The Development of a String Sight-Reading Pitch Skill Hierarchy

Abstract

This study was designed to determine a pitch skill hierarchy for string sight-reading, to determine the effects of key on string sight-reading achievement, and to determine the validity of a tonal pattern system as a measurement of melodic sight-reading skill for string players. High school string students (n = 94) obtained a mean score of 27.28 out of 31 on a modified version of the Vocal Sight-Reading Inventory. Success rates ranging from .99 to .72 were established for 31 pitch skills, grouped into eight tonal categories. Significant differences were found between skills appearing in the keys of D and E, with 11 of 31 skills obtaining significantly differing results by key. A .95 correlation between note-by-note and skill-based scoring systems indicates that skill-based scoring is a valid measurement of string players’ sight-reading of tonal pitch skills within a melodic context. Researchers should explore whether these pitch skills hold their relative difficulty level with less accomplished players and between instrument types, establish a hierarchy for rhythm skills, further investigate the effect of key, and identify anxiety levels for sight-reading when the consequences of performance quality vary.

Keywords

pitch skills sight-reading string instruments

Music educators generally agree that the ability to sight-read is an important skill (Elliott, 1982; Gregory, 1972) and necessary for the development of independent learners (Gregory, 1972). The National Standards for Arts Education included music reading among the content standards for music, in addition to specific achievement standards for sight-reading (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994). Sight-reading ability has been found to be a primary influence on high school wind students’ level of performance on a repertoire of rehearsed music (McPherson, 1994) and also may influence their ability to play by ear (McPherson, Bailey, & Sinclair, 1997).

Rhythm has been found to be a key element in instrumental sight-reading. For junior high wind students, Boyle (1970) found a high correlation between the ability to read rhythm at sight and the ability to read music at sight, as measured by the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale (Watkins & Farnum, 1962). Elliott (1982) found rhythm-reading ability to be the single best predictor of undergraduate wind instrumentalists’ sight-reading scores. Rhythmic errors have been found to outweigh all other types of errors in high school wind students’ sight-reading (McPherson, 1994).

Other researchers have isolated pitch in their studies of sight-reading. In developing assessments for their research, Boyle and Lucas (1990) and Gordon (1997) measured pitch skill without regard to rhythmic skill, while Scofield (1980) removed all rhythmic notation from the test materials.

Researchers focusing on pitch and its grouping into tonal patterns have found that instruction in tonal pattern recognition is superior to note identification techniques for the development of sight-reading skills. Pitch was introduced to an experimental group of fourth-grade beginning wind students through a series of tonal patterns, while the control group learned each new pitch by letter name, fingering, and sound (MacKnight, 1975). Findings indicated that tonal pattern instruction was superior to note identification teaching techniques in development of both sight-reading skills and auditory-visual discrimination skills. In a similar study with sixth-grade wind students, Grutzmacher (1987) found that the sight-reading skills of those taught with a tonal pattern approach improved significantly more than did those taught with a note identification approach. In a study of instrumentalists’ ability to play by ear, descending patterns were more challenging than ascending patterns, and performances of major-key patterns by ear were more successful than performances of minor-key patterns (Delzell, Rohwer, & Ballard, 1999). Gromko (2004) summarized that music reading draws on a variety of cognitive skills that include reading comprehension, audiation, spatial-temporal reasoning, and visual perception of patterns rather than on individual notes.

The harmonic function of pitch skills in vocal sight-reading also has been studied. Gordon (1997) and Kazez (1992) advocated teaching melodic sight-reading through the context of functional harmony. Davidson and Scripp (1988) and Davidson, Scripp, and Meyaard (1988) also stressed the importance of scale and tonal function in the development of sight-singing skill. Fine, Berry, and Rosner (2006) found that pattern recognition and harmonic prediction were integral to sight-singing ability. Research in instrumental music (Grutzmacher, 1987; MacKnight, 1975) also supports the use of music patterns, tonal syllables, and pitch skills as useful tools for improving instrumental sight-reading.

Henry (2001) proposed that results of past research concerning tonal patterns in sight-reading suggested the need for contextually based units of measure in sight-singing assessment. Boyle and Lucas’s (1990) study of sight-singing within a tonal framework and Killian’s (1991) study of error detection and sight-singing also identified context as an integral part of successful sight-singing.

Henry (2001) developed the Vocal Sight-Reading Inventory (VSRI) as a tool for systematic assessment of vocal sight-reading by skill category (see Henry, 2001, for a review of literature as it pertains to vocal sight-reading, as well as the development and reliability of the VSRI). The VSRI comprised 28 pitch skills (or tonal patterns) needed to read tonal music in major keys, defined as ascending and descending conjunct motion, skips and leaps within chordal elements, cadential patterns, modulatory patterns, and chromatic patterns. Each pitch skill contained one to seven pitches. The participant’s score reflected the total number of pitch skills performed correctly and identified the individual skills that the participant did or did not perform successfully. In previous studies, points were awarded either for each pitch and rhythm sung correctly (Boyle & Lucas, 1990; Demorest, 1998; Demorest & May, 1995; Henry & Demorest, 1994; Killian, 1991) or for the number of measures successfully completed (Anderson, 1981; Scott, 1996; Watkins & Farnum, 1962). As a result of this study, Henry constructed two versions of the VSRI for use by researchers and practitioners. The leveled version contained all 28 pitch skills in ascending order of difficulty from start to finish of the assessment. This version was intended to allow researchers to stop the singers once they had reached their maximum potential without having to attempt skills too difficult for the individual singer. The comprehensive version contained all 28 pitch skills within a smaller number of melodies. Within each melody, the embedded pitch skills were placed in increasing order of difficulty. This version was designed to be administered in its entirety so that the complete inventory of pitch skills could be assessed as efficiently as possible.

The Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale (Watkins & Farnum, 1962) was designed as a test of instrumental performance (Stivers, 1973) and often has been used for research in instrumental sight-reading. The Farnum String Scale (Farnum, 1969), developed from the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale, was designed as a similar assessment for string students. Except for the VSRI, resulting scores from the aforementioned tests represented subjects’ holistic ability to sight-read, without providing diagnostic information such as the types or level of sight-reading skills assessed for each student. In contrast, VSRI procedures resulted in diagnostic data for each student’s performance of 28 distinct pitch skills.

Specific demographic factors related to music study have been found to be associated with higher achievement in sight-reading. Piano study has been linked with higher scoring on sight-singing measures (Demorest, 1998; Demorest & May, 1995; Henry, 2011; Henry & Demorest, 1994; Killian & Henry, 2005). Private instrumental instruction has been related to vocal sight-singing success (Demorest, 1998; Demorest & May, 1995; Henry, 2011; Killian & Henry, 2005; Tucker, 1969) and instrumental sight-reading achievement (Ferrin, 2004; Mann, 1991; McPherson et al., 1997; Stenger, 1997; Townsend, 1992; Wheeler, 1993).

While most of the studies described here have identified sight-reading success holistically—reporting a single score for both pitch and rhythm success—Henry (2011) separated the measurement of pitch and rhythm to determine any differences in performance of these tasks by differing populations. She found that those with piano experience were significantly more successful in sight-singing both pitch and rhythm accurately. Those without piano experience were less successful singing rhythm but still able to perform pitch to the same level.

Although much research has been conducted involving vocal students, the vast majority of research on instrumental sight-reading ability among school children has focused on wind students (Walker, 1992) with little applicable research involving string students’ sight-reading. Bowed string instruments differ from their brass counterparts in the coordination of left and right hands and in their makeup as melodic instruments based on finger patterns, rather than harmonic instruments based on positions or fingerings utilizing the overtone series. Woodwinds have many similarities to strings but differ in their performance of articulation markings such as phrases (strings read these as slurs). While brass and woodwind tone is produced by airflow in one direction, string tone production is complicated by a combination of bow movement in two directions. Following the 20th-century string pedagogy of Paul Rolland and Shin’iche Suzuki, most modern string method books begin with rhythms grouped in patterns of note values of eighth and quarter notes while many band methods start out with long tones such as half or whole notes. String instruments differ enough from their wind counterparts, both in technique and pedagogy, such that string students’ sight-reading performance warrants further study. In addition, a pitch skill hierarchy, as created via the VSRI for vocal students, has never been researched for instrumentalists of any instrument type. If a pitch skill hierarchy could be created for string students, it could be combined with extant research on instrumental rhythmic sight-reading to create a diagnostic assessment of string sight-reading. In the same way, it also could be adapted for other instrument families for similar reasons.

The purpose of this study was to assess high school string students’ melodic sight-reading ability in order to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the difficulty hierarchy of pitch skill for string sight-reading? (2) Is the tonal pattern approach used in the VSRI a valid measurement of string players’ melodic sight-reading skill? (3) What effect, if any, does key have on string sight-reading achievement? (4) Do factors such as private lesson or piano experience contribute to string sight-reading achievement? (5) What amount and types of sight-reading experiences are encountered by string students during their instrumental study? and (6) What are string students’ perceptions of their individual sight-reading ability?

Method

In order to determine the sight-reading ability of string players on tonal pitch skills, the comprehensive version of the VSRI was adapted for use in the current study. As in the VSRI, pitch skills were identified by tonal solfège syllables and their lettered abbreviations (d = do, r = re, etc.). This means of identification is meant to emphasize the tonal relationship of the pitches, regardless of key. In addition to the 28 pitch skills grouped into seven categories identified in the VSRI, the additional category “larger leaps” containing three additional pitch skills—d–l, d–t, and r–t—was added for the current investigation; this completed the possible leaps within an octave (see Table 1). Six melodies from the VSRI were adapted to include each of the 31 pitch skills. The skills were embedded into the 6- to 8-measure melodies, attending to pre-established difficulty levels so that within each melody the pitch skills increased in difficulty (see Figure 1).

Table 1.

Inventory of 31 Pitch Skills Adapted From the Vocal Sight-Reading Inventory (VSRI)

	Adjacent		Subdominant
1	Repeated	16	leap
	drm		rfl (ii)
2	ascending	17	skip
3	descending	18	leap
	drmfs		ldm (vi)
4	ascending	19	skip
5	descending	20	leap
	drmfslt
6	ascending		Cadential
7	descending	21	End on d
		22	t, d
	Tonic	23	s, l, t, d
	dms (I)	24	s, d
8	skip
9	leap		Modulatory
10	d d′	25	#f s (V/V)
		26	♭m
	Dominant
	str (V)		Chromatic
11	skip	27	Upper neighbor
12	leap	28	Lower neighbor
	strf (V⁷)
13	skip		Larger Leaps
14	leap	29	d l
	fld (IV)	30	d t
15	skip	31	r t

Note: All pitch skills are identified by solfège abbreviations to indicate tonal function.

Figure 1.

Melodic example adapted from the Vocal Sight-Reading Inventory (VSRI)

In order to determine the effect of key on sight-reading performance, each of the melodies was transposed into three different keys (D, E♭, and E) to represent an open-string key, a flat key, and a sharp key, respectively. A complete version of the test was compiled by assembling the six melodies, with two melodies in each of the designated keys. To counterbalance key with the various pitch skills contained in a given melody, three versions of the test were constructed so that each melody appeared in each of the designated keys, and all three keys were represented in each version of the test.

As with previous versions of the VSRI, all melodies were presented in a rhythmic context that included half notes, dotted half notes, quarter notes, and eighth notes. Because this study was focusing solely on pitch accuracy, there was no control for rhythm or tempo, and rhythm skills were not evaluated. We wanted the pitches to appear in a logical rhythmic context but wanted to avoid a situation in which a pitch was performed incorrectly because of rhythmic demands. We also did not specify metronome markings, to allow the players to focus their attention fully on pitch.

High school string players attending a weeklong summer music camp served as participants for this study (n = 94). Although no audition was necessary to attend the camp, the players had a significant amount of playing experience (M = 5.98 years playing their instrument, SD = 2.01, range 3 to 12 years). Many previously had achieved recognition for their playing ability (63 participants had been selected for All-Region Orchestra; of those, 31 were selected for All-Area Orchestra; of those 31, 24 were selected for All-State). Participants included players of each of the standard string instruments: violin (n = 38), viola (n = 23), cello (n = 20), and bass (n = 13). Prior to testing, each participant completed an information sheet that requested demographic data including grade, gender, music experiences, and sight-reading experiences. Each participant completed the sight-reading process individually in a practice room under the supervision of a trained test administrator. Participants were assigned randomly one of the three test versions containing six melodies, which varied only by order of key presentation. Before performing each melody, the participants were given a 30-s period to study the melody. Participants were asked to set their own tempo but were encouraged to maintain that tempo throughout the melody. The complete testing cycle took an average of 6 min per participant. All performances were recorded for scoring at a later time.

Two certified string music educators and two senior-level string music education majors (one of whom had completed student teaching) were trained as test administrators/scorers. They each followed consistent scripts during testing and followed scoring procedures established for the VSRI. For scoring purposes, only those pitches designated as targeted pitch skills were scored. Each pitch within the skill had to be performed correctly to receive credit for the skill. Each of the 31 skills was targeted and scored only once per participant, for a potential score of 31.

Results

Ninety-four participants completed the demographic surveys and sight-reading testing process. The overall mean for all participants was 27.28 out of a possible score of 31 (SD = 4.05). The low score was 9 (n = 1), and the high score was 31 (n = 18).

The 31 pitch skills were grouped into eight categories. Success rates for each skill and skill category were determined by the percentage of the sample population performing the skill correctly; the higher the percentage, the easier the skill. Success rates for individual skills ranged from .99 (end of d) to .72 (s–t–r–f skip and d–t leap). Table 2 reports the success rate for all 31 skills, by key and overall. Success rates for the eight skill categories were determined by calculating the mean success rate for all skills within the category. Figure 2 displays the success rates for the eight skill categories.

Table 2.

Success Rates for the 31 Pitch Skills

		Key						Key
	Pitch Skill #	D	E♭	E	Overall		Pitch Skill #	D	E♭	E	Overall
	Adjacent						Subdominant
1	Repeated	.97	.94	.93	.95	15	skip	1.0	.67	.71	.79
	drm					16	leap	.87	.87	.76	.83
2	ascending	1.0	.91	.94	.95		rfl (ii)
3	descending	1.0	.97	.97	.98	17	skip	1.0	.94	.90	.95
	drmfs					18	leap	1.0	.91	.87	.93
4	ascending	1.0	.91	.87	.93		ldm (vi)
5	descending	.97	.87	.94	.93	19	skip	1.0	.97	.90	.96
	drmfslt					20	leap	.97	.97	.73	.88
6	ascending	.94	.93	.70	.85
7	descending	.94	.71	.77	.81		Cadential
						21	End on d	1.0	.97	1.0	.99
	Tonic					22	t, d	.97	.79	.65	.80
	dms (I)					23	s, l, t, d	.94	.77	.80	.84
8	skip	1.0	.88	.90	.93	24	s, d	.90	1.0	.91	.94
9	leap	.97	.97	.94	.96
10	d d’	1.0	.82	.94	.91		Modulatory
						25	#f s (V/V)	1.0	.82	.94	.91
	Dominant					26	♭m	.94	.90	1.0	.95
	str (V)
11	skip	.85	.87	.63	.79		Chromatic
12	leap	.91	.90	.97	.93	27	Upper neighbor	.94	.71	.93	.86
	strf (V⁷)					28	Lower neighbor	.97	.97	.58	.83
13	skip	.87	.80	.52	.72
14	leap	.90	.77	.73	.80		Larger Leaps
	fld (IV)					29	d l	.97	.88	.87	.90
						30	d t	.87	.85	.45	.72
						31	r t	.82	.68	.87	.79

Note: All pitch skills are identified by solfège abbreviations to indicate tonal function. Decimal numbers represent the percentage of participants who sight-read the melodic material correctly. Therefore, the lower the number, the more difficult the pitch skill. Pitch skills with significantly different success rates by key, as determined by post hoc chi-square analysis, are identified by boxes.

Figure 2.

Success rates for melodic pitch skill categories

In order to determine the validity of the pitch skill scoring system, one scorer scored half of the performances using an alternate scoring system, in which every note was scored, not just the targeted pitch skills. This procedure for validating the target skill scoring system paralleled that used by Henry (1999) during the initial construction of the VSRI. Pearson’s correlation between scoring systems was .95 (n = 47).

In addition to identifying success rates for target pitch skills and categories, the impact of key also was under investigation. Therefore, success rates were calculated for each of the three keys used in the test melodies. The key of D obtained a .92 success rate; the key of E♭ obtained a .87 success rate; and the key of E obtained a .85 success rate. A randomized block by subject design was employed to determine any significant differences between the keys. Results of the repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated a significant difference in performance between skills appearing in the key of D and the key of E, F(2, 186) = 5.259, p = .006, η2 = .028. There was no significant difference between the key of E♭ and either of the other keys.

A post hoc chi-square analysis of the individual pitch skills revealed significant differences between keys for 11 of the 31 pitch skills, p < .05 (see Table 2). Significant differences were found for skills in all eight of the skill categories.

In previous research, private instrumental study (Ferrin, 2004; Mann, 1991; McPherson et al., 1997; Stenger, 1997; Townsend, 1992; Wheeler, 1993) and piano experience (Demorest, 1998; Demorest & May, 1995; Henry, 2011; Henry & Demorest, 1994; Killian & Henry, 2005) each were related significantly to sight-reading achievement. In the current study, 89 of the 94 participants reported receiving private instruction on their instrument (M = 4.77 years, SD = 2.82). Fifty participants reported having piano instruction (M = 2.2, SD = 3.05).

In the current study, for every year of private instrumental study, scores improved by .34 points. For every year of piano study, scores increased by .24 points. Results of a multiple regression procedure indicated a significant difference from zero in the regression line for years of private instrumental study, t(91) = 2.35, p = .02. However, years of piano study did not meet the significance threshold, t(91) = 1.83, p = .07.

Additional demographic information solicited from the participants involved the amount and type of sight-reading experiences encountered during their instrumental study. The majority (58%) reported practicing group sight-reading only prior to annual adjudicated festivals. Only 28% of participants reported practicing sight-reading on their own, outside of group instruction. Sixty-four percent of participants reported never having been tested individually on sight-reading. Thirty-six percent reported occasionally having been tested individually, while none of the participants reported regular individual testing.

Participants were asked to report on their perception of their sight-reading ability by choosing from four options ranging from 4 (very strong) to 1 (not good at all). Responses skewed toward the middle, with 65% choosing Option 3 (I’m okay). An ANOVA comparing perceived ability and total score showed no relationship between the two, F(3, 90) = 1.53, p = .213, although the exterior response populations were small enough to warrant caution when making statistical conclusions on this question.

Discussion

We designed this study to determine a pitch skill hierarchy for string sight-reading and to determine the validity of a tonal pattern system as a measurement of melodic sight-reading skill for string players. Potential effects by key on string students’ sight-reading success also were of interest. Demographic data were gathered to determine any effects of private lessons and piano study. Participants also provided information on their previous sight-reading instruction and practice behaviors.

The participants in this study achieved a relatively high level of success on the pitch tasks contained in this assessment (27.28 out of 31 or 87% of pitch skills performed correctly, with 18 perfect scores). Although nonauditioned, the participants in this study were generally high caliber performers, as determined by the large number of all-region, all-area, and all-state players in the sample population. In addition, the participants demonstrated a high level of motivation toward music achievement by choosing to participate in a voluntary summer music camp. Researchers should explore whether the identified pitch skills retain their relative difficulty level with less accomplished players, including middle school students.

It is difficult to compare results from Henry’s (1999) original findings with vocalists due to substantial differences between populations. Scores from the current study were substantially higher than previous VSRI results, however, these participants represented a self-selected group of high school players attending a specialized summer camp, as opposed to singers from middle and high schools, ranging from beginners to singers in more advanced choirs. The greater success of the string players also may be attributed to differences between instrumental sight-reading and vocal sight-reading. Nelson (1988) stated that “Although instrumentalists should hear the pitches in their ears before they come out, a sightsinger must do so.”

Difficulty levels for each of the 31 pitch skills were established. Table 2 illustrates the success rates for each category of pitch skill as grouped by harmonic function. Despite the high overall scores, the relative difficulty of the various pitch skills can add insight into the spectrum of tasks required for melodic sight-reading on a string instrument. Based on these results, pitch skill categories for strings can be classified into the following levels according to difficulty:

Level I—Conjunct, Tonic, and Modulatory

Level II—Subdominant and Cadential

Level III—Dominant, Chromatic, and Larger Leaps

It comes as no surprise that participants had the highest success rate for the conjunct and tonic pitch categories; these skill categories were also among the most accessible in previous research with vocalists (Henry, 2001).

Previous development of the VSRI (Henry, 1999) established somewhat different success rates for vocalists, with conjunct, tonic, and cadential skills as the easiest, followed by dominant, subdominant, chromatic, and modulatory skills being the most difficult. The harmonic difficulty faced by vocalists may have been diffused for string players by the presence of the open strings and finger patterns as fixed points of reference. In any case, both populations found conjunct and tonic pitch skills easier than dominant and chromatic pitch skills.

The difficulty levels for pitch skills established by Henry (1999) were determined using singers at a variety of levels, yet the relative difficulty levels have held in Henry’s subsequent research with a variety of populations (Henry, 2003, 2011). In the string area, researchers should investigate whether the relative difficulty levels established in the current study are consistent for players with a greater variety of ability levels or if skills are more or less difficult during different stages of player development.

It was surprising to note that in the current study, participants’ subdominant category scores were higher than the dominant category. Because the subdominant harmonically is removed further from tonic than the dominant, we anticipated that dominant skills would be easier. In examining Table 2, it is apparent that some categories had similar scores (within .10) on all individual skills (Adjacent, Tonic, Dominant, Modulatory, and Chromatic) while other categories had a greater variety in individual skill scores (Subdominant, Cadential, and Larger Leaps). Because all skills were presented in all keys, the overall mean for any individual skill represents its combined success rate for all keys.

No previous research on the effect of key in the instrumental sight-reading process was found during the literature search. We theorized that, as flats or sharps are added to the key signature, the ability to reference pitch from an open string diminishes as each string becomes chromatically altered, thus lowering student sight-reading success rates. As anticipated, results from the current study reflect a decrease in success as participants performed in keys with more sharps or flats. Table 2 indicates that significant differences on participants’ sight-reading of specific skills occurred when performed in different keys and that these affected the success rates by category. For example, the (s)–t–r–f skip and the s–t–r skip in E major provided the two scores that lowered the dominant skill category success rate. These data support the commonly held belief that string sight-reading becomes progressively more difficult as the number of sharps or flats in the key signature is increased.

Shifting, string crossing, altered tones, and extensions were examined to discover if those technical issues may have hampered student success. Of the six skills on which there were less than 70% correct responses when divided out by key, only one involved shifting and that was isolated to the string bass students. String crossings, altered tones, and extensions were likely responsible for the increase of errors on these skills, because the majority of errors occurred where the technical issue was present within a particular key.

The lowest level of success achieved on any pitch skill was 45% correct for Skill 30, d–t, in E. This particular key/skill required both a string crossing and an extension. It may be that any single event such as string crossing, shifting, altered tones, or extensions may not have presented enough of a difficulty to cause an error but a combination of these techniques may have.

These results may indicate that, for specific pitch skills in specific keys, technical issues present more difficulty than the harmonic function. Researchers might explore any differences between instrument types when establishing difficulty levels for various pitch skills, because the physical requirements can vary substantially due to differences in fingerings. The effect of key on specific pitch skills and technical tasks also warrants further study.

The scoring system was deemed a valid measurement of participants’ pitch skills through the same method used by Henry (1999) during the initial construction of the VSRI. With a Pearson’s correlation of .95 between the VSRI scoring procedures and a more typical note-by-note approach, the VSRI was found to be a valid measurement of string players’ sight-reading of tonal pitch skills within a melodic context. Although prior instrumental studies have noted that rhythmic errors far outweighed any other type of error in sight-reading performance, the establishment of a hierarchy of pitch skills for string players provides a harmonic basis for the creation of melodic sight-reading assessments that can be used both holistically and diagnostically.

Although validity of the scoring system was established, questions arose during scorer training about identifying pitches as correct, even if the intonation was not precise. For the purposes of scoring within a tonal paradigm, pitches were deemed correct if the pitch was perceived as fulfilling its proper tonal function. Scorers were able to score performances based on this criterion. However, the question of intonation for string sight-reading accuracy is an interesting one. Researchers should investigate the range of intonation variance for sight-reading as compared to prepared performances. They should explore whether there is more or less variance in intonation accuracy based on the tonal function of the pitch in question.

Prior to assessment, students provided information regarding years of private study on their instrument and previous piano experience. The vast majority of participants (95%) reported receiving private instruction on their instrument. In line with previously cited research, years of private study was related significantly to increased sight-reading success. While private study likely does not include an emphasis on sight-reading instruction, it likely does include music reading beyond that to which students are exposed through group instruction or ensemble rehearsals. The independence required in order to practice and prepare for individual lessons will increase the sheer amount of music reading taking place. Although sight-reading scores increased for every year of piano study, it did not meet the significance threshold. As in their private instrument study, piano study likely exposed the participants to additional music reading tasks, including those requiring them to read both horizontally and vertically concurrently, thereby increasing the speed at which they must process the information. This may aid in the sight-reading process, as well. For both private string and piano lesson experiences, we believe that the “more is better” principle is in effect, resulting in players who are more comfortable and capable of reading music at sight. Based on these results, teachers should encourage students to seek private instruction on their instrument (and possibly piano study) in conjunction with their classroom instruction. Researchers might explore any differences between students whose private study (on either their instrument or piano) was primarily aural in nature (early Suzuki training), as opposed to relying heavily on music reading throughout instruction, in an attempt to discern whether the sheer amount of time spent in playing increases sight-reading ability or if the type of private instruction is influential.

Participants identified their previous sight-reading experiences in terms of group instruction, individual practice, and individual assessment of sight-reading. Relatively few participants were involved in group sight-reading instruction on a regular basis. Even so, they achieved a high level of sight-reading success on tonal pitch skills. It may be that the large number of participants enrolled in private instruction (95%) and its effect on their sight-reading ability may have skewed the results far to the positive side. It also may be that, as other studies have shown, rhythm is the greatest factor in instrumental sight-reading achievement. Tonal pitch skills, isolated from rhythm, may not present a level of sight-reading difficulty great enough to warrant additional classroom study beyond the typical orchestra curriculum.

Participants reported perceptions of their sight-reading ability. No relationship was found between participants’ self-assessment and their actual performance; most students reported I’m okay with few responses on either side. Based on the positively skewed responses and the relatively high scores achieved by the overall population, sight-reading does not appear to be an anxiety-inducing task for these students—at least in a low-risk situation where chair seating or grades were not at stake. These results also are somewhat counter to those found by Killian and Henry (2005) when they asked for vocalists to self-assess their sight-reading ability. Researchers might explore anxiety levels for sight-reading and other music activities when the consequences of performance quality vary. They also might explore differences in anxiety between instrumentalists and vocalists for sight-reading and other performance tasks.

While the VSRI shows promise as a means for assessing pitch sight-reading ability for string instrumentalists, it is clear that there are additional considerations to be taken into account when using VSRI principles to construct a tool for either a comprehensive inventory of a player’s pitch sight-reading capabilities or a one-shot melody of a desired difficulty level. These include key and simultaneous tasks such as shifting, string crossing, or extensions. We recommend that researchers investigate a rhythmic hierarchy for string players, based on the extant research in the field, which can be combined with this pitch skill hierarchy to create a complete diagnostic tool for string sight-reading assessment.

Teachers are directed to the hierarchy of pitch skills and pitch skill categories for string sight-reading inasmuch as they provide important diagnostic and summative resources to orient pedagogy. Teachers also are encouraged to assess their string players individually as a means of sight-reading instruction, as the process in and of itself has been shown to be an effective instructional activity (Demorest, 1998). In addition, to enhance sight-reading, we suggest that school music teachers encourage their students to supplement classroom string instruction with private instrument lessons, piano lessons, or both.

Footnotes

This research was conducted with the assistance of James Stamey, from the Institute for Statistical Studies at Baylor University. Additional assistance with data collection and scoring was provided by Matt Box, Aryc Lane, Amanda Su, and Paul Vanderpool.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Michael L. Alexander is associate professor of music education at Baylor University. His research interests include classroom string pedagogy and tuning methodology.

Michele L. Henry is associate professor of music education at Baylor University. Her research interests include sight-reading and sight-singing instruction and assessment.

References

Anderson

(1981). Effects of tape-recorded aural models on sight-reading and performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 23–30. doi:10.2307/334467610.2307/3344676

Boyle

(1970). The effect of prescribed rhythmical movements on the ability to read music at sight. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18, 307–308. doi:10.2307/334449810.2307/3344498

Boyle

Lucas

(1990). The effect of context on sightsinging. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 106, 1–9. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318858

Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Davidson

Scripp

(1988). A developmental view of sightsinging. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 2, 10–23.

Davidson

Scripp

Meyaard

(1988). Sightsinging ability: A quantitative and qualitative point of view. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 2, 51–68.

Delzell

J. K.

Rohwer

D. A.

Ballard

D. E.

(1999). Effects of melodic pattern difficulty and performance experience on ability to play by ear. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(1), 53–63. doi:10.2307/334582810.2307/3345828

Demorest

(1998). Improving sight-singing performance in the choral ensemble: The effect of individual testing. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 182–192. doi:10.2307/334562210.2307/3345622

Demorest

May

(1995). Sight-singing instruction in the choral ensemble: Factors related to individual performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 156–167. doi:10.2307/334567610.2307/3345676

10.

Elliott

C. A.

(1982). The relationships among instrumental sight-reading ability and seven selected predictor variables. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(1), 5–14. doi:10.2307/334486210.2307/3344862

11.

Farnum

S. E.

(1969). The Farnum string scale. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.

12.

Ferrin

C. E.

(2004). Music reading calisthenics: The effect of a consistent regimen of sightreading and the effect of educational kinesiology upon the music sightreading skills of high school music students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 4693.

13.

Fine

Berry

Rosner

(2006). The effect of pattern recognition and tonal predictability on sight-singing ability. Psychology of Music, 34, 431–447. doi:10.1177/030573560606715210.1177/0305735606067152

14.

Gordon

(1997). Learning sequences in music. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.

15.

Gregory

T. B.

(1972). The effect of rhythmic notation variables on sight reading errors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 462–468. doi:10.2307/334380410.2307/3343804

16.

Gromko

J. E.

(2004). Predictors of music sight-reading ability in high school wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(1), 6–15. doi:10.2307/334552110.2307/3345521

17.

Grutzmacher

P. A.

(1987). The effect of tonal pattern training on the aural perception, reading recognition, and melodic sight-reading achievement of first-year instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(3), 171–181. doi:10.2307/334495910.2307/3344959

18.

Henry

(1999). The development of an individual vocal sight-reading inventory (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 683A.

19.

Henry

(2001). The development of a vocal sight-reading inventory. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150, 21–35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319097

20.

Henry

(2003). A comparison of testing formats for vocal sight reading. Texas Music Education Research, pp. 2–9.

21.

Henry

(2011). The effect of pitch and rhythm difficulty on vocal sight-reading performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 72–84. doi:10.1177/002242941039719910.1177/0022429410397199

22.

Henry

Demorest

(1994). Individual sight-singing achievement in successful choral ensembles. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, 13, 4–8.

23.

Kazez

(1992). Solfege drills. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 6, 19–34.

24.

Killian

(1991). The relationship between sightsinging accuracy and error detection in junior high singers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 216–224. doi:10.2307/334472110.2307/3344721

25.

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:10.1177/00224294050530010510.1177/002242940505300105

26.

MacKnight

(1975). Music reading ability of beginning wind instrumentalists after melodic instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23(1), 23–34. doi:10.2307/334520010.2307/3345200

27.

Mann

R. G.

(1991). The use of Kodaly instruction to develop the sight-reading skills of undergraduate flute students (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 2063.

28.

McPherson

G. E.

(1994). Factors and abilities influencing sightreading skills in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 217–231. doi:10.2307/334570110.2307/3345701

29.

McPherson

G. E.

Bailey

Sinclair

K. E.

(1997). Path analysis of a theoretical model to describe the relationship among five types of musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 103–129. doi:10.2307/334546910.2307/3345469

30.

Nelson

(1988). Sightsinging for children—too little, too late? Journal of Church Music, 30, 14–15.

31.

Scofield

(1980). The construction and validation of a method for the measurement of the sight-singing abilities of high school and college students (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 03A.

32.

Scott

(1996). The construction of a holistic, criterion-referenced sightsinging test for high school sopranos based on the voluntary national standards for music education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

33.

Stenger

(1997). The effect of mneumonic devices on a mathematical method of rhythm reading instruction (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Kansas, Lawrence.

34.

Stivers

J. D.

(1973). A reliability and validity study of the Watkins–Farnum Performance Scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

35.

Townsend

B. G.

(1992). Relationships between sight-reading ability of college freshmen wind instrumentalists and wind instrumentalists and music experience, band experience, and music aptitude (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 4258.

36.

Tucker

(1969). Factors related to musical reading ability of senior high school students participating in choral groups (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 2427A.

37.

Walker

(1992). Auditory perception and musical behavior. In Colwell

(Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 344–348). New York, NY: Schirmer.

38.

Watkins

Farnum

(1962). The Watkins–Farnum performance scale. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard.

39.

Wheeler

M. R.

(1993). A comparative analysis of melodic and rhythmic music reading skills of percussion and wind instrument students in selected North Carolina schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3469.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB