Research-to-Resource: Designing Singing Assessments for Classroom Use

Research has found that singing instruction has a significant effect on singing accuracy, the degree to which one sings in tune (Demorest, Nichols, & Pfordresher, 2018). Elementary and secondary teachers of general music or vocal music are sometimes expected to provide data on student performance, and whether for summative or formative assessment, teachers need tools to perform this task. This article is intended for teachers seeking scales that have been refined by validity and reliability studies (Nichols, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Nichols & Lorah, 2018; Nichols & Wang, 2016). Given the demonstration of the effect of instruction in the research literature, the following research-to-resource article will provide examples to aid teachers in implementing singing evaluations in their own classrooms.

Prior to assessing singing accuracy, it is important to know each individual’s singing range. The Singing Voice Development Measure (SVDM) in Table 1 is intended to evaluate access to parts of the singing range. Singing voice development is an important construct for consideration because a student cannot sing in tune on a particular pitch if the pitch does not fall within the student’s accessible range. Elementary teachers commonly teach the head voice, employing top-down techniques and establishing a difference between a child’s speaking voice or singing voice. Choral directors also commonly use a top-down approach, and typically use range extension exercises as a part of the warm-up sequence. The SVDM is a useful tool for something teachers already do: evaluate the range expansion in each individual. It can be exciting for students to see their own progress charted along a scale such as this as well as those that follow, and the SVDM is a researcher-tested scale that can be used in the classroom.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Singing Voice Development Measure from Rutkowski and Miller (2003).

5	“Singer” exhibits use of consistent extended singing range (sings beyond the register lift: B3-flat and above).
4.5	“Inconsistent Singer” sometimes only exhibits use of initial singing range, but other times exhibits the use of extended singing range (sings beyond the register lift: B3-flat and above).
4	“Initial Range Singer” exhibits consistent use for initial singing range (usually D3 to A3).
3.5	“Inconsistent Range Singer” sometimes exhibits only use of limited singing range but other times exhibits use of initial singing range (usually D3 to A3).
3	“Limited Range Singer” exhibits consistent use for limited singing range (usually D3 to F3).
2.5	“Inconsistent Limited Range Singer” wavers between speaking and singing voice and uses a limited range when in singing voice (usually up to F3).
2	“Speaking Range Singer” sustains tones and exhibits some sensitivity to pitch but remains in the speaking voice range (usually A2 to C3).
1.5	“Inconsistent Speaking Range Singer” sometimes chants, sometimes sustains tones and exhibits some sensitivity to pitch but remains in the speaking voice range (usually A2 to C3).
1	“Presinger” does not sing but chants the song text.

Studies have reported 13% to 40% of teachers perform singing assessments, which vary by grade level; in one study, 63% “always” or “often” taught singing objectives (Salvador, 2010). Perhaps this has changed in the 10 years since that study, or perhaps it varies depending on locale, school population, prevalence of instrument use versus singing instruction in general classrooms, and certainly grade level. Or it varies also according to teachers’ definitions of singing objectives and of assessments. Evaluation is a practice used continually by music teachers at all times—often formatively (used to inform instruction) and informally (not written or otherwise recorded), though some teachers may reject the notion of frequent formal assessments in favor of informal evaluations—especially and sometimes appropriately for younger children. These formative assessments are arguably the most important, as one purpose of assessment is to improve instruction. Experienced teachers may be performing evaluations for voice development or singing accuracy similar to the SVDM or the singing accuracy scales presented here. Those teachers may rely less on formal assessment, and they may use teacher-constructed internal (thought processes) or external (explicit scales and rubrics) rather than published models. Novice teachers, however, may benefit from practice in using scales such as these as they work to refine an awareness of individual student progress in tandem with group or ensemble goals.

Teachers may wish to evaluate singing accuracy for various purposes. The first example is when the teacher needs to assess whether a student can repeat specific patterns in solfège or scale degrees. A second example is when the teacher needs to assess whether a student knows or can sing passages from music used in instruction. In either case the teacher must decide what pitch sequences are important for testing, then provide the criteria for performance including the use of solfège or text/lyrics and range. Each pitch sequence combination is unique and would be expected to vary in difficulty. ¹ The teacher must decide whether to model in his/her own voice the pitches for call and response or otherwise provide a starting note, which may affect the results of the assessment. When teachers choose to model, they must of course model accurately, and male teachers must decide whether to use the falsetto voice. Less vibrato is preferable as a model for children.

Song material has often been used in the research literature for children’s singing, and a song-singing scale designed by Wise and Sloboda (2008) can be applied to children’s singing. This 8-point scale in Table 2—especially when used in conjunction with Rutkowski’s SVDM can be a very useful tool for evaluating individual children and charting development.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Song Singing Scale Developed by Wise and Sloboda (2008).

8	All melody is accurate and in tune, and key is maintained throughout.
7	Key is maintained throughout, and melody accurately represented, but some mistunings (though not enough to alter the pitch class of the note).
6	Key is maintained throughout and melody mostly accurately represented, but there are some errors (notes mistuned sufficiently to be “wrong”).
5	Melody is largely accurate, but singer’s key drifts or wanders. This may be the result of a mistuned interval, from which the singer then continues with more accurate intervals but without returning to the original pitch.
4	Melody fairly accurate, or mostly accurate within individual phrases, but singer changes key abruptly, especially between phrases (e.g., adjusting higher lying phrases down).
3	Singer accurately represents the contour of the melody but without consistent pitch accuracy or key stability.
2	Words are correct but there are contour errors. Pitches may sound almost random.
1	Singer sings with little variation in pitch and may chant in speaking voice rather than singing.

Pitch patterns can be used as an obvious starting point, though three to five patterns should be used for a test of summative assessment based on reliability findings. For ecological validity—when a test reflects what is actually taught rather than something different—patterns should be based on recent classroom practices. Scoring of those patterns can be done by counting the individual pitches as accurate, or by counting the whole pattern as accurate or not (see Figure 1). The seating chart samples in this figure offer a model for how regular, informal or formal assessment can be conducted as a natural part of classroom activities. The seating-chart-as-documentation works when it is handwritten on paper or using common digital apps. It is especially useful for the professional who teaches all the students in one school or who teaches very large classes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Sample assessment charts.

The previous research cautions teachers on several important factors for evaluation and assessment. First, ecological factors—how testing reflects the teaching conditions—should be taken into consideration. For example, if children most often sing with others in the classroom, perhaps children should be tested in pairs rather than solo singing, which may affect the outcomes of the evaluation. Second, teachers must give a starting pitch in a way in which children have been familiarized, and with or without accompaniment reflecting the practices of the classroom. Some children do better the more times they try, but for some children, performance is stable across repeated attempts. If teachers use software for presenting materials to students such as Smart Notebook, they can use it for assessments, too.

Second, the basic premise of evaluation must be respected: Teachers should assess what is important and what has been taught. The principle of backward design is a good starting point for teachers who wish to use existing measures or design their own scales or rubrics. Backward design is the principle of deciding what children will know or be able to do, then deciding how you will assess whether they know or can do it, then what teaching sequence to take to get there. Keep in mind the foundational roles of formative and summative assessments in teaching any knowledge or skill, and specifically with regard to singing skills.

Hedden (2012) referred to the pedagogy of singing and defined pedagogy of singing as the art and science of singing. Children are assumed by teachers to find singing to be an easy and natural task. Yet they sometimes fail to account for growth and development in singing skills for individuals, perhaps assuming if an individual has not developed easily or naturally they cannot be helped. Children begin life with a wide pitch range that expands then shortens then expands again, generally speaking. The physiology of the young boys’ and girls’ voices are virtually identical until puberty, yet research has indicated boys and girls perform differentially on measures of singing accuracy. Teachers can play an important role in supporting young students’ development on this important skill for use across the life span in all genders.

Recent research suggests music educators can have a broad and meaningful impact on the general classroom teachers. Implementing music in early childhood settings by the general classroom teachers is a plausible, viable method for enhancing and reinforcing the instructional goals of the music specialist. Early education interventions before children self-identity as singers or nonsingers may be beneficial in terms of effects on student attitudes and singing skills regardless of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic statuses of the schools involved. Teachers may find generalist classroom teachers able to support musical development in ways not previously imagined, and that developing and supporting a building-wide culture supportive of singing may be a worthwhile leadership role for the music educator. Perhaps the music specialist will design and implement singing assessments inside the music classroom while offering mentoring for generalist classroom teachers to lead songs, provide instructional support in singing (intonation and pitch matching, for example), and find age-appropriate songs to support their lessons.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Selected Resources for Assessment in Singing A review of assessments and assessment considerations for classroom singing: Rutkowski, J. (2019). Assessment of singing voice development. In T. Brophy (Ed.), Handbook of assessment practice and policy in music education (pp. 629–651). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. An overview of children’s voice development: Rutkowski, J. (2018). Development and pedagogy of children’s singing. In A. Reynolds & S. Burton (Eds.), Engaging musical practices: A sourcebook for elementary general music (pp. 33–50). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Characteristics of the child’s voice and strategies for developing singers’ voices: Runfola, M., & Rutkowski, J. (2010). TIPS: The child voice (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.