See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258155785

Factors and Abilities Influencing Sightreading Skill in Music

Article  in  Journal of Research in Music Education · September 1994

DOI: 10.2307/3345701

CITATIONS READS

84 2,391

1 author:

Gary E. McPherson
University of Melbourne
175 PUBLICATIONS   4,745 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Creative Workforce Initiative: Understanding creative workers and their practice View project

Transforming Musicianship - Musicians' Learner Identity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary E. McPherson on 10 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MENC: The National Association for Music Education

Factors and Abilities Influencing Sightreading Skill in Music

Author(s): Gary E. McPherson
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 217-231
Published by: MENC: The National Association for Music Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345701
Accessed: 29/10/2008 11:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=menc.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

MENC: The National Association for Music Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Research in Music Education.

http://www.jstor.org
 JRME1994,VOLUME42, NUMBER3, PAGES217-231 217
This study was designed to replicate and extend existing literature by seeking to
determine importantfactors and abilities that influence sightreading skill in music.
The Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale (WFPS) was administered to 101 high
school clarinet and trumpetstudents who werecompletingAustralian Music Exami-
nations Board (AMEB) performance examinations. Findings show that, in the
beginning stages of training, sightreading skill is not significantly correlatedwith
the ability to perform a repertoireof rehearsed music for a comprehensiveperfor-
mance examination as assessed on the AMEB examination. As instrumentalists
mature, however, correlations between these two aspects of performance seem to
strengthen markedly. Consistent with other studies, results show that rhythmicerrors
far outweigh all other types of errors.Differing strategies used by high-scoring and
low-scoringsubjectson the WFPS and by two groups of high school subjectsin school
years 7-9 and 10-12 wereobservedand discussed.

Gary E. McPherson
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Factors and
Abilities Influencing
Sightreading Skill in Music

Recent documentation from a variety of sources (Ciepluch, 1988;

Dodson, 1983; Elliott, 1982a, 1982b; Goolsby, 1989; Gruson, 1988;
Hodges, 1992; Miller, 1988; Schleuter & Schleuter, 1988; Sloboda,
1988) gives some indication of important factors and abilities that
enable a musician to perform music by sight. For example, Dodson
(1983), Hodges (1992), Schleuter and Schleuter (1988), and
Sloboda (1988) all cite evidence suggesting that good sightreaders
are able to scan ahead, recognizing "chunks" or patterns of up to
seven notes after the music has been removed, and that when music
contains predictable or straightforward patterns, a musician is more
likely to look ahead and anticipate the flow of the music. Likewise,
when musical notes are beamed into distinct metric patterns, as
opposed to single-flagged notation, a musician will be more likely
to comprehend the respective rhythmic and pitch units implied in
the musical notation. The capacity to identify discernible structures
(e.g., phrases) is enhanced by an ability to recognize both structural

Gary E. McPherson is a senior lecturer and course coordinator for music educa-
tion in the School of Music and Music Education, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, 2052, Australia.Copyright ? 1994 by Music Educators National Conference.
218 McPHERSON

and physical cues (Sloboda, 1977).

Some studies extend these findings and cite subjects having a
wide range of abilities. They show that compared with poor
sightreaders, skilled sightreaders are capable of using eye fixations
that are less than 100 milliseconds (Goolsby, 1989), tend to reread
and use more fixations (Young, 1971), retain more notes in visual
trace (Bean, 1938; Sloboda, 1974), are capable of directing their
attention to the more difficult parts of the score (Salis, 1977), and
evaluate musical material by scanning and evaluating the notation
prior to commencing their performance (Stebleton, 1987). Other
researchers (Boyle, 1968; Middleton, 1967) have devised training
techniques to develop rhythmic skills, and there seems to be general
consensus among them that improving students' ability to grasp
rhythmic figures can increase the rate at which they are able to read
music (Boyle, 1970; Van Nuys & Weaver, 1943).
Despite attempts to understand the processes involved in
sightreading, there are a number of factors that limit the existing lit-
erature (Stebleton, 1987). Most of the existing studies use small
numbers of subjects, and it is difficult to draw conclusions from
them when some are conducted with pianists, some with other
instrumentalists, and others with general music students. Because
the majority of these studies do not focus on all the components
involved in sightreading, it is likely that the tasks examined may
deviate "so far from the actual sight-reading process that they no
longer measure sight-reading skill" (Stebleton, 1987, p. 14).
Consequently, there is a continuing need to study the processes
involved as instrumentalists sightread music, to compare this
method of performance with other aspects of performance, and to
substantiate the accuracy of findings with instrumentalists of various
abilities.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The study described here replicates and extends existing research

by providing answers to four research questions:
1. What is the strength of relationship between sightreading and
performing a repertoire of rehearsed music?
2. What are the most common types of mistakes that musicians
make when they sightread?
3. Do instrumentalists of varying levels of proficiency make dif-
ferent types of mistakes as they sightread?
4. What strategies distinguish subjects of differing ability to
sightread?
In answering these questions, the interpretability of the statistical
analysis was enhanced by notes that I collated during and after each
individual research session, plus separate taped case studies with
eight high-scoring (i.e., top 25%) and eight low-scoring (i.e., bottom
25%) subjects on the sightreading measure.
 JRME 219

METHOD

A sample of 101 high-school-age instrumentalists was used; this

group consisted of subjects who were preparing for an Australian
Music Examinations Board (AMEB) performance examination. The
sample was selected from a computer list of all teachers submitting
candidates for examination on clarinet and trumpet in the state of
New South Wales.
The AMEB was constituted in 1918 as a national examinations
body and is similar to the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of
Music and Trinity College examinations in England. AMEB exami-
nations are administered in each state by a state ministry of educa-
tion or prominent university in conjunction with a Federal Board.
These examinations require a performer to present a comprehen-
sive repertoire of prepared pieces with piano accompaniment, tech-
nical exercises (certain scales and arpeggios), etudes, and orchestral
excerpts. About 100,000 students each year in Australia undertake
AMEB examinations and progress from the beginning level (Grades
I to IV) to the developing level (Grades V to VIII), and finally on to
the advanced diplomas, either Associate or Licentiate (Australian
Music Examinations Board Manual of Syllabuses, 1994).
Like those of other examination bodies, AMEB tests have been
refined over many years. The select team of examiners who conduct
these examinations are specialists on their instruments who have
extensive professional experience as musicians and teachers. They
must undergo formal accreditation plus a period of specialist train-
ing before employment. Candidates completing AMEB examina-
tions perform works from a set syllabus for each grade, and specific
examination guidelines have been formulated for each level of
award. These procedures aim to ensure a high degree of consistency
in the manner in which these examinations are conducted. In addi-
tion, the workshops and yearly training sessions for examiners help
maintain standards and guarantee acceptable levels of interjudge
reliability. For example, before the beginning of each yearly session,
examiners must participate in discussions on policy and examina-
tion techniques attended by all examiners of all instruments, plus
separate sessions for examiners of like instruments where examina-
tion procedures and standards are practiced and discussed using live
instrumentalists. Examiners in New South Wales also receive regular
ongoing statistical information on the range of awards they allocate
for each grade. Examiners use this information to compare their
results with results for all instruments at each grade and with those
of other examiners who assess the same instruments.
Although estimates of reliability were not available for the assess-
ment of instrumentalists reported here, it was still considered appro-
priate to use AMEB results, based on the efficient manner in which
these examinations are administered and controlled, the rigorous
system of accrediting examiners, and the fact that AMEB awards are
generally acknowledged by the profession in Australia as an impor-
220 McPHERSON

tant indicator of a musician's overall performance ability. For the

purpose of this investigation, results in the AMEB examination were
used as an indication of subject ability to perform a repertoire of
rehearsed music.
Subjects chosen for study were all undertaking performance
examinations in AMEB Grades III, IV, V, or VI. These grades were
chosen because computer analysis of AMEB applications showed
them to be the most common grades completed by secondary-
school wind instrumentalists. The investigation also aimed to con-
trast the ability of students in school years 7 to 9 (ages 12 to 15)
undertaking the AMEB Grades III and IV (Group 1), with those in
school years 10 to 12 (ages 15 to 18) undertaking AMEB Grades V
and VI (Group 2).

Subject Description

The sample used in this study consisted of 52 girls and 49 boys of

whom 54 were clarinetists and 47 were trumpeters. The average age
of subjects in Group 1 (AMEB Grades III and IV) was 13 years, 4
months; for Group 2 (AMEB Grades V and VI), the average age was
16 years, 1 month.
The study was restricted to subjects learning clarinet and trumpet
as a means of restricting playing experience, since consultation with
teachers (both studio and school), examination of school instru-
mental programs, and analysis of applications for AMEB instrumen-
tal examinations shows that the most common age for beginning
instrumental instruction on these two instruments is in school years
4 or 5. This differs from students of other instruments such as
strings and piano, for which there are often greater ranges of start-
ing points.
Permission was granted by the AMEB to use their computer sys-
tem to identify the 123 teachers of clarinet and 53 teachers of trum-
pet from various parts of the state of New South Wales who were
presenting students for examination in AMEB Grades III to VI in
the final examination period for the year. Altogether, 459 clarinet
and 230 trumpet candidates had been enrolled by these teachers in
Grades III to VI for this examination session. Information was trans-
ferred to a randomized list that I used when telephoning each
teacher to request permission to meet with participating students.
The final sample of 101 subjects, therefore, represents 14.66% of
the total pool available during the AMEB examination period in
which the study was undertaken. These subjects were selected from
the students of a total of 55 teachers and were from a wide distribu-
tion of metropolitan and regional centers. All teachers and parents
who were contacted agreed to allow their children to participate.

Design
For the purpose of this study, Form A of the 1954 Watkins-
 JRME 221

Farnum Performance Scale (WFPS) was used to measure subject

ability to sightread. Assessment of subject ability to perform a reper-
toire of rehearsed music was according to a specialist examiner's rat-
ing using a 3-point scale for each of the four AMEB Grade levels
(i.e., "Satisfactory," "Credit," "Honours"). The data reported in this
study do not include any student who received an award of
"Unsatisfactory" for the AMEB examination, since this rating would
not provide a precise indication of level of ability to perform a
repertoire of rehearsed music.
An important reason for choosing the WFPS was the scoring
method, which focuses an evaluator's attention on reading ability to
the exclusion of all other factors. Assessment for the WFPS is based
on accuracy of performance in the categories of pitch, rhythm, slur-
ring/articulation, tempo, expression, pause/fermata, and repeats.
This contrasts with the AMEB grade examinations, which take into
account a more comprehensive range of dimensions considered
important in the assessment of a musician's ability to perform a
repertoire of rehearsed music. Although in the WFPS concepts of
tone quality, intonation, musical style and interpretation, phrasing,
and ability to keep in time with an accompaniment are not consid-
ered in the overall scoring, in the AMEB assessment each of these
criteria is specified in the evaluative process. The Handbook for
Examiners (Australian Music Examinations Board, 1990) used in the
AMEB system formalizes the evaluative criteria to be used by exam-
iners. This handbook clarifies the range of musical and technical
qualities for each level of award and at each successive grade level.
Thus, the WFPS was used to assess ability to perform, from notation,
music that had not been previously rehearsed, while the AMEB
result was used as an indication of overall proficiency to perform a
repertoire of music that had been rehearsed during the preceding 6
to 12 months.
As a guide to the level of ability reached by AMEB candidates,
Grade III subjects on clarinet and trumpet are expected to play
from memory the stipulated scales and arpeggios for the grade (i.e.,
C, F, and G major; A, D, and E harmonic and melodic minor), and
be able to perform a repertoire of short orchestral works in an origi-
nal key or transposed up one tone. During the examination, they
also perform from the works stipulated for the grade, a repertoire
consisting of two short studies or one long etude, plus two pieces
with piano accompaniment. After the student performs each of
these works, the examiner will choose one additional work from a
repertoire of at least three pieces submitted by the student. By
Grade VI, AMEB candidates on these instruments are expected to
be able to perform from memory all major and minor scales and
arpeggios, all dominant and diminished arpeggios, and chromatic
scales starting on any note. In addition, they are asked to perform a
range of orchestral excerpts in various transpositions. Grade VI can-
didates also perform a demanding etude and two contrasting pieces
with piano accompaniment, and the examiner will choose one fur-
222 McPHERSON

ther work from a repertoire of at least three additional works sub-

mitted by the candidate.

Administering the WFPS

Prior to doing this study, I had served as an AMEB examiner for 8
years and had used the WFPS during previous teaching and
research. A pilot study involving 11 clarinet and 14 high school
trumpet students preceded the main investigation. These research
sessions were used to establish estimates of both intrajudge and
interjudge reliability and to practice the system of denoting errors
that was to be used in the main study. With the help of an experi-
enced independent musician, I tape-recorded and then, on two sep-
arate occasions, scored the pilot study. Estimates of reliability were
high and similar to those reported by Stivers (1972). Intrajudge reli-
ability was .99 for the two separate scorings of the WFPS by the
researcher, and .98 for the two independentjudges.
Based on these results, a procedure was adopted for the main
study in which I scored the WFPS during each research session.
During these sessions, I held on my lap a Sony Walkman
Professional stereo cassette-corder (WM-D6C with quartz lock and
Dolby C noise reduction), which was used to record performances.
Taped performances were later replayed as many times as was felt
necessary in order to ensure the accuracy of errors noted on the
scoring sheets during the research session. This procedure proved
particularly effective for coping with the demands of some of the
harder items on the test and also for dealing with the results of some
of the lower-scoring subjects, who lacked the skills necessary to per-
form in an accurate manner.
Consistent with a procedure used by Elliott (1982b) and
described in the WFPS scoring procedure as an alternative to draw-
ing a cross through each incorrect measure, errors were noted using
an abbreviated system of symbols above each measure in which an
error or errors occurred. This meant that two errors would be notat-
ed, for example, if a subject failed to observe a crescendo and also
made a pitch error in the same measure.
Before the main study, appointments were made to work with
individual subjects in a familiar setting, such as their homes or their
private music teacher's studio. During these sessions, held near the
time of the AMEB examination, subjects completed Form A of the
WFPS according to the directions stated in the manual.
Administrative instructions required me to establish the tempo of
the exercise by playing a metronomic beat for the first measure in
which the subject performed. A metronome was used to establish
the tempo for each example, and subjects were allowed up to 20 sec-
onds between each exercise. Administration time varied between 5
and 30 minutes, depending on whether a subject was able to per-
form all 14 exercises.
 JRME 223

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 shows the distribution of subjects used in the main study
for the two groups according to instrument and result for each of
the four AMEB grade levels.

Table 1
Numberof Subjectsat Each Levelof AMEBPerformance

Clarinet Trumpet
AMEBresult Male Female Male Female

Group 1
GradeIII Satisfactory-"C" 4 2 2 1
Credit-"B" 3 6 4 2
Honors-"A" 0 1 4 3
GradeIV Satisfactory-"C" 1 3 0 1
Credit-"B" 3 3 2 3
Honors-"A" 1 0 2 2
Total number of subjects 12 15 14 12

Group 2
GradeV Satisfactory"C" 3 3 2 1
Credit-"B" 1 1 1 3
Honors-"A" 3 1 2 0
GradeVI Satisfactory-"C" 0 2 5 1
Credit-"B" 5 5 0 2
Honors-"A" 0 3 1 3
Total numberof subjects 12 15 1 10

Descriptive statistics for the sample administered by the WFPS are

shown in Table 2. The mean for Group 1 (AMEB Grades III and VI)
was 48.30 (32.86%), and for Group 2 (AMEB Grades V and VI),
71.27 (48.48%).
Further analysis shows a steady improvement in sightreading
scores across the AMEB grade levels, with the mean increasing for
each successive grade level (see Table 2). The mean for subjects was
45.47 (30.93%) for AMEB Grade III, 52.62 (35.80%) for AMEB
Grade IV, 66.29 (45.09%) for AMEB Grade V, and 75.15 (51.12%)
for AMEB Grade VI. The Scheffe multiple comparison procedure
revealed a significant difference (p < .01) between these means for
AMEB Grades IV and V, but not for AMEB Grades III and IV, or V
and VI [F(3, 97) = 35.36, p < .01]. This result is consistent with the
design of the study that compares subjects completing AMEB
Grades III and IV (Group 1) with subjects in AMEB Grades V and VI
(Group 2).
224 McPHERSON

Table 2
DescriptiveStatisticsforWFPS

Mean SD Minimum Maximum Range N

Group 1 48.30 11.87 21 76 55 53

AMEBGradeIII 45.47 11.40 21 68 47 32
AMEBGradeIV 52.62 11.52 27 76 49 21

Group2 71.27 12.91 40 99 59 48

AMEB Grade V 66.29 14.03 40 92 52 21
AMEB Grade VI 75.15 10.69 56 99 43 27

Totalsample 59.22 16.87 21 99 78 101

Correlation between WFPS and AMEBResults

Statistical analysis of AMEB results was done using a 12-point

scale, with the lowest result (i.e., "Satisfactory-C" for Grade III)
given a "1" and the highest result (i.e., "Honors-A" for Grade VI)
allocated a "12." This procedure was adopted because each succes-
sive AMEB grade-level syllabus stipulates a higher standard of per-
formance with more difficult accompanied pieces, studies, and tech-
nical work. Consequently, a subject who earned the highest score
(i.e., "3" for "Honors") in an AMEB Grade III examination would
have learned and performed easier accompanied pieces, studies,
and technical work than a subject obtaining the lowest award (i.e.,
"4" for "Satisfactory") for an AMEB Grade IV examination, and
would therefore be considered less proficient as an instrumentalist
and in terms of his or her ability to perform a repertoire of
rehearsed music.
The strength of the correlation between sightreading skill as
assessed using the WFPS, and ability to perform a repertoire of
rehearsed music, as evaluated in the AMEB performance examina-
tion, increased markedly with each successive AMEB Grade level
(see Table 3). For Group 1 subjects who had completed AMEB
Grades III and IV, there was a nonsignificant correlation between
sightreading skill and ability to perform a repertoire of rehearsed
music as assessed in the AMEB examination. The strength of corre-
lation, however, was significant and much stronger for subjects in
Group 2 who had completed AMEB Grades V (.46) and VI (.63).
Statistical Analysis of Errors on WFPS

Total percentage of errors was summarized according to nine dif-

ferent groups: total sample, top 25 subjects in total sample, bottom
25 subjects in total sample, Group 1 (i.e., AMEB III/TV), Group 2
(AMEB V/VI), female clarinetists, female trumpeters, male
 JRME 225

Table 3
CorrelationsbetweenWFPSand AMEB

WFPS N

Group 1
AMEB Grade III .01 32
AMEB Grade IV .26 21

Group 2
AMEB Grade V .46* 21
AMEB Grade VI .63** 27

Total sample .75** 101

Note: AMEB = Australian Music Examinations Board Performance Examination; WFPS =

Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale ;* = p <.05; ** = p <.01 (2-tailed).

clarinettists, and male trumpeters (see Table 4)

Percentages shown in Table 4 identify a remarkably similar pat-
tern throughout the nine different groups, with only a small varia-
tion in percentages between any two of the seven types of errors. For
this sample of 101 high school instrumentalists, between 59% and
64% of all errors occurred in rhythm. This is in contrast with pitch
errors, which were more than three times less common.

Table 4
Percentageof Errorson WFPS

Percentage of Errors
R P A T E Rt F

Total sample (N= 101) 61.3 17.2 10.7 2.1 7.1 1.6 0.1
Total sample: Top 25 61.2 16.3 11.9 1.0 7.5 1.3 0.2
Total sample: Bottom 25 64.5 17.6 10.4 1.2 4.7 1.6 0.0

Group 1 (N= 53) 61.6 17.8 9.3 3.3 6.2 1.7 0.1
Group 2 (N= 48) 60.9 16.5 12.2 0.8 8.0 1.4 0.1

Female clarinet (N= 30) 59.2 18.6 12.2 1.7 6.8 1.5 0.0
Female trumpet (N= 22) 63.5 15.9 11.1 1.4 6.5 1.6 0.0
Male clarinet (N= 24) 62.5 14.8 10.7 2.6 7.6 1.5 0.3
Male trumpet (N= 25) 60.6 19.0 8.3 2.9 7.5 1.6 0.1

Note: R = rhythm errors; P = pitch errors; A= slurring/articulation errors; T = tempo errors;

E = expression errors; Rt = repeat sign errors; F = pause/fermata errors.
226 McPHERSON

Results for the total sample (N= 101) are almost identical to
Elliott's (1982b) sample of 30 older undergraduates, in which the
highest percentage of errors occurred in rhythm (61.4% as com-
pared to the present study's 61.3%). All other categories were simi-
lar in both studies with the exception being that Elliott's highest-
scoring subjects (top 20%) tended to make more pitch errors, possi-
bly because his undergraduate subjects were more capable of per-
forming the more difficult sections of the WFPS or because a very
small number of subjects was used to obtain these results (8 stu-
dents).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest a number of important distinc-

tions between sightreading and performing a repertoire of
rehearsed music. In the early stages of learning an instrument,
sightreading skill was not significantly correlated with an ability to
perform rehearsed music at a formal performance examination.
Those students in Group 1 who achieved a high result at the AMEB
examination for their performance of 6tudes, studies, and prepared
pieces with piano accompaniment were often not the best sightread-
ers. In contrast, the best sightreaders in Group 2 were more likely to
have received a high award in the AMEB performance examination.
In addition, notes collated during and at the end of each research
session, plus separate tape-recorded performances and interviews
with eight high-scoring and eight low-scoring subjects, provide fur-
ther insight into important factors and abilities that influence an
ability to sightread. For example, analysis of my notes taken for the
total sample indicates that when mistakes were made, subjects from
both groups typically continued their performance from the point
at which the mistake was made. When making an error with an acci-
dental, many subjects repeated the note with correct fingering, or
repeated a pair of notes when stumbling over an awkward interval.
Likewise, when making a rhythmic error, subjects from both groups
tended to continue or repeat only those notes that were in close
proximity to the error.
In the main study involving 101 performers, only two instances
were observed in which a subject went back to repeat an entire
phrase in order to reestablish a correct performance. This can be
contrasted with other styles of performance, such as playing music
by ear, where an instrumentalist is more likely to correct his or her
performance by recommencing at the beginning of the phrase
(McPherson, 1993)-what Barrett (1990) refers to as rewinding the
mental tape-recorder.
In addition to these findings, I did a content analysis of com-
ments made by eight of the lowest-scoring sightreaders, who were
asked to explain exactly how they were preparing for their perfor-
mance immediately before commencing to play. Only two of these
subjects made any mention of the key or time signature of the exam-
 JRME 227

pie. Typical of their explanations were comments such as "I was

looking to see what note it started on and singing the rhythm of the
first part in my mind." In a separate exercise, only three could
remember both the key and time signature when I unexpectedly
covered the music immediately before they were asked to perform.
Likewise, when the music was covered unexpectedly immediately
after they completed the example, only two were able to remember
exactly what dynamic markings had been used in a three-line exam-
ple that had two dynamic indications (i.e., mp and f) plus a crescen-
do.
In contrast, content analysis of comments on the same tasks by
eight subjects who scored in the top 25% on the WFPS showed that
these subjects were more cognizant of these important details before
commencing their performance. This suggests a more self-regulato-
ry approach and was clearly demonstrated by the high scores of one
student, who had been taught by her teacher to state out aloud the
key and time signature of each example before commencing to per-
form. Another subject stated: "I first look at the key and time signa-
tures, and then look through the music to see if there are any dif-
ferent parts, for example, if there are sixteenth notes, triplets, or
accidentals. I then try and run over the harder sections by singing
them in my mind as I finger them on my instrument." These com-
ments were typical of the highest-scoring subjects, all of whom men-
tioned taking note of the key and time signature as well as scanning
the music to find and mentally rehearse difficult obstacles. This
finding is consistent with comments by Salis (1977), Stebleton
(1987), and Wolf (1976), who assert that competent sightreading
depends on the ability of the musician to identify familiar patterns
and to spend time evaluating the musical material before beginning
to perform.
There is, however, another comment that can be made regarding
this observation. Very often, sightreaders who may not have been
prepared for a new key would reorient themselves after making an
error. In these cases, aural feedback seemed to act as a cue for the
correction of an error, such as the first F-major example of Item 4,
where a B-flat in measure six of this item was often played as a B-nat-
ural (see Bergan, 1967). Analysis of errors for the total sample of the
fourth item showed that 75% of Grade III and IV AMEB students
played an incorrect B-natural for the first B-flat in this item (found
in the sixth measure), compared to 52% for AMEB Grade V, and
44% for AMEB Grade VI. Many of the subjects who performed a B-
natural quickly realized their mistake, probably because of the way
this note sounded in comparison with the previous pitch pattern. Of
those who played an incorrect B-natural in the sixth measure, 41%
of Group 1 and 82% of Group 2 were able to correct their perfor-
mance and play the correct B-flats for the rest of the exercise.
Furthermore, many of the worst sightreaders in the total sample
displayed characteristics that suggest they were unable to process
much of the music that they were performing. Their playing was
228 McPHERSON

mechanical, lacked confidence and spontaneity, and indicated a

poor connection among eye, ear, hand, and sound. In this sense,
these musicians could be likened to what Schleuter (1984) refers to
as "button-pushers." In comparison, the best sightreaders displayed
far fewer coordination problems and a more developed capacity to
anticipate the flow of the music. When unable to consolidate all the
elements of notation at once, however, the students typically aban-
doned interpretative indications, such as expression, phrasing, and
articulation.

IMPLICATIONS

The increasing strength of correlations for subjects in Group 1

and Group 2 between sightreading and performing a repertoire of
rehearsed music highlights the need for researchers to consider
these two skills as separate and quite distinct aspects of perfor-
mance. It also suggests that, for beginning students, ability to
sightread should not be considered synonymous with the student's
overall ability to perform a repertoire of rehearsed music. Of course,
these conclusions need to be treated cautiously since the present
study was cross-sectional, not longitudinal, and is based on results
from two distinct groups of subjects. Based on these results, further
research seems warranted in order to replicate and extend these
findings using other groups of instrumentalists. Two related activi-
ties would be to study the extent to which continued development
on an instrument is dependent on the ability to sightread, and the
degree to which successful sightreaders are more likely to persevere
with their music studies.
Several additional aspects of the results are worthy of note.
Extending and corroborating Elliott's (1982b) research with older
undergraduate musicians is the finding that, for this group of high
school instrumentalists completing the WFPS, rhythmic errors far
outweigh all other types of errors. There was also little difference
between the percentage of types of errors when these results were
analyzed according to instrument, gender, or level of sightreading
ability. As Elliott (1982b) forcefully remarks, the fact that over two-
thirds of the mistakes made by sightreaders can be attributed to
rhythmic problems supports the assertion that rhythm reading
could be the single most important component in the sightreading
process (p. 38). Of course, this finding rests on the assumption that
the rhythmic and tonal aspects of the WFPS are equivalent in terms
of difficulty, and representative of the range of difficulties to which
high school musicians are normally exposed. Continuing research
is, therefore, needed using other measures of sightreading in order
to explore more fully the processes involved as instrumentalists pro-
cess rhythm. Future research in this area could also help refine tech-
niques associated with developing and teaching for improved rhyth-
mic ability.
Based on the results of this study and supporting evidence (e.g.,
 JRME 229

Salis, 1977; Stebleton, 1987; Wolf, 1976), I propose that a distin-

guishing characteristic of competent sightreaders is a definite
self-regulatory approach to this process involving:
(a) the ability to seek information relevant to an accurate inter-
pretation prior to the commencement of the musical performance.
This involves observing the key and time signature of the work
together with an ability to scan the music briefly in order to maxi-
mize comprehension and to identify possible obstacles;
(b) a brief period of mental rehearsal of the major difficulties
before commencing to play;
(c) the directing and maintaining of attention throughout the
performance in order to anticipate problems and to observe musical
indications (such as expression markings and articulation) indicated
above and below the musical line; and
(d) self-monitoring and evaluation of the response in order to
correct the performance when errors occur. This includes being
able to match the information obtained visually from the notation
with aural feedback of the sound being produced to monitor and
evaluate success.
It seems that many high school students have either not been
taught, or are still unaware, that sightreading might be improved
simply by incorporating a number of straightforward strategies, such
as taking time to observe the key and time signature of the music
before commencing a performance, or skimming through the nota-
tion to identify possible obstacles that may cause problems. A partic-
ularly productive extension of this study would be to expand present
knowledge in this area by exploring protocol procedures and other
qualitative methods to more fully document the range of strategies
musicians use when sightreading.
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that efficient
sightreading is largely dependent on the capacity of a musician to
read and comprehend rhythm. Equally important, however, are the
different strategies instrumentalists use as they sightread music.
Continuing research effort is needed in each of these areas to help
us understand what teachers can do to provide for more efficient
teaching and learning.
REFERENCES

Australian Music Examinations Board (1990). Handbookfor examiners.

Sydney, Australia: Author.
Australian Music Examinations Board (1994). Manual of syllabuses.
Melbourne, Australia: Author.
Barrett, J. R. (1990). Melodicschemata,forms of representation,and cognitive
strategiesused byfourth-gradersin the recalland reproduction
offamiliar songs.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Bean, K. L. (1938). An approach to the reading of music. Psychological
Monographs,226, 1-80.
Bergan, J. R. (1967). The relationships among pitch identification, imagery
230 McPHERSON

for musical sounds, and musical memory. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 15, 99-109.
Boyle, J. D. (1968). The effectof prescribedrhythmicalmovementson the ability to
sight-read music. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas,
Lawrence.
Boyle, J. D. (1970). The effects of prescribed rhythmical movements on the
ability to read music at sight. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18,
307-318.
Ciepluch, G. M. (1988). Sightreading achievementin instrumental music perfor-
mance, learning gifts, and academic achievement: A correlation study.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Dodson, T. A. (1983). Developing music reading skills: Research implications.
Update, 1(4), 3-6.
Elliott, C. A. (1982a). The relationships among instrumental sight-reading
ability and seven selected predictor variables. Journal of Researchin Music
Education, 30, 5-14.
Elliott, C. A. (1982b). The identification and classification of instrumental
performance sight-reading errors. Journal of Band Research,18(1), 36-42.
Goolsby, T. (1989). Computer applications to eye movement research in
music reading. Psychomusicology,8, 111-126.
Gruson, L. M. (1988). Rehearsal skill and musical competence: Does prac-
tice make perfect? In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generativeprocessesin music (pp.
91-112). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Hodges, D. A. (1992). The acquisition of music reading skills. In R. Colwell
(Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 466-471).
New York: Schirmer Books.
McPherson, G. E. (1993). Factors and abilities influencing the development
of visual, aural and creative performance skills in music and their educa-
tional implications (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney,
Australia). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/04-A, 1277. (University
Microfilms No. 9317278)
Middleton, J. A. (1967). A study of the effectivenessof the breathimpulse technique
in the instruction of wind instrumentperformers.Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Miller, R. E. (1988). Contributions of selectedmusic skills to music sight-reading
achievementand rehearsedreading achievement.Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Salis, D. L. (1977). The identification and assessment of cognitive variables
associated with reading of advanced music at the piano (Doctoral disser-
tation, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 38, 7239A.
Schleuter, S. (1984). A sound approach to teaching instrumentalists. Kent: OH:
Kent State University.
Schleuter, S., & Schleuter, L. (1988). Teaching and learning music perfor-
mance: What, when, and how. In C. Fowler (Ed.), The Crane symposium:
Toward and understanding of the teaching and learning of music performance
(pp. 63-87). Potsdam, NY: Potsdam College of the State University of
New York.
Sloboda, J. A. (1974). The eye-hand span-An approach to the study of
sight-reading. Psychologyof Music, 2(2), 4-10.
Sloboda, J. A. (1977). Phrase units as determinants of visual processing in
music reading. BritishJournal of Psychology,68, 117-124.
Sloboda, J. A. (1988). Generative processes in music: The psychology of perfor-
mance, improvisation, and composition.Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
 JRME 231

Stebleton, E. (1987). Predictors of sight-reading achievement: A review of

the literature. Update: The Applications of Researchin Music Education, 6(1),
11-15.
Stivers, J. D. (1972). A reliability and validity study of the Watkins-Farnum
Performance Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.
Van Nuys, K., & Weaver, H. E. (1943). Memory span and visual pauses in
reading rhythms and melodies. PsychologicalMonographs, 55, 33-50.
Watkins, J. G., & Farnum, S. E. (1954). The Watkins-FarnumPerformanceScale:
A standardized achievement test for all band instruments. Winona, MN: Hal
Leonard.
Wolf, T. (1976). A cognitive model of musical sight-reading. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 143-172.
Young, L. J. (1971). A study of the eye movements of successful and unsuccessful
piano sight readers while piano sight-reading. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Indiana University, Bloomington.

April 11, 1994

View publication stats