Current Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching Technology...

Current Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching

Technology: A Bicoastal Survey of Classical Singing

Pedagogues

*Kathryn Barnes-Burroughs, †William Y. Lan, *Elizabeth Edwards, and ‡Noel Archambeault, *yLubbock, Texas,

zKingsville, Texas

Summary. In recent years, the availability of studio teaching technology tools for the classical singing studio has de-veloped exponentially. Nevertheless, the integration of voice analysis technology and other computer-based technologyinto a traditional classical singing studio can be a daunting task for many teachers, despite fine instructional texts such asthose of Garyth Nair (1999) and Scott McCoy (2004). For this reason, The Texas Tech Voice Alliance developed andassessed a bicoastal online survey of classical singing pedagogues in the United States about their perceptions of, andattitudes toward, the use of studio teaching technology. The purpose of this study was to investigate the current use ofthis technology and to assess the readiness of these teachers to explore further its possible benefits. Subjects were askedto rank relevant factors associated with voice studio teaching technology in the classical singing studio and respond toquestions using calibrated judgment scales. Discussion focuses on descriptive survey results and analyses, includingagreement and disagreement between classical singing pedagogues regarding real or perceived uses and future benefitsof voice studio teaching technology in their studio programs. Results of this survey provide data on which to base futurestudies. Building on the record of existing software and related literature, and through ongoing research, this team ul-timately intends to expand the survey group and use the results to guide us in further development of user-friendly com-puter-based technology.Key Words: Technology–Survey–Perceptions–Vocal pedagogy–Software–Hardware–Teaching aids–Singing–Pitch-matching software–Voice recognition software–Vocal methods and technique software–Sound recording software–Music teaching software–Visual aids–Kinesthetic aids–Auditory aids.

INTRODUCTION

The challenge

In virtually every human endeavor of the 21st century, computertechnology plays an integral part. The automobile, the powerplant, the traffic light, the home sprinkler system, the librarycatalog, and our most immediate source of information (the In-ternet), all thrive on the power of computer technology. We canthank Captain Kirk and the visionaries of science fiction for thedream of data organization and access beyond the abilities ofa single human brain; and we can thank companies such asDell, Apple, IBM, and Microsoft for their hardware and soft-ware developments toward the realization of that dream. Never-theless, there is still a prevalence of discomfort for many of usover 40 to trust a machine with information and analysis thathas traditionally and effectively been interpreted by trained,skillful human beings. This may be especially true of manyclassical singing teachers.

Accepted for publication December 15, 2006.This research was sponsored by the Texas Tech Voice Alliance, the Texas Tech School of

Music, the Texas Tech University Graduate School, and the Texas Tech University HonorsCollege. The resulting paper was presented at the Voice Foundation’s 35th Annual Sympo-sium: Care of the Professional Voice, on June 2, 2006.

From the *Texas Tech University School of Music, Lubbock, Texas; yDepartment of Ed-ucational Psychology and Leadership, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas; and thezTexas A&M University, Kingsville, Texas.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kathryn Barnes-Burroughs, The TexasTech Voice Alliance, Box 42033, Texas Tech University School of Music, Lubbock, TX79409. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Voice, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 590-6020892-1997/$34.00� 2008 The Voice Foundationdoi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.12.004

Since the writings of Jerome of Moravia, Corri, Hiller, Man-cini, Lamperti, Garcia, Vennard, Appleman, and others, singingknowledge has been passed down in a genetic code of sorts fromteacher to student—and teacher to student—for centuries.Many pedagogues and performers proudly relate the genealogyof their training, as far back as five or six generations of voicetradition. This is as it should be, as our culture derives from peo-ple singing and people listening, and other people assessingwhat is ‘‘good’’ and what is considered to be ‘‘not good.’’Even with the advent of computer technology available for as-sistance in the study of singing, the ultimate job of evaluationstill belongs to the human ear and sensibilities. As RobertThayer Sataloff puts it in his third edition of Professional Voice:The Science and Art of Clinical Care, ‘‘Such technology is nosubstitute for traditional, excellent voice training. Rather, it pro-vides an extra set of tools for the voice teacher to help identifyspecific problem areas and to assure steady progress.’’1

It is generally agreed that as teachers of singing, we have a re-sponsibility to relate to the learning styles of our students. Manyof them begin and end each day with computer interface andfeel most comfortable using computer-based technology intheir learning and research efforts. As Carl Swanson pointsout in his recent article, ‘‘It is a fact that most students nowadaysare not only computer literate, but also computer dependent.’’2

How is it, then, that singing teachers of our time can adequatelytake advantage of the most trusted technology for our studentsunder the age of 30? Oren Brown answers this question beauti-fully for us in saying: ‘‘. every student is different. To get theresults I want, I often have to find new ways of instructing.’’3

mailto:[email protected]

Kathryn Barnes-Burroughs, et al Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching Technology 591

Argument for investigation

In recent years, the availability of studio teaching technologytools for the classical singing studio has developed exponen-tially. Since the advent of the Kay Computerized Speech Lab,immediate and real-time analysis programs such as Voce Vista,Kay Multispeech PC Lab, PRAAT, Cool Edit Pro, and manyothers have made the personal computer a viable teaching de-vice in the 21st century voice studio. Interestingly, however,many singing teachers may not view computer-based technol-ogy as just another addition to the technology they already use.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the En-glish Language, ‘‘technology’’ is defined as: ‘‘the body ofknowledge and tools available to a society that is of use in fash-ioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and ex-tracting or collecting materials.’’4

Therefore, when singing teachers use any information otherthan their own innate knowledge, they are, in fact, using tech-nology in their teaching. This includes:

� any knowledge and/or exercises that their teachers passedon to them,

� the piano, keyboard, or other instrument that may supplypitches for their teaching,

� mirrors used by the student to check visual aspects indi-cated by the teacher,

� audio or video recorders used by the student to monitorlessons,

� posters, charts, and models used by the teacher to illus-trate concepts while teaching, and

� any textbooks, journal articles, and other printed materialsused by the teacher for discussing the aspects of singing.

There is no mention of computer-based technology in this list.Yet, by virtue of the definition of technology we have cited andthe evolution of its use in the singing studio, it would seemlogical to regard assistive technology based on computers assimply ‘‘one more set of tools’’ available for the classical voiceteacher.

The dream and reality of one such tool was reported byCarl Seashore in 1916. He writes of an invention developedin the psychological [sic] laboratory of the University of Iowathat was released to the open market in December 1915.5 Atfirst glance, the hulking mass of iron and wires called thetonoscope5(p593) might put one in the mind of many initial ver-sions of machinery—at first, huge and cumbersome—evolvingwith time toward efficiency, elegance, and portability. Never-theless, as described by Seashore, this first pitch-matchingmachine appears to have been a prototype for some of our com-puter-based technology almost 100 years later:

It is possible to make vibrations which produce a tone to theear also produce a picture to the eye – a picture which re-veals details of pitch faithfully and far more finely than theear can hear.5(p592)

Consequently, the expanded vision for use of the tonoscopeprovided inspiration for technology in our generation. Seashorecontinues:

[A singer] can study in detail the attack, the sustaining, andthe release of a single note. a person at a distance mayconnect ‘‘long distance’’ with the tonoscope and project hisvoice or instrument on this screen. a scientist or a musicianmay take a phonograph record of the tonal effects under ob-servation and ship the cylinder to the laboratory. the scien-tist can undertake technical studies on pitch which involveexact measurements and instantaneous recording in actualsinging. the teacher of the deaf can place his pupil beforethe instrument and train him to speak with pleasing inflectionof the voice by practising [sic] with the aid of the eye.5(p593)

In the statements above, we may recognize the vision toward‘‘real-time’’ analyses, remote conferencing, and the ultimatepossibility of Internet 2.

Certainly, in the 21st century, we have realized the reality ofthese dreams; yet many of us still are reluctant to embrace thesetools and their as-yet-undiscovered ultimate benefits. Despitefine instructional texts such as those of Garyth Nair6 and ScottMcCoy,7 the integration of computer-based technology into thetraditional classical singing studio can be a daunting task formany teachers. Many of us have just become versed in the pos-sibilities, and necessity, of e-mail correspondence. Conse-quently, with this line of inquiry, our research team hasembarked upon the path of discovering why this is—and howwe can help. The purpose of this pilot study, therefore, is to pur-sue a preliminary investigation of the current use of studio tech-nology by a specified group of classical singing pedagogues,and to begin to assess the readiness of these teachers to explorefurther its possible benefits for the voice student.

METHODS

Participants

The Texas Tech Voice Alliance: A Multidisciplinary ResearchInitiative functions with a revolving membership of interdisci-plinary faculty and student partners from colleges within TexasTech University (TTU) and TTU Health Sciences Center. Allhave interests in voice science, education, technology, and per-formance; and as almost every professional endeavor dependson clear, healthy, and efficient voice use, these researchershave the potential to contribute to a global body of knowledgethat may enhance many lives.

By using resources available from TTU’s College of Visualand Performing Arts, the TTU Honors College, and the TTUCollege of Education, we were able to create an online surveywhich was e-mailed to a representative subject pool of vocalpedagogues residing in the United States. In creating the param-eters for this study, our research team examined the geograph-ical concentrations of registered teachers of singing, taken fromlistings within the 2005 National Association of Teachers ofSinging (NATS) membership directory. It was then determinedthat the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States seemedto hold the largest population densities of professional singingteachers, perhaps because of the great number of professionalopera companies, concert organizations, and singer’s manage-ment organizations found there. Consequently, e-mail ad-dresses of NATS members from New York, New Jersey,

Journal of Voice, Vol. 22, No. 5, 2008592

Eastern Pennsylvania, and California were compiled to yield aninitial pool of 555 subjects.

Survey design

The final survey design was a result of patterning other pub-lished surveys and acquired recommendations from profes-sionals with survey experience. Ultimately, the online surveywas primarily based on that published by Chris Watts et al, ina 2003 article in Journal of Voice.8 In designing the instrument,we also tried to be mindful of the limited time an active singingteacher generally has to spend online. Therefore, we limited thesurvey to one page of demographic information, and two pagesof actual survey questions. By using the Dragon Web Surveys6.5 template for our online design, we were also able to offer‘‘point and click’’ survey completion options for many of thequestions and short answer text boxes for others, as shown inFigure 1.

The entire instrument was divided into three main sectionsthat would require approximately 4 minutes of the participants’time for completion:

1. Demographic Information (14 items),2. Attitudes Toward Current-Use Technology (36 items),

and3. Attitudes Toward Future-Use technology (8 items).

Our research team anticipated the Demographic Informationpage to reveal information such as age, education, and teachingenvironments. Nevertheless, the attributes of the Dragon Web6.5 program ensured that the identities of individuals within

the subject pool remained anonymous. E-mail addresses werenot paired with or recorded with responses submitted to the da-tabase.

The first set of actual survey questions (Attitudes TowardCurrent Use) asked participants to rate various pieces of hard-ware and software that they currently use in the categories of

� Pitch-matching software,� Voice recognition software,� Vocal methods and technique software,� Sound recording software,� Music teaching software,� Visual aids,� Kinesthetic aids, and� Auditory aids.

The level of usefulness for each item was rated on a calibrated6-point scale, with the instructions contained in Figure 2.

The second section of survey questions (Attitudes TowardFuture Use) asked participants to rate their likelihood of usingthe various types of technology in the future, by following theinstructions shown in Figure 3.

Upon completion of each page of the survey, participantswere instructed to submit their answers by clicking the SENDbutton, as seen in Figure 4.

After completing the last page of the survey, participants in-terested in reviewing the compiled data of our study could alsoenter their e-mail addresses for inclusion in a separate databank, unrelated to the submissions. Complete contents of thesurvey before online conversion can be viewed in Appendix A.

FIGURE 1. Dragon Web Survey 6.5 online survey design.

FIGURE 2. Rating scale for Current-Use Technologies.


Content validity and reliability

Before sending invitations to our subject pool, it was necessaryto test both the content validity and the reliability of our instru-ment. For the purpose of assessing content validity, we ques-tioned 10 university-appointed voice teachers from twogenerations. The first group consisted of five master teachersover the age of 49 and the second group consisted of five teach-ing fellows under the age of 33. The 10 experts were then askedto review the survey and answer the following questions:

1. In your opinion, is every item in this survey related to thetopic and overall goal of the survey?

2. In your opinion, is every aspect related to our survey cov-ered in the survey questions?

All 10 experts responded in the affirmative for both queries, in-dicating that the instrument content could be deemed ‘‘valid’’for our purposes.

To determine the reliability of our survey, we used test/retestmeasures. A pair of identical surveys labeled ‘‘#1’’ and ‘‘#1r’’was mailed to 60 NATS members randomly chosen from themidcontinental region of the United States. Test/retest of the

reliability group was not possible to conduct online, as our sur-vey was not designed to record any identifying information withsubmissions. Therefore, each reliability subject contacted wasinvited to:

1. complete the initial survey (#1) and return it immediatelyin the prepaid envelope and

2. complete an identical retest survey (#1r) 1 week later andreturn it in its own prepaid envelope.

Of the 60 NATS members contacted for the reliabilitystudy, 52 returned the survey in the first round; and 23 ofthose returned the retest survey 1 week later. Correlation co-efficients of these 23 participants’ two responses to each ofthe 33 questions were almost perfect. In the case of somesoftware that was not used by any of the participants, corre-lation coefficients could not be calculated. Nevertheless, inall other responses, the obtained correlation coefficientsranged from 0.94 to 1.00, with an average coefficient of0.99—indicating to us that the test/retest group of partici-pants’ perceptions of usefulness for technology in studiovoice teaching was reliable.

FIGURE 3. Rating scale for Future-Use Technologies.

FIGURE 4. Submission mode for survey answers.


We found that software classified into the same categoryserves similar functions for a voice studio; it was unlikelythat an instructor would use more than one software programwithin the same category. Therefore, internal reliability of par-ticipants’ responses of software use within the categories wasnot examined because no response consistency was expected.

Having received our validity and reliability measures, wethen proceeded to issue e-mail invitations to the 555 membersof our bicoastal subject pool—as reproduced in Figure 5.

Of the 555 e-mail invitations sent, 91 failed delivery, and 14were delayed in service, then fire-walled out of the subjects’systems. Ultimately, 450 of the original e-mails were success-fully delivered. The data collection from the preliminary ad-ministration of our bicoastal online survey was accomplishedwith tools provided by Dragon Web Surveys 6.5 over a periodof 20 days. Our short sampling period was based on the generale-mail experience of our research team, such that it was agreedthat the majority of items remaining in an ‘‘in-box’’ for over 2weeks would most often be forgotten.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive analyses, percentages, and frequency counts werecalculated for the survey items. Investigation and observationof response trends and data patterns were tracked throughgraphical analyses. Informal interpretation was used forquestion items #1, #26, and #36, by virtue of their narrative na-ture within the survey instrument.

RESULTS

Demographic data

Of the 450 e-mail invitations delivered, a total of 52 were re-turned reflective of a correspondence rate of 11.556%. Of the52 respondents, all (100%) indicated that they were teachersof singing. Their ages ranged from 26 to 78 years, witha mean of 51.94 (SD¼ 10.47) years. Among them were 19males and 33 females. Thirty-seven of them were formally ed-ucated as singing teachers, and 15 did not have formal trainingthat qualified them to teach singing. Forty-two had earned a de-gree in vocal music, and 10 did not possess a music degree.The most common degrees earned by the participants wereMasters degrees (n¼ 27 or 51.9%), Bachelors degrees(n¼ 7 or 13.5%), and Doctoral degrees (n¼ 7 or 13.5%).Within the group of 52 respondents, 35 (67.3%) possessedmultiple degrees in higher education. Their teaching experi-ences varied from 3 to 49 years, with an average of 22.56years of experience in teaching singing. Thirty-nine of themdescribed teaching singing as their primary profession, esti-mating spending an average of 18.96 (SD¼ 10.21) hours perweek teaching singing. Twenty-four participants taught ina university setting, five in secondary schools, and three in el-ementary schools. However, 42 (80.8%) of them sustaineda private studio solely or in addition to other environments.Most of the participants had not received training in musictechnology, and 35 of them (67.3%) had not taken any coursesin music technology. Among those who had some training,more than half had only one course.

FIGURE 5. E-mail invitation to participate in the online survey.


Technology ratings and rankings

The most revealing presentation of the data gathered in the At-titudes Toward Current Use section of the survey proved to bea ranking of experience (or lack thereof) with the various typesof technology cited. Table 1 contains information compiledfrom ‘‘no experience’’ responses reported by the participants.

Due to the small sample size, if more than 80% of the partic-ipants reported ‘‘no experience’’ with a specific type of technol-ogy, the group’s perception on the usefulness of that technologywas not meaningful. Therefore, the group’s perception of theusefulness of specific types of technology was only calculatedfor those items that more than 50% of participants reported us-ing in their teaching—basically, the 14 types of technologyshaded in Table 1.

Table 2 summarizes the perception of usefulness of the 14 mostuseful types of technology. It is apparent from this organization ofthe results that traditional technology—such as mirrors, physicalmodeling, tape/digital recorders, and pianos—seem to be the fa-vorite tools of choice in the singing studio. This interpretation isborne out as the mean perceptions of each type of technologycited here were above 5 in the 6-point scale of usefulness(5¼ always useful, 4¼ often useful, 3¼ sometimes useful,2¼ rarely useful, 1¼ never useful, 0¼ no experience).

The final part of the survey (Attitudes Toward Future Use)asked participants how likely they would be to use new technol-ogy in the areas of pitch matching, voice analysis, vocal methodsand techniques, sound editing, music teaching, auditory aids, vi-sual aids, and kinesthetic aids. Participants’ perceptions of futureuse of these types of technology are summarized in Table 3. It isworth noting that with the 6-point scale used for this section of thesurvey, the midpoint of 3.5 indicates ‘‘no opinion’’ on whether thetechnology would be likely used in future studio instruction by thesubject, that is, 5¼most likely, 4¼more likely, 3¼ no opinion,2¼ less likely, 1¼ least likely, and 0¼ not likely.

Generally, the results of the Attitudes Toward Current Usesection of the survey seem to indicate that the voice teacherswho responded depended on three traditional types of

technology: pianos, tape/digital recorders, and mirrors (allwith mean ratings above 5.43). Additionally, it seems that theywere not inclined to use most new technology in their teachingpractice. However, they did seem to show a positive attitude forfuture use toward three types of technology: sound recordingsoftware, visual aids, and kinesthetic aids (all with mean ratingsabove 4.54) in the Attitudes Toward Future Use section of thesurvey.

DISCUSSION

The results of this pilot study were both expected and surprisingto us. Traditional technology of the voice teaching studio hasbeen proven over generations of trial and error; and perhapsthat is what will be necessary for new trends in computer-gen-erated technology to be fully-embraced by vocal pedagogues.Nevertheless, it is interesting that the computer monitor didrate as number 12 within the 14 most-used types of technologyin the Attitudes Toward Current Use section of the survey. Per-haps this is because e-mail communication has become such animportant part of the way we relate to each other.

Our challenge remains in identifying applications of newteaching technology that make sense for the way we teach,and the way our students learn. As Professor Nair writes inhis Voice Tradition and Technology:

Pure research does not need to have application as a goal..At the same time, voice professionals – sensing no immediatepractical application of research results – do not see theneed to spend time and effort learning enough to understandthe available scientific knowledge.6

The time factor involved in learning new technology seemsto be the most daunting among busy singing teachers, for thatis time spent away from the student in a pursuit that may ormay not prove useful.

Carl Swanson’s recent article touts digital keyboards withmiraculous software built in:

TABLE 1.

Current-Use Technology Ratings (Ranked Least Used to Most Used)

Types ofTechnology

Rated

NumberResponding with“No Experience”

Percentage ofRespondents with“No Experience”

Singing Tutor by ViMas 52 100PhonTuner by Phonature 51 98.1PRAAT 51 98.1WinSing AD 51 98.1Musis MasterWorks 51 98.1Singing Coach 50 96.2Wave Surfer 50 96.2Singing Coach 50 96.2Sabine Metrotune 49 94.2Vocal Imitation 49 94.2Singing is Easy 48 92.3Audacity Sound Editor 48 92.3Sing & See 47 90.4Speech Analyzer 47 90.4Smart Music 46 88.5Cool Edit Pro 45 86.5Voce Vista 43 82.7Kay Multi-Speech 43 82.7Other instruments 28 53.8Elastic Belting 25 48.1Rubber Bands 25 48.1Computer Monitors 22 42.3Digital Pianos/Keyboards 19 36.5Anatomical Models 14 26.9Posters 11 21.2Anatomical Models 11 21.2Texts 10 19.2Physical Modeling 10 19.2Microphones 10 19.2Blackboard or Whiteboard 6 11.5Tape/Digital Recorders 6 11.5Mirrors 3 5.8Pianos 1 1.9


Some of the upscale models now come with full-color LCDdigital displays built in or near the piano’s music stand.The device will actually transcribe the music as it is played.It can also show your musical score on the LCD screen andkeep track of where you are in the score, thus eliminatingthose pesky page turns.2(p82)

Katherine Eberle of the University of Iowa and Brian She-pard of the University of Oklahoma describe the miracle of In-ternet 2’s potential for long-distance voice teaching:

.use of Internet 2 is proving to be an excellent innovationwith the appropriate purchase of equipment because it offers

real-time, full-motion, bi-directional broadcast quality videoon television monitors with stereo audio.9

Yet, Scott McCoy puts it all in perspective in his explorationof the benefits of Voice Analysis Software in the teaching studio:

A computer can help its user understand what is happeningin a voice; it cannot, however, tell if the sound is beautiful ormusical.. Just as no one has ever learned to sing solely bylistening to recordings of his voice, no one will learn to singsolely by looking at a computer monitor!7(p51)

Our task, then, as 21st century singing teachers is to find whatis best in every instance, for each student—to match individual


learning styles with the tools available to us. Clearly, this pilotstudy of current attitudes toward voice studio teaching technol-ogy is a scrape on the surface of information that should begathered and analyzed toward the goal of understanding waysto make new technology more user-friendly and accessible. Itmay take an intermediary group such as interested singingteachers to interpret the benefits and the most efficient applica-tion of this new knowledge. Ultimately, however, we must usethe means that will directly serve our student populations andtheir potential contributions to our broad cultural palette. AsDr. Sataloff states in his recommendation of Professor Nair’swork:

TABLE 2.

Rating of Notable Current-Use Technology (Ranked Most

Used to Least Used)

Type of

Technology

Numbers

Using It

Percentage

of

Respondents Mean

Std.

Deviation

Pianos 52 100 5.85 0.415

Tape/digital

recorders

52 100 5.44 0.698

Mirrors 49 94.2 5.43 0.736

Blackboards/

whiteboards

46 88.5 4.30 0.986

Physical

modeling

42 80.8 5.10 0.821

Microphones 42 80.8 4.79 0.925

Texts 42 80.8 4.71 0.944

Anatomical

models

41 78.8 4.56 0.923

Posters 41 78.8 4.22 0.909

Anatomical

models

38 73.1 4.63 0.675

Digital

pianos/

keyboards

33 63.5 4.70 0.847

Computer

monitors

30 57.6 4.07 1.230

Rubber bands 27 51.9 4.19 1.001

Elastic belting 27 51.9 4.07 1.207

TABLE 3.

Future-Use Ratings for Specific Types of Technology

(Ranked Most Likely to Least Likely)

Types of Technology

Number of

Participants

Responding Mean

Std.

Deviation

Sound recording 52 4.77 1.381

Kinesthetic aids 52 4.56 1.461

Visual aids 52 4.54 1.434

Auditory aids 52 4.17 1.665

Music teaching 52 3.60 1.763

Vocal methods

and technique

52 3.58 1.742

Pitch matching 52 3.31 1.863

Voice analysis 52 2.88 1.676

He explains how techniques such as computer-assisted, real-time analysis can provide feedback to the teacher and stu-dent that expedites and enhances the training process ina natural way, serving as an important, additional tool inthe armamentarium of a modern voice teacher.10

CONCLUSION

Encouraged by the findings of this brief pilot study, our researchteam intends to launch a nation-wide online survey campaignduring the coming year. This will, of course, entail a muchbroader sampling period. In the later stages of the study, welook forward to further results of the demographic informationthat may be compared to the current attitudes of singingteachers. In this way, we may begin to determine trends inage categories, education levels, and teaching environments.

In addition, by regionalizing our subject groups within thenational count, we also hope to discover the geographical loca-tions of populations most in touch with developing technologyand, eventually, to contact them regarding their methods of as-similation. It may be that, through this line of inquiry, we mightdiscover the elements and attributes of easily digestible techno-logical tools currently in use. Consequently, we hope to sharethat knowledge with developers of new technology, making ex-ploration of these new tools an exciting prospect for the singingteacher—rather than a shuddering glimpse of ‘‘the final fron-tier.’’ Therefore, with all due respect to the captain and crewof The Enterprise, we remind you to ‘‘live long and prosper!’’The joy is in the journey.

Acknowledgments

Our research team would like to acknowledge the TTU Schoolof Music and Office of Research Services for the Multidisci-plinary Seed Grant given in support of The Texas Tech VoiceAlliance: A Multidisciplinary Research Initiative.

REFERENCES1. Sataloff RT. Use of instrumentation in the singing studio. In: Sataloff, ed.

(3rd ed.). San Diego and Oxford: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2005:1041.

2. Swanson CD. Software in the private studio. J Singing. 2005;62:80.

3. Brown OL. Discover Your Voice: How to Develop Healthy Voice Habits.

San Diego and London: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.; 1996: 235.

4. [Technology], The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

(4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2000. Available at: www.bartleby.com/

61/; 2000. Accessed September 25, 2005.

5. Seashore C. Seeing yourself sing. Science. 1916;43:592-596.

6. Nair G. Voice Tradition and Technology: A State-of-the-Art Studio. San

Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.; 1999.

7. McCoy S. Your Voice: An Inside View, Multimedia Voice Science and Ped-

agogy. Princeton, NJ: Inside View Press; 2004.

8. Watts C, Barnes-Burroughs K, Andrianopoulos M, Carr M. Potential fac-

tors related to untrained singing talent: a survey of singing pedagogues. J

Voice. 2003;17:298-307.

9. Eberle K. Enhancing voice teaching with technology. J Singing. 2003;59:

241.

10. Sataloff RT. Foreword. In: Voice Tradition and Technology: A State-

of-the-Art Studio. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.; 1999.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/

http://www.bartleby.com/61/

APPENDIX A

Survey items

Current Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching Technology –demographic information

1. Are you a singing teacher? Yes No

2. What is your age? ________

3. Are you Male or Female? ________

4. Were you formally educated as a singing teacher? Yes No

5. Do you have a degree in vocal music? Yes No

6. If you answered “yes” to question 3, what are the degrees you have earned? (Check all that apply) _____ BM

_____ BA_____ BFA _____ MFA _____ MM _____ DA _____ DM _____ DMA _____ PhD

Other: ________________

7. How many years have you been a singing teacher? _______________

8. Is teaching singing your primary profession? Yes No

9. How many hours per week do you teach singing? ________ hours.

10. Have you had any courses in music technology? Yes NoIf so, how many courses have you taken? __________

11. Where do you teach? (Check all that apply) ____ University

____ Secondary School____ Elementary School ____ Private Studio

12. What age group do you teach? (Check all that apply) ____ 14 – 18

____ 18 – 25____ 25 +


Current Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching Technology – page 1

1. What place do you think technology has in the Classical-Voice Teaching Studio? Technology is defined as the body of knowledge and tools available to a society that is ofuse in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting orcollecting materials.

In questions 2 through 9, please rate the following hardware and software on its usefulness in the Classical-Voice Studio based on your experience.

5 = always useful, 4 = often useful, 3 = sometimes useful, 2 = rarely useful, 1 = never useful 0 = no experience

2. In your experience, do you find the following Pitch Matching Software useful? a) Sing & See

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Singing Coach by Carry-A-Tune Technologies

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Singing Tutor by ViMas Technologies

0 1 2 3 4 5

d) Sabine Metrotune MT9000

0 1 2 3 4 5

e) PhonTuner by Phonature Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

3. In your experience, do you find the following Voice Analysis Software useful? a) Voce Vista

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Kay Multi-Speech PC Lab

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) PRAAT

0 1 2 3 4 5

d) Wave Surfer

0 1 2 3 4 5

e) WinSing AD

0 1 2 3 4 5


4. In your experience, do you find the following Vocal Methods and Techniques Software useful?

a) Singing is Easy! Basic Foundation Series

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Singing Coach by Carry-A-Tune Technologies

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Vocal Imitation 1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5

5. In your experience, do you find the following Sound Editing Software useful?a) Cool Edit Pro

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Audacity Sound Editor

0 1 2 3 4 5

6. In your experience, do you find the following Music Teaching Software useful?a) Smart Music

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Music MasterWorks by Aspire Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Speech Analyzer by SIC Acoustic Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

7. In your experience, do you find the following Visual Aids useful? a) Mirrors

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Posters

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Blackboard/Whiteboard

0 1 2 3 4 5

d) Computer Monitor

0 1 2 3 4 5

e) Anatomical Models

0 1 2 3 4 5

f) Texts

0 1 2 3 4 5

If found useful, please specify which texts: ____________________________


8. In your experience, do you find the following Kinesthetic Aids useful?

a) Elastic Belting

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Rubber Bands

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Physical Modeling

0 1 2 3 4 5

d) Anatomical Models

0 1 2 3 4 5

9. In your experience, do you find the following Auditory Aids useful?

a) Tape/Digital Recorders

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Microphone

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Digital Piano/Synthesizer

0 1 2 3 4 5

d) Piano

0 1 2 3 4 5

e) Other instruments

0 1 2 3 4 5

If found useful, please specify which instruments: _________________________


Current Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching Technology – page 3

In questions 10 and 11, please rate the following technologies on the likelihood of you using them in the future.

5 = most likely, 4 = more likely, 3 = no opinion, 2 = less likely, 1 = least likely0 = not likely

10. Would you be more or less likely to use new technology involving the followingtypes of software?

a) Pitch Matching Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Voice Recognition Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Vocal Methods and Technique Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

d) Sound Recording Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

e) Music Teaching Software

0 1 2 3 4 5

11. Would you be more or less likely to use new technology involving the followingtypes of hardware?

a) Visual Aids

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) Kinesthetic Aids

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) Auditory Aids

0 1 2 3 4 5


Current Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching Technology...

Documents

Transcript of Current Attitudes Toward Voice Studio Teaching Technology...