Update: Applications of Research in Music

Education

Motivating Music Students: A Review of the

Literature
Chad West

First Published January 29, 2013 Research Article

https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123312473611
Article information

Abstract
John Dewey knew that when students were actively involved in their learning, they were more
motivated and achieved higher. Unfortunately, our practices often negatively affect motivation,
such as when teachers emphasize competition, social comparison, normative grading criteria,
public forms of evaluation, and ability self-assessment. Most recently, researchers have begun
exploring motivation through the lenses of (a) how we attribute successes and failures
(attribution theory), (b) reasons for achieving (achievement goal theory) and (c) ways in which
we seek to satisfy our internal needs (intrinsic motivation theory). This article examines the
music education literature within these three seminal social cognitive theories and discusses the
implications to music education with respect to (a) locus of control, (b) self-concept and
achievement, and (c) motivational ways of engaging students. The article concludes with specific
recommendations for increasing student motivation in the music classroom.

Keywords achievement goal theory, attribution theory, audiation, Dewey, intrinsic motivation,
motivation, music, music education, practicing, social cognitive

Dewey (1938) warned against viewing student interest as some sort of spice that can be added to
an otherwise boring lesson. He knew that when students were actively involved in their learning,
they were more motivated and achieved higher. Unfortunately, our practices often negatively
affect motivation, such as when teachers emphasize competition, social comparison, normative
grading criteria, public forms of evaluation, and ability self-assessment (Eccles et al., 1993).
Since the 1940s, many motivation theorists have shifted their focus from the behavioral aspects
of motivation to the social and cognitive (Maehr, Pintrich, & Linnenbrink, 2002). Lewin,
Dembo, Festinger, and Sears’s (1944) classic study suggested that we set future goals not only
based on past successes and failures but also to conform to group norms and expectations. These
researchers viewed motivation beyond the dynamics of behavioral reinforcement to examine the
role that perceptions of past experience and social context have in compelling future decisions.
The groundwork laid by Lewin et al. led to research in the area of expectancy/value theory (e.g.,
Atkinson, 1957), which explored motivation in terms of one’s hope for success against one’s fear
of failure, and self-efficacy theory (e.g., Bandura, 1982), which explored motivation in terms of
one’s belief in his or her capability to achieve.

Most recently, researchers have begun exploring motivation through the lenses of (a) how we
attribute successes and failures (attribution theory, e.g., Weiner, 1974), (b) reasons for achieving
(achievement goal theory, e.g., Ames, 1992), and (c) ways in which we seek to satisfy our
internal needs (intrinsic motivation theory, e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985). This article examines the
music education literature within these three seminal social cognitive theories of motivation.

Attribution Theory
Urdan and Turner (2007) define attribution theory as the relationship between students’
perception of control and achievement. The premise of this theory is that when students feel that
they have agency in determining the outcome of their situation, they are generally more
motivated and achieve higher (Pintrich, 2004; Weiner, 1974, 1986). Weiner (1974) contends that
students’ beliefs about the causes of success or failure greatly influence future achievement,
behavior, and cognitions, perhaps to an even greater extent than the experiences themselves. In
essence, it is not necessarily the actual causes of success and/or failure, but the perceived causes
that, in part, motivate people’s future actions.

Maehr et al. (2002) point out that attribution theory literature suggests that locus (i.e., whether
the cause is internal or external to the individual), stability (i.e., how stable the perceived cause
is), and controllability, (i.e., whether the perceived cause can be controlled) are the three most
important dimensions to consider. When students perceive their achievement to be determined by
uncontrollable, stable, external factors such as luck or difficulty of task, they are less motivated
to engage fully and exert effort than they are if they perceive their achievement to be determined
by controllable and unstable factors such as effort, practice, and the use of strategies.

Dweck (1999) suggests that instead of stressing just the product, teachers should also stress the
process of learning, so that students learn to attribute success with internal and controllable
factors and view ability as incremental. Stressing process over product can help students unlearn
helpless attribution patterns (e.g., patterns such as lack of effort that reflect a student’s belief that
she or he has no agency in the outcome). According to Graham (1984) and Weinstein (2002),
teachers reinforce learned helplessness when they offer pity, excessive help, and undeserved
praise to low-achieving students, while offering healthy criticism and maintaining high standards
for others. It is important that teachers signal high expectations to all students through verbal and
nonverbal feedback so that students have confidence in their ability to determine outcomes
(Pintrich & Blumenfeld, 1985).

While teachers should help students view success as being within their locus of control, the task
can become difficult when students exert effort and still fail. Urdan and Turner (2007) point out
several impediments to positive student attributional beliefs: (a) teachers’ lack of self-efficacy to
effect student motivation (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998); (b) teachers’ tendency to,
themselves, attribute success to stable and uncontrollable factors, such as race, socioeconomic
status, and intelligence (Weinstein, 2002); and (c) teachers’ tendency to exert greater control over
students’ learning to do well on standardized tests (Pelletier, Seguin-Levesque, & Legault, 2002).

Within music education, Asmus (1986) studied music students’ achievement motivation in
relation to their attributions for success and failure in music. The researcher collected open-
ended questionnaire data from 589 instrumental, vocal, and general music students enrolled in
Grades 4 to 12 of differing socioeconomic backgrounds. Students were asked to state five
reasons why some students do well in music and five reasons why some students do not do well
in music. Independent judges then categorized the responses according to locus of control
(whether internal or external), and whether they were stable or unstable through time. Asmus
found that 80% of the reasons cited for both success and failure in music were internal (e.g., time
spent practicing). Students generally attributed successes to stable reasons (i.e., circumstances
that have little possibility of changing in the future, such as ability) and failures to unstable
reasons (i.e., circumstances that have a possibility of changing in the future, such as effort).

Austin and Vispoel (1998) point out that much of the music research on attribution theory asks
respondents (usually K–12 music students) to list reasons why people succeed and fail in music.
This is problematic since attribution theory posits that “success and failure outcomes illicit
distinct attributional responses” (Austin & Vispoel, 1998, p. 31). This happens because people
generally attribute their successes to factors such as ability and effort, while attributing their
failures to more uncontrollable external factors. The authors also point out that another
shortcoming in the music research on attribution theory is that researchers often ask respondents
to identify reasons “some people” succeed or fail in music. It is not clear whether respondents
are considering other people, themselves, or both (although not specifically mentioned, one
might infer that Austin and Vispoel were referencing Asmus, 1986). This is problematic since
research on attribution theory suggests, “attributions referenced toward oneself and toward others
may differ” (Austin & Vispoel, 1998, p. 31). The purpose of Austin and Vispoel’s (1998) study
was to examine seventh-grade students’ (N = 153) beliefs about the causes of success and failure
in classroom music. The researchers administered (a) a questionnaire designed to collect
students’ demographic information and measure their attributional beliefs and (b) standardized
music achievement tests.

Findings confirmed prior research (e.g., Asmus, 1986) that individuals do not attribute success
and failure to the same causal factors. For instance, students often identified ability as a causal
factor for determining success, but rarely identified it as a factor in determining failure. Findings
also suggest that factors such as family, teachers, and peers influence students’ attribution beliefs.
Correlational results indicated that high-achieving students, and individuals with high music self-
concept attributed their success to ability and family influence but were less likely to attribute
their failures to those same factors. Finally, the researchers found that students “endorsed lack of
ability and negative family influence as reasons for failure and those attributions were indicative
of low achievement and low self-concept” (Austin & Vispoel, 1998, pp. 40-41).

Marlatt (2004) examined how middle school music students attribute success and nonsuccess in
music, and how music participation varies among students (N = 100) with different attributional
factors. Similar to Asmus (1986) and Austin and Vispoel (1998), Marlatt found that students who
believed that they were successful in music tended to attribute their success to factors that were
internal and stable (e.g., ability), whereas those who believed that they were not successful in
music attributed their lack of success to factors that were internally controllable (e.g., effort) and
externally uncontrollable (e.g., difficulty of task).

Like Marlatt (2004), Dick (2006) investigated the relationship between instrumental music
students’ attributions of success and music achievement. Suburban high school music teachers
assigned their students (N = 149) to one of two groups based on their performance achievement
level. On the questionnaire, students rated the degree to which they believed that certain
attributional factors influenced their performance ability. Results indicated that both high-
achieving and low-achieving groups considered effort, talent, and practice strategies as having
the greatest influence on their performance ability, suggesting that both high- and low-achieving
students “believe that the locus of control of their success is primarily within themselves” (Dick,
2006, p. 72).

In sum, the music education research on attribution theory confirms research within general
education. For instance, Asmus (1986), Austin and Vispoel (1998), Marlatt (2004), and Dick
(2006) all confirm Weiner’s (1974) findings that students’ beliefs about the causes of success or
failure greatly influence achievement. Furthermore, Asmus (1986), Austin and Vispoel (1998),
Marlatt (2004), and Dick (2006) all seem to agree that students perceive an internal locus of
control, and generally attribute successes and failures to stable or unstable factors depending on
achievement level. These findings suggest that music teachers should help students realize that
regardless of achievement level, internal/unstable factors (e.g., effort and learning strategies)
affect musical achievement. One of the ways music teachers can do this is through helping
students become mastery-goal oriented.

Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement goal theory describes two distinct goal orientations: performance-goal orientation
and mastery-goal orientation (e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Nicholls, Cobb, Wood,
Yackel, & Patashnick, 1990). Performance goals are characterized by one’s desires to receive
favorable assessment. For instance, students who are performance oriented may be more
concerned with how competent others perceive them to be than they are with increasing their
understanding and mastering the task. The converse is true when someone is mastery oriented.
Other labels that are often found within the literature used interchangeably with “performance
and mastery” include “performance and learning” and “ego and task.”

Elliot (1999) suggested an additional element to performance orientation: performance-

avoidance orientation. That is, while one who is performance oriented might strive to achieve
recognition, performance-avoidance-oriented students might seek to avoid negative recognition.
For instance, whereas a student who is performance oriented might practice to earn a higher
chair, a student who is performance-avoidance oriented might practice to avoid losing a chair.

Mayer (2007) points out that although performance-oriented motivation positively correlates
with higher grades, mastery-oriented students obtain a deeper understanding of the material and
engage with it in a more sophisticated way. Maehr et al. (2002) point out that when students are
mastery oriented, they are more likely to link effort with outcome than students who are
performance oriented. Since assessment should be a reflection of one’s understanding of the
material, teachers and students should aim for understanding and mastery of the material. To help
teach for mastery and understanding, teachers should avoid competition among students, social
comparison, and external rewards (Ames, 1992). As Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle (1993) point out,
teachers can help compel students to become mastery oriented by providing them with
meaningful and authentic tasks that are relevant to life outside school.

Within music education, Sandene (1997) explored variables associated with motivation in
instrumental music among middle school band students. The researcher collected questionnaire
data to measure levels of student goal orientation, motivation, self-esteem, and attributions for
success and failure in instrumental music. Students also indicated their perceptions of their music
teacher’s goal orientation. The researcher then interviewed and observed teachers to measure
positive and negative feedback in their classrooms. Results indicated that motivation in
instrumental music was significantly correlated with self-esteem in instrumental music, mastery-
goal orientation, and student perceptions of their music teacher being mastery-goal oriented.
Sandene found a negative correlation between motivation in instrumental music and performance
orientation. The same negative correlation was found between motivation and students’
perceptions of their music teacher being performance oriented. Student motivation was higher in
classrooms where teachers provided higher ratios of positive-to-negative feedback. Sandene’s
findings confirmed past research (e.g., Ames, 1992) suggesting that students were generally
more motivated when they were in classrooms where they were not differentiated by ability.

Similarly, Schmidt (2005) studied the relationship of goal orientation, self-concept, and attitude
in band to teachers’ ratings of effort and achievement, practice, and demographic factors. The
researcher administered a questionnaire to 300 middle school and high school band students that
measured demographic variables, self-concept, and motivational factors. Teachers were then
asked to individually measure each student’s achievement and perceived effort. Results indicated
that teachers’ ratings of achievement correlated with students’ self-concept, and teachers’ ratings
of effort correlated with students’ intrinsic motivation. Students generally defined their success
according to mastery-orientation goals and placed relatively little emphasis on competition- or
performance-orientation goals.

Anguiano (2006) examined 290 middle school instrumental music students’ motivation to persist
in music study through the lens of achievement goal theory. Through a questionnaire, the
researcher measured the students’ goal orientation for instrumental music study (whether mastery
oriented or task oriented), perceptions of the classroom motivational environment, and students’
intent to continue music into the next academic year. These data were compared with students’
academic and musical achievement scores. Anguiano (2006) found that with each increasing
year of middle school, students (a) became less achievement oriented, (b) had a more negative
view of their classroom teacher and motivational climate, and (c) were less motivated to persist
in music. Boys were also found to achieve lower than girls, and view their classroom climate
more negatively than girls.

Bailey (2006) examined the effect of goal orientation on music student motivation and self-
regulated learning. The researcher hypothesized that mastery-goal-oriented music students are
more intrinsically motivated and self-regulated than performance-goal-oriented students. Bailey
sampled 29 high school instrumental music students within a single school district and measured
their use of self-regulated learning strategies and level of intrinsic motivation using the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. The researcher then used analysis of variance
tests to examine the relationship between those dependent variables and students’ goal
orientation. Similar to Sandene’s (1997) results, Bailey (2006) found that mastery-goal-oriented
students were more intrinsically motivated and self-regulated than those who were performance-
goal oriented.

Sandene’s (1997) and Bailey’s (2006) findings are both consistent with research within
psychology (e.g., Ames, 1992) that suggests students who are mastery-goal oriented are more
intrinsically motivated. Teachers can help students become mastery oriented by themselves being
mastery oriented (Sandene, 1997) and assessing students based on effort (Schmidt, 2005).
However, Anguiano’s (2006) findings that students become less mastery oriented each year in
middle school has alarming implications and warrants further investigation into why this is so,
and what music teachers can do to dissuade students from adopting a performance-goal
orientation during the middle school years.

Intrinsic Motivation Theory

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation researchers (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1983; Lepper,
1988; Ryan & Deci, 2000) describe intrinsic motivators as those that inspire us to act out of an
internal interest for the activity, such as the enjoyment one may experience from hearing a
moving musical performance or viewing a compelling work of visual art. Conversely, external
motivators are those that inspire us externally, such as receiving a reward. Intrinsic motivators
are regarded as more conducive to learning and enjoyment since extrinsic motivators have been
shown to stifle otherwise internally interesting activities (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1983;
Lepper, 1988). For example, one might become less interested in school when grades are
overemphasized, even if the student previously enjoyed learning.

Deci and Ryan (1985) argued that we maintain intrinsic motivation when we feel competent,
autonomous, and relevant. The need to feel competent represents our internal desire to master
our surroundings. The need for autonomy represents our internal need to determine our course of
action. The need to feel relevant represents our internal need to feel that what we are doing has
some greater implications beyond the immediate. When our surroundings allow us to function in
these ways, we typically experience intrinsic motivation. However, when we perceive that we are
less in control of our environment, intrinsic motivation can be stifled. One key element of feeling
in control as it relates to intrinsic motivation is that the challenge must be equal to the student’s
abilities. If the challenge is too great, the student might give up and if the challenge is too simple,
the student might become bored.

The notion that to experience intrinsic motivation one must feel competent in the task at hand,
and that task should be within the person’s ability, is consistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s writings
on the topic of flow (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura,
1989). Csikszentmihalyi and his colleagues contend that when we are fully engaged in an
activity and our abilities match those required by the task at hand, we achieve a sense of
equilibrium and tend to find the activity more enjoyable, intrinsically rewarding, and experience
what he refers to as “flow.” Maehr et al. (2002) describe flow: “Individuals experiencing flow
are so intensely involved with a task that they may lose awareness of time and space. They also
seek a flow experience for itself rather than for anticipated rewards” (p. 363).

Within music education, Austin (1988) examined the effect of two contest adjudication formats
(rated and comments only) on the music achievement, self-concept, and achievement motivation
scores of elementary band students. Students (N = 38) were assigned to one of two treatment
groups: students receiving contest ratings and comments, and students receiving comments only.
Students were administered a pretest, which measured their attributional beliefs for success and
failure and their level of intrinsic motivation. Two other pretests measured musical achievement
(Music Achievement Test; Colwell, 1969) and musical self-concept (Self Concept in Music
Scale; Svengalis, 1978). Students practiced their music for 1 month, performed for adjudication,
and were presented their ratings and/or comments. One week after the performance, students
were administered the three posttests (questionnaire, Music Achievement Test, and Self Concept
in Music scale). Results indicated that there was no difference in motivation scores between rated
and unrated students. Students in both groups reported an increased sense of self-concept, but
only students in the “ratings” group scored significantly higher on the Music Achievement
posttest. Additionally, the majority of the students felt that participating in a ratings format was
more rewarding than participating for comments only. It should be noted that students who
received the lowest ratings and students who experienced the “comments only” format were less
inclined to agree with that sentiment.

Bangs (1992) examined the effects of task motivation on children’s musical compositions. The
researcher collected musical compositions (pretest) from 37 third-grade students who were
randomly divided into one of three experimental groups. One group received intrinsic
motivational treatment, the second group received extrinsic motivational treatment, and the third
group received neither. After the treatment, students again created musical compositions and
submitted them to the researcher for evaluation of creativity by three independent judges. Results
revealed that the group that received the intrinsic motivation treatment scored significantly
higher than both the extrinsic motivation treatment group and the control group. Furthermore,
extrinsic motivation was found to adversely affect creativity.

Whereas research within psychology suggests that external motivators can negatively affect
students’ enjoyment when used to motivate students in an already enjoyable activity (Deci &
Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1983; Lepper, 1988), Austin (1988) seems to suggest otherwise. Austin
found that external motivators (i.e., contest ratings) did not negatively affect music students’
intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, students who received external motivators achieved higher.
Whereas the former finding seems to conflict with intrinsic motivation research, the latter finding
is consistent with achievement goal research (e.g., Mayer, 2007), which indicates that external
motivators can and do affect achievement.

Implications for Music Education

Although it is helpful from an analytical perspective to contrast these three motivation theories,
doing so reveals little about the interdependent ways they act to affect human motivation. The
fact remains that there is much overlap between them. That is not to say that it is not important to
understand the unique aspects of each, but rather that it is also important to see them as they
contribute to the whole of human motivation. The perspective by which we approach future tasks
is in many ways influenced by reasons that inspire our participation in the first place.
Conversely, ways in which we attribute successes and failures, in many ways can affect the way
we approach future tasks. Instead of viewing each motivational theory as a single explanation of
human motivation, we should conceive of them as different lenses focused on the same
phenomenon. Or perhaps, a more appropriate analogy would be the mathematical concept of
“intransitive relations” (i.e., in that one is not greater than another since they all are
interconnected).

Locus of Control

The music literature suggests that K–12 music students generally perceive an internal locus of
control when attributing causal factors to their successes and failures. Although the locus of
control is perceived as internal for success and failure, students often attribute success to stable
factors such as ability, and failure to unstable factors such as effort (Asmus, 1986; Austin &
Vispoel; 1998; Dick, 2006; Marlatt, 2004). While it is encouraging that students do not generally
attribute success and failure to external forces such as luck and difficulty of task, it is perhaps
discouraging that many still perceive stable causes to influence success. To add more complexity,
when considering how achievement goal theory might interact with attribution theory, Maehr et
al. (2002) point out that performance-oriented students attribute ability to both success and
failure, which (if failure is conceived of as stable) could lead to learned helplessness and
decreased effort with these students.

Internal-stable causes such as ability do not promote achievement persistence in music as well as
internal-unstable attributions such as effort (Asmus, 1986). This is important to note since
psychological research suggests that students achieve higher when they believe that they are in
control of the outcome (Pintrich, 2004; Weiner, 1974, 1986). Teachers and society may be partly
responsible for the problematic focus on internal-stable attributions. For instance, Asmus (1986)
notes that by creating competitive learning environments, teachers may be compelling students
to make internal-stable attributions. The same process could also be at work when teachers offer
extrinsic rewards for “non-effort-related” accomplishments. Furthermore, society as a whole
promotes the use of internal-stable attributions for musical achievement when it portrays musical
achievement as being directly correlated with musical ability by referring to the gift of music and
musical talent. That music teachers help dispel notions of fixed musical ability is especially
important since the stability factor is the most important predictor (Weiner, 1986) of future
expectancies, and thus future effort.
Self-Concept and Achievement

Students with high self-concept of ability are more likely to attempt challenging tasks and use
self-regulatory strategies, which in turn positively affect achievement (Ames, 1992; Dweck,
1986; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The literature within music education suggests that student
self-concept is positively correlated to intrinsic motivation (Sandene, 1997), internal attributional
beliefs such as effort and strategy (Austin & Vispoel, 1998), and teachers’ ratings of achievement
(Schmidt, 2005). The literature also suggests that achievement is correlated positively with
internal attributional beliefs (Austin & Vispoel, 1998) and student self-concept (Schmidt, 2005).

Austin (1988) indicates that elementary music students show an increased sense of self-concept
through participating in musical adjudication, but students who received ratings show
significantly more improvement in musical achievement than those who just prepare for and
receive comments. The author suggests that these results may not be surprising since previous
research (e.g., Covington, 1983; Nicholls, 1983) indicates that elementary-age children are not
likely to internalize performance outcomes as a reflection of their ability to the same degree as
adolescents and are thus more able to “recover” from a bad rating if an honest effort was made.

Austin’s (1988) findings have interesting implications for the tangled web of social cognitive
motivation factors. For instance, research suggests that student self-concept is correlated with
intrinsic motivation and internal attributions (Austin & Vispoel, 1998; Sandene, 1997), and that
(elementary) students’ self-concept is positively affected by adjudication (Austin, 1988).
However, research also shows that social comparison and competitive tasks diminish intrinsic
motivation (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 1983; Lepper, 1988; Ryan & Deci, 2000). So while
student self-concept may be improved, the motivational tactics that compelled such improvement
may, in the long run, diminish intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic Motivation and Mastery-Goal Orientation

Central to mastery-goal orientation is the belief that effort and outcome are related (Ames, 1992).
It is then not surprising that teachers would teach for mastery to affect performance. Since
intrinsic motivation is shown to correlate with mastery orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and flow
(Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989) it is important that
music teachers try to develop students’ intrinsic motivation. Literature within music education
suggests that intrinsic motivation is correlated with creativity (Bangs, 1992), self-regulated
behavior (Schmidt, 2005), and mastery-goal orientation (Bailey, 2006; Sandene, 1997). To help
foster intrinsic motivation, music teachers can avoid differentiating students by ability (Sandene,
1997; Schmidt, 2005) and provide positive feedback (Sandene, 1997), which values and rewards
mastery and understanding over performance (Bailey, 2006; Sandene, 1997). Since the literature
seems to suggest that as students leave the elementary grades and progress through middle
school they tend to become less intrinsically motivated (Anguiano, 2006), it is important that
teachers start early and continue to develop students’ intrinsic appreciation through these
developmental years.
Much of the way that teachers can help facilitate the development of students’ motivation is
through the task and learning activities by which they engage students. For instance, when
describing how music educators can facilitate this development, Maehr et al. (2002) suggest,

First, the amount of variety and diversity in tasks can help maintain student interest and, by
decreasing the amount of public comparability and opportunities for social comparison regarding
performance, help students adopt a task-goal orientation (Marshall & Weinstein, 1984; Nicholls,
1989; Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984). Furthermore, allowing students to choose among a variety
of tasks also provides more opportunities for students’ needs for autonomy to be met, and thus
enhances intrinsic motivation. A second feature of tasks concerns how they are introduced and
presented to students. If the teacher can help the students see the personal relevance and the
meaningfulness of the content for their own learning, this can then facilitate an adoption of a
task-goal orientation (Brophy, 1987; Meece, 1991) as well as enhance personal value. (p. 365)

This statement further illustrates the interconnectedness of intrinsic motivation and mastery-goal
orientation, and how facilitating one facilitates the other. By providing a variety of tasks and
focusing on individual growth (as opposed to competition, e.g., chair placements), teachers help
students to approach learning from a mastery-goal perspective, which gives students agency in
their learning and affects intrinsic motivation. Increased intrinsic motivation can then feed back
into the process of developing a mastery-goal orientation through perceiving personal relevance
of the subject matter.

Conclusion
Achievement-goal theory shows us that when students have some choice in their situation, they
engage in the material more deeply. As well, intrinsic motivation theory shows us that when
students have some choice in their situation they feel more self-determined and develop greater
interest in the activity. In turn, these feed one another. Therefore, choice is a major factor in
affecting student motivation. Furthermore, when the challenge meets the students’ abilities, they
can experience flow. Experiencing flow feeds the process of engaging deeply with the activity,
which is shown to affect motivation. Given the findings from the literature, I suggest several
practices that music teachers can do immediately to increase student motivation: (a) give
students a voice in choosing literature and making musical decisions, (b) reward student growth
rather than achievement, (c) let students see and hear you practicing your instrument, (d) allow
and even require students to retake playing exams until they master them, (e) help students
develop musical skills that can be applied to “outside-of-school” music such as ear-to-hand
coordination, audiation, improvisation, song writing, and the ability to perform in small groups
using social instruments (e.g., piano, guitar) in the absence of a conductor.

Most of the studies on motivation in music education focus on instrumental music, particularly
band, with most of the studies targeting middle school students. One must wonder if the findings
are specific to the populations studied or if similar results would be obtained from different age
groups and performance areas such as chorus, general music, and strings. Another one of the
challenges of studying a human construct such as motivation is that it is developed from the
personal and individualistic nature of one’s experiences. Although these studies attempted to
control for certain confounding variables, it is certainly possible that the teacher’s personality,
interactions with students, instructional strategies, classroom environment, and a number of other
factors might have influenced student motivation. Even the best research cannot account for the
myriad intervening variables inevitable when dealing with a construct as complex as human
motivation and readers are urged to interpret the conclusions with this in mind.

Although current understandings of motivation have advanced beyond the behavioral to explore
the social and the cognitive, there is still much that remains unexamined. For instance, Maehr et
al. (2002) conclude,

We have very little evidence about how motivational constructs . . . interact with basic cognitive
processes such as attention, perception, and memory. In addition, the links between social
cognitive motivational constructs and the learning of fine motor skills, which are applicable to
art, music, and athletic domains, are largely unexplored. (p. 367)

Music education has developed a small body of literature that has addressed social cognitive
motivation theories in terms of how people engage with music. Perhaps it is time to explore these
motivational theories in terms of why people engage with music. Music education researchers
might consider future studies that explore ways (if any) in which social cognitive motivation
constructs interact with the affective aspects of musicianship. For instance, do students’
attributional beliefs interact with the ways they value music? Do students’ achievement goals in
music correlate in any meaningful way with the reasons that they engage with music? To what
degree does intrinsic motivation reflect an aesthetic awareness and sensitivity for music? Perhaps
by asking these questions and questions like them, music education research can begin to
observe motivation through an ontological lens and uncover that which is less observable, but
equally important to student motivation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Anguiano, K. R. (2006). Motivational predictors of continuing motivation and achievement for

early adolescent instrumental music students (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3229641)

Google Scholar
Asmus, E. P. (1986). Student beliefs about the causes of success and failure in music: A study of
achievement motivation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 262–278.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Atkinson, J. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review,

64, 359–372.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Austin, J. R. (1988). The effect of music contest format on self-concept, motivation,

achievement, and attitude of elementary band students. Journal of Research in Music Education,
36, 95–107.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Austin, J. R., Vispoel, W. P. (1998). How American adolescents interpret success and failure in
classroom music: Relationships among attributional beliefs, self-concept and achievement.
Psychology of Music, 26, 26–45.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals

Bailey, L. W. (2006). A study of motivation and self-regulation among high school instrumental
music students (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3216029).
Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,

122–147.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Bangs, R. L. (1992). An application of Amabile’s model of creativity to music instruction: A

comparison of motivational strategies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami). Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 53(12), 4243.
Google Scholar

Colwell, R. (1969). Music achievement tests. Chicago, IL: Follett.

Google Scholar

Covington, M. V. (1983). Musical chairs: Who drops out of musical instruction and why. In
Documentary report of the Ann Arbor symposium on the applications of psychology to the
teaching and learning of music: Session III, motivation and creativity (pp. 49–50). Reston, VA:
MENC.
Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M., LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A study of
adolescents. In Ames, R., Ames, C. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and
cognitions (pp. 45–71). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier.

Google Scholar

Dick, H. J. (2006). The relationship between instrumental music achievement and causal
attributions for success and failure (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3235396)
Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,

1040–1048.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.

Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S., Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook

of child psychology (pp. 643–691). New York, NY: Wiley.
Google Scholar

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Buchanan, C., Wigfield, A., Reuman, D., MacIver, D. (1993).
Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’
experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 169–189.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Graham, S. (1984). Teacher feelings and student thoughts: An attributional approach to affect in
the classroom. Elementary School Journal, 85, 91–104.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.),

Handbook of child psychology (pp. 275–385). New York, NY: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and
Instruction, 5, 289–309.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., Sears, P. (1944). Level of aspiration. In Hunt, J. M. (Ed.),
Personality and the behavioral disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 333–378). New York, NY: Ronald.
Google Scholar

Maehr, M. L., Pintrich, P. R., Linnenbrink, E. A. (2002). Motivation and achievement. In

Colwell, R., Richardson, C. P. (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and
learning (pp. 348–372). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Marlatt, J. H. (2004). Attribution theory as an influence on the musical lives of children

(Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA). Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(3), 872.
Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Google Scholar

Nicholls, J. (1983). Task involvement in music. In Documentary report of the Ann Arbor
symposium on the applications of psychology to the teaching and learning of music: Session III,
motivation and creativity (pp. 1–4). Reston, VA: MENC.
Google Scholar

Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Patashnick, M. (1990). Assessing students’
theories of success in mathematics: Individual and classroom differences. Journal for Research
in Mathematics, 21, 109–122.
Google Scholar | ISI

Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from
below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 186–196.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in

learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Pintrich, P. R., Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experience and children’s self-perceptions of

ability, effort, and conduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 646–657.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Pintrich, P. R., De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.
Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Journal, 25, 54–67.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Sandene, B. A. (1997). An investigation of variables related to student motivation in instrumental

music (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan). Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 58(10), 3870.
Google Scholar

Schmidt, C. P. (2005). Relations among motivation, performance achievement, and music

experience variables in secondary instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 53, 134–147.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Svengalis, J. (1978). Music attitude and the preadolescent male. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 34, 4827A.
Google Scholar

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Urdan, T., Turner, J. C. (2007). Competence motivation in the classroom. In Elliot, A. J., Dweck,
C. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 297–317). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Google Scholar

Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NN: General
Learning Press.
Google Scholar

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Google Scholar | Crossref

Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
View Abstract
View all >

What Research Reveals About School Jazz Education

Show details

Developing Reflective Practitioners: Using Video-Cases in Music Teacher Education

Show details

Preparing Middle School Music Teachers to Teach Jazz

Show details

Citing Articles: 5View all >

 The relationship between musical self-concept and musical creativity a... Show
details

 Positive Teacher Influence Strategies to Improve Secondary Instrumenta... Show

details

 Music self-concept and self-esteem formation in adolescence: A compari... Show

details

Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

ISSN: 8755-1233
Online ISSN: 1945-0109
Copyright © 2019 by National Association for Music Education
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Find ot umore.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/8755123312473611