Contemporary psychological perspectives on motivation

Art in Motion [[[ Performing Under Pressure (Ed.) Editor: Adina Mornell Cover Art: capdance (Energy, oil on canvas) Reviewers: Kelly O’Kane & Patrick Shal Book Design: capdance (www.capdance.com) ‘For the Eye to Dance is Much Delight’ Symposium Sponsors: Table of Contents 5 Foreword Bernd Redmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Internal Pressure During Musical Performances and Their Preparation Ingolf Turban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Some of My Experiences With “Stage-Fright” Richard A. Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Choking under Pressure in Sport and Music: Exploring the Benefits of Theory Transfer Across Domains Chris Mesagno, Adina Mornell and Amelia L. Quinn . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The Impact of Stress and Recovery on Performance Verena Wagner, Sebastian Altfeld, K. Wolfgang Kallus and Michael Kellmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Facing the Music: Investigating the Psychophysiology of Musical Performance Lisa Aufegger, David Wasley and Aaron Williamon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Psychological Skills to Support Performance Under Pressure Margaret S. Osborne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Relating Pianists’ Efficiency in Memorization to Strategy Use and Experience Andreas C. Lehmann and K. Anders Ericsson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Applying Self-Determination and Self-Regulation Theories for Optimizing Music Performance Gary E. McPherson, Paul Evans, Elisa Kupers and James Renwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Under Pressure: Music-Related Interventions in High-Performance Domains Costas I. Karageorghis and Jonathan M. Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 6 Art in Motion [[[ The Impact of Listening to Music on Musicians’ Practice and Performance Simone Spangler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Afterword: da capo al fine Adina Mornell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Contributors 187 Sebastian Altfeld works in the Unit of Sport Psychology at the Faculty of Sport Science at Ruhr-Universität Bochum (Germany). Sebastian graduated with a master’s degree in clinical psychology and has published in the area of coaches’ burnout during his PhD studies. Beside his research, he focuses on the work with athletes, coaches, and referees in different kind of sports as a trained sports psychologist. He has been admitted to the pool of sport psychological experts of the German Federation of Sport Science as well as to the European Network of Young Specialists in Sport. Moreover, he is part of the team of sport psychologists in the project www.mentaltalent.de, which offers sport psychology to young talented athletes, their coaches, and parents in Germany. [email protected] Lisa Aufegger is a PhD candidate, supported by a Stanbridge Drake-Brockman Award, at the Royal College of Music, London, and worked as a Peter Sowerby Research Associate in Performance Science. She graduated in psychology at the University of Klagenfurt, Austria, where she studied perceptual skills in musicians and non-musicians. Her current research focuses on music performance anxiety (MPA) and specifically the applied psychophysiology of MPA. She is also interested in simulated environments and smartphone applications and their use for performance training. Her work in this area was supported by the Arnold Bentley New Initiatives Fund (SEMPRE) and awarded at the Musicians’ Health & Performance 2nd Conference, MHPC 2015, in Odense, Denmark. [email protected] Jonathan Bird is a PhD student in sport and exercise psychology in the Department of Life Sciences at Brunel University London. He is conducting research into the efficacy and application of audiovisual stimuli in the exercise context. He has presented his work at scientific conferences and currently has a number of journal articles under review. Jonathan has a strong interest in applied sport psychology and is accredited as a Sport and Exercise Scientist with the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences. He is also a chartered member of the UK’s Science Council and has worked as a consultant with athletes from a wide variety of sports. In his spare time, Jonathan enjoys long-distance running and has competed in events that span 5 km to the marathon distance. [email protected] 188 Art in Motion [[[ K. Anders Ericsson, PhD, is presently Conradi Eminent Scholar and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University. He collaborated with the Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Herbert A. Simon, on verbal reports of thinking leading to their classic book “Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data” (1984). Currently he studies the measurement of expert performance in domains, such as music, chess, and sports, and how expert performers attain their superior performance by acquiring complex cognitive mechanisms through extended deliberate practice. He has edited the influential “Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance” and “Development of Professional Expertise.” He is a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, of the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science and a member of Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences. [email protected] Paul Evans is a Senior Lecturer in educational psychology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. He obtained his undergraduate degree in music education with honours at UNSW, a master’s degree in music education at the University of Western Australia, and a PhD in music education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. For the latter, he held the Marilyn Pflederer Zimmerman doctoral fellowship and completed his research under the supervision of Gary McPherson. Paul’s research interests span a range of topics including motivation and self-regulated learning in educational settings, with an emphasis on the context of instrumental music learning from childhood through to adulthood. [email protected] K. Wolfgang Kallus is the Head of Work-, Organisational and Environmental Psychology at the Department of Psychology in the faculty of Natural Sciences of the University of Graz (Austria). His research in the past years focused on stress and regeneration especially in aging workers, applied methods, and Human Factors with a focus on Aviation Psychology. He is a member of various national and international scientific organisations, past president on the board of the IEA-Group “Psychophysiology in Ergonomics (PIE),” president of the Austrian Aviation Psychology Association, and since 1995 director of the Institute for Evaluation Research (Begleitfoschung). In 2012 he received the biannual award of the European Association of Aviation Psychology. [email protected] Contributors 189 Dr Costas Karageorghis is a Reader in Sport Psychology in the Department of Life Sciences at Brunel University London. He has worked with many UK national governing bodies of sport as a consultant psychologist, as well as with a number of multinational companies that include Nike, Red Bull, Sony, Spotify, Speedo, and the International Management Group (IMG). He is best known for his research and applied work in the area of music-related interventions in exercise and sport. Costas’s scientific output includes more than 150 scholarly articles, ten book chapters, and two textbooks including, most recently, Applying Music in Exercise and Sport (Human Kinetics, 2016). During his spare time, Costas enjoys playing piano in the jazz duo Blue Rondo alongside drummer Joel Shopland. [email protected] Michael Kellmann is Professor of Sport Psychology at the Faculty of Sport Science at Ruhr-Universität Bochum (Germany) and an Honorary Professor at the School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences at The University of Queensland (Australia). He is a member of the Association of Applied Sport Psychology, the German Psychological Association, and the Australian Psychological Society. Michael’s research activities include overtraining prevention and recovery enhancement, sport psychological diagnostics and intervention, coach behaviour during competition and practice, as well as personality and performance competence of coaches in sports. [email protected] Elisa Kupers is an assistant professor at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, where she works at the department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care. She completed her bachelor’s and master’s degree in Psychology at the same university. In 2014, she obtained her PhD in Developmental Psychology on the topic of socially situated learning in one-to-one music lessons, after which she worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the Universität Bremen, Germany (department of Musicology and Music Education). Her research interests include learning through interaction, observational research, creativity and motivation in (music) educational contexts. [email protected] Andreas C. Lehmann is professor of Systematic Musicology and Music Psychology at the Hochschule für Musik Würzburg (Germany). He has 190 Art in Motion [[[ written Psychology for Musicians (2007, Oxford University Press; with John Sloboda & Robert Woody), edited Musikpsychologie: Das neue Handbuch (2008, Rowohlt; with Reinhard Kopiez & Herbert Bruhn), and authored chapters as well as articles in peer-reviewed journals. His main research interests are expertise/expert performance, skill acquisition, and empirical music education. Currently, Dr. Lehmann is vice-president of the German Music Psychology Society (DGM), associate editor of the European journal Musicae Scientiae, and editorial board member of the Journal of Research in Music Education. [email protected] Gary E. McPherson studied music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, before completing a master of music education at Indiana University, a doctorate of philosophy at the University of Sydney and a Licentiate and Fellowship in trumpet performance through Trinity College, London. He is the Ormond Professor and Director of the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music at the University of Melbourne, and previously held a position as the Marilyn Pflederer Zimmerman endowed chair in music education at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. He has served as National President of the Australian Society for Music Education and President of the International Society for Music Education. His most important research examines the acquisition and development of musical competence, and motivation to engage and participate in music from novice to expert levels. [email protected] Dr. Christopher Mesagno is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Health at Federation University Australia located one hour west of Melbourne, Australia. Dr. Mesagno was the recipient of the 2007 Association for Applied Sport Psychology Dissertation Award, which introduced a self-presentation model of choking under pressure in sport. Dr. Mesagno has presented numerous internationally recognised papers on stress and anxiety in sport performance, which included the opening keynote presentation for the 2014 German Association for Sport Psychology Conference in Munich, Germany, where he suggested that of collaborative research should be undertaken between sport and music researchers. Dr. Mesagno has also successfully developed theory-matched interventions to improve performance of “choking-susceptible” athletes. [email protected] Contributors 191 Adina Mornell, classical pianist and recording artist, studied Music, American Literature, Musicology, and Psychology, receiving degrees in the United States, Germany, and Austria, the latter being a doctorate in Music Psychology. In addition to empirical research on musical performance, her interests include the study of deliberate practice, attentional focus, and the intersection of neuroscience and music psychology. In 2008, Adina initiated the biannual series of international and interdisciplinary symposia: Art in Motion. Musical and Athletic Motor Learning and Performance. She publishes articles on the arts, science, and society, both in English and in German, and has had several CDs released worldwide. She is professor at the University of Music and Performing Arts in Munich. [email protected] Dr. Margaret Osborne is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Lecturer in the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music and Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences at The University of Melbourne. She is also a registered consulting psychologist, occupational rehabilitation and careers counselor, and past-President of the Australian Society for Performing Arts Healthcare. Margaret’s work specializes in performance science and psychology. She works on Australian Research Council funded-research examining motivation and practice quality in elite music performance, as well as research and teaching in psychological strategies to manage anxiety and optimize performance in musicians and athletes. Margaret is passionate about integrating cognitive, behavioral and neuroscientific research to formulate best-practice methods to build health and resilience, and maximize performance potential. [email protected] Amelia L. Quinn is a researcher based in Melbourne, Australia. She completed her Bachelor of Arts / Bachelor of Music combined degree at the University of Melbourne in 2011, with Honours in Psychology completed at Federation University in 2013. Her honours thesis investigated the experience of choking in music performance. She previously worked as a piano teacher, and currently volunteers her time to assist in the running of music workshops at youth-specific mental health facilities in Melbourne, focused on early intervention. She is currently employed by the University of Melbourne in a research capacity, working on two randomised-controlled trials in youth depression. [email protected] 192 Art in Motion [[[ Bernd Redmann was born in Bamberg and studied composition, music theory, music pedagogy and musicology, in Germany and in Austria. In 1997, he was awarded the composition scholarship “Cite des Arts” that took him to Paris, and in 1998, he received his doctorate in musicology from the University of Salzburg. Between 1998 and 2005, he was professor for improvisation and theory at the Cologne University of Music. Since 2005, he is professor at the University of Music and Performing Arts in Munich. Between 2011 and 2014, he was vice president of this institution and now, since 2014, he is its president. Redmann has composed and performed more than 50 pieces, among them works for orchestra, ensemble, chamber music, vocal music, music for media projects and an opera. His publications include a book on music analysis, articles on Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Schenker, and Riemann, and essays on improvisation, instrumentation, and the music history of Salzburg. [email protected] James Renwick studied clarinet at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music before completing a musicology degree at the University of Sydney. Subsequently he taught woodwind performance, before turning to a research collaboration with Gary McPherson at the University of New South Wales. This resulted in a PhD investigating relations between motivation and self-regulated music practising behaviour. He was Lecturer in Music Education at the University of Sydney, researching diversified models of performance study for preservice music teachers and the motivation of jazz and popular musicians. Recently he shifted his focus to primary-school (elementary) education with the New South Wales Department of Education. Contact: [email protected] Richard Allen Schmidt (1941-2015) would like to be remembered for the following things: he was 3rd team all American in rings in 1962; he was an avid, competitive sailor in numerous classes of boats, winning multiple championships; he competed in (and completed) nine marathons and a multitude of other long distance running races; he was Professor Emeritus at UCLA in Psychology, earlier in Kinesiology; he mentored many PhD students during his long academic career; he authored four textbooks, one of which continues to be the premier graduate-level text; he published a high rate of peer reviewed research articles, including the Schema Theory (1975), which earned him a Citation Classic; he Contributors 193 was honored as a Distinguished Scholar award by a group of peers and received two honorary doctorates in Belgium and France; in the late 90’s, he joined Failure Analysis Associates, and then, in 1998, he started Human Performance Research to offer consulting in human performance as an expert witness. He passed away in 2015 after a long battle with neurological degenerative ailments, CBD (corticol basal ganglia), PSP (Progressive supranuclear Palsy), and APD (atypical Parkinson’s disease). Or, as he would say, he died of TLAs (three letter acronyms). Simone Spangler is a PhD candidate at the University of Music and Performing Arts Munich, and supported by a Bavarian State Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, Sciences and the Arts postgraduate grant. She graduated in music education at the University of Music and Performance Arts Munich, and in sports education at the Technische Universität München in Germany. Her current research in music psychology focuses on motivation, wellbeing, practice behaviour and performance. She is also member of the research network “Multizenterstudie,” which is conducting a long-term investigation on “Psychological and physical health and preventive behaviour of music students.” [email protected] Ingolf Turban commands a large body of masterpieces for violin, some of which have rarely been performed on stage. His virtuosic skill and affinity for Niccolò Paganini’s compositions, as heard in his recording of the six violin concertos and the TV documentary “Paganini’s Secret” received critical acclaim. He has performed as a soloist in concert halls such as the Berlin and Munich Philharmonic; the Kennedy Center, Washington; Avery Fisher Hall, New York; Tonhalle, Zurich; Goldenen Saal, Vienna; and the Scala, Milan. Turban has worked with conductors Sergiu Celibidache, Charles Dutoit, Lorin Maazel, Zubin Mehta, Yehudi Menuhin, Jun Märkl, and Marcello Viotti, and has documented his extensive repertoire in over 40 albums. He is founder of the Chamber Orchestra “I Virtuosi di Paganini” and professor at the University for Music and Performing Arts in Munich. [email protected] Verena Wagner is research associate at the Department of Psychology of the University of Graz and the Institut für Begleitforschung, working on 194 Art in Motion [[[ different projects within the research field of Work-, Organizational and Environmental Psychology. Since 2012 lecturer at the Ruhr West University (Bottrop), Germany (degree program: human-technology interaction). Verena’s research activities include sound perception and sound design, hearing impairment at (elderly) employees/elderly people, Occupational Health Psychology, Human Factors and Human-Machine-Interaction. She studied psychology at the University of Graz (diploma/equiv. master degree and doctoral degree) and instrumental/vocal education at the J.J. Fux Konservatorium, Graz (diploma/teaching certificate) and University of Music and Performing Arts Graz (bachelor degree). [email protected] Dr. David Wasley is currently Senior Lecture at Cardiff Metropolitan University. He has been involved in the research, education and provision of physical activity and exercise to enhance health and well-being since completing his BSc (Hons) in Exercise Science at the University of Brighton. He has taught and researched classical musicians’ experiences for the last 15 years starting with his PhD that investigated the effects of physical activity and exercise on the psychophysiology responses of musicians as part of the ‘Zoning In’ project at the Royal College of Music (RCM), London. He is a co-investigator on the ‘Musical Impact’ project based at the RCM which includes working in multiple UK Conservatoires. [email protected] Aaron Williamon is Professor of Performance Science at the Royal College of Music (RCM) and Director of the Centre for Performance Science, a partnership of the RCM and Imperial College London. His research focuses on skilled performance and applied scientific initiatives that inform music learning and teaching. Aaron is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and the UK’s Higher Education Academy, and in 2008, he was elected an Honorary Member of the RCM. [email protected] G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 131 Applying Self-Determination and Self-Regulation Theories for Optimizing Music Performance The most prominent explanation for how musicians attain expert performance shows that they undergo 10,000 hours of highly structured and effortful deliberate practice across at least 10 years (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993). Very recently, the deliberate practice framework has come into question as the single most authoritative explanation for how elite musicians refine and hone their skills at the highest levels of music training. This is based on assertions that deliberate practice may account for as little as 30% of the variance in expertise (Hambrick et al, 2013), as well as the many examples of exceptions to what have become known as the 10-year and 10,000-hours rules (Kaufman, 2013). Deliberate practice theory identified additional ‘constraints’—on resources, motivation, and efforts—that limit people’s capacities and abilities to undertake such vast quantities of practice, which to date are not adequately understood, and this research, in turn, has ramifications for musician’s performance under pressure. On a practical level, our work has attempted to extend this literature through recommendations of what musicians can do to increase the effectiveness of their learning and improve their performance. The deliberate practice approach has helped to pinpoint practice as the primary activity that improves performance, but an even more complete explanation for music education is required to understand how musicians can maximize their learning outcomes as they strive to develop musical expertise. Our research shows that motivation and practice quality are powerful predictors of performance. We have demonstrated that optimized motivation in music learners is associated with greater psychological fulfilment and valuing of music (Evans & McPherson, 2015; see also Renwick, 2008) and through our longitudinal research we have shown that adolescent musicians who were motivated by long-term goals had better long-term engagement and achievement over a period of more than 10 years (McPherson, Davidson & Faulkner, 2012). We have also found that musicians whose motivation was not optimal practiced more, but less effectively, than those whose motivation was optimal (Evans & Bonneville-Roussy, 2015). Our research on practice quality has found that better musicians use more sophisticated strategies (McPherson, 2005), are more confident about their abilities, practice in a more motivated and 132 Art in Motion [[[ engaged manner (Miksza, 2011) and that all of these variables predict achievement above and beyond the quantity of practice they may have accumulated. These findings in music education reflect what is found in other domains such as sports, health, education, personal relationships, and work environments. In these studies, constructs related to motivation and practice quality are consistently associated with improved performance, well-being, learning, and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). One notable example is school education throughout the 20th century, which reformed from a teacher-centered model to a student-centered model that acknowledges the importance of a more supportive, facilitative environment, resulting in enormous improvements in motivation and educational outcomes compared with learning in competitive and controlling environments (Schunk, Meece & Pintrich, 2014). In research on school education, teachers who are autonomy supportive have students whose motivation and engagement is positively affected (Reeve & Halusic, 2009; Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). In this chapter, we explain research related to motivation and practice quality as a means of outlining our thoughts on how musicians are able to develop competence and acquire the skills necessary to perform under pressure. We start with motivation as viewed through the lens of self-determination theory (SDT). Since the 1970s, SDT has become a major approach to the study of human motivation. The theory rests on the assumption that humans naturally seek growth through interactions with their social environments. This growth is nourished by the fulfilment of three basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000): the need to feel effective in interacting with the social environment (competence), the need to feel accepted by others (relatedness), and the need to feel that one’s actions are aligned with one’s interests and sense of self (autonomy). Practice quality is viewed through the lens of self-regulated learning (SRL; Zimmerman, 2000), a social-cognitive theoretical framework that is used to understand students’ strategic behavior as they work through problems. Thus, self-determination theory helps us conceptualize how musicians of all ages are able to build the resilience and personal attributes necessary to cope with the demands of performing, particularly in stressful and demanding situations as often can occur in the competitive environments in music programs and in the professional lives of musicians. G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 133 Contemporary Psychological Perspectives on Motivation Contemporary psychological views on motivation focus on multiple dimensions of people’s experience in the social world—their thoughts, beliefs, and values, their interactions with the social environment, the quality of their relationships, their affective states, and so on. But this has not always been the case. The dominant paradigm for examining people’s motivational states, particularly during the first half of the 20th century, focused almost exclusively on reward and punishment contingencies in the environment, and neglected to systematically study people’s inner thoughts and representations. Known as behaviorism, this perspective conceived of learning as elaborate sequences of operant conditioning, administered by a socializer such as a teacher or parent (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014). More recent perspectives, rising from the advent of the ‘cognitive revolution,’ have rejected the idea that external events can comprehensively explain motivation. The cognitive perspective gave researchers a framework for studying constructs that are of more direct and obvious relevance to motivation—inner states such as beliefs and the way these might interact with the environment. One such inner state that has been shown to be important in motivation is the need to feel as though one’s actions are self-endorsed, the belief that one’s actions are aligned with one’s interests, and the feeling that one’s actions are engaged in freely and willingly. Collectively, this is known as autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The following sections elaborate on research related to autonomy and show its importance in relation to motivation for instrumental music performance. Motivation and Musical Development Decades of research into the motivational underpinnings of self-regulated learning have been used to frame more sophisticated understandings of music learning (Renwick & Reeve, 2012; Evans, 2015; Austin, Renwick & McPherson, 2006). Much of this work is grounded in educational research focused on understanding learners’ motivational beliefs and the learning strategies they recruit to achieve their goals. Music researchers have attempted to clarify the connection between music learning and the various motivational beliefs that influence the direction and mainte- Art in Motion [[[ 134 nance of this self-regulatory process (Evans, 2015). One concept that has dominated motivation research is the distinction between engaging in an action or task because it is inherently interesting (intrinsic motivation) or because for some other reason—because it is useful in attaining a goal, because of pressure from another person, or because of the feeling of an ego boost (extrinsic motivation). SDT expands on this distinction with a more meaningful elaboration on extrinsic motivation. ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ Non-self-determined Self-determined Figure 1: Self Determination Theory constructs. Adapted from Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 61 and Renwick & Reeve, 2012, p. 14. Young music learners commence learning musical instruments with a range of motivations that can be described along the extrinsic–intrinsic continuum. For example, some students may start learning an instrument at the suggestion of their parents, because their friends are learning, or because it is required by their school. Others might start for more internal reasons, such as wanting to play their favorite song on an instrument, or even being drawn to the sound of the instrument itself. Whatever the initial reason, motivation can be internalized depending on the circum- G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 135 stances of the social environment. Within SDT this integration process is a normal part of development (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Four regulatory styles on the continuum have been identified: (a) the purely extrinsically controlled external regulation where the importance of extrinsic rewards, punishment, or compliance dominate learning; (b) the introjected regulation controlled by such ego-related dynamics as guilt, self-esteem, and approval-seeking from oneself or others; (c) identified regulation, where there is a conscious valuing and self approval by the learner for undertaking the activity and one’s motives are integrated into the self-schema; and (d) integration regulation where learners are able to internalize the reasons for their actions and assimilate them into their sense of self, even though these extrinsic motivation processes still rely on an outcome that is separate from the behavior (see Figure 1). Young people’s musical participation and engagement declines throughout their school years (McPherson & O’Neill, 2010; Wigfield et al., 1997). Researchers have attempted to explain the decline citing low levels of perceived musical competence (Wigfield et al., 1997) and intrinsic motivation (Hallam, 1998). Little research has been conducted, however, on the links between motivational beliefs and learning behaviors that might lead to a sense of competence and pleasure in music-making, which is quite remarkable given the widespread popular belief that learning an instrument teaches young people ‘self-discipline.’ Thus, self-determination theory is useful and a more sophisticated starting point for understanding how music learning can be optimized. In formal learning environments, it is clear that learners may be motivated to develop competencies that are valued by others (e.g., teacher, parents, peers). According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the foundation for facilitating internalization leading to the upper levels of extrinsic motivation and eventually intrinsic motivation rests on the ongoing need for learning to satisfy three psychological needs (relatedness, competence, autonomy) that allow learners to develop and function in a healthy and optimal way. First, learners need to experience a sense of belonging within the group or cultural practice in which they participate. Feelings of respect and being cared for within this environment by their teacher, parents, or others is essential if they are to willingly accept the values being imparted by others. Second, they need to feel competent. Learners do not usually persevere in learning difficult talks if they do not perceive the challenge as relevant and are able to receive constructive feedback 136 Art in Motion [[[ during the process of mastering the skill or assigned task. Third, learners need to feel a sense of autonomy. This psychological need has received little previous attention in the music literature, even though it is paramount to understanding how music learning can be optimized. For this reason, we focus the following sections on this psychological need and the research related to this within other areas of learning and within music, especially with regard to how teachers can maximize their ability to impart skills, knowledge, and understanding through the use of support strategies that aid autonomy in music learners. Providing Autonomy Support As inferred in the previous paragraph, autonomy is central in young children’s healthy development and especially so in young music learner’s musical development where the social context plays an important role in development (Kupers, van Dijk, van Geert & McPherson, 2015; Kupers, van Dijk, McPherson & van Geert, 2014). Several studies on music lessons and other educational contexts have confirmed that teacher’s autonomy support is associated with positive learning outcomes in learners. In a series of studies with certified Suzuki trained teachers, Kupers, van Dijk, van Geert, and McPherson (2015) examined how autonomy supportive environments support young music learners. Specifically, we sought to explore what types of teacher-student interactions best foster autonomy supportive learning and might best lead to higher engagement by the music learner. We proposed two dimensions for coding student states in string instrument lessons. The first dimension – autonomy - involved a measure of high versus low autonomy; the second – engagement – described the students’ level of commitment as they were learning. The combination of level of autonomy and degree of engagement resulted in four quadrants of student autonomy expression as described below and in Figure 2. Results of the study suggest the following: 1. Autonomous engagement (high autonomy and positively engaged in the learning task). The student would be taking on-task initiative by asking questions or making relevant on-task remarks. 2. Resistance (high autonomy and negatively engaged). The student would generally be actively resisting the task, by saying, for example, ‘I G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 137 don’t want to do this,’ or by making off-task remarks such as ‘I’m going to the playground later.’ 3. Mimicry (low autonomy and positively engaged). The student would be ‘going with the flow,’ doing what was expected by the teacher and not taking any personal initiative. 4. Absence (low autonomy and negatively engaged). The student would not be engaged with the task, would not be responding verbally (i.e., not answering teacher questions), but would also not be actively resisting it (see Kupers, van Dijk, van Geert & McPherson, 2015, pp. 340-341). AUTONOMY %NGAGEMENT ฀ Figure 2. Four quadrants of student states of autonomy (see Kupers, van Dijk, van Geert & McPherson, 2015, p. 341.) First, from the analyses, we observed large differences between the dyadic transactions of students with a higher overall need for autonomy, compared to students with a low need for autonomy. Instead of the teacher being the ‘locus of control’ in terms of autonomy support, in these situations, autonomy was more ‘negotiated’ between teacher and student. At other times, the autonomy support and autonomy expression levels of 138 Art in Motion [[[ the teacher and music learner were well coordinated, in contrast to other moments where there were large discrepancies. These results led us to question the function of dyadic synchrony in autonomy levels when learning to play an instrument. Relevant literature dealing with synchrony in parent-infant interactions (e.g., Harris & Waugh, 2002) shows that more adaptation or synchrony is related to healthy developmental outcomes. As we have shown in our research, any friction in synchronization between verbal interactions (such as when a teacher offers autonomy support at a higher level than the student’s current level of autonomy) will help propel and maintain momentum in the learning process. The results of our work suggest a number of implications. One is that our work outlines strategies that teachers can use to foster their young music learners’ autonomy. At another level, our work also shows that there is no ‘one size fits all’ with regard to autonomy development and the techniques teachers use to provide autonomy support. What works for one student may not necessarily work for another music learner. What now needs to be studied in more detail, however, is the moment to moment synchronicity in teacher-student interactions. Obviously friction leading to negative consequences in students is something that needs to be carefully avoided, whereas a moderate amount of asynchrony in the lesson may well have a role in challenging and stimulating students. Much more research is needed to explore and understand these mechanisms. Suggestions for Improving Teaching Practice Supporting students’ autonomy involves supporting and reinforcing a constellation of behaviors that support students’ feelings of choice, so that their experience of autonomy derives from their sense of being in control of a task, as opposed to feeling controlled by the task. Autonomy support therefore describes the processes teachers adopt during their teaching to facilitate, encourage, and develop their students’ innermost motivational resources (Reeve & Halusic, 2009). The opposite of autonomy support is behavioral control. Behavioral control occurs when the behavior of a teacher acts to suppress or coerce students into behaving in a particular manner. Students who have autonomy-supportive teachers are more likely to thrive in their learning, engagement, and well-being, while students who have controlling teachers are likely to become disengaged and less motivated (Reeve & Halusic, 2009). G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 139 Citing the extensive body of research on this topic, Renwick and Reeve (2012) have identified five ways teachers can support autonomy in music: Spark students’ initial engagement in learning activities by nurturing their inner motivational resources with comments such as “Here is a challenge; here is a piece of music that will challenge your skills.” Provide a steady stream of rationales to explain the why behind any potentially uninteresting endeavor by using comments such as: “Okay, playing the same piece of music over and over tends to get boring, but the reason for the repetition is to make gradual little refinements each time until, in the end, you have mastered the piece of music.” Rely on non-controlling and informational language when they communicate requirements, comment on student progress, ask students to take responsibility for their learning, and address motivational and behavioral problems through the use of comments such as: “I don’t hear much progress; do you know why that might be?” Display patience for self-paced learning to occur by providing sufficient time in lessons to listen to students work in their own way, and when they seem stuck, postpone advice until it is understood what the students are trying to accomplish. Acknowledge and accept students’ expressions of resistance and negative emotions when they complain that the task is too boring or too hard, with comments such as: “Yes, this is hard; it can make anyone feel frustrated. What could we do differently so it didn’t seem so boring or difficult; any suggestions?” (see Renwick & Reeve, 2012, p. 149) The one-to-one master-apprentice style of music lesson is often characterized by approaches that too often undermine student autonomy and motivation. In many situations, teachers are highly controlling in the choice of repertoire they allow students to learn, and the ways in which they allow their students to master or interpret the repertoire they are assigned to learn. Accordingly, interventions to avoid the natural inclination of master musicians to be controlling when giving lessons involve encouraging them to adopt a much more autonomy supportive motivational style that finds ways of empowering students through efforts by the teacher to take into account and value the student’s perspective (Evans, 2015; Renwick & Reeve, 2012). Highly skilled musicians can achieve this by inviting and welcoming their students to express their thoughts, feelings, and actions within the lesson so that their instruction is not predetermined and unilateral but negotiated at each step of the learning process (Renwick & Reeve, 2012, pp. 156-157). 140 Art in Motion [[[ The five autonomy supportive instructional behaviors explained above can be used to help teachers rethink how they support their music learners (Renwick & Reeve 2012). First, instead of telling students what to do and giving them little choice in how they learn, music teachers should attempt instead to nurture students’ inner motivational resources in ways that allow them to set their own goals, and discover and find for themselves what they find most interesting and valuable. Second, when engaging students in uninteresting activities such as learning technical exercises, music teachers should carefully contextualize the reasons, the need, and the benefits of the task so that their students understand the worth of the activity in terms of improving their ability. Third, by adopting non-controlling comments during lessons, students can be encouraged to optimize their own learning strategies and reflect on the ways that they feel are most beneficial for them to reach their personal best. Fourth, being patient and allowing time for students to self-pace their own learning, set their own goals, diagnose problems for themselves, and reflect on their own progress encourages learners to take control of their own learning as they come to realize how difficult, challenging tasks take time to master. Finally, to encourage persistence and to overcome obstacles, it is important for music teachers to acknowledge and manage students’ frustrations and negative emotions as a normal part of any form of high-level skill development. Optimizing Music Instruction A key principle of SDT is that systems of teaching and learning must ensure that a sense of relatedness, competence, and autonomy are supported as a means of motivating young musicians to employ the self-regulatory skills that likely lead to high level engagement and ultimately advanced levels of musical competence. At the simplest level, music teachers can be advised to focus on encouraging effort management, self-monitoring, and adaptive strategy use, instead of emphasizing time spent practicing. For instance, in some music programs, children are given notebooks in which they are required to state how many minutes of practice they have completed each day. This approach might simply reinforce a focus on the passage of time (McPherson & Renwick, 2001), rather than the mastery of the musical skill or task at hand. An approach that might encourage more autonomy and engagement would be to ask students to use a practice journal to record and reflect on the strategies they choose in order to maintain effort, to monitor accuracy, correct errors, and develop their G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 141 own interpretation of the piece. Such efforts to develop greater engagement have been found by McPherson, Davidson and Faulkner (2012) to increase practice efficiency. Extending the above, we might examine some of the various models of leadership, teaching, and parenting styles. As an example, Dinham and Scott (2008) developed Baumrind’s (1991) earlier work on effective parenting to produce four prototypes of leadership or “teachership.” As can be seen in Figure 3, these four prototypes are categorized along two dimensions. The first is the degree to which the teacher is responsive to being able to deal emotionally and intellectually to students’ needs or those of the teaching environment. The second concerns demandingness, or the way the teacher might insist on adopting a certain way of working, irrespective of how students might feel or wish to work themselves. The four teaching styles depicted in Figure 3 can be defined as follows: Uninvolved Teachers are low in ‘responsiveness’ and ‘demandingness.’ Under such forms of tuition students would be simply left to their own devices with their teacher having little if any positive impact on their education. Obviously, this style of teaching would rarely be seen in schools. Authoritarian Teachers are high in demandingness and low on responsiveness, meaning that they expect compliance from their students and are unwilling to negotiate or consult. Authoritarian Teachers also tend to rely heavily on rewards and rules, and whilst achievements may be high, there is often an ethos of fear or coercion that can be stressful for the student. Permissive Teachers are high in ‘responsiveness’ and low in ‘demandingness.’ They may allow a considerable amount of freedom, have high interpersonal skills, and value consensus. Cultures or systems led by them are often happy places but there is a risk of underachievement and lack of direction especially for those individuals with low levels of self-regulation. Other highly motivated individuals may excel. Finally, Authoritative Teachers have high levels of both ‘responsiveness’ and ‘demandingness.’ According to Dinham and Scott (2008), such teachers are concerned with all of their students experiencing success and achievement. 142 Art in Motion [[[ $EMANDINGNESS 2ESPONSIVENESS ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ Figure 3: Four prototypes of teaching styles (adapted from Dinham & Scott, 2008, after Baumrind, 1991.) Self-Regulated Learning and Practice Quality Complementing research in motivation is research on the things that learners do to set goals, monitor their progress towards them, evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies, and reflect on their learning. Collectively, these processes are known as self-regulated learning (SRL; McPherson & Renwick, 2011; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2011). According to the SRL framework, effective learners engage in three processes in a self-regulated learning cycle: Forethought: Setting appropriate goals and identifying effective strategies that can be used to achieve them (e.g., setting a goal of effectively playing through an 8-bar section of a new piece of music that has been identified as important; using a strategy of first slowing the tempo, then gradually increasing it as performance is accomplished). Performance: Engaging in tasks mindfully, monitoring performance during a task (e.g., observing that the playing is fluent at the current tempo and G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 143 increasing the tempo accordingly; identifying that a particular fingering pattern is not proving to be effective and trying two alternatives). Reflection: Attributing performance to causes (e.g., I didn’t practice effectively today because the strategies I identified weren’t appropriate) and preparing for the following iteration of the cycle (e.g., learning that 8-bar section was easy today; perhaps next time I can be more ambitious about what I fit into a practice session). In McPherson’s (2005) study of children learning music, a series of tasks was presented to the children. One of these was a test of musical memory—a short notated melody was presented briefly, then the children were asked to play the melody from memory. The children reported using a range of strategies to deal with the problem. Some reported relatively poor and unsophisticated strategies: “I remember the names of the notes;” “I try to take a mental photograph of the music so I can remember it when it is no longer there.” Others used more sophisticated strategies: “I sing the melody in my head and imagine playing through it on my instrument.” In this study, these self-regulatory strategies were a more consistent predictor of performance on measures of music performance than practice quantity. Given the dominance of practice quantity (or accumulation of hours of deliberate practice) in the literature, the finding that practice quality may have a greater impact speaks to the potential for self-regulated learning as a framework for understanding music learning. Self-regulated learning also appears to be a useful way to study university students’ motivations for music learning. Miksza (2011) examined self-regulated learning in brass and woodwind players. His observations reflected the deliberate practice literature, showing that most university music students in the study were practicing in a way that would be consistent with a definition of deliberate practice. However, within this range, those who had used more sophisticated strategies had higher performance achievement scores. This research contributes to understandings about how music-specific self-regulated learning strategies may improve performance. More recent experimental research by Miksza (2015) suggests that self-regulated learning strategies can be taught relatively easily, and that students who are taught them practice more musically (incorporating more expressive elements and focusing on performance aspects such as phrasing), than others (who practiced in a basic way by focusing only on the sequence of notes and rhythms). 144 Art in Motion [[[ Integrating Motivation and Practice Quality Having reviewed the areas of motivation (using SDT as a framework) and practice quality (using SRL), we are now in a position to examine the extent to which these perspectives may provide complementary explanation for ongoing achievement in music, as well as other outcomes of interest, such as well-being, music performance ability, and a long-term commitment to engagement in music. Some findings in the literature lead us to believe that these perspectives may indeed be complementary and provide a fuller explanation for music performance than perspectives such as the deliberate practice framework, which focuses almost exclusively on the accumulation of hours of deliberate practice. One finding comes from one of our case studies with a musician who, when autonomously selecting a piece of music that she was interested in, showed vastly superior practice strategies compared with previously, when she had been playing repertoire selected for her by her teacher (Renwick & McPherson, 2002). In this case study, the student was observed to be autonomous in her motivation, and subsequently, she spontaneously adopted quality self-regulated learning techniques. Thus, we hypothesize a causal link between motivation and practice quality. Another more recent finding comes from a study of university music learners (Evans & Boneville-Roussy, 2015). In a survey of learners from a number of institutions, motivation was profiled using self-determination theory. Participants reported on the number of hours they had engaged in practice, the productivity of their practice, and their preference for expanding their learning by choosing challenging tasks, rather than tasks that were easy and within their ability. Strong links were found between students’ psychological needs and their motivation, and, in turn, their motivation and measures of practice. Interestingly, motivation predicted practice quality more powerfully than practice quantity. Therefore, there is some evidence to suggest that motivation and practice quality may be complementary approaches that more fully explain music performance achievement. Conclusion Motivation and practice quality are two key aspects of music learning that seem relevant from childhood to adolescence and adulthood, and G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 145 in skill levels ranging from novice to expert. Motivation is particularly relevant to teaching, as our research has demonstrated that the quality of the relationship makes a difference to learning. The way in which teacher’s level of autonomy support and the student’s state of autonomy are ‘matched’ or ‘mismatched’ from moment to moment can be linked to long-term-outcomes. We suggest that there are more and less optimal styles for music teachers to support students’ sense of autonomy, to ultimately foster their intrinsic motivation. However, perhaps even more important than having a general ‘style’ of teaching, is the teachers’ ability to be able to show flexibility in adapting their level of responsiveness and demandingness to the current needs of individual students. In terms of practice quality, it is important for teachers to understand that most of the work done by students to improve is done on their own. Therefore, it is important to equip them with the tools and skills necessary to practice effectively. In our view, this is best achieved by encouraging them to develop self-regulated practice strategies, by encouraging them to become aware of the relevant forethought, performance, and reflection processes necessary for engagement in productive learning. On an individual and personal level, self-determination theory allows us to also conceptualize how external control of any kind can undermine a musician’s motivation to achieve at the highest level, particularly in stressful situations where the musician is required to perform under pressure. This theory helps us understand how musicians can feel in control of their musical activities, or, in contrast, feel overwhelmed by certain stressful situations. Often the root cause of such feelings is how musicians view the activity: in short, whether they feel in control of the musical situation or, alternatively, whether they feel that the musical situation controls them. Understanding these mechanisms provides an important means for helping musicians who are struggling and feeling under pressure to build their confidence in ways that are much more deeply important to them. Each of the four authors of this chapter has conducted research using the self-determination and self-regulated learning frameworks. We hope that the brief summary of our work in this chapter will encourage other researchers to expand knowledge in this area, as collectively, we search for even better ways to optimize music students’ potentials, and grow understandings of how all musicians can develop the resilience to cope with the enormous challenges required to master music performance. 146 Art in Motion [[[ Key Additional Resources To further understandings of the material covered in this chapter, readers are encouraged to access the following dissertations from the second, third and fourth authors. Evans, P. (2009). Psychological needs and social-cognitive influences on participation in music activities (Order No. 3362780). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304895600). Kupers, E. (2014). Socially situated learning in individual music lessons. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Groningen. Retrieved from https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/pub(08de217f-c6f54b95-9fee-f2ce592ab501).html Renwick, J. M. (2008). Because I love playing my instrument: Young musicians’ internalised motivation and self-regulated practising behaviour. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New South Wales. Retrieved from http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/36701 G. McPherson, P. Evans, E. Kupers, J. Renwick 147 References Austin, J. R., Renwick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Developing motivation. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 213–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/ S15327965PLI1104_01 Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2008). Responsive, demanding leadership. Management Today, 43, 32-35 Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Evans, P. (2015). Self-determination theory: An approach to motivation in music education. Musicae Scientiae, 19, 65–83. doi:10.1177/1029864914568044 Evans, P., & Bonneville-Roussy, A. (2015). Self-determined motivation for practice in university music students. Psychology of Music. doi:10.1177/0305735615610926 Evans, P., & McPherson, G. E. (2015). Identity and practice: The motivational benefits of a longterm musical identity. Psychology of Music, 43, 407–422. doi:10.1177/0305735613514471 Hallam, S. (1998). The predictors of achievement and dropout in instrumental tuition. Psychology of Music, 26, 116–132. Hambrick, D. Z., Oswald, F. L., Altmann, E. M., Meinz, E. J., Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2013). Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert? Intelligence. doi: 10.1016/j. intell.2014.04.001 Harrist, A. W., & Waugh, R. M. (2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development. Developmental Review, 22, 555-592. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600. doi:10.1037/a0019682 Kaufman, S. B. (Ed., 2013). The complexity of greatness: Beyond talent or practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kupers, E., van Dijk, M., McPherson, G. E., & van Geert, P. (2014). A dynamic model of skill acquisition and self-determination in instrumental music lessons. Musicæ Scientiæ, 18, 17-34. Kupers, E., van Dijk, M., van Geert, P., & McPherson, G. E. (2015). A mixed-methods approach to studying co-regulation of student autonomy through teacher-student interactions in music lessons. Psychology of Music, 43, 333-358. McPherson, G. E. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stages of learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33, 5–35. McPherson, G. E., & O’Neill, S. A. (2010). Students’ motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects: A comparison of eight countries. Research Studies in Music Education, 32, 101–137. doi: 10.1177/1321103x10384202 McPherson, G. E., & Renwick, J. M. (2001). A longitudinal study of self-regulation in children’s musical practice. Music Education Research, 3, 169–186. McPherson, G. E., & Renwick, J. M. (2011). Self-regulation and mastery of musical skills. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 234–248). New York: Routledge. 148 Art in Motion [[[ McPherson, G. E., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Self-regulation of musical learning: A social cognitive perspective on developing performance skills (pp. 130-175). In R. Colwell & P. Webster (Eds.), MENC handbook of research on music learning (vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking musical ability, development and identity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Miksza, P. (2011). The development of a measure of self-regulated practice behavior for beginning and intermediate instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 321-338. doi: 10.1177/0022429411414717 Miksza, P. (2015). The effect of self-regulation instruction on the performance achievement, musical self-efficacy, and practicing of advanced wind players. Psychology of Music, 43, 219–243. doi:10.1177/0305735613500832 Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2009). How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 145–154. doi:10.1177/1477878509104319 Renwick, J. M. (2008). Because I love playing my instrument: Young musicians’ internalised motivation and self-regulated practising behaviour. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New South Wales. Retrieved from http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/36701 Renwick, J. M., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Interest and choice: Student-selected repertoire and its effect on practising behaviour. British Journal of Music Education, 19, 173–188. doi: 10.1017/S0265051702000256 Renwick, J. M., & Reeve, J. (2012). Supporting motivation in music education. In G. E. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education. New York: Oxford University Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., et al. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.