Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The effect of vocal training programs on decreasing problematic vocal…
The effect of vocal training programs on decreasing problematic vocal symptoms in secondary teachers
Inconsistencies across studies: Richter et al., 2015
Characteristics of most studies: small, non-random sample sizes, non-diversity of training programs, and short period of follow up! also everyone quits the training (Richter et al., 2015)
Extreme variance in 'percentage of affected voice users' - ranging from 5% to 90% due to differences in measurement and how the questions were asked (Richter et al., 2015). For example, Timmermans et al (2011) says 50% of teachers are affected by voice problems at some point, while Meulenbroek & de Jong (2011) says only 20% of teachers are affected. This is confusing since there is no one 'standard'.
Primary and secondary teachers are usually lumped together which gives a very 'fuzzy' picture on the actual prevalence. (Vertanen-Greis et al., 2018).
Stricter environmental controls need to be taken - all possible factors and variables in a classroom environment should be minimised (Vertanen-Greis et al., 2018).
My opinion is that studies should be designed longitudinally (Van Lierde et al., 2010), have more funding and have stricter control groups with all variables minimised as much as possible.
No significant differences between groups, but vocal quality generally improved with voice training exercises (Pizolato et al., 2018)
No subjective differences. Significant objective differences. (Timmermans et al., 2011, 2012)
Both control and trained groups had vocal strain at the end of the study, but trained group had improved voice quality (Richter et al., 2015).
Munier & Farrell (2015): Need more consistency across studies to convince education and health policy makers to change their view on teacher vocal education
Little correlation between discomfort and perceptual analysis of voice quality (Rodrigues et al., 2013)
No conclusive evidence that voice training improves vocal effectiveness (Hazlett et al., 2011)
It is effective and has been tested in Australian schools: Pasa et al., 2007; Bovo et al., 2007
Teachers were noted to make up 16.3% of patients in waiting rooms at voice clinics in Sweden (Ahlander et al., 2011).
Training is expensive and schools don't have funds. Timmermans et al. (2012) suggests teacher development days once a year, then self-directed exercise at home.
The main purpose is prevention, and training courses are expensive but will prevent further costs for schools when teachers inevitably call in sick due to voice-related issues (Hazlett et al., 2011).
perception of difficulty when teaching decreased after training (Gassull et al., 2019)
Decrease in muscle tension and pain after training (Cardoso et al., 2020).
Effective training decreases vocal problems (Morrissey, 2013)
It's definitely better for use on female teachers: Bovo et al., 2007
Bolbol et al., 2016: female teachers more likely to develop dysphonia
Nusseck et al., 2018: female teachers are less scary and more likely to exert vocal effort
Van Houtte et al., 2010; Franca, 2012; Meulenbroek & de Jong, 2011: females are at a biological disadvantage
portable amplification systems work for this too! Bovo et al., 2013
Females experience more pain while males consider teaching to be a calm career (Korn et al., 2017)
Training programs for student teachers: Van Lierde et al., 2010
greater vocal loading as no proper technique for projection: (Franca, 2012)
younger teachers are more likely to be unaware of pitching and vocal stress (Nusseck et al., 2017, 2018)
-
-
-
-