects, and the choral students examined in all schools spent
an average of 15 minutes per rehearsal on sight-singing. Despite the
attempt to obtain equivalent sample groups, there were differences
in student background and educational practice between the schools
using each system; these differences may have influenced students'
performance. Differences in years of piano and instrumental lessons
for students in the two groups could not be included in the ANCO-
VA and have already been mentioned as possible influences. Given
the results of the regression, differences in years of piano lessons
would be more likely to produce significant differences in individual
sight-singing achievement.
The teachers' questionnaire revealed a second concern regarding
inconsistency of method in the students' total sight-singing training
for one district. In the fixed-do district, all students receive movable-
do training up to the fifth grade and were only introduced to fixed do
in middle school. In contrast, the movable-do district used the same
system from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. This lack of
consistency may also account for the lower scores in the fixed-do
choirs. Since previous studies showed no differences in scores
between sight-singing systems, it may be that consistency of system
rather than type of system is the most important element.
Another possible explanation for the difference in scores, again
revealed by the teacher questionnaires, was that in the schools that
used movable do, students' sight-singing skills were systematically
evaluated on an individual basis at least once every 6 weeks. These
scores accounted for 33% of the students' 6-weeks choir grade. By
contrast, the teachers in the fixed-do programs formally tested indi-
viduals only once a semester, though they did include individual
sight-singing as 30% of the total choir grade. It is possible that the
influence of a systematic program of individual assessment may have
resulted in significant differences in students' individual sight-
singing skills.
The possible relationship of individual evaluation to increased
scores is supported by the observations and recommendations of
numerous researchers and practitioners (Daniels, 1988; Middleton,
1984; Munn, 1990/1991). However, several surveys (Daniels, 1988;
Hales, 1961; Johnson, 1987; Szabo, 1992/1993) have revealed that
many directors are unwilling to take the time for such activities. A
further exploration of the relationship of individual evaluation to
improved sight-singing performance is clearly warranted. If this type
of evaluation is the crucial variable in transferring skills from group
to individual achievement in sight-singing, perhaps it should and will
166 DEMOREST/MAY

become a higher priority in teachers' classroom activities.

The results of this study suggest the need for an experimental
examination of the role of individual evaluation as a pedagogical
tool and for a further exploration of the relationship of broad-based
musical training and individual sight-singing achievement. All edu-
cators teaching sight-singing are encouraged to experiment with a
variety of individual performance evaluation models in their ensem-
bles and to share their results with others. If independent musician-
ship is our goal, we must take steps to ensure that the goal is being
met.

REFERENCES

Bennett, P. (1984). Tricks, masks, and camouflage: Is imitation passing for

music reading? Music EducatorsJournal, 71(3), 62-63, 65-69.
Boyle, J. D., & Lucas, K. V. (1990). The effect of context on sight-singing.
Bulletin of the Councilfor Researchin Music Education, no. 106, 1-9.
Carey, W. (1959). A survey of the sight reading ability of senior students in nine
Kansas high schools. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas,
Lawrence.
Colwell, R. (1963). An investigation of musical achievement among vocal stu-
dents, vocal-instrumental students, and instrumental students. Journal of
Researchin Music Education, 11, 123-130.
Daniels, R. D. (1986). Relationships among selected factors and the sight-
reading ability of high school mixed choirs. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 34, 279-289.
Daniels, R. D. (1988). Sight-reading instruction in the choral rehearsal.
Update:Applications of Researchin Music Education, 6 (2), 22-24.
Dwiggins, R. (1984). Teaching sight-reading in the high school chorus.
Update:Applications of Researchin Music Education, 2(2), 8-11.
Flom,J. (1969). An investigation of growth in musical facts and concepts, in
musical discrimination, and in vocal music performance proficiency as a
result of senior high vocal music experiences (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis). Dissertation AbstractsInternational,
30, 5467A.
Hales, B. (1961). A study of music reading programs in high school chorus-
es in the Rocky Mountain states (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Oregon, Eugene, 1961). DissertationAbstractsInternational, 22, 2416A.
Henry, M., & Demorest, S. M. (1994). Individual sight-singing achievement
in successful choral ensembles: A preliminary study. Update:Applications of
Researchin Music Education, 13 (1), 4-8.
Johnson, G. J. B. (1987). A descriptivestudy of the pitch-readingmethodsand the
amount of time utilized to teach sight-singing by high school choral teachersin the
north central region of the American ChoralDirectorsAssociation. Unpublished
master's thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
May, J. A. (1993). A description of current practices in the teaching of choral
melody reading in the high schools of Texas. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Houston, 1993). DissertationAbstractsInternational, 54, 856A.
May, W. V., & Elliott, C. A. (1980). Relationships among ensemble participa-
tion, private instruction, and aural skill development. Journal of Researchin
Music Education, 28, 155-161.
Middleton, J. (1984). Develop choral reading skills. Music EducatorsJournal,
 JRME 167

68(7), 29-32.
Munn, V. C. (1991). A sequence of materials for developing sight-singing
skills in high school choirs. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, 1990). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 51, 3662A.
Ottman, R. W. (1967). Musicfor sight singing (2nd ed.). Old Tappan, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Szabo, C. E. (1993). A profile of ten high school choral directors and their
activities during one week. (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University,
Kent, OH, 1992). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 53, 2730A.
Tucker, D. W. (1969). Factors related to the music reading ability of senior high
school students participating in choral groups. (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versityof California, Berkeley, 1969).

Submitted January 4, 1994; accepted February 5, 1995.