The Effect of a Short Voice Training Program in Future Teachers *Bernadette Timmermans, *Yannick Coveliers, †Wil Meeus, ‡Frits Vandenabeele, *Linda Van Looy, and §Floris Wuyts, *Brussels, yxAntwerp, and zMechelen, Belgium Summary: The purpose of this study was to investigate if a module consisting of 6 hours of voice training is effective in future teachers. Sixty-five students, enrolled in the academic teaching program at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, partic- ipated in this study. The trained group (n ¼ 35) received 6 hours of voice training, whereas the control group (n ¼ 30) received no voice training. A multidimensional test battery containing subjective judgments and objective measure- ments was applied in both groups at the study onset and after 4 months to evaluate the training outcome. No significant differences were observed for the subjective judgments. For the objective measurements, by contrast, several significant differences between the trained and the control groups were found. This outcome favors the systematic introduction of voice training during the schooling of future teachers. Key Words: Teacher education–Voice training–Voice problems. INTRODUCTION Research indicates that at least 50% of teachers are regularly confronted with voice problems. The voice sounds hoarse or harsh, and sometimes, speaking is painful. 1 In addition, 31% of teachers miss working days as a result of a voice problem. 2 Sometimes, the voice problem even causes a loss of income, as teaching becomes impossible. 3,4 It is known that future teachers encounter voice problems as well: 17.2% of them have problems during their education. 5 Furthermore, 90% of fu- ture teachers who were confronted with voice problems during their education experience voice problems in their teaching ca- reer. 2 This high prevalence can be explained by the heavy vocal load, as teachers are often full-time speakers for relatively large groups of students. Worryingly, few prevention programs are designed for teachers and future teachers. Literature reveals three studies in which a rather short voice training program for future teachers resulted in objectively obtained voice improvements (Table 1). However, the results of Simberg et al, 6 Duffy and Hazlett, 7 and Schneider and Bigenzahn 8 are difficult to compare, as their methodologies differ too much. There is no correspon- dence in timing (training hours ranging from 1.5 to 10 hours), the number of participants (individual training and small- and large-group training), or assessment strategy (subjective evalu- ations and/or objective measurements). This study is the first part of a multifaceted study where time (¼number of training sessions) and group size are ques- tioned with respect to training effect. The aim of this multifac- eted study is to set up a cost-effective voice training module for the academic teacher training program of the Vrije Universi- teit Brussel (Free University of Brussels [VUB]). In this first study, 6 hours of voice training is given (Table 2). In the second part of the study, a 30-minute individual coaching is added to the 6 hours of voice training. In the third part of the study, 9 hours of voice training will be given. The parameter ‘‘group size’’ is im- portant as well. Because voice training is mostly a matter of an individual approach, the authors wondered if group training is also effective (compared with individual training). In the first and the second studies, the training sessions were conducted in large groups (ie, 30–50 subjects); in the third study, the train- ing will be given in several small groups (ie, 20 subjects). In the present study, the effectiveness of a 6-hour voice train- ing program in a large group was measured by means of a mul- tidimensional test battery 9 and the voice loading test. 10 We decided to give 6 hours of voice training, because former stud- ies indicated that a combination of direct and indirect training would be the best guarantee for a successful outcome. Next to this, students were trained in a large group. Because there is hardly any research material available on voice training in large groups, we were unable to determine if this was the right course of action. Students of the academic teaching program at the VUB participated in this study and were assigned to a trained or a control group. The multidimensional test battery and the voice loading test were applied in both groups at the study onset and after 4 months. Two main questions needed to be answered:  Is 6 hours of voice training sufficient to obtain a significant improvement in vocal behavior and voice quality?  Does voice training prove effective in large groups as well? SUBJECTS Sixty-five students of the academic teacher education program at the VUB were engaged in this study (43 females and 22 males) (Table 3). Students with a deviated voice quality were inspected by an ear, nose, and throat specialist (four students with a G1 and one student with a G2 voice quality). Two stu- dents with an organic voice disorder were excluded from the study. The participants were randomly assigned to the trained (n ¼ 35) or control group (n ¼ 30). Students were tested at the study onset (pretest) and again after 4 months (posttest). The Accepted for publication April 8, 2010. From the *Department IDLO, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; yDepartment IOIW, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium; zCVO-Meviza, Meche- len, Belgium; and the xDepartment Fysica, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Bernadette Timmermans, Department IDLO, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2—lokaal 3B210, B-1050, Brussels, Belgium. E-mail: bernadette.timmermans@vub.ac.be Journal of Voice, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. e191-e198 0892-1997/$36.00 Ó 2011 The Voice Foundation doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.04.005