Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching

Laura Crocco, Patricia McCabe, and Catherine Madill, Sydney, Australia

Summary: Introduction. Classical singing is a complex and multifaceted skill that requires the amalgamation
of multiple cognitive, perceptual and motor functions. The teaching of classical singing is consequently a unique
skill that holds further complexity. The singer is required to achieve and maintain consistently high performance
development of a specific motor activity, much like the sports athlete. This pilot study examines a method of
using the principles of motor learning to more objectively and reliably investigate the teaching behaviors of classi-
cal singing teachers. Such a method may establish a nexus between empirical research, teaching quality and learn-
ing outcomes in music performance education.
Method. A total of 12 participants were recruited from two Australian conservatoria of music. All participants
were fluent in English at tertiary level. Participants included four classical singing teachers and eight classical
singing students over the age of 18 years. Eight one-to-one singing lessons between the teacher and student were
audio-visually recorded. Content analysis was conducted on the observational data. The principles of motor
learning were used as a behavioral framework protocol to allow for the systematic identification of teaching
behavior.
Results. Results presented various findings regarding teaching behaviors in one-to-one classical singing lessons
in higher music education. Key findings included (a) common use of instruction, feedback, modeling, and other
behaviors (b) uncommon use of motivation, explanation, and perceptual training behaviors, (c) higher use of
knowledge of results than knowledge of performance feedback behaviors, (d) high routine use of instruction,
modeling, and feedback behaviors each time a student attempted a task, (e) common use of other suggested teach-
ers use behaviors unidentifiable by the behavioral protocol, and (f) the principles of motor learning appear to be
a reliable framework for the identification of teaching behaviors in this field.
Conclusion. This study may have implications for how teachers administer and govern their behaviors in one-
to-one classical singing lessons. The principles of motor learning may encourage a nexus between empirical
research, teaching quality, and learning outcomes. Furthermore, this study provides recommendations for future
research on systematically improving teaching and learning in this field.
Key Words: Motor learning−Singing−Teaching.

INTRODUCTION Classical singing training

Classical singing is a complex phenomenon that requires the
teaching and learning of a multiplicity of skills, including
fine motor skills.1,2 Teachers of classical singing have insuf-
ficient guidance from the literature as to what evidence-
based, optimal instructional behaviors are recommended to
use in singing lessons.3 Researchers in other domains have
long explored the conditions that facilitate how humans
learn motor and cognitive capabilities so that improvements
in physical behavior and skilled performance may be
acquired.4 Such research has contributed to improving
teaching and learning across numerous disciplines, includ-
ing those in exercise and sports science,4 and more recently
in speech-language pathology,5,6 physiotherapy,7,8 and
occupational therapy.9,10 Research on motor learning and
how it may improve skill acquisition has not yet been
applied systematically to classical singing training.3
Accepted for publication December 26, 2018.
Declarations of interest: None.
From the The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Catherine Madill, Discipline of
Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box
170, Lidcombe, Sydney, NSW 1825, Australia. E-mail:
cate.madill@sydney.usyd.edu.au
Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 567−581
0892-1997
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Voice Foundation.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.12.019
Classical singers undertake years of formal training11 to
learn an amalgam of multiple cognitive, perceptual, and
skills, in order to perform their craft.12,13 Additionally, the
nature of performing on stage is both physically and emo-
tionally demanding,14 with professional singers facing both
high vocal demands and high vocal load.15 Promoting
autonomy during one-to-one training of future professional
singers is essential in helping (a) to enhance their perfor-
mance, (b) to develop artistic independence, (c) to encour-
age life-long learning,16−18 and (d) to improve their health
and well-being.19
The one-to-one environment
The teaching of singing primarily occurs in one-to-one les-
sons between the teacher and student. This learning envi-
ronment has long been considered essential and central to a
musician's training, eg, Bloom20 and Persson,21 and forms a
core part of undergraduate and postgraduate education
offered to students at a conservatorium.22−24 Consequently,
there is a growing acknowledgement among music educa-
tors as to the need for systematic investigation of one-to-
one music training.25 The teaching of classical singing is tra-
ditionally and characteristically known to rely upon anec-
dotal evidence rather than systematic and scientifically
founded research.3,26 Although Schmidt26 argued that the
568
lack of research is a reflection of the complexity of teaching
in applied music training, recent years have seen an increas-
ing body of research in this field, for example.22,23,27,28
Current research on both one-to-one instrumental and
vocal lessons has begun to cover various areas such as the
teacher-student relationship,16,22,29 development of musical
skills,30,31 and the perceptions and approaches of teachers to
training.16,32 Perhaps one of the most significant findings in
the research on one-to-one classical singing training is the
array and variability of practices and strategies used by teach-
ers.3,16,18,33 Gaunt16 illuminated this diversity of teaching
practices extending to areas such as aims in teaching, evalua-
tion of learning, and lesson planning.16 Importantly, the one-
to-one (or master−apprentice) model of training in music is
teacher-centerd,18 contains high use of instructions and dem-
onstrations by the teacher,33 and lacks the facilitation of stu-
dent autonomy and life-long learning.16,28,34 Such problems
highlight the need for rigorous research on the “purposes and
processes and outcomes of one-to-one tuition”16 to ultimately
improve the learning of this unique motor skill.
How to improve what cannot be seen
As a learning environment that operates to a certain degree
behind closed doors, researchers have reported difficulty in
gaining access to one-to-one lessons.35 Inversely, Schwartz
and Webb36 suggest that the degree of isolation experienced
by teachers as a result of the learning environment has
caused fear of both misinterpretation and scrutiny of their
expertise.36 The subjectivity surrounding effective teaching
practices in the field makes the accurate observation of one-
to-one lessons complex.27 Nevertheless, to improve future
teaching behavior, identifying current behavior is essen-
tial.37 Gipson,38 Hepler,39 and Kostka40 developed instru-
ments to measure teaching behavior in one-to-one
instrumental lessons (see 26 for a review). However, a more
objective method for identifying teaching behavior in one-
to-one singing lessons, with direct attention to behaviors
that encourage motor skill acquisition, is yet to be devel-
oped. Such a method may moderate the aforementioned
challenges for research in this field, and provide direction
for systematically improving teaching and learning in one-
to-one classical singing training.
The principles of motor learning
Phases of learning
Motor learning is a set of processes related to experience
and practice that may produce relatively permanent changes
in the performance of a particular skill/learned ability.4,41
Learning is not directly observable, but must be inferred
from changes in performance over time.4 Motor learning is
therefore measured by evaluating student performance dur-
ing (a) acquisition: the learner's initial execution of a skill,
(b) retention: the learner's capability (potential to be able) to
execute or improve a skill after a short/long delay of prac-
tice, and (c) transfer: the learner's is ability to perform a skill
similar, but not identical, to the original skill practiced in
Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2020
the acquisition phase of the respective skills.42 The princi-
ples of motor learning (PML) comprise of variables, such as
instruction, modeling, types of verbal information and feed-
back that affect the learning process and performance of a
motor task.43 PML distinguishes between two phases of
learning: the prepractice and practice phases.
Prepractice. Prepractice anticipates preparing the
learner for the practice phase.41 This phase aims to ensure
that the learner (a) is motivated to learn, (b) is able to effi-
ciently reproduce the skill to the required level, and (c)
understands the task.5,43,44
Practice. The practice phase involves the learner devel-
oping independence and consistency of skills over time, so
that effective learning may be achieved.43 Practice may
occur during a lesson between teacher and student, and/or
individually by the learner outside lesson time. Variables
such as practice amount (number of practice sessions), vari-
ability (practicing the same/different tasks), and distribution
(how a certain amount of practice is distributed over time)
are considered to facilitate motor learning during
practice.5,41
Using the principles of motor learning to improve
teaching and learning
The PML are used to provide a framework for teaching and
learning in various disciplines. For example, PML have
been used in exercise and sports science to establish evi-
dence-based frameworks that improve the quality of teach-
ing and learning between coach and athlete.45,46 Such
frameworks outline teaching strategies conducive to effec-
tive motor skill acquisition, performance improvement and
student independence.45,46
Speech-language pathology has also seen a growing inter-
est in PML. Although a significant body of the research
demonstrates renewed interest in how PML applies to the
treatment of motor speech disorders (see 5, and 47 for a
review),47 it is also an emerging area in voice research.48−50
Madill, McIllwaine, Russell, Hodges, and McCabe51
reviewed the general motor learning literature and proposed
the Motor Learning Classification Framework (MLCF).
This framework outlines instructional behaviors that influ-
ence the learning capability for a particular skill during the
prepractice phase of learning. Five main instructional
behaviors were identified—(a) motivation, (b) modeling, (c)
verbal information, (d) feedback, and (e) physical attempts.48
Fifteen specific subcategories such as goal-setting, explana-
tions, and perceptual training behaviors were also identified
as those shown to have an effect on motor skill
acquisition.48
Motivation. Ensuring that a singing student is moti-
vated is fundamental for optimizing acquisition and encour-
aging student engagement in lessons Schmidt and Lee.41
Motivation incorporates numerous elements influencing
Laura Crocco, et al Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching
behavior, learning and performance, and is associated with
social-cognitive variables such as self-efficacy, goal orienta-
tion, and emotion. In the sport and social psychology litera-
ture, motivation is considered an emotional drive that is
enhanced or suppressed by the degree of reward and/or pun-
ishment.
Modeling. Traditional motor learning theories suggest
that learning a skill occurs from observation of appropriate
models of the skill being taught.52 Modeling permits the stu-
dent to (a) observe facets of the skill that may not be easily
verbally described, (b) employ strategies that enable the
learning of the task,41,42,44,53 (c) develop a reference-of-cor-
rectness,54−56 and (d) provides sensory input for the
learner.57
Verbal information. Instruction, explanation and per-
ceptual training variables are considered within the broad
category of verbal information.41 The role of verbal informa-
tion in the prepractice phase includes (a) assisting the
learner in understanding the task being taught,41 (b) lessen-
ing the demands of the task to allow the student to achieve
the goal with less effort and time,10,43 and (c) establishing a
reference of correctness by providing information that
slowly builds the learner's error-detection methods to use
during the practice phase.5 Providing instructions and
explanations about the task, and perceptual training
through describing related physical sensations, are essential
to motor skill development in the prepractice phase,41 par-
ticularly for the training of a nonobservable, sensory-motor
skill such as singing.13,58
Feedback. Feedback is delivered verbally, visually, or
through manual guidance.59 Providing augmented feedback
on student attempts, relative to the target performance, is
fundamental in ascertaining changes in task performance
across attempts,56 building an internal reference of correct-
ness, and assuring that the student can approximate the
task prior to initiating practice.5,60
Two types of augmented feedback are acknowledged in
the motor learning literature, knowledge of results (KR),
and knowledge of performance (KP). KR is described as
information relating to performance outcome, whereas KP
pertains to specific characteristics of the performance.42,61,62
Physical attempts. Physical attempts made by the stu-
dent are fundamental in certifying that the task has been
executed correctly.5 The student may either attempt tasks
with instructional or physical guidance from the teacher or
independently without the teacher's assistance. Identifying
the optimal dose and intensity of intervention required for
achieving motor skill acquisition while also preventing
fatigue or injury63 is done by measuring the “ingredients” of
intervention (ie, what a teacher does, says or applies during
a lesson).64,65 For classical singing training, systematically
examining what teachers do (ie, vocal techniques, exercises,
569
and repertoire used by teachers) and measuring the intensity
of such “ingredients” have not been reported to date.
Motor learning and classical singing training
Crocco et al3 conducted a systematic review on whether an
evidence-based framework had been established for teach-
ing and learning in classical singing training, and demon-
strated that no evidence-based framework has yet been
developed.3 However, current research suggests that teach-
ing and learning in one-to-one classical singing training is
subject to improvement.
The PML, and specifically the variables illustrated in the
MLCF,51 may provide fundamental methods for the
improvement of teaching and learning in the training of
classical singers. The current pilot study examines a method
of using PML to more objectively and reliably identify the
teaching behaviors of classical singing teachers, and to help
identify areas of teaching that are in need of improvement.
Note must be made that the PML are only one factor con-
tributing to the teaching of a performance skill, and that
factors such as emotional response of the student, the
teacher-student relationship, musicianship, language, per-
formance skills, and artistry have not been addressed.
The study aims to answer three research questions:
 Can the MLCF be applied to classical singing lessons?
 Do teacher's behaviors vary across teachers and stu-
dents?
 Is the MLCF reliable for the identification of teaching
behavior in classical singing lessons?
METHOD
Participants
Two groups of participants were recruited: (a) singing
teachers currently teaching classical singing and (b) singing
students currently studying classical singing. All partici-
pants were over the age of 18 years and fluent at tertiary-
level English. Participants were recruited from two Austra-
lian conservatoria of music after ethics approval was
obtained from The University of Sydney Human Research
Ethics Committee 2016/024. The researcher contacted two
conservatoria of music about the study. The head of the
vocal department at each conservatorium first emailed
teachers regarding the study, and then emailed the students
of the teachers who gave consent. Written consent was
obtained from all participants. Four classical singing teach-
ers and eight classical singing students were recruited.
Data collection and analysis
A study using mixed-methods was conducted. Observa-
tional data were collected at the conservatoria of music
where participants taught/studied so as to observe the par-
ticipants in their own educational environment. All data
were quantitatively analyzed.
570
Data collection
One-to-one singing lessons between teacher and student
were audio-visually recorded with a GoPro HERO4 or
GoPro HERO3 (GoPro, Inc., San Mateo) camera placed in
the room and was visible to both the student and teacher.
The researcher did not observe the teachers and students
during the recordings so as to lessen the impact of the
observer on the equilibrium of the lesson.66 Each of the four
teacher-participants conducted singing lessons of a maxi-
mum of 1 hour singing with two of their own students (ie,
two lessons per teacher-participant). A total of eight singing
lessons were recorded. Recorded lesson times were between
29.09 and 62.53 minutes (min) across participants.
Data analysis
The first author transcribed the observational data into a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In the transcription, teacher
demonstrations and student attempts (both verbal and non-
verbal) were also recorded. Intrarater reliability of the tran-
scription was conducted on 20% of the data 3 months after
the initial analysis, resulting in 97.5% point by point agree-
ment. A research associate conducted reliability of tran-
scription on 20% of the audio-visual data (approximately
two lessons). For training purposes, the first author and
research associate transcribed 5 minutes of one recorded les-
son together. Inter-rater reliability was 97.3%.
Observational data were analyzed using content analysis.
Content analysis allows for the systematic and quantitative
description of behavior and communication.67 To achieve a
more objective and consistent analysis of teaching behav-
iors, a reliable system must be used to classify observa-
tions.68 The MLCF51 was used as a classification system.
The observation checklist developed by Madill et al51 was
used to categorize teaching behaviors (see Appendix A).
Variables of the checklist included (a) motivation, (b)
modeling, (c) instruction, (d) explanation, (e) perceptual
training, (f) feedback, and (g) other. Beside each teacher-
utterance, columns were labeled with the variables. The first
FIGURE 1. Descriptive statistics (M, SD) for use of prepractice variables across all lessons and teacher-participants. Abbreviations: MOT,
motivation; PT, perceptual training, EXP, explanation; MOD, modeling; FB, feedback; INS, instruction.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2020
author recorded “^” in the prepractice variable(s) identi-
fied in the adjacent utterance. Variable occurrences were
then tallied. The length of each session was determined and
the total time students spent attempting the tasks was calcu-
lated. A research associate conducted reliability of variable
classification on 20% of the audio-visual data (approxi-
mately two lessons). The first author provided the research
associate with written descriptions of the general and spe-
cific prepractice variables (see Appendix B). The research
associate was provided also with two Microsoft Excel (Red-
mond) spreadsheets, one for each lesson, containing the
transcription and checklist.
RESULTS
Analysis of one-to-one lessons
Reliability of the behavioral protocol
Reliability for the use of PML as a behavioral protocol for
identifying teaching behaviors in one-to-one classical sing-
ing lessons was high. Inter-rater reliability was 99.1% and
intrarater reliability 99.6%.
Identifying the principles of motor learning
prepractice variables in lessons
The PML prepractice variables were identified in each of the
eight recorded lessons. Analysis showed that 80.51% of
teaching behaviors fit within the PML framework. Varied
results were observed in the occurrence of each prepractice
variable (a) across the four teacher-participants and eight
lessons, and (b) between the two lessons conducted by each
teacher-participant. The mean (M) and standard deviation
(SD) were calculated for the use of prepractice variables
across all eight recorded lessons and four teacher-partici-
pants. Descriptive statistics for the use of each prepractice
variable are presented in Figure 1.
Laura Crocco, et al Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching 571

Use of prepractice variables across lessons and
teachers
A nonparametric Friedman test of differences among
repeated measures was conducted and rendered a chi-square
value of 40.71, which was significant (P < 0.000). Examina-
tion of the results suggests two categories for use of varia-
bles across lessons and teacher-participants: common
variables and uncommon variables. Common variables com-
prised of modeling (M = 17.54%, SD = 5.79%), other
(M = 19.42%, SD = 9.42%), instruction (M = 22.62%, SD =
3.26%), and feedback (M = 22.15%, SD = 6.25%). Uncom-
mon variables included explanation (M = 9.04%,
SD = 3.48%), perceptual training (M = 5.67%, SD = 3.05%),
and motivation (M = 3.54%, SD = 1.05%). Follow-up Wil-
coxon Signed-rank tests showed that variables in both the
common and uncommon categories were not statistically
different from each other. Further analysis of the other vari-
able was beyond the scope of this study. However, examples
of nonskill related discussion between teacher and student
were demonstrated on matters such as student academic
requirements and social talk.
Use of prepractice variables per teacher-participant,
between lessons
Table 1 presents the mean and standard deviation for the
use of prepractice variables by each of the four teacher-par-
ticipants between two lessons.
Lower SDs indicates that each teacher-participant did not
demonstrate great variability in their teaching behavior
between the two lessons they conducted. Mixed results were
shown for the average use of prepractice variables per
teacher-participant. Although Figure 1 indicates the most
common use of instruction and feedback across teacher-par-
ticipants, ranking of variable use per teacher showed the
most common use of other by Teacher A, feedback by
Teacher B and Teacher C, and modeling by Teacher D.
Instruction was the second most commonly used variable
across all four teacher-participants between lessons. While
Figure 1 suggests that motivation was the least common var-
iable across teacher-participants and lessons, analysis of
individual behavior showed that although Teacher A,
Teacher C, and Teacher D used motivation the least, percep-
tual training was used the least by Teacher B. The second
lowest use of perceptual training was shown by Teacher A,
Teacher C, and Teacher D, and motivation for Teacher B.
Use of augmented feedback per teacher-participant,
per lesson
Table 2 presents the percentage use of the two types of aug-
mented feedback by teacher-participants: knowledge of
results KR and KP.
All four teacher-participants showed relatively higher use
of KR in both lessons, ranging between 51.3% and 93.0%
use of KR, and relatively lower use of KP, ranging between
7.0% and 48.7%. Teacher B demonstrated the lowest varia-
tion in use of KR and KP between lessons, with a SD of
1.5%. Teacher C had the second lowest variation in use of
KR and KP across the two lessons, with a SD of 2.1%.
Teacher D demonstrated the highest deviation in use of
both types of augmented feedback across the two lessons,
with an SD of 10.2% for KR and KP. Teacher A also dem-
onstrated a low deviation in use of augmented feedback
across lessons, with an SD of 4.0% for KR and KP.
Routine use of instruction, modeling, and feedback
variables per attempt
Instruction, modeling and feedback were analyzed for rou-
tine use of the three variables in conjunction with one
attempt (ie, instruction and/or modeling occurred prior to
one attempt, and feedback post the same attempt). Figure 2
presents the mean and standard deviation for the percentage
of attempts where teacher-participants gave (a) instruction
only, (b) modeling only; (c) feedback only; (d) instruction
and feedback; (e) instruction and modeling; (f) modeling and
feedback; and (g) instruction, modeling and feedback.
Low SDs indicate that each teacher-participant did not
demonstrate great variability in their routine use of instruc-
tion, modeling, and/or feedback variables per student
attempt between the two lessons they conducted. All
teacher-participants demonstrated highest use of all three
variables (instruction, modeling, and feedback) within one

TABLE 1.
Descriptive Statistics (M, SD) for Use of Variables Per Teacher Across Two Lessons
Prepractice variables
Perceptual
Motivation Modeling Instruction Explanation training Feedback Other
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Teacher % % % % % % %
A 4.5 0.7 12.0 1.6 20.0 2.0 11.9 2.1 8.1 3.6 16.0 0.8 27.6 10.9
B 4.0 0.9 15.5 1.5 24.3 2.7 5.9 2.0 2.3 0.8 25.9 5.9 22.1 11.8
C 2.7 1.3 17.8 3.5 24.7 2.3 8.8 4.1 4.9 1.0 27.7 3.4 13.3 2.3
D 2.9 0.2 24.9 6.1 21.5 5.2 9.6 4.8 7.4 3.1 18.9 6.4 14.7 9.7
572
TABLE 2.
Type of Feedback Used in Lessons
A B
Lesson Lesson Lesson
Feedback type 1 2 1 2
Knowledge of results 57.0% 51.3% 68.0%
Knowledge of performance 43.0% 48.7% 32.0%
student attempt (M = 30.4%, SD = 3.0%). However,
Teacher B demonstrated highest average use of all three
variables (instruction, modeling, and feedback) in one stu-
dent attempt both across two lessons and all teacher-partici-
pants (M = 35.4%, SD = 4.8%). Routine use of instruction
and feedback in one attempt presented the second highest
use across teacher-participants (M = 21.4%, SD = 2.4%),
with Teacher C demonstrating highest use (M = 24.5%,
SD = 5.7%). The use of modeling only within one attempt
presented the lowest average across teacher-participants
(M = 5.7%, SD = 1.0%), followed by instruction only per
attempt (M = 8.5%, SD = 0.4%). Although modeling only
presented the lowest average use across teacher-partici-
pants, Teacher D demonstrated the second highest use of
modeling only per attempt across all variable combinations
(M = 15.1%, SD = 2.7%). Feedback only (M = 9.4%,
SD = 1.6%), instruction and modeling (M = 9.9%,
SD = 2.8%), and modeling and feedback (M = 9.4%,
SD = 2.3%) presented almost equal average use across
teacher-participants.
FIGURE 2. Descriptive Statistics (M, SD) for routine use of instruction, modelling and/or feedback variables on each student attempt, per
teacher-participant between two lessons.
FB, feedback; INS, instruction; MOD, modeling.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2020
Teacher
C D
Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson
1 2 1 2
70.2% 89.0% 92.0% 93.0% 78.6%
29.8% 11.0% 8.0% 7.0% 21.4%
Proportion of lesson time spent on student attempts
The total time of each lesson was calculated from the
recordings, as was the total time spent by students on
attempts of any given task in the lesson. Figure 3 presents
the proportion of each lesson spent on student attempts.
Table 3 presents the total time (minutes) of each lesson, and
total time spent on student attempts per lesson.
Student total attempt durations varied across each of the
eight lessons. The second student-participant of Teacher C
had the highest attempt time across all participants and les-
sons, with student attempts making up 44% of lesson 2. Stu-
dent-participants of Teacher B recorded the second highest
total attempts duration across all participants, with an
almost equal demonstration of 35% for lesson 1 and 36%
for lesson 2. Lesson 2 of Teacher B was the longest lesson
conducted by teacher-participants. However, longer lesson
times did not always suggest increased student attempt
duration. The first student-participant of Teacher A had the
second longest lesson of all participants, yet the second low-
est attempt duration, with attempts accounting for 17% of
Laura Crocco, et al Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching 573

FIGURE 3. Percentage of lesson time spent on student attempts per lesson.

lesson 1. Additionally, the second student-participant of the
same teacher (Teacher A) demonstrated the lowest attempt
time across all participants and lessons, having attempted
for 12% of lesson 2. Shorter lessons had similar student
attempt proportions to longer lessons conducted by teacher-
participants. The first student-participant of Teacher C,
with the shortest lesson time of all participants, attempted
for 29% of lesson 1. Lesson 1 of Teacher D presented the
highest attempt time of the shorter lessons, with the first stu-
dent-participant attempting for 33% of the lesson. The sec-
ond student-participant of Teacher D attempted for 25% of
lesson 2.
with an average use of 1 every 5.37 student attempts.
Instruction and feedback both occurred the most on student
attempts, and almost equally, with an average of 1 instruc-
tion every 0.98 attempts, and 1 feedback every 1.02
attempts. Modeling was the second highest variable to occur
on each student attempt, with an average of 1 modeling
every 1.29 attempts. Explanation occurred on an average of
1 every 3.07 attempts and other occurred on an average of 1
every 1.67 attempts. Note that ratios represent an average
over the course of each lesson, and multiple statements of a
variable could have been made on a single attempt.

Occurrence of prepractice variables
Table 4 presents the number of attempts per lesson, the total
attempts across lessons, and the ratio of each prepractice
variable to attempt (ie, the occurrence of one variable every
n = # of attempts).
Across all teacher-participants, use of motivation
occurred the least per attempt, with an average use of 1
motivation every 7.70 student attempts. The second lowest
occurrence of a variable per attempt was perceptual training,
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated the teaching behaviors of classical
singing teachers using the MLCF.51 The study sought to
answer three research questions:
 Can the MLCF be applied to classical singing lessons?
 Do the teacher's behaviors vary across teachers and
students?
 Is the Principles of MLCF reliable for the identification
of teaching behavior in classical singing lessons?

TABLE 3.
Lesson Time and Student Attempt Time (Min)
Teachers
A B C D
Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Time Min Min Min Min
Lesson 60.27 53.24 53.39 62.53 29.09 55.10 31.37 36.01
Student attempts 10.40 6.28 18.43 22.53 8.55 24.03 10.38 9.00
574 Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2020

TABLE 4.
Ratios for Use of Variables Per Student Attempt (Variable: Attempt)
Prepractice variables
Student Perceptual
Teacher Lesson Attempts Motivation Modelling Instruction Explanation Training Feedback Other
A 1 71 1: 2.73 1: 1.04 1: 0.64 1: 1.03 1: 1.29 1: 0.83 1: 0.69
2 55 1: 2.75 1: 1.04 1: 0.60 1: 1.08 1: 2.04 1: 0.72 1: 0.32
B 1 98 1: 3.77 1: 1.21 1: 0.78 1: 3.92 1: 9.80 1: 0.80 1: 0.57
2 156 1: 7.80 1: 1.59 1: 1.01 1: 3.63 1: 9.18 1: 0.88 1: 1.93
C 1 88 1: 6.77 1: 1.21 1: 1.06 1: 2.10 1: 5.87 1: 0.97 1: 2.10
2 231 1: 17.77 1: 2.03 1: 1.18 1: 5.25 1: 5.50 1: 1.03 1: 2.08
D 1 141 1: 14.10 1: 1.32 1: 1.53 1: 6.13 1: 7.42 1: 1.64 1: 4.86
2 53 1: 5.89 1: 0.88 1: 1.02 1: 1.39 1: 1.89 1: 1.26 1: 0.84
Student attempt total 111.63

Motor learning variables are evident in classical
singing lessons
This study confirmed that the MLCF can reliably be
applied to one-to-one classical singing teaching. The study
showed that 80.58% of behaviors fit within the proposed
framework. Overall, common use of modeling, instruction,
feedback, and other variables and uncommon use of motiva-
tion, explanation, and perceptual training variables, was
shown across the four teacher-participants and eight
recorded lessons. Further analysis of prepractice variables
suggests that overall there was predominantly consistent use
of variables by teacher-participants across the eight
recorded lessons.
when determining appropriate amount and delivering
instruction per student.5,71 A method for systematically
identifying singing tasks and the skill level of students is
therefore warranted. Future research may examine the com-
plexity, length, and focus of attention of instructions used in
the respective learning environment, and the effects of goal-
related and movement-related instruction. Additionally,
classical singing students studying at tertiary level would
have presumably been training for several years before com-
mencing tertiary studies. Future research should study the
delivery of instruction that builds on and/or changes preex-
isting motor skills to enable the acquisition of a new skill.

Perceptual training in lessons. The current study

Use of verbal information by teachers
High instructional behavior in lessons. Although
teacher-participants demonstrated relatively higher use of
instruction with low variability in use between lessons, they
used relatively less explanation and perceptual training. A
challenge for the singing teacher is to determine suitable
instructional behaviors for their student. Although higher
use of instruction by teachers potentially reflects the com-
plexity of classical singing, considering the amount and
delivery of instruction is imperative in the teaching of a
motor skill. From this study, we might hypothesize that
teachers may be over-instructing (ie, providing too much
instruction to) students. Variable-to-attempt ratios indi-
cated that instruction occurred equal to or exceeding the
number of student attempts, but analysis of the routine use
of instruction showed that some attempts contained more
instructional behavior than others, and there were attempts
which contained no instruction. Too much instruction may
increase the attention demands of the learner,59 and inter-
fere with the student's ability to effectively process feedback
or stop unwanted behaviors, subsequently delaying goal
achievement.69,70 Use of short and simple instructions is rec-
ommended for the learning of a novel motor skill.41,69 Task
difficulty and the student's skill level should be considered
showed teachers have low use of perceptual training across
teacher-participants. The amalgamation of information
from sensory domains to motor output is an imperative
function for music production72 and exerting fine vocal
motor control.13,58 Student-participant's attention to the
perceptual training delivered may have been undesirably
affected by the relatively low use of motivation and/or
higher amounts of instruction used by teacher-partici-
pants.73 Passive listening and/or watching of an expert musi-
cian performing a task, regardless of it prompting
involuntary motor activity,74 is not sufficient to produce
reliable demonstrable changes in behavior.75 Developing a
student's perceptual awareness of actions and sounds
requires direct attention. Intentionally directing a student to
actively listen, watch and recognize sensations by asking
what they see/hear/feel, or describing related sounds/sensa-
tions, is essential to building error-detection methods41 and
subsequently enhancing motor learning. This is particularly
imperative for the more advanced singing student, as
research on the neural control of singing suggests that a
more experienced musician relies heavily on somatosensory
feedback.76,77 Additionally, active discrimination training
for musicians has shown to activate premotor cortical
areas,78 and sensorimotor areas related to working memory
and error detection, even in the absence of physically
Laura Crocco, et al Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching
practicing the task.79 It may be appropriate for classical
singing teachers to pay further attention to perceptual train-
ing behaviors during singing lessons. Although musicians
have shown to perform better at auditory and motor tasks
than nonmusicians, particularly pitch, timbre, and voice dis-
crimination tasks,80,81 examining passive/direct execution of
perceptual training during singing lessons is recommended.
High delivery of feedback by teachers: type and
frequency of feedback
Alongside instruction, feedback was one of the most fre-
quently used prepractice variables across teacher-partici-
pants. Teacher-participants used more KR feedback
compared to KP. Although both KR and KP are effec-
tive in motor skill acquisition, it is important for the
teacher to understand which type of augmented feedback
should be administered, and at what frequency, so as to
enhance motor skill acquisition. Current motor learning
research remains at odds as to whether relative frequency
(feedback given a fixed number of times in a lesson) or
absolute frequency (amount of feedback relative to the
number of student attempts in a lesson) of feedback is
more efficacious in the acquisition of a motor task. If
augmented feedback is provided too frequently, particu-
larly KR, the student may become dependent on the
teacher's feedback,82 which may undesirably affect both
practice within the lesson,61,83 and overall motor perfor-
mance.49 However, high frequency feedback has also
been shown to benefit the learning of a complex skill,
until a degree of expertise is reached.62 Although fre-
quent KR is suitable for accuracy of the student's imme-
diate performance during acquisition, less frequent KR
or withdrawing KR feedback over time has shown to
enhance the retention of a skill,49 particularly for learn-
ers who are able to assess their own errors.84 KP may be
more beneficial for the acquisition of a new skill, as it
provides the learner with information they would other-
wise be unable to acquire on their own.85 However, com-
plex KP feedback should be avoided.69 Future research
may investigate various feedback conditions for classical
singing students at different stages of skill acquisition,
and whether KR feedback is withdrawn over the course
of a lesson.
Teachers often model for students: learning through
observation
The moderate to high use of modeling revealed in this paper
confirms an earlier study by Zhukov33 on the teaching styles
of piano, string, and wind teachers. Zhukov33 showed that
instrumental music teachers frequently modeled for their
students in lessons. However, Hodges and Franks57 suggest
that it may be more efficient to avoid modeling in the early
stages of learning a complex skill.57 Students are then able
to acquaint themselves with the task before instructions and
modeling are provided.57
575
Observing an expert performer. Music performance
teachers in a conservatorium are considered expert musi-
cians as well as teachers. However, the motor learning liter-
ature proposes that the use of experts as models may
encourage imitation rather than acquisition of a skill.45,86
The observation of other people at a similar skill level
acquiring the same skill is considered equally or more bene-
ficial to learning, rather than the observation of experts
demonstrating "correct" performance.57,87,88 Additionally, a
model showing similar characteristics to the observer, such
as age89 and gender,90 may promote greater brain activity
and high motor performance. The level of use of modeling
by teacher-participants warrants consideration of these rec-
ommendations in the context of classical singing training.
Investigation of what information classical singing teachers
attend to during the modeling of “correct” and “incorrect”
movements is also suggested.
Overlap between modeling and perceptual train-
ing. There is a possible overlap between the purpose and
execution of modeling and perceptual training behaviors.
Modeling by the teacher may also passively provide a
representation of the perceptual demands associated with
the task being taught. During analysis of the recorded-les-
sons, perceptual training was identified when the teacher
asked the student to attend to what they hear/feel, or when
the teacher described sounds/sensations associated with
the relevant task. However, it is not currently known
whether singing teachers intentionally consider modeling
as a form of or opportunity for implicit perceptual training.
Future research in singing could examine the interaction
between these two variables.
Motivation for students
Motivation presented as the least used prepractice vari-
able by teacher-participants. Skill acquisition, learning
and optimal performance may be facilitated by motiva-
tional conditions that increase the learner's expectations
of performance success91,92 and self-efficacy in success-
fully executing tasks.92,93 Motivation may, for example,
be established through goal setting or the delivery of
augmented feedback that infers success. Student expec-
tancy of positive outcomes and increased perceptions of
competence have been related to the explicit use of
reward-driven motivation,94,95 and the deliverance of
feedback after "correct"/"good" attempts.96,97 As classical
singing training involves the learning of a complex and
fine motor skill, increasing the use of motivation is
encouraged. Low use of motivation by teacher-partici-
pants suggests that goals are either not and/or rarely dis-
cussed during singing lessons, or no goals are set at all.
Failure to ensure the student's understanding of the tar-
get prevents attainment of one of the essential criteria of
the prepractice phase. Neglecting to enhance the stu-
dent's performance expectancies and sense of autonomy
may induce internal focus of attention, and possibly
576
prohibit skill acquisition.92 Further research on focus of
attention, goal setting, and autonomy inducing motiva-
tional behaviors in classical singing training is recom-
mended.
Students receive instruction, modeling, and feedback
on most attempts
Motor learning research has begun to assess the interaction
between motor learning variables and the subsequent effects
on skill acquisition. Predominantly, optimal routine use of
instruction, modeling, and augmented feedback variables per
attempt (ie, teacher gives instruction and/or provides a dem-
onstration—student attempts the task—teacher gives feed-
back) has been investigated. Recommendations as to the
interaction between these variables in tertiary-level classical
singing lessons are yet to be examined thoroughly. Results
in this study identified that teachers used the three variables
in various routines per student attempt, using one of the fol-
lowing: (a) all 3 variables, (b) instruction and modeling only,
(c) instruction and feedback only, (d) modeling and feedback
only, (e) feedback only, (f) instruction only, or (g) modeling
only.
Teachers routinely used the three variables of instruc-
tion, modeling, and feedback within a single student
attempt. Current motor learning research suggests that
“correct” modeling and detailed and/or high amounts of
instruction and feedback may be inefficient in the learn-
ing of a new skill.69,98 Allowing the student to explore
the task by providing few instructions or models may be
the most effective method for learning.99 Teachers also
routinely used a combination of instruction and feedback
per attempt. Motor learning literature proposes that
goal-directed, opposed to movement-related, instruction,
and feedback are two of the most important variables in
the acquisition of a motor skill.100,101 Further study on
the type of instruction used in singing lessons is encour-
aged. Teacher-participants had moderate use of feedback
only per attempt. Although feedback benefits perfor-
mance,102 delivering feedback alone within an attempt
does not enhance acquisition without setting goals (moti-
vation) and providing goal-directed instruction.101 Mod-
erate use of feedback implies a certain degree of
repetition of a task (practice) occurring in one-to-one les-
sons (eg, the student would attempt, then the teacher
would provide feedback). Concurrent routine use would
need to be examined. Teachers presented low-moderate
use of instruction and modeling only, modeling only, and
instruction only per attempt. Goal-related instruction
combined with modeling has been found to increase con-
sistency and accuracy of a complex motor skill, rather
than instruction and modeling singularly employed.100,103
The absence of appropriate augmented feedback during
the student attempts with instruction and/or modeling
only may have reduced the potential benefits of any
prior goal-related instruction,56 and prohibited the devel-
opment of an internal reference of correctness.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2020
Several teaching behaviors are unidentifiable by
motor learning variables: what is "other?"
The other category was used frequently in the observed les-
sons (M = 19.62%), meaning that teachers used behaviors
that were unrelated to motor skill acquisition. Identifying
what other comprises of was beyond the scope of this study.
Examination of the use of this variable in one-to-one classi-
cal singing lessons is therefore warranted. Research on the
teacher/student relationship in one-to-one music training104
−106
may give insight into the characteristics of this variable.
Studies on the teaching behaviors of other instrumental
teachers in higher music education suggest that other may
comprise of academic information, social talk and/or off-
task statements.107,108 Education research has shown that
academic learning suffers when off-task behavior in lessons
exceed 20%.37 Kostka40 demonstrated that piano students
were less engaged during periods of teacher-talk, and Spra-
dling109 showed that high-teacher talk conceded more nega-
tive attitudes in university band students. Future research
may examine the significance of other in building the
teacher−student relationship, if other occurs sporadically or
regularly during a lesson, whether the variable is used as a
form of “resting” between student attempts110 and whether
off-task talk interrupts student attentiveness in singing les-
sons.
Student attempt time in lessons
Attempts are a fundamental element of the prepractice stage
of learning, so as to ensure that the student is capable of exe-
cuting the tasks correctly.5 It is also essential for the singing
teacher to consider the difficulty of what they are teaching,
and the number and duration of student attempts per lesson,
so as to achieve skill acquisition while evading fatigue or
possible injury. The current study examined the amount of
time student-participants spent attempting tasks per lesson,
and the number of attempts per lesson.
The low average of attempt time per lesson across stu-
dent-participants, and high use of instruction, feedback, and
modeling, suggests that teacher behaviors and talking occu-
pied a considerable part of the lesson. This finding supports
previous studies indicating that one-to-one performance
teachers tend to dominate their students in lessons, causing
student dependency on the teacher.16,111 Various studies on
one-to-one instrumental training have examined the amount
of lesson time spent talking by teachers, and student attempt
time per lesson. Regarding one-to-one instrumental lessons,
Colprit112 revealed that 41% of string lesson time was
devoted to student performance. Speer107 supported this
result in studying one-to-one piano lessons, additionally
finding that more experienced students spend significantly
more time attempting than less-experienced students.
Although the current study did not recognize student “expe-
rience” due to subjectivity in its identification, here, unlike
string and piano performance students, singing students
attempt for an average of 29% per lesson (SD = 10.0%).
Furthermore the length of a singing lesson does not always
Laura Crocco, et al Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching
insinuate the length or number of times students attempted
a task. For example, the first student of Teacher A
attempted 71 times (10.40 minutes) during their 1-hour les-
son, whereas the second student of Teacher C, who also had
a similar lesson time, attempted 231 times (22.53 minutes).
However, it is not yet known how much time a singing stu-
dent should spend attempting per lesson to acquire a fine
motor skill, while also avoiding fatigue or injury. Systematic
study of the optimal number and intensity of attempts
would require consideration of (a) the influence of individ-
ual predispositions to learning on skill acquisition, and (b)
the impact of individual vocal endurance on vocal effort
and fatigue. Much may be learned through the study of this
paradigm. Furthermore, a systematic method for identify-
ing tasks in singing lessons will allow for the study of single
or multitask learning in this environment. Future research
may look to examining the number and duration of singing
lessons per week, as well as the amount of time spent teach-
ing/attempting and talking by the teacher and student.
Limitations
Note must be made that any variation between the results of
this study and the motor learning literature may be due to
the nature of the respective motor task. Singing is a natu-
rally multifaceted motor skill, as it is a nonobservable
instrument that involves the coordination of complex move-
ments to produce a temporary outcome.43 Therefore, the
use of PML prepractice variables in classical singing lessons
may vary with (a) motor tasks and additional motor
requirements, (b) the nature of the teacher-student relation-
ship, and (c) other teacher and/or student characteristics
such as their knowledge and attitudes.42,48 Additionally, the
absence of well-defined and more objectively measured
learning outcomes for classical singing training does not
allow for a clear understanding of a singing student's transi-
tion from the prepractice to the practice stage of learning.
Further research into these areas and how they may influ-
ence the teaching and learning of classical singing is recom-
mended.
Implications for future research
This study has examined one framework that may encour-
age a nexus between empirical research, teaching quality,
and learning outcomes. Additionally, a framework based
on motor learning may provide common terminology to
support communication amongst singing teachers about
their practice. Using the variables of the MLCF51 to objec-
tively observe singing may provide a way of improving
teaching in this field without attempting to describe explicit
or ambiguous teaching methods. Furthermore, using the
framework to examine how singing teachers teach rather
than what they teach may eliminate fear of misinterpreta-
tion or scrutiny of their craft. However, further research on
577
the reliability of this tool across a larger participant group is
encouraged. It is recommended that future research also
replicate this study on one-to-one lessons for other instru-
ments and music genre to further assess the reliability of its
use.
Areas open to further research in classical singing train-
ing have been highlighted by this study. First, in order to
thoroughly study whether classical singing teachers are
following PML recommendations, a more objective way
of identifying student skill level, tasks, and task difficulty
are needed. It is recommended that future research on
one-to-one lessons in classical singing training also (a)
investigate the interaction between prepractice variables;
(b) analyze the structure and delivery of instruction, (c)
determine the information conveyed through modeling
and perceptual training, (d) develop methods of enhancing
motivation, (e) establish a reference-of-correctness for sing-
ing students, (f) document the amount and frequency of
augmented feedback; (g) determine how teaching behav-
iors should accommodate for variances in pre-existing
motor skills113 when working with singing students who
already have a degree of proficiency, and (h) determine
whether students are provided with learning goals and
clear targets in lessons.
CONCLUSION
Music performance training in higher music education
requires the systematic development and acquisition of a
skill.114 Performance teachers in higher education are
responsible for the development of autonomous musi-
cians,111 and therefore encouraged to reflect on their own
teaching behavior. Rigorous study of the multiplicity of fac-
tors in one-to-one lessons and the quintessential characteris-
tics of expert performance in classical singing is advised to
develop improved approaches to skill learning in this envi-
ronment. However, the encouragement for more objective
and systematic study of singing training is not to advocate a
mechanistic way of teaching and learning how to sing. The
PML may support teachers in facilitating the teaching and
learning of other phenomenological components of music
performance such as musicality and artistry. Although sev-
eral components stand in need of further investigation, clas-
sical singing teachers may presently improve the teaching-
learning process by applying recommendations made
through empirical, evidence-based research on motor learn-
ing in neighboring disciplines.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to give special thanks to the follow-
ing people: all teachers and students involved in the study,
participating higher education institutions, research assis-
tants, and Dr Rob Heard.
578 Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2020

APPENDIX A. OBSERVATION CHECKLIST: THE

PRINCIPLES OF MOTOR LEARNING

Concurrent
conversation/ Perceptual
Conversation/Behavior Behavior Motivation Modeling Instruction Explanation training Feedback Other

T: Open your mouth ^ ^

more (demonstration).
S: (Attempt) T: (plays piano)
T: Very good. How did that feel? ^ ^
S: A little tight, but better than T:
before.
T: Yes, it was much better than ^ ^
the last one.

APPENDIX B. WRITTEN DEFINITIONS OF GENERAL Explanation

PREPRACTICE VARIABLES The teacher provides the student with descriptions and fur-
ther information to assist them in understanding an aspect
of the task or something related to the task. Explanations
Motivation
occur before or after the student’s attempt.
The teacher may engage in behavior intending to motivate
the student in the lesson. This may be done by
Perceptual training
 setting goals for the lesson, and
Perceptual training includes the teacher raising the student’s
 outlining the importance/benefit of the task.
awareness of the sensations related to the task. This may
occur before, during, or after the student’s attempt. The stu-
(eg, “Great. If you continue to sing it like that it will help dent reflects on what they hear/see/feel during or after an
you to round the tone much, much more.”) attempt.
(eg, “How did that feel or sound to you?”)
Modeling
The teacher provides the student with a physical demonstra- Feedback
tion to help them understand the task. May be provided The teacher makes a judgment about the student’s attempt
before/during/after an attempt. at the task. This can occur during or after an attempt. Feed-
Demonstration may be back may include perceptual terms; however, the focus is on
the teacher making a judgment.
 part of task, (eg, “Mhm” [nods head]. “Well done.” “That sounded
 the whole task, much more clear and vibrant.”)
 correct or incorrect demonstration, or
 a hand gesture to model some part of the task.
Other
Use this if you cannot classify a turn/behavior according to
Instruction
the above variables. Please include a short description of
The teacher provides information to the student about what
what the behavior may be.
they should do to achieve the task. Instructions occur before
(eg, Student health. Academic requirements. General
or during an attempt by the student.
conversation.
Instructions may

 refer to part of the task, REFERENCES

 refer to the whole task, 1. Schlaug G. Chapter 3—musicians and music making as a model for
 be short/simple, the study of brain plasticity. In: Altenm€uller E, Finger S, Boller F,
 be long/complex, eds. Progress in Brain Research. 217, Elsevier; 2015:37–55.
2. Welch GF, Howard DM, Himonides E, et al. Real-time feedback in
the singing studio: an innovatory action-research project using new
include perceptual terms; however, the focus is on what the voice technology. Music Educ Res. 2005;7:225–249.
student should do. (eg, “Open your mouth more so that you 3. Crocco L, Madill CJ, McCabe P. Evidence-based frameworks for
can feel that ‘a’ vowel spring up”) teaching and learning in classical singing training: a systematic
Laura Crocco, et al Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching
review. J Voice. 2017;31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.12.001.
130.e137-130.e117.
4. Schmidt RA. Motor Learning and Performance: From Principles to
Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers; 1991.
5. Maas E, Robin DA, Austermann HSN, et al. Principles of motor
learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. Am J Speech Lang
Pathol. 2008;17:277–298. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/
025).
6. McAllister L, Lincoln M. Clinical Education in Speech-Language
Pathology. London: Whurr; 2004.
7. Chang J, Chang G, Chien CC, et al. Effectiveness of two forms of
feedback on training of a joint mobilization skill by using a joint
translation simulator. Phys Ther. 2007;87:418–430. https://doi.org/
10.2522/ptj.20060154.
8. Pascua LAM, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Additive benefits of external focus
and enhanced performance expectancy for motor learning. J Sports Sci.
2015;33:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.922693.
9. Mastos M, Miller K, Eliasson AC, et al. Goal-directed training: Link-
ing theories of treatment to clinical practice for improved functional
activities in daily life. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21:47–55. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0269215506073494.
10. Gentile AM. Movement science: implicit and explicit processes during
acquisition of functional skills. Scand J Occup Ther. 1998;5:7–16.
https://doi.org/10.3109/11038129809035723.
11. Krampe RT, Ericsson KA. Maintaining excellence: Deliberate prac-
tice and elite performance in young and older pianists. J Exp Psychol.
1996;125:331–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.331.
12. Pfordresher PQ, Halpern AR, Greenspon EB. A mechanism for sen-
sorimotor translation in singing: the multi-modal imagery association
(mmia) model. Music Percept. 2015;32:242–253. https://doi.org/
10.1525/MP.2015.32.3.242.
13. Zarate JM. The neural control of singing. Front Hum Neurosci.
2013;7:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00237.
14. Miller R. On the Art of Singing. New York: Oxford University Press;
1996. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195098259.001.0001.
15. Carroll T, Nix J, Hunter E, et al. Objective measurement of vocal
fatigue in classical singers: a vocal dosimetry pilot study. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg. 2006;135:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
otohns.2006.06.1268.
16. Gaunt H. One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: the perceptions of
instrumental and vocal teachers. Psychol Music. 2008;36:215–245.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607080827.
17. Polifonia working group for instrumental and vocal music teacher
training. Instrumental and vocal teacher education: European per-
spectives [handbook]. Utrecht, Association Europeenne des Conser-
vatoires, Academies de Musique et Musikhochschulen, 2010.
18. Young V, Burwell K, Pickup D. Areas of study and teaching
strategies instrumental teaching: a case study research project. Music
Educ Res. 2003;5:139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1461380032000085522.
19. Kenny DT. The Psychology of Music Performance Anxiety. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780199586141.001.0001.
20. Bloom BS, Sosniak LA. Developing Talent in Young People. Ballan-
tine Books; 1985.
21. Persson R. Brilliant performers as teachers: a case study of common
sense teaching in a conservatoire setting. Int J Music Educ.
1996;28:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576149602800103.
22. Gaunt H. One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: the perceptions of
instrumental and vocal students. Psychol Music. 2010;38:178–208.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735609339467.
23. Gaunt H. Understanding the one-to-one relationship in instrumental/
vocal tuition in higher education: comparing student and teacher per-
ceptions. Br J Music Educ. 2011;28:159–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0265051711000052.
24. Purser D. Performers as teachers: exploring the teaching approaches
of instrumental teachers in conservatoires. Br J Music Educ.
2005;22:287–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051705006546.
579
25. Geringer JM, Madsen CK. An investigation of transfer: music educa-
tion research and applied instruction. Bull Counc Res Music Educ.
1987;91:45–49.
26. Schmidt CP. Systematic research in applied music instruction: a
review of the literature. Q J Music Teach Learn. 1992;3:32–45.
27. Carey G, Bridgstock R, Taylor P, et al. Characterising one-to-one
conservatoire teaching: some implications of a quantitative analysis.
Music Educ Res. 2013;15:357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14613808.2013.82495410.1017/S0265051705006601.
28. Carey G, Grant C, McWilliam E, et al. One-to-one pedagogy: devel-
oping a protocol for illuminating the nature of teaching in the conser-
vatoire. Int J Music Educ. 2013;31:148–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0255761413483077.
29. Burwell K. A degree of independence: teachers' approaches to instrumen-
tal tuition in a university college. Br J Music Educ. 2005;22:199–215.
30. McPhail GJ. Developing student autonomy in the one-to-one music
lesson. Int J Music Educ. 2013;31:160–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0255761413486407.
31. McPhee EA. Finding the muse: teaching musical expression to adoles-
cents in the one-to-one studio environment. Int J Music Educ.
2011;29:333–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411421084.
32. O'Bryan J. Habits of the mind, hand and heart: approaches to classi-
cal singing training. In: Harrison SD, O'Bryan J, eds. Teaching Sing-
ing in the 21st century. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014:21–34.
33. Zhukov K. Teaching Styles and Student Behaviour in Instrumental
Music Lessons in Australian Conservatoriums. 2005. [Dissertation].
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
34. Harrison SD, Grant C. Exploring of new models of research pedagogy:
time to let go of master-apprentice style supervision? Teach High Educ.
2015;20:556–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1036732.
35. Mauleon C. Learning to be a singing teacher. International Society for
Music Education: Seminar of the Commission for the Education of the
Professional Musician. Barcelona: International Society for Music
Education; 2004. Escola Superior de Musica de Catalunya.
36. Schwartz PL, Webb G. Case Studies on Teaching in Higher Education.
London, Philadelphia: Kogan Page; 1993.
37. Madsen CH, Madsen CK. Teaching/Discipline: A Positive Approach
for Educational Development. Allyn and Bacon; 1981.
38. Gipson RC. An Observational Analysis of Wind Instrument Private
Lessons. 1978. [Dissertation]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Thesis database(Order No. 7818757).
39. Hepler LE. The Measurement of Teacher/Student Interaction in Pri-
vate Music Lessons, and Its Relation to Teacher Field Dependence/
Field Independence. 1986. [Dissertation]. Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses(Order No.8627848).
40. Kostka MJ. An investigation of reinforcements, time use, and student
attentiveness, in piano lessons. J Res Music Educ. 1984;32:113.
41. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral
Emphasis. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics; 2005.
42. Magill RA. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications.
New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
43. Wulf G, Shea C. Principles derived from the study of simple skills do
not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychon Bull Rev.
2002;9:185–211. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196276.
44. McNeil MR, Katz WF, Fossett TRD, et al. Effects of online aug-
mented kinematic and perceptual feedback on treatment of speech
movements in apraxia of speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2010;62:127–
133. https://doi.org/10.1159/000287211.
45. Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Serrien DJ. Cognitive effort and motor learn-
ing. Quest. 1994;46:328–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.
1994.10484130.
46. Sherwood DE, Lee TD. Schema theory: critical review and implica-
tions for the role of cognition in a new theory of motor learning. Res
Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74:376–382.
47. Bislick LP, Weir PC, Spencer K, et al. Do principles of motor
learning enhance retention and transfer of speech skills? A sys-
tematic review. Aphasiology. 2012;26:709–728. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02687038.2012.676888.
580
48. McIlwaine A, Madill C, McCabe P. Voice therapy prepractice and
the principles of motor learning. Acquir Knowl Speech Lang Hear.
2010;12(1):29–32.
49. Steinhauer K, Grayhack JP. The role of knowledge of results in per-
formance and learning of a voice motor task. J Voice. 2000;14:137–
145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80020-X.
50. Yiu EML, Verdolini K, Chow LPY. Electromyographic study of
motor learning for a voice production task. J Speech Lang Hear Res.
2005;48:1254–1268. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/087a).
51. Madill CJ, McIllwaine A, Russell R, et al. Classifying and identifying
motor learning behaviors in voice-therapy clinician-client interac-
tions: a proposed motor learning classification framework. J Voice
2018;. submitted.
52. Adams JA. A closed-loop theory of motor learning. J Mot Behav.
1971;3:111–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1971.10734898.
53. McNeil MR. Clinical Management of Sensorimotor Speech Disorders.
2nd ed. New York: Thieme; 2009.
54. Carroll WR, Bandura A. The role of visual monitoring in observa-
tional learning of action patterns: making the unobservable observ-
able. J Mot Behav. 1982;14:153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00222895.1982.10735270.
55. Lidor R, Bar-Eli M. Sport Psychology: Linking Theory and Practice.
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology; 1999.
56. Swinnen SP, Jardin K, Meulenbroek R. Between-limb asynchronies
during bimanual coordination: effects of manual dominance and
attentional cueing. Neuropsychologia. 1996;34:1203–1213. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0028-3932(96)00047-4.
57. Hodges NJ, Franks IM. Modelling coaching practice: the role of
instruction and demonstration. J Sports Sci. 2002;20:793–811.
58. Leigh-Post K. Mind-Body Awareness for Singers: Unleashing Optimal
Performance. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2014.
59. Muratori LM, Lamberg EM, Quinn L, et al. Applying principles of
motor learning and control to upper extremity rehabilitation. J Hand
Ther. 2013;26:94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2012.12.007.
60. Bilodeau EA, Bilodeau IM, Schumsky DA. Some effects of introduc-
ing and withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in practice. J
Exp Psychol. 1959;58:142–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040262.
61. Nicholson DE, Schmidt RA. Scheduling information feedback to
enhance training effectiveness. Proc Hum Factors Soc Annu Meet.
1991;35:1400–1402. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129103501913.
62. Wulf G, Shea C, Matschiner S. Frequent feedback enhances complex
motor skill learning. J Mot Behav. 1998;30:180–192.
63. Brown Jr. WS. Spectral changes due to performance environment in
singers, nonsingers, and actors. J Voice. 2002;16:323–332.
64. Baker E. Optimal intervention intensity in speech-language pathology:
discoveries, challenges, and unchartered territories. Int J Speech Lang
Pathol. 2012;14:478–485. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2012.717967.
65. Hart T, Ehde DM. Defining the treatment targets and active ingredients
of rehabilitation: implications for rehabilitation psychology. Rehabil
Psychol. 2015;60:126–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000031.
66. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2013.
67. Potter WJ, Levine-Donnerstein D. Rethinking validity and reliability
in content analysis. J Appl Commun Res. 1999;27:258–283. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539.
68. Creswell JW. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluat-
ing Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2015.
69. Hodges NJ, Franks IM. Learning a coordination skill: interactive
effects of instruction and feedback. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2001;72:132–
142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2001.10608943.
70. Wulf G, Weigelt C. Instructions about physical principles in learning
a complex motor skill: to tell or not to tell. Res Q Exerc Sport.
1997;68:362–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1997.10608018.
71. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for con-
ceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor
learning. J Mot Behav. 2004;36:212–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/
JMBR.36.2.212-224.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2020
72. Zatorre RJ, Chen JL, Penhune VB. When the brain plays music: audi-
tory-motor interactions in music perception and production. Nat Rev
Neurosci. 2007;8:547–558. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2152.
73. Verdolini K. Principles of skill acquisition applied to voice training.
In: Hampton M, Acker B, eds. The Vocal Vision: Views on Voice by
24 Leading Teachers, Coaches and Directors. New York: Applause;
1997:65–80.
74. Haueisen J, Kn€ osche TR. Involuntary motor activity in pianists
evoked by music perception. J Cogn Neurosci. 2001;13:786–792.
https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290152541449.
75. Alain C, Snyder JS, He Y, et al. Changes in auditory cortex parallel
rapid perceptual learning. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:1074–1084. https://
doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl018.
76. Kleber B, Veit R, Birbaumer N, et al. The brain of opera singers:
experience-dependent changes in functional activation. Cereb Cortex.
2010;20:1144–1152. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp177.
77. M€ urbe D, Zahnert T, Kuhlisch E, et al. Effects of professional singing
education on vocal vibrato—a longitudinal study. J Voice.
2007;21:683–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.06.002.
78. Brown S, Martinez MJ. Activation of premotor vocal areas during
musical discrimination. Brain Cogn. 2007;63:59–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bandc.2006.08.006.
79. Meegan DV, Aslin RN, Jacobs RA. Motor timing learned without
motor training. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3:860–862. https://doi.org/
10.1038/78757.
80. Chartrand J-P, Belin P. Superior voice timbre processing in musi-
cians. Neurosci Lett. 2006;405:164–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu-
let.2006.06.053.
81. Micheyl C, Norena A. Auditory signal generator for people suffering
from tinnitus. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119:3522. https://doi.org/
10.1121/1.2212598.
82. Bergan C. Motor learning principles and voice pedagogy: theory and
practice. J Sing. 2010;66:457.
83. Wulf G, Lee TD, Schmidt RA. Reducing knowledge of results
about relative versus absolute timing: differential effects on learn-
ing. J Mot Behav. 1994;26:362–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00222895.1994.9941692.
84. Johnson RW, Wicks GG, Ben-Sira D. Practice in the Absence of
Knowledge of Results: Motor Skill Retention. University of Minne-
sota; 1981. Unpublished manuscript.
85. Sharma A, Leineweber MJ, Andrysek J. Effects of cognitive load and
prosthetic liner on volitional response times to vibrotactile feedback.
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2016;53:473–482. https://doi.org/10.1682/
JRRD.2016.04.0060.
86. Higgins S. Motor skill acquisition. Phys Ther. 1991;71:123–139.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/71.2.123.
87. Granados C, Wulf G. Enhancing motor learning through dyad prac-
tice: contributions of observation and dialogue. Res Q Exerc Sport.
2007;78:197–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2007.10599417.
88. Kawasaki T, Aramaki H, Tozawa R, et al. An effective model for
observational learning to improve novel motor performance. J Phys
Ther Sci. 2015;27:3829–3832.
89. Zmyj N, Aschersleben G, Prinz W, et al. The peer model advantage in
infants' imitation of familiar gestures performed by differently aged
models. Front Psychol. 2012;3:252. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2012.00252.
90. Calvo-Merino B, Grezes J, Glaser DE, et al. Seeing or doing? Influ-
ence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Curr Biol.
2006;16:1905–1910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.065.
91. Rosenqvist O, Nordstr€ om OS, Humanistisk-samh€allsvetenskapliga v,
et al. Confidence enhanced performance?—the causal effects of suc-
cess on future performance in professional golftournaments. J Econ
Behav Organ. 2015;117:281.
92. Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic
motivation and attention for learning: the optimal theory of motor
learning. PsychonBull Rev. 2016;23:1382–1414. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9.
Laura Crocco, et al Principles of Motor Learning in Classical Singing Teaching
93. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H.
Freeman; 1997.
94. Abe M, Schambra H, Wassermann Eric M, et al. Reward improves
long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline
memory gains. Curr Biol. 2011;21:557–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cub.2011.02.030.
95. Fiorillo CD, Newsome WT, Schultz W. The temporal precision of
reward prediction in dopamine neurons. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11:966–
973. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2159.
96. Badami R, VaezMousavi M, Wulf G, et al. Feedback after good ver-
sus poor trials affects intrinsic motivation. Res Q Exerc Sport.
2011;82:360–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599765.
97. Saemi E, Porter JM, Ghotbi-Varzaneh A, et al. Knowledge of results
after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning.
Psychol Sport Exerc. 2012;13:378–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psy-
chsport.2011.12.008.
98. Hodges NJ, Lee TD. The role of augmented information prior to
learning a bimanual visual-motor coordination task: do instructions
of the movement pattern facilitate learning relative to discovery learn-
ing? Br J Psychol. 1999;90:389–403. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000712699161486.
99. Hodges NJ, Williams AM. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, The-
ory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2012.
100. Hodges NJ, Franks IM. Attention focusing instructions and coordi-
nation bias: implications for learning a novel bimanual task. Hum
Mov Sci. 2000;19:843–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(01)
00025-2.
101. Tzetzis G, Kioumourtzoglou E, Mavromatis G. Goal setting and
feedback for the development of instructional strategies. Percept Mot
Skills. 1997;84:1411–1427.
102. Ste-Marie DM, Law B, Rymal AM, et al. Observation interventions
for motor skill learning and performance: an applied model for the
use of observation. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012;5:145–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.665076.
581
103. Janelle CM, Champenoy JD, Coombes SA, et al. Mechanisms of
attentional cueing during observational learning to facilitate motor
skill acquisition. J Sports Sci. 2003;21:825–838. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0264041031000140310.
104. Creech A, Hallam S. Learning a musical instrument: the influence of
interpersonal interaction on outcomes for school-aged pupils. Psychol
Music. 2011;39:102–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610370222.
105. Presland C. Conservatoire student and instrumental professor: the
student perspective on a complex relationship. Br J Music Educ.
2005;22:237.
106. Zhukov K. Interpersonal interactions in instrumental lessons: teacher/
student verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Psychol Music.
2013;41:466–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735611430434.
107. Speer DR. An analysis of sequential patterns of instruction in piano les-
sons. J Res Music Educ. 1994;42:14–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345333.
108. Yarbrough C, Price HE. Sequential patterns of instruction in music. J
Res Music Educ. 1989;37:179–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344668.
109. Spradling RL. The effect of timeout from performance on attentive-
ness and attitude of university band students. J Res Music Educ.
1985;33:123–137. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344732.
110. Lawrie R. A Comparison of the Clinical Behaviors of Students and
Experienced Speech Pathologists in the Prepractice Phase of Voice
Therapy: A Preliminary Investigation. The University of Sydney;
2010. Unpublished honours thesis.
111. Jørgensen H. Student learning in higher instrumental education: who
is responsible? Br J Music Educ. 2000;17:67–77. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0265051700000164.
112. Colprit EJ. Observation and analysis of Suzuki string teaching. Br J
Music Educ. 2000;48:206–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345394.
113. Walter CB, Swinnen SP. Potential disparities between imagining and
preparing motor skills. Behav Brain Sci. 1994;17:227–228. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0140525X00034336.
114. Hodges DA. Why study music? Int J Music Educ. 2005;23:111–115.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761405052403.