The Impacts of the Voice Change,Grade Level,and Experience on the Singing Self-Efficacy of Emerging Adolescent Males

Abstract

The purposes of the study are to describe characteristics of the voice change in sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade choir students using Cooksey’s voice-change classification system and to determine if the singing self-efficacy of adolescent males is affected by the voice change, grade level, and experience. Participants (N = 80) consisted of volunteer sixth-grade, seventh-grade, and eighth-grade males enrolled in a public school choral program. Participants completed the Singing Self-Efficacy Scale for Emerging Adolescent Males (SSES). After completing the SSES, participants were individually audio-recorded performing simple vocal exercises to attain each boy’s vocal range. Results revealed that 45% of sixth-grade participants, 48.15% of seventh-grade participants, and 87.88% of eighth-grade participants were classified as changing voices. Results of a three-way between-subjects ANOVA revealed no main effect for voice-change stage or grade level. A main effect was found for experience, favoring participants with 3 or more years of experience in choir. No statistically significant interactions were found.

Keywords

voice change self-efficacy male

Despite extensive research on the topic of the male voice change, middle and junior high school choir directors continue to struggle with the various challenges the voice change presents. Much of our current knowledge of the physical characteristics of the male voice change has derived from John Cooksey. Influenced by his predecessors, McKenzie (1956), Cooper (Cooper & Kuertsteiner, 1970), and Swanson (1977), Cooksey engaged in several longitudinal studies, which resulted in a five-stage classification system for the changing male voice: Midvoice I, Midvoice II, Midvoice IIA, New Voice, and Emerging Adult Voice (Cooksey, 1999; Cooksey & Welch, 1998). Research has validated Cooksey’s male voice-change classification system (Baressi & Bless, 1984; Cooksey, 1984, 1985; Cooksey & Welch, 1998; Fisher, 2010; Groom, 1984; Killian, 1999).

A preponderance of research on the adolescent male voice has focused on the age of onset of the voice change (Barresi & Bless, 1984; Cooksey, 1984; Fisher, 2010; Friesen, 1972; Hollien, Green, & Massey, 1994; Karr, 1988; Sturdy, 1939). More recent research on the male voice mutation has indicated a trend toward an earlier age of onset (Fisher, 2010; Killian, 1999; Killian & Wayman, 2010; Rutkowski, 1984). Killian (1999) found that 50% of fifth-grade and 81% of sixth-grade males were already in one of Cooksey’s voice change stages. Fisher (2010) measured fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade males who were either in general music, band, or orchestra or not enrolled in any music elective and found the age of onset for that sample to be 11.20 years of age, with 46% of fourth-grade, 62% of fifth-grade, and 67% of sixth-grade males classified as “changing” or “changed” voices. Most recently, Killian and Wayman (2010) measured the voices of boys enrolled in either choir or band and found that 81.25% of sixth-grade males, 85.11% of seventh-grade males, and 90.63% of eighth-grade males had begun their voice change.

Authors in other areas of research concerning the voice change have explored teacher knowledge of and accommodations for the changing voice (Adler, 1999; Chapman, 1989; Kennedy, 2004; Killian, 2003; Usher, 2005), adolescent male vocal agility (Hook, 2005), and intensity control (Harris, 1996). As Killian (1997) noted, much of the body of research concerning the adolescent male has focused largely on physiological characteristics of the voice change with little knowledge revealed about the psychological or psychosocial aspects of the changing male voice. Kriekland (2001) performed an action research study on the perceptions of adolescent males during the voice change by interviewing eighth-grade male members of her choral ensemble. She reported that the boys felt at ease with their vocal mutation and that their choir director (the researcher) and parents treated them positively throughout the maturation process. Killian (1997) surveyed and interviewed boys with changing voices as well as adult men on their perceptions of the voice change process. She noted that some of the adult participants had emotional responses when recalling the memories of their voice change. Nineteen percent of the adult participants in Killian’s study reported the voice change process to be a negative experience. Singers seemed to be much more aware of the voice change than nonsingers and reported feeling physical pain and hoarseness during the voice change. Several adult male participants responded that the quality of their mature voice was not as good as their prepubertal voice.

Research measuring the self-efficacy of male adolescent singers is notably absent from the literature. While self-esteem often is addressed when discussing adolescents, little is actually known about the confidence emerging adolescent male singers have in their own singing voice. Bandura (2006) defined self-efficacy to be one’s perceived capability to perform actions at a designated level and distinguished it from locus of control and self-esteem. According to Bandura (1994), self-efficacy beliefs impact people’s motivation and how they think, feel, and behave. He also concluded that perceived efficacy can determine the pivotal choices people, specifically adolescents, make at significant decision points in life. When faced with difficulties, those with low efficacy tend to give up, whereas those with high efficacy view obstacles as achievable and are more resilient (Bandura, 2006, p. 4).

Within the field of education, self-efficacy has been linked to academic achievement, motivation, and learning (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Students’ self-efficacy beliefs also tend to decline gradually throughout schooling (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Research has shown, however, that teachers can positively impact student efficacy by providing learning goals (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1996), by implementing learner-centered instructional practices that stress critical thinking (Meece, Herman, & McCombs, 2003), and by supporting students’ academic achievement (Anderman, Patrick, Hruda, & Linnenbrink, 2002).

Research also has revealed strong positive relationships between self-efficacy and music achievement in performance (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006), individual practice (McPherson & McCormick, 1999; Nielson, 2004), jazz improvisation (Davison, 2010; Watson, 2010), student retention in instrumental ensembles (Klinedinst, 1991), and music teaching (Steele, 2009). McPherson and McCormick (2006) found self-efficacy to be the most important predictor of achievement in music performance examinations. Nelson (1997) measured the impact participation in a choral program had on high-risk adolescent males’ self-efficacy. Participants became more efficacious through participation in the choral program, a finding that suggested this program to be an effective intervention for high-risk students.

The purposes of this study were to describe characteristics of the voice change in sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade choir students using Cooksey’s voice-change classification system and to determine if differences in singing self-efficacy exist depending on stage of voice change, grade level, and experience.

Method

Participants (N = 80) consisted of volunteer sixth-grade (n = 20), seventh-grade (n = 27), and eighth-grade (n = 33) males recruited from one intermediate school choir (n = 5), one middle school choir (n = 47), and two junior high school choirs (n = 28) from four separate schools located in a south-central state in the United States. Ages ranged from 11.33 to 14.73 years old (M = 12.95, SD = 0.87). Choirs were selected through purposive sampling in order to ensure that adequate representation of possible male participants was present.

Instrument

In order to examine the singing efficacy of participants, the researcher created the Singing Self-Efficacy Scale for Emerging Adolescent Males (SSES) with assistance from another researcher with expertise in writing self-efficacy scales based on the Bandura model.¹ The 26-item scale consisted of statements like, “I can sing well,” “I can sing without my voice cracking,” and “I can sing soft in my low voice when asked to.” Participants read each item and responded by circling one number on a scale from 0 to 10 with 10 being confident I can do and 0 being cannot do at all (see Figure 1). Responses from all items were summed, resulting in an overall singing self-efficacy score for each participant that could range from 0 to 260, with 260 indicating extremely high efficacy and 0 indicating extremely low efficacy. On the back of the scale, participants provided demographic information, including date of birth, grade level, and number of years in an organized choir.

Figure 1.

Singing Self-Efficacy Scale for emerging adolescent males.

Before administering the instrument to participants, a content validity panel consisting of three choir directors with experience in working with emerging adolescent males reviewed the scale and offered recommended amendments. The scale also was field tested with 22 males in Grades 6 through 8 who were enrolled in a middle school choir. Students who participated in the field test were not included in the main study sample. Items containing the terms falsetto, head voice, and chest voice confused many of the students in the field test. On the basis of recommendations by the content validity panel and field test participants, falsetto and head voice were replaced with high voice, and chest voice was replaced with mid voice. The scale also was color coded with every other item in blue so that participants would not respond accidentally to the wrong item. Each participant was assigned randomly a numerical code, and that corresponding numerical code was placed on the right-hand side of his SSES in order to ensure his score on the various measures (SSES and vocal exercises data) was properly attributed to him. The SSES was assessed for reliability and was found to be internally consistent (α = .92).

Procedures

Participants in the study were escorted to a separate room so that the remaining choir members who elected not to participate in the study could continue with regular rehearsal. Each participant was issued the 26-item SSES for Emerging Adolescent Males and was told to review the instrument but wait to begin until instructions could be given. I then encouraged the participants to read each item carefully and to respond by circling only one number (0 to 10) for each item. Participants were encouraged to consider their own confidence ability to perform a given task when responding to each item and not to consider how they perceived peers or teachers would rate them. I instructed each participant to review his responses to ensure that no item had been skipped unintentionally and that no item had multiple responses. Administration of the scale took approximately 10 min.

After completing and submitting the SSES, I audio-recorded participants individually performing simple vocal exercises in order to attain each boy’s vocal range. Before privately recording each participant, I reviewed and rehearsed the vocal glissandi exercises with each individual. Participants were instructed to glide slowly from their lowest to highest note on an ah vowel. They would repeat the ascending glissando for a total of three times with the attempt to get higher each time. Next, they were instructed to glide from their highest to lowest note on an ah vowel three times while attempting to get lower each time. This procedure for measuring vocal range without a stimulus pitch has shown to be effective in previous research (Fisher, 2010; Willis & Kenny, 2008).

Participants were recorded using the internal microphone of a MacBook Pro (2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Apple, Inc.). Students were instructed to stand on a marker near the computer and were signaled to begin each exercise. I used GarageBand 4.1.2 (Apple, Inc.) software to record and analyze each participant’s performance. After data were collected at each school, I privately listened to each participant’s recorded sound files. The highest note reached in the ascending glissandi exercises was labeled as the highest terminal pitch (HTP), and the lowest note reached in the descending glissandi exercises was labeled as the lowest terminal pitch (LTP). The HTP and LTP established the vocal range of each singer. In addition to labeling each participant’s HTP and LTP, I documented vocal characteristics, like phonational gaps, presence of falsetto, and hoarseness. As Cooksey (1999) noted, the presence of falsetto with phonational gaps is one characteristic of Stages 3, 4, and 5 of the voice change.

To determine the pitch class of the HTP and LTP, I used the internal digital tuner included in the GarageBand software and documented the results in an Excel spreadsheet. Portions of the sound file often were isolated in order to determine more accurately the HTP or LTP. Interjudge reliability of this vocal range test was reported in Fisher (2008, 2010) with 93% agreement for HTP and 90% agreement for LTP. After vocal ranges were established, each participant was classified using Cooksey’s stages of the male voice change (Figure 2). Participants classified as unchanged were coded as 0, while those in Stages 1 through 5 were coded with the corresponding number.

Figure 2.

Cooksey’s voice-change stages for emerging adolescent males.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including ranges, means, and standard deviations, were calculated for age, HTP, LTP, and singing self-efficacy. I also calculated percentages for the classification of each stage of the voice change. Age was calculated on the basis of the participant’s date of birth to the date on which he was recorded performing the vocal exercises. Each participant’s HTP and LTP also were converted to a frequency in hertz (Hz) in order to calculate intervallic descriptive data. I used a three-way between-subjects ANOVA to test for differences in singing self-efficacy by stage of voice change, grade level, and experience. The SSES served as the dependent variable, and the voice-change stage (0 to 5), grade level (6 to 8), and experience group (1 = 1 to 2 years, 2 = 3 or more years) served as the independent variables. An alpha level of .05 with a nondirectional hypothesis was established for this analysis.

Results

I calculated means and standard deviations for HTP and LTP for all participants (N = 80). HTP ranged from 233.08 Hz (Bb3) to 1244.51 Hz (Eb6) (M = 557.85, SD = 237.08), and LTP ranged from 98.00 Hz (G2) to 293.67 Hz (D4) (M = 176.79, SD = 37.60).

Each participant was classified according to Cooksey’s voice-change classification system. Twenty-nine participants (36.25%) were classified as unchanged voices, 15 participants (18.75%) were classified in Stage 1, 11 participants (13.75%) were classified in Stage 2, 13 participants (16.25%) were classified in Stage 3, 13 participants (16.25%) were classified in Stage 4, and 3 participants (3.75%) were classified in Stage 5 of the voice change.

The reported choral experience of the participants ranged from 1 to 11 years, with 57.5% having 1 to 2 years of choral experience and 42.5% having 3 or more years of choral experience. Types of choral experiences referenced by the participants included participation in school, church, and/or community choirs.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade participants. Results indicated a steady decline of the mean HTP and LTP from sixth through eighth grades. While the mean LTP seems to show a steady decline with each successive grade level, the mean HTP lowered between seventh and eighth grades by nearly 178 Hz (approximately a perfect 5th). Also, the percentages of unchanged voices reduced from sixth to eighth grade, with the most sizeable reduction found between seventh and eighth grades (–39.73%).

Table 1.

Overall Vocal Range Descriptive Statistics for Sixth-, Seventh-, and Eighth-Grade Participants.

Variable	Sixth Grade (n = 20)	Seventh Grade (n = 27)	Eighth Grade (n = 33)
Mean age	11.92 (0.47)	12.69 (0.41)	13.79 (0.41)
Mean HTP (in Hz)	644.64 (208.18)	619.87 (261.27)	441.11 (188.65)
Mean LTP (in Hz)	208.42 (29.69)	177.44 (33.44)	154.39 (35.44)
Voice-change stage
Unchanged	55.00%	51.85%	12.12%
Changing	45.00%	48.15%	87.88%
1	30.00%	11.11%	18.18%
2	10.00%	14.81%	9.09%
3	5.00%	7.41%	24.24%
4	0.00%	11.11%	30.30%
5	0.00%	3.70%	6.06%

Note. Numbers in parentheses denote standard deviations.

In order to determine the relationship of the voice change, grade level, and experience to participants’ singing self-efficacy, a three-way between-subjects ANOVA was used with singing self-efficacy serving as the dependent variable and voice-change stage (0, 1, 2, 3, 4), grade level (6, 7, and 8), and experience (1 = 1 to 2 years of choral experience, 2 = 3 or more years of choral experience) as the independent variables. The reported choral experience of the participants ranged from 1 to 11 years, with 57.5% having 1 to 2 years of choral experience and 42.5% having 3 or more years of choral experience. Participants who were categorized as unchanged were coded as 0, while the remainder of the participants were coded with the number of their classified stage. Because only 3 participants were classified in Stage 5 of the voice change, they were eliminated from this analysis to meet all assumptions. Two of the participants categorized in Stage 5 were in eighth grade, and 1 was in seventh grade.

Table 2 shows the overall descriptive statistics for the SSES across all independent variables. Participants in Stage 2 of the voice change had the highest mean on the SSES, and participants in Stage 1 scored the lowest. Across grade levels, seventh-grade participants scored the highest. Those with 3 or more years of experience in choir scored much higher than those with just 1 to 2 years. Assumptions for normality were met for all variables. The homogeneity-of-variance assumption was calculated using Levene’s statistic; the assumption was met for voice-change stage (L = 1.61, p = .18), grade level (L = 0.37, p = .70), and experience (L = 0.90, p = .35).

Table 2.

Overall Descriptive Statistics for Singing Self-Efficacy Scale by Voice-Change Stage, Grade Level, and Experience.

Variable	M (SD)	Skewness	Kurtosis
Voice-change stage
0	178.24 (31.37)	−.03	−.87
1	163.93 (34.36)	−.57	−.65
2	189.44 (29.03)	−.73	−.78
3	170.91 (59.74)	−.54	−.34
4	176.62 (42.55)	.55	−.77
Grade level
6	164.55 (35.01)	.08	−.90
7	182.46 (33.64)	−.06	−.10
8	176.58 (43.66)	−.60	.54
Experience
1	167.07 (35.14)	−.31	.40
2	187.87 (40.37)	−.68	.59

Results of the ANOVA revealed no main effect for voice change stage, F(4, 47) = 1.41, p = .24, η² = .07, or grade level, F(2, 47) = .25, p = .78, η² = .01. I found a main effect for experience, F(1, 47) = 8.67, p = .01, η² = .10, favoring participants with 3 or more years of experience in choir. There were no statistically significant interactions.

Discussion

The purposes of the study were to describe characteristics of the voice change in sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade choir students using Cooksey’s voice-change classification system and to determine if differences in singing self-efficacy exist depending on stage of voice change, grade level, and experience.

Results from this study revealed a drastic increase in the percentage of eighth-grade participants classified in the later stages of the voice change when compared to sixth- and seventh-grade participants (52% of seventh-grade participants classified as unchanged versus 12% of eighth-grade participants). In comparison, Killian and Wayman (2010) reported only 15% of seventh-grade males and 9% of eighth-grade participants as unchanged. A comparison of percentages of unchanged voices by grade from other students reveals other discrepancies. For instance, Killian (1999) reported only 17% of the sixth-grade males in her study to be unchanged, Fisher (2010) reported 33% of sixth-grade males to be unchanged, and Killian and Wayman (2010) found 19% of sixth-grade males to be unchanged.

These inconsistencies may be attributed to the makeup of the samples measured. Killian (1999) measured males in elementary general music and choir, Fisher (2010) measured general music and nonchoir males, and Killian and Wayman (2010) measured males enrolled in band and choir. In comparing the reported percentages of participants classified in each voice-change stage, samples that included nonchoir participants tended to have higher percentages of changing and changed voices than this study, which consisted only of males enrolled in middle school or junior high choir. This may indicate that males who begin their voice change at an earlier age may not perceive themselves to be “good singers” and therefore avoid participating in choir in middle school. It also may show that vocal training during the voice change may delay the progression of the voice change or at least minimize the characteristics associated with the voice change. Future research is warranted to compare the voice-change progression between males enrolled in choir and those who are not to see if differences do exist.

Results from this study also revealed that years of participation in choir had an impact on emerging adolescent males’ singing self-efficacy. This finding contradicts research that efficacy declines throughout schooling (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). One can derive two explanations for this result. Choir directors of the participants in this study may have provided a positive and motivational climate in rehearsals that, over time, increased the singing efficacy of their students. This explanation is supported by research that indicated teachers can impact student efficacy positively (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1996). If the effectiveness of these choir directors can be linked with increased singing self-efficacy of choir members, then research on the successful techniques employed in these choir directors’ rehearsals would be useful to the choral music education community.

The other explanation for this finding could be that those with low singing self-efficacy dropped out of choir and those with a higher singing efficacy continued. Other research has shown that those with low efficacy, when faced with difficulty, tend to give up (Bandura, 2006). Perhaps those with low singing-efficacy find the challenges of vocal development (particularly through the vocal mutation) to be too difficult and not worth continuing in choir. Though Klinedinst (1991) found students’ “self-concept” in music to be a predictor variable of student retention in band, more research is needed to determine if singing self-efficacy plays a role in student retention in choral ensembles.

It is interesting to note that the voice change did not seem to impact the singing self-efficacy of the participants in this study. One might assume that the vocal difficulties associated with the more advanced stages of the voice change would have an impact on emerging adolescents’ singing self-efficacy. One could conclude that the small sample size and lack of equal representation of participants classified in each voice change stage prohibited a statistically significant finding, but the low effect size (η² = .07) indicates that a main effect, even with ideal sample size, may be improbable. This finding may not support the assumption, then, that middle school and junior high males drop out of choir because of their voice change. Perhaps performance achievement has more of an impact on self-efficacy and retention than simply the challenges associated with the voice change. Authors of future research should consider examining if high singing self-efficacy correlates with high performance achievement in emerging adolescent males, as has been found in other studies (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006).

In conclusion, the finding that emerging adolescent males who have participated in a choral program for 3 or more years had a higher singing self-efficacy should provide encouragement to the choral community. Choir directors strive to improve and increase the singing abilities of their students, and the conclusions of this study suggest that, over time, the self-perceptions of students’ singing abilities may improve. Though the voice change did not have an effect on singing self-efficacy, choir directors should continue carefully and skillfully to guide these developing males through this tumultuous period so that they emerge with confidence in their singing abilities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biography

Ryan A. Fisher is assistant professor of music education and music education division head at the University of Memphis. His research interests include the male voice change and self-efficacy in music teaching and learning.

References

Adler

(1999). A survey of teacher practices in working with male singers before and during the voice change. Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(4), 29–33.

Anderman

E. M.

Patrick

Hruda

L. Z.

Linnenbrink

(2002). Observing classroom goal structures to clarify and expand goal theory. In Midgley

(Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 243–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bandura

(1994). Self-efficacy. In Ramachaudran

V. S.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bandura

(2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares

Urdan

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5., pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Bandura

Schunk

(1981). Cultivating competence, self efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 587–598. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586

Barresi

A. L.

Bless

(1984). The relation of selected aerodynamic variables to the perception of tessitura pitches in the adolescent changing voice. In Runfola

(Ed.), Research symposium on the male adolescent voice (pp. 97–110). Buffalo: State University of New York Press.

Chapman

R. T.

(1989). Training of the male adolescent singing voice prior to, during, and following voice mutation using the “vocal behavior training” methodology of Dr. Raymond Smolover (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, NY.

Cooksey

J. M.

(1984). The male adolescent changing voice: Some new perspectives. In Runfola

(Ed.), Research symposium on the male adolescent voice (pp. 4–59). Buffalo: State University of New York Press.

Cooksey

J. M.

(1985). Vocal-acoustical measures of prototypical patterns related to voice maturation in the adolescent male. In Lawrence

(Ed.), Transcripts of the thirteenth symposium, Care of the Professional Voice, Part II: Vocal therapeutics and medicine (pp. 469–480). New York: NY: Voice Foundation.

10.

Cooksey

J. M.

(1999). Working with the adolescent voice. St. Louis, MO: Concordia.

11.

Cooksey

J. M.

Welch

G. F.

(1998). Adolescence, singing development and national curricula design. British Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 99–111. doi:10.1017/S026505170000379X

12.

Cooper

Kuersteiner

J. K.

(1970). Teaching junior high school music. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

13.

Davison

P. D.

(2010). The role of self-efficacy and modeling in improvisation among intermediate instrumental music students. Journal of Band Research, 45(2), 42–58.

14.

Fisher

R. A.

(2008). The effect of ethnicity on the age-of-onset of the male voice change (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton.

15.

Fisher

R. A.

(2010). Effect of ethnicity on the age of onset of the male voice change. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 116–130. doi:10.1177/0022429410371376

16.

Friesen

J. H.

(1972). Vocal mutation in the adolescent male: Its chronology and a comparison with fluctuations in musical interest (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene.

17.

Groom

M. D.

(1984). A descriptive analysis of development in adolescent male voices during the summer time period. In Runfola

(Ed.), Research symposium on the male adolescent voice (pp. 80–85). Buffalo: State University of New York Press.

18.

Harris

L. D.

(1996). A study of intensity control in males with developing voices: Implications for pitch range and tessitura (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton.

19.

Hollien

Green

Massey

(1994). Longitudinal research on adolescent voice change in males. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2646–2654. doi:10.1121/1.411275

20.

Hook

(2005). Vocal agility in the male adolescent changing voice (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia.

21.

Karr

J. P.

(1988). A vocal survey of male adolescent voices grades six through ten: A study on the incidence of changed voices with relation to extant theories (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Louisville, Kentucky.

22.

Kennedy

M. C.

(2004). “It’s a metamorphosis”: Guiding the voice change at the American Boychoir School. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 264–280. doi:10.2307/3345859

23.

Killian

J. N.

(1997). Perceptions of the voice-change process: Male adult versus adolescent musicians and nonmusicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 521–535. doi:10.2307/3345420

24.

Killian

J. N.

(1999). A description of vocal maturation among 5th- and 6th-grade boys. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 357–369. doi:10.2307/3345490

25.

Killian

J. N.

(2003). Choral director’s self reports of accommodations made for boys’ changing voices. In Duke

Henninger

(Eds.), Texas Music Education Research 2003. Austin, TX: Texas Music Educators Association. Retrieved from http://www.tmea.org/080_College/Research/Kil2003.pdf

26.

Killian

J. N.

Wayman

J. B.

(2010). A descriptive study of vocal maturation among male adolescent vocalists and instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 5–19. doi:10.1177/0022429409359941

27.

Klinedinst

R. E.

(1991). Predicting performance achievement and retention of fifth-grade instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 225–238.

28.

Kriekland

P. D.

(2001). The perceptions of boys regarding the changing voice (Unpublished master’s thesis). Michigan State University, Lansing.

29.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Larkin

K. C.

(1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 265–269. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.265

30.

McCormick

McPherson

(2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31, 37–51. doi:10.1177/0305735603031001322

31.

McKenzie

(1956). Training the boy’s changing voice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

32.

McPherson

G. E.

McCormick

(1999). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98–102.

33.

McPherson

G. E.

McCormick

(2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34, 322–336. doi:10.1177/0305735606064841

34.

Meece

J. L.

Herman

McCombs

(2003). Relations of learner-centered teaching practices to adolescents’ achievement goals. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 457–475. doi:10.1016.j.ijer.2004.06.009

35.

Multon

K. D.

Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30

36.

Nelson

D. L.

(1997). High-risk adolescent males, self-efficacy, and choral performance: An investigation of affective intervention (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.

37.

Nielsen

S. G.

(2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32, 418–431. doi:10.1177/0305735604046099

38.

Pajares

(1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543

39.

Pajares

Valiante

(1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390–405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0995

40.

Pintrich

P. R.

Schunk

D. H.

(1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

41.

Rutkowski

(1984). Two year results of a longitudinal study investigating the validity of Cooksey’s theory for training the adolescent male voice. In Runfola

(Ed.), Research symposium on the male adolescent voice (pp. 86–96). Buffalo: State University of New York Press.

42.

Schunk

D. H.

(1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In Maddux

J. E.

(Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 281–303). New York, NY: Plenum.

43.

Steele

N. A.

(2009). The relationship between collegiate band members’ preferences of teacher interpersonal behavior and perceived self-efficacy (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3377468)

44.

Sturdy

L. A.

(1939). The status of voice range of junior high school boys (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

45.

Swanson

F. J.

(1977). The male singing voice ages 8 to 18. Cedar Rapids, IA: Laurance.

46.

Usher

A. L.

(2005). Tracking the adolescent male voice mutation: Public middle school choral teachers’ preparation, practices, and success (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University, Kent, OH.

47.

Watson

K. E.

(2010). The effects of aural versus notated instructional materials on achievement and self-efficacy in jazz improvisation. Journal of Research of Music Education, 58, 240–259. doi:10.1177/0022429410377115

48.

Willis

Kenny

D. T.

(2008). Relationship between weight, speaking fundamental frequency, and the appearance of phonational gaps in the adolescent male changing voice. Journal of Voice, 22, 451–471. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.11.007

49.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Bandura

(1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862. doi:10.3102/00028312031004845

50.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Bandura

Martinez-Pons

(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676. doi:10.3102/00028312029003663

51.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Kitsantas

(1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: The role of goal setting and self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 60–75. doi:10.1080/10413209608406308