![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Learning to sing from notation is a complex task, and accurately performing pitches without an external reference can be particularly challenging. As such, the use of mnemonic devices to reinforce tonal relationships is a long-standing practice among musicians. Chief among these mnemonic devices are pitch syllable systems and Curwen hand signs. This review of literature is intended to equip choral and general music educators with information on the (a) rationales, (b) classroom use, and (c) effectiveness of pitch systems and Curwen hand signs. Recommendations for educators include choosing a prevalent pitch system, namely movable do or scale degree numbers, and using Curwen hand signs in the manner originally intended by Curwen.
Performing music from notation is a complex task. For vocalists, the task involves (a) perceiving the music symbol, (b) forming an inner image of its sound, and (c) manipulating the vocal mechanism to produce that sound. The forming of an inner image may be particularly challenging as it requires the vocalist to retrieve tonal referents.
For centuries, music educators have been creating and using mnemonic aids to reinforce tonal memory and, in turn, further music-reading skills (Young, 1988). Chief among these mnemonic aids are pitch syllable systems and Curwen hand signs. Music theorists, educators, and researchers have produced a substantial body of literature on these mnemonic aids; access to this information may equip music educators to select tools that best meet the needs of their students. This review of literature is intended to provide educators with information about the (a) rationales, (b) classroom use, and (c) effectiveness of pitch systems and Curwen hand signs.
Pitch Systems
Musicians have been using syllables as tonal mnemonic devices since antiquity (Young, 1988). In the Western music tradition, these sets of syllables, or pitch systems, naturally divide into two categories: fixed systems and movable systems. Fixed systems are characterized by syllables that correspond with absolute pitches, such as fixed do and the singing of pitch letter names. Movable systems are characterized by syllables that correspond with tonal function, such as movable do and the singing of scale degree numbers. The relative merits of different pitch systems—particularly fixed do and movable do—have long been a source of controversy. According to T. A. Smith (1991), “Musicians have been unable to agree on this subject for six hundred years” (p. 1). Music educators may benefit from learning the rationales put forth by advocates and critics of each system.
Rationales for Using Pitch Systems
Music theorists and educators who advocate use of fixed do have cited several perceived benefits, including the ease of transfer from vocal training to instrumental training and to the study of music theory (Siler, 1956; Taggart & Taggart, 1994). Advocates have also asserted that fixed do is better suited to atonal repertoire (Bentley, 1959; Humphreys, 2006; Siler, 1956) and modulatory passages (Middleton, 1984; Siler, 1956), because the singer does not need to alter pitch names. Moreover, proponents of fixed do have noted the system’s potential to function as a vocal placement mnemonic by associating each solmization syllable with a specific vocal registration (Middleton, 1984; K. H. Phillips, 1984; T. A. Smith, 1991). Finally, musicians who use the fixed do system have claimed it cultivates perfect pitch (Middleton, 1984; Taggart & Taggart, 1994).
Critics of the fixed do system have asserted that it fails to direct the ear toward tonal function (Bentley, 1959; T. A. Smith, 1991). According to T. A. Smith (1991), fixed do orients the ear toward pitch, which is merely an aural structure. T. A. Smith (1991) argued that “pitch itself is not music” (p. 3); to become music, it must be organized. As such, T. A. Smith (1991) suggested a solmization system should direct the ear toward tonal organization. Bentley (1959) claimed the fixed do system also fosters the assumption that the key of C is the normative, or “pure” key, leading students to erroneously perceive all other keys as variants of the key of C.
Advocates of the movable do system have praised its utility in directing the ear toward tonal function rather than pitch alone (Bentley, 1959; T. A. Smith, 1991). T. A. Smith (1991) claimed this orientation toward tonal organization may offer musicians an enhanced “aesthetic awareness” (p. 9), both as consumers and performers of music. According to Bentley (1959), movable do is also better suited to modulation as it requires both an awareness and understanding of key changes. It has also been noted that all keys are equally accessible in the movable do system, freeing the elementary educator to choose a key that accommodates the young beginner’s tessitura rather than being bound to the key of C (Educational Council, 1925).
Critics of the movable do system have claimed that it is ill-suited to atonal music (Humphreys, 2006; K. H. Phillips, 1984) and modulation (Middleton, 1984; Siler, 1956); Humphreys (2006) referred to the system as “musically outdated,” claiming it “imploded with the advent of atonal music” (p. 186). Critics have also claimed movable do allows singers to bypass learning basic notational elements, like the significance of key signatures beyond aiding in locating do (Middleton, 1984; Roe, 1983).
Scholarly research addressing the use of scale degree numbers as a pitch system appears to be limited. As a movable system, scale degree numbers may share in the perceived advantages and disadvantages of movable do (Demorest, 2001). In comparing scale degree numbers with movable do, advocates of scale degree numbers have cited their compatibility with the study of music theory, in which scale degrees are consistently named using numbers (Taggart & Taggart, 1994). Critics of scale degree numbers have claimed that they are less “singable” than movable do (Giles, 1991, p. 28), lacking several desirable qualities such as monosyllabic phonemes, pure vowels, and syllables that do not end on a consonant (Demorest, 2001; T. A. Smith, 1991; Taggart & Taggart, 1994).
Classroom Use of Pitch Systems
Researchers have surveyed American choir directors about their primary pitch systems. The majority of directors have consistently indicated use of movable systems (Demorest, 2004; Floyd & Bradley, 2006; Kuehne, 2007; May, 1993; McClung, 2001; Nichols, 2012; Pembrook & Riggins, 1990; S. A. Smith, 1998). The prevalence of movable do versus scale degree numbers has tended to vary according to geographical location.
Floyd and Bradley (2006) found movable do was dominant among directors of the top-rated sight-singing choirs in Kentucky. Movable do was also dominant among middle school (Kuehne, 2007) and high school (S. A. Smith, 1998) choir directors in Florida, secondary choir directors in Texas (May, 1993), and middle school choir directors in an anonymous southwestern state (Nichols, 2012). In contrast, McClung (2001) found scale degree numbers to be dominant among All-State choristers in Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi.
Nationally, it remains unclear whether the majority of music educators use movable do or scale degree numbers (Demorest, 2001, 2004; Pembrook & Riggins, 1990). Pembrook and Riggins (1990) conducted a national survey of college and university music faculty and reported the majority of respondents taught scale degree numbers. Demorest (2001) conducted a national survey of choir directors and again found that, among the 158 respondents, scale degree numbers were the most prevalent system. However, after Demorest published these findings, an additional 78 choir directors completed the survey, tipping results in favor of the movable do system. Low response rates prompted Demorest (2004) to caution that results may not reflect the practices of the national choir director population. As such, it remains unclear whether scale degree numbers or movable do is nationally dominant.
Effectiveness of Pitch Systems
In contrast to the somewhat ample research on classroom use of pitch systems, research on their comparative effectiveness is relatively limited, being composed of a few articles from peer-reviewed journals and a number of dissertations and theses. Several researchers have compared the effectiveness of movable do with sight-singing on a neutral syllable. Cassidy (1993) taught sight-singing to undergraduate nonmusic majors and found that students who learned movable do sight-sang more accurately than those who learned to sight-sing on a neutral syllable. However, Lorek and Pembrook (2000) taught undergraduate music majors and found no significant difference between the sight-singing scores of students who learned movable do and those who sang a neutral syllable.
Reifinger (2012) tested the effectiveness of movable do versus singing a neutral syllable, as well as the effectiveness of relating tonal patterns to learned repertoire. The researcher divided second-grade general music students into four groups: (a) related songs with movable do, (b) related songs on “loo,” (c) unrelated songs with movable do, and (d) unrelated songs on “loo.” The group that learned related songs on movable do performed significantly better than the remaining groups. Reifinger (2012) concluded that students had not mastered solmization to the level of generalization; rather, the students understood solmization syllables to be an additional set of lyrics to familiar songs, aiding in their recall of learned patterns.
Studies comparing fixed do and movable do are limited and inconclusive: While some investigations reported no significant difference between the two pitch systems (Henry & Demorest, 1994; Killian & Henry, 2005; Lorek & Pembrook, 2000), one investigation (Demorest & May, 1995) found movable do to be superior. Henry and Demorest (1994) tested the individual sight-singing accuracy of vocalists from two high school choirs that had earned superior sight-singing ratings at district competitions. One choir routinely used movable do, while the other used fixed do. The researchers found no significant difference between the scores of students who learned movable do and fixed do.
In a larger scale study, Demorest and May (1995) tested the individual sight-singing accuracy of vocalists from eight high school choirs. Again, half of the choirs routinely used movable do, while the other half used fixed do, and all choirs had earned superior sight-singing ratings at district competitions. Demorest and May (1995) found movable do singers performed significantly better than fixed do singers. However, the researchers cautioned against assuming a causal relationship, noting that the discrepancy may have been caused by a lack of individual testing in the fixed do choirs, failure to match groups according to background variables, and/or inconsistency of method, since the fixed do choirs came from districts that used the movable do system in elementary grades.
Lorek and Pembrook (2000) employed a more rigorous experimental design in a series of four studies comparing pitch systems. The researchers divided undergraduate music majors into three groups matched on several variables. One group learned movable do, the second fixed do, and the third sang on a neutral syllable. After one semester of instruction, exams revealed no significant difference between groups. The following academic year, Lorek and Pembrook (2000) replicated their study with additional controls and a larger group of participants; again, they found no significant difference between groups. The researchers conducted yet another study to test performance in modulatory passages using movable do and a neutral syllable and again found no significant difference between groups. Finally, Lorek and Pembrook (2000) conducted a fourth study to compare movable do with scale degree numbers and once again found no significant difference. The researchers concluded that at the collegiate level, different pitch systems may be equally effective.
The literature on pitch systems certainly presents a broad and varied picture of their rationales, classroom use, and effectiveness. In particular, the limited and inconclusive research on effectiveness may be disappointing to educators in search of “the best system.” However, the educational potential of pitch systems may be maximized when the strengths and weaknesses of each system are weighed in light of student characteristics and overall learning objectives. In short, selection of “the best system” may be contextual.
Curwen Hand Signs
Curwen hand signs, like pitch systems, function as a tonal mnemonic device intended to bolster vocal literacy through reinforcing tonal function. English pedagogue John Curwen created the hand signs to visually and kinesthetically reinforce movable do solmization syllables. Curwen incorporated the hand signs into his tonic solfa method, which spread throughout English schools in the 19th century when vocal music became a compulsory subject (Rainbow, 1979). The use of hand signs spread internationally in the 20th century when students of Zoltan Kodály incorporated them into the Kodály approach, with which they are associated today (Choksy, 1999).
Rationales for Using Curwen Hand Signs
Advocates of Curwen hand signs have cited their utility as a multimodal approach to music reading, noting that hand signs provide visual and kinesthetic reinforcement of solmization syllables (Apfelstadt, 1986; Demorest, 2001; Giles, 1991; McClung, 2008; Reifinger, 2013). A student using hand signs is thus equipped to feel and see the location of each scale degree and its intervallic relationship to other scale degrees (Choksy, 1999). Even aural learners may find that hand signs make learning more concrete in the lower elementary grades, when learners of all kinds may find aural tasks to be abstract and challenging (Apfelstadt, 1986).
Advocates have also claimed that hand signs can further tonal understanding by reflecting the unique character of each scale degree (Choksy, 1999; Landis & Carder, 1972). Curwen espoused a doctrine of mental effect, which held that each scale degree possesses distinct properties, such that do represents “home,” mi is “calm,” and sol is “bright and strong” (Bridges, 1982, p. 14). As such, Curwen intended each hand sign to reflect the character of its scale degree; a fist signifies do to reflect strength, while the signs for mi and sol also reflect stability. The sign for fa points downward to indicate the semitone pull to mi, while ti points upward to indicate the semitone pull to the tonic (Landis & Carder, 1972; Shaw, 1950). Thus, the student who learns hand signs may associate each sign with its scale degree as well as the character of that scale degree within the larger tonal context.
Curwen hand signs may also offer pragmatic benefits beyond the potential to improve vocal accuracy. For example, a teacher using hand signs can communicate pitch information without singing (Reifinger, 2013) or turning away to use the board (Demorest, 2001). Additionally, a teacher can use hand signs to dictate canons and harmonies, having one group of students follow the right hand, while a second group follows the left (Demorest, 2001). Moreover, hand signs allow teachers to instantly assess student understanding with a quick visual scan (Demorest, 2001; Reifinger, 2013).
While hand signs offer several potential benefits, there remains the possibility that hand signs may add an unwanted layer of complexity to the already complex task of music reading. The young beginner’s motor skills may be limited, and successful completion of a sign may detract attention from reading notation, controlling the vocal mechanism, or listening attentively (Demorest, 2001; Martin, 1991). M. J. Phillips (2013) noted that “Teaching hand signs can be tricky, especially to students with dyslexia or other reading disabilities” (p. 62). Demorest (2001) wrote of observing a group perform with and without hand signs, stating “it often appears as though the signs are slowing them down” (p. 42).
Classroom Use of Curwen Hand Signs
Researchers have surveyed secondary choir directors about the frequency and nature of hand sign use, and have reported a range of results. For example, 65% of middle school choir directors in Florida indicated that they teach hand signs (Kuehne, 2007), compared with 46% of secondary choir directors in Kentucky (Floyd & Bradley, 2006), and 23% of middle school choir directors in a large southwestern state (Nichols, 2012). Yarbrough, Orman, and Neill (2007) observed 84 secondary choirs at a district contest as they prepared for sight-singing adjudication: 64% of choirs used hand signs while chanting solmization syllables and 37% used hand signs while audiating.
Though the use of hand signs among directors appears varied, directors have expressed a moderate level of agreement concerning the importance of teaching hand signs. Kuehne (2007) surveyed middle school choir directors in Florida and found that the majority believed students should learn to sight-sing using Curwen hand signs. Nichols (2012) presented middle school directors in an anonymous state with the same prompt and again found that the majority believed students should learn hand signs. Directors appear to ascribe some importance to this pedagogical tool.
Effectiveness of Curwen Hand Signs
In spite of the intended benefits of hand signs, researchers have failed to find significant gains in sight-singing accuracy. Martin (1991) tested the impact of hand signs on three groups of first-grade students: one group learned movable do, the second learned movable do with hand signs, and the third learned movable do with hand signs and letter representations of solmization. Posttest sight-singing scores revealed no significant difference between groups. Youngson and Persellin (2001) also tested the impact of hand signs on first-grade students: one group learned movable do, while the other learned movable do with hand signs. Again, posttest scores revealed no significant difference between groups. Yarbrough, Green, Benson, and Bowers (1991) tested the effects of hand signs on elementary and middle school singers who routinely struggled to match pitch. Once again, posttest sight-singing scores revealed no significant gains for students who learned hand signs.
While most researchers have focused on students in the elementary grades, Cassidy (1993) tested the effect of hand signs on the sight-singing accuracy of undergraduate nonmusic majors. After one semester of instruction, Cassidy (1993) found no significant difference between students who learned movable do solmization and those who learned movable do solmization with hand signs. Autry (1976) deviated from the aforementioned studies by testing the impact of hand signs on group sight-singing rather than individual sight-singing. Six intact fifth-grade classes and eight intact college classes participated in the study. Each class completed a pretest, received 10 to 14 weeks of instruction, and completed a posttest. Posttest sight-singing scores revealed no significant difference between students who learned hand signs and students who did not.
Given the short-term nature of many experimental studies on Curwen hand signs, McClung (2008) conducted a study of high school students who had extensive experience with hand signs. Each participant performed two sight-singing exercises of equal difficulty, singing one with hand signs and one without. McClung (2008) found no significant difference in the sight-singing accuracy of participants while using hand signs. However, significant differences emerged when the researcher divided participants according to previous instrumental experience. When using hand signs, participants with instrumental experience performed significantly better than participants with no instrumental experience. Additionally, participants with no instrumental experience performed significantly better without hand signs than with hand signs. McClung (2008) speculated that students without instrumental experience may not have the kinesthetic experience necessary to render hand signs useful. For these students, hand signs may have functioned as a distraction rather than an aid.
From the elementary to the collegiate level, researchers have found that hand signs neither helped nor hindered vocal music literacy. However, hand signs may still offer pragmatic benefits to educators, such as the previously mentioned convenience of dictating drills while facing the class and assessing understanding through a quick visual scan. At the very least, educators may take comfort in the knowledge that, insofar as the current body of literature stands, they need not fear making the wrong choice concerning the inclusion of Curwen hand signs in vocal literacy instruction.
Implications
The literature on tonal mnemonic devices has several important implications for music educators. First, researchers have failed to identify a single most effective pitch system. As such, a case can be made for selecting a system that is prevalent in the United States, that is, movable do or scale degree numbers (Demorest, 2004; Floyd & Bradley, 2006; Kuehne, 2007; May, 1993; McClung, 2001; Nichols, 2012; Pembrook & Riggins, 1990; S. A. Smith, 1998). Given the rise in student transience (EPE Research Center, 2004) and the negative correlation between achievement and mobility (Isernhagen & Bulkin, 2011), the use of a pitch system that is nationally prevalent may aid transient students.
The literature on pitch systems also contains implications for the most effective use of a system. For example, Lorek and Pembrook (2000) noted a tendency among undergraduate music majors to perform correct pitches with incorrect solmization syllables, suggesting the syllables were cumbersome for students with extensive music experience and limited pitch system experience. Perhaps educators must introduce a pitch system early in a student’s music education in order for the syllables to serve their intended function of aural association. Additionally, Reifinger (2012) noted that first-grade students successfully memorized solmization syllables to familiar songs but failed to generalize to unfamiliar material, suggesting that they perceived syllables as song lyrics. Teachers may need to explicitly direct the beginner’s attention to the nature and function of solmization syllables, guiding students in transferring learned patterns to new exercises and repertoire. In the words of Shaw (1950), “The syllables have no magic in themselves, and solve no one’s trouble unless charged with mental significance and association” (p. 18).
Future research on the comparative effectiveness of pitch systems might include statistical control of background variables that have been previously associated with sight-singing performance, such as years of piano instruction (Demorest & May, 1995; Henry & Demorest, 1994). The dearth of experimental studies on pitch systems may be symptomatic of the practical challenges inherent to the topic; teachers who incorporate vocal literacy instruction may not be amenable to randomly dividing students into groups for instruction in different pitch systems. Furthermore, proficiency in any pitch system is not typically attained in a short period of time, yet a long-term study may also prove impractical. If experimental control of the variables relevant to sight-singing is not within reach, statistical control would seem important. Perhaps such control would help clarify the relationship between pitch systems and individual sight-singing achievement.
About Curwen hand signs, discrepancies between their use and effectiveness are noteworthy; consistent failure to find gains in sight-singing scores does not appear to have affected teacher practices. The use of hand signs has deep roots in this nation; perhaps their continued use is a testament to the faith placed in tradition and the tendency among educators to teach the way they were taught. Alternatively, perhaps choir directors have noted benefits that researchers have not yet tested. Most researchers have tested the impact of hand signs on individual sight-singing accuracy, but the signs may offer benefits of a more communal nature. Amid the pressure of adjudicated sight-singing festivals, a visible gesture may unite students in group solidarity, particularly during the potentially nebulous practice of audiating. Perhaps Curwen hand signs offer direct benefits for directors and, by extension, indirect benefits for students; by providing directors with visual evidence of student understanding, hand signs may equip choir directors to give more immediate and individualized feedback than singing without hand signs.
Educators who are invested in the use of hand signs may note that researchers have not found hand signs to be a hindrance. Deciding whether to teach hand signs may require continual monitoring, weighing the benefits of visual and kinesthetic reinforcement against the challenges of adding another task to the music-reading process. If educators choose to teach hand signs, it is recommended they also direct student attention to the character of each sign (as in the stability of the fist that signifies “do” and the pull of the downward thumb that signifies “fa”), maximizing its instructional potential by aligning with Curwen’s original intentions.
Future research on Curwen hand signs might include interviews and/or surveys of educators who use hand signs to determine why they do so. It may be interesting to learn the extent to which educators incorporate hand signs for their pragmatic benefits, such as ease of dictating drills, versus pedagogical aims, such as the improvement of vocal accuracy. Future research might also include interviewing students who have used hand signs for different lengths of time to learn the extent to which they find the signs helpful. McClung’s (2008) findings about the interaction of hand signs with previous instrumental experience warrant further investigation, particularly concerning the potential connection between hand signs and learning modality.
In summary, music theorists, educators, and researchers have produced a growing body of literature on tonal mnemonic devices. When making pedagogical decisions, it may be tempting for educators to exclusively consult experimental research on the relative effectiveness of tonal mnemonic devices. However, it is recommended that educators also consider the literature on the rationales behind these devices, as well as the literature on common classroom practices. With knowledge of the rationales, classroom use, and relative effectiveness of pitch system and Curwen hand signs, educators may be equipped to make informed decisions in order to cultivate musically literate singers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
|
Apfelstadt, H. (1986). Learning modality: A potential clue in the search for vocal accuracy. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 4(3), 4–6. Google Scholar | |
|
Autry, M. R. (1976). A study of the effect of hand signs in the development of sight singing skills (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 7614404) Google Scholar | |
|
Bentley, A. (1959). Fixed or movable do? Journal of Research in Music Education, 7, 163–168. doi:10.2307/3344211 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Bridges, D. (1982). Fixed and moveable doh in historical perspective. Australian Journal of Music Education, 30, 11–15. Google Scholar | |
|
Cassidy, J. W. (1993). Effects of various sight-singing strategies on nonmusic majors’ pitch accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 293–302. doi:10.2307/3345505 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Choksy, L. (1999). The Kodály method I (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar | |
|
Demorest, S. M. (2001). Building choral excellence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Demorest, S. M. (2004). Choral sight-singing practices: Revisiting a Web-based survey. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 2(1), 3–10. Google Scholar | |
|
Demorest, S. M., May, W. V. (1995). Sight-singing instruction in the choral ensemble: Factors related to individual performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 156–167. doi:10.2307/3345676 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Educational Council . (1925). The movable do vs. the fixed do and relative vs. tonic minor. Music Supervisors’ Journal, 12(1), 64–67. doi:10.2307/3382760 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
EPE Research Center . (2004, September 21). Student mobility: How it affects learning. Education Week. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/rc/issues/student-mobility/ Google Scholar | |
|
Floyd, E. G., Bradley, K. D. (2006). Teaching strategies related to successful sight-singing in Kentucky choral ensembles. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 25(1), 70–81. doi:10.1177/87551233060250010108 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Giles, M. M. (1991). Choral reading built on the basics. Music Educators Journal, 77(6), 26–29. doi:10.2307/3398209 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Henry, M. L., Demorest, S. M. (1994). Individual sight-singing achievement in successful choral ensembles. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 13(1), 4–8. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Humphreys, J. T. (2006). 2006 Senior researcher award acceptance address: Observations about music education research in MENC’s first and second centuries. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 183–202. doi:10.2307/4151341 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Isernhagen, J. C., Bulkin, N. (2011). The impact of mobility on student performance and teacher practice. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 16(1), 17–24. Google Scholar | |
|
Killian, J. N., Henry, M. L. (2005). A comparison of successful and unsuccessful strategies in individual sight-singing preparation and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 51–65. doi:10.2307/3345606 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Kuehne, J. M. (2007). A survey of sight-singing instructional practices in Florida middle-school choral programs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 115–128. doi:10.1177/002242940705500203 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Landis, B., Carder, P. (1972). The Kodály approach. In Carder, P. (Ed.), The eclectic curriculum in American music education (pp. 60–68). Reston, VA: MENC. Google Scholar | |
|
Lorek, M. J., Pembrook, R. G. (2000). To doh or not to do: A comparative effectiveness of sightsinging syllable systems. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 14, 15–25. Google Scholar | |
|
Martin, B. A. (1991). Effects of hand signs, syllables, and letters on first graders’ acquisition of tonal skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 161–170. doi:10.2307/3344696 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
May, J. A. (1993). A description of current practices in the teaching of choral melody reading in the high schools of Texas (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9320311) Google Scholar | |
|
McClung, A. C. (2001). Sight-singing systems: Current practice and survey of all-state choristers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20(1), 3–8. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
McClung, A. C. (2008). Sight-singing scores of high school choristers with extensive training in movable solfège syllables and Curwen hand signs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 255–266. doi:10.1177/0022429408323290 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Middleton, J. A. (1984). Develop choral reading skills. Music Educators Journal, 70(7), 29–32. doi:10.2307/3400842 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Nichols, B. (2012). The way we do the things we do: A survey of middle-school choral educators’ sight-singing attitudes and influences. Contributions to Music Education, 39(1), 87–100. Google Scholar | |
|
Pembrook, G. R., Riggins, H. L. (1990). “Send help!”: Aural skills instruction in U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 4, 231–240. Google Scholar | |
|
Phillips, K. H. (1984). Sight singing: Where have we been? Where are we going? Choral Journal, 24(6), 11–17. Google Scholar | |
|
Phillips, M. J. (2013). Making sight-reading fun: Ten ideas for success at the middle school level. Choral Journal, 53(7), 59–63. Google Scholar | |
|
Rainbow, B. (1979). Curwen, Kodály, and the future. Australian Journal of Music Education, 25, 33–35. Google Scholar | |
|
Reifinger, J. L. (2012). The acquisition of sight-singing skills in second-grade general music: Effects of using solfège and of relating tonal patterns to songs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 26–42. doi:10.1177/0022429411435683 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Reifinger, J. L. (2013). Strategies to develop students’ conceptual understanding and singing accuracy of pitch. General Music Today, 26(2), 14–19. doi:10.1177/1048371312442514 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Roe, P. F. (1983). Choral music education (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar | |
|
Shaw, H. W. (1950). The musical teaching of John Curwen. Proceedings of the Royal Music Association, 77, 17–26. doi:10.1093/jrma/77.1.17 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Siler, H. (1956). Toward an international solfeggio. Journal of Research in Music Education, 4, 40–43. doi:10.2307/3343838 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Smith, S. A. (1998). Sight singing in the high school choral rehearsal: Pedagogical practices, teacher attitudes and university preparation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9839776) Google Scholar | |
|
Smith, T. A. (1991). Solmization: A comparison of pedagogical resources in solmization systems Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 5, 1–21. Google Scholar | |
|
Taggart, C. C., Taggart, B. F. (1994). Sight-singing systems: A survey of American colleges and universities. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 6, 194–209. Google Scholar | |
|
Yarbrough, C., Green, G., Benson, W., Bowers, J. (1991). Inaccurate singers: An exploratory study of variables affecting pitch-matching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 107, 23–34. Google Scholar | |
|
Yarbrough, C., Orman, E. K., Neill, S. (2007). Time usage by choral directors prior to sight-singing adjudication. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 25(2), 27–35. doi:10.1177/87551233070250020104 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Young, J. A. (1988). Hungarian solfège methods: Their history and their relevance to the training of professional musicians today. Kodály Envoy, 15(2), 15–21. Google Scholar | |
|
Youngson, S. C., Persellin, D. C. (2001). The Curwen hand signs: A help or hindrance when developing vocal accuracy? Kodály Envoy, 27(2), 9–12. Google Scholar |
