See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276242651

Self-determination theory: An approach to motivation in music education

Article  in  Musicae Scientiae · February 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1029864914568044

CITATIONS READS

49 3,622

1 author:

Paul Evans
UNSW Sydney
39 PUBLICATIONS   377 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

What is the role of the motivation milieu, self-motivation and engagement in students' academic achievement? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Evans on 27 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

568044
research-article2015
MSX0010.1177/1029864914568044Musicae ScientiaeEvans

Article

Musicae Scientiae

Self-determination theory:
2015, Vol. 19(1) 65­–83
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
An approach to motivation in sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1029864914568044
music education msx.sagepub.com

Paul Evans
School of Education, UNSW Australia

Abstract
This article provides a conceptual overview of a self-determination theory approach to motivation
in music education. Research on motivation in music learning is active and has influenced the field
considerably, but it remains theoretically patchy, with a vast array of theoretical perspectives that are
relatively disconnected. Reflecting motivation research more generally, music education still lacks
a parsimonious, unified theoretical approach to motivation. Self-determination theory offers a way to
address this issue, because it is a broad theory of motivation that examines the nature and sources of
motivational quality. This article describes two key components of self-determination theory. First, the
tendency towards personal growth and a more unified sense of self is supported through the fulfilment
of the basic psychological needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Second, behaviour is more
enjoyable and contributes more to personal wellbeing when motivation is internalized and more closely
aligned with the self. These two features of self-determination theory are related, such that motivation
is internalized to the extent that basic psychological needs are fulfilled. These processes are supported
by recent self-determination theory research in music education. Previous research on motivation from
other theoretical perspectives also lends support to the self-determination theory approach. The approach
therefore provides a means of theoretically unifying previous research. An integrated model is presented
as the basis for future research on motivation for music learning in the context of psychological wellbeing
more broadly.

Keywords
autonomy, motivation, music education, psychological needs, self-determination theory

Motivation is a key area of investigation for researchers and practitioners in music education.
Understanding motivation is vital for addressing questions of how and why people take up
learning a musical instrument, how they persist through the challenges of learning and prac-
tice, and how they become successful or why they quit. Broadly defined as “the process by which
goal-directed activity is instigated or sustained” (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2013), motivation
is a psychological construct with many theoretical traditions and perspectives. Music education

Corresponding author:
Paul Evans, UNSW Australia, 118 John Goodsell Building, UNSW Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

66 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

research has adopted some of these perspectives, including expectancy-value theory (Lowe,
2011; McPherson & McCormick, 1999; Wigfield et al., 1997), self-efficacy (Hendricks, 2013;
McPherson & McCormick, 2006; Nielsen, 2004), attribution theory (Asmus, 1986a, 1986b;
Legette, 1998), and identity development (Davidson & Burland, 2006; Evans & McPherson,
2014, in press; Hargreaves, Macdonald, & Miell, 2012; Hargreaves & Marshall, 2003), among
many others. Indeed, one issue that is faced by music education is that it is yet to converge in
agreement on a single theoretical perspective. Reviews in the area (Austin, Renwick, &
McPherson, 2006; Hallam, 2002, 2011; Martin, 2008; O’Neill & McPherson, 2002; Renwick
& Reeve, 2012) have examined aspects of these vast approaches, but the need remains for a
robust integrative approach that synthesizes these perspectives and advances toward a more
unified theoretical explanation for motivation in this domain.
Researchers in music education have recently turned to self-determination theory (SDT) as a
way to address this issue. SDT is a relatively comprehensive theory of motivation, focused not
only on the role of particular social, cognitive, or emotional factors, but more broadly on the
kinds of behaviours humans exhibit when they interact with social environments. SDT is a
metatheory—an umbrella approach consisting of a number of minitheories (Vansteenkiste,
Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). The metatheoretical approach is based on the concept of the organ-
ismic dialectic, the term used to describe the innate human propensity toward psychological
health and wellbeing, and the tendency for people to develop and pursue an identity that is
unified with their sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2002). SDT is concerned not only with the amount
of motivation that a person has for a particular behaviour, but also the quality of that motiva-
tion, which emanates from the extent to which behaviour is aligned with the sense of self. It has
a substantial body of empirical evidence in other domains of human behaviours such as work
(Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Gagné & Deci, 2005), sports and physical education (Standage,
Gillison, Ntoumanis, & Treasure, 2012), health care (Ng et al., 2012; Ryan, Patrick, Deci, &
Williams, 2008), social relationships (La Guardia & Patrick, 2008), and schooling (Niemiec &
Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2002).
SDT is an advantageous perspective for music education researchers in several ways. First, it
is a framework that has considerable breadth and can explain a wide range of behaviour and
therefore a framework that may explain the breadth of behaviours and factors of interest in
studying motivation for music learning. Because of this breadth, SDT may provide some unifi-
cation for previous research in music education. For example, the self-efficacy construct has
been studied in music education research (Hendricks, 2013; McCormick & McPherson, 2006).
Within an SDT framework this may be considered as a component of competence, which is con-
ceptualized within SDT as a psychological need. This, along with other studies on constructs
related to competence, provides support for the effects of fulfilling the need for competence in
music. Second, persistence and dropout has been an important subject of research in music
education (Hallam, 1998). Persistence and dropout have been examined using SDT in settings
where self-initiated and self-regulated behaviour is also required, such as in school contexts
(Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997), physical education contexts (Ntoumanis, 2005), and per-
sonal health management (Williams, McGregor, Zeldman, Freedman, & Deci, 2004). Third,
SDT places a strong emphasis on the quality of motivation and behaviour, rather than merely
the quantity. Quality of music practice behaviour is particularly important for developing musi-
cians, for example, in the extent to which practice needs to be deliberate and effortful (Ericsson,
Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993), and the quality of practice strategies used (McPherson, 2005).
Fourth, SDT research has been applied extensively in other domains, providing a foundation for
music researchers to translate and capitalize on the yields of published work. These advantages—
the conceptual utility of SDT in its theoretical breadth, thematic relevance to issues

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

Evans 67

of importance for music education researchers, the particular concern with the quality of
behaviour, and the ability to capitalize on applied yields in other domains—represent consider-
able opportunities for advancing music education research.
A conceptual review of SDT in music education does not yet exist in the literature. A concep-
tual review is important because it advances discussions concerning conceptual clarity. This
has become an important issue in other areas of motivation research: Elliot and Dweck (2005)
advanced a conceptual clarity argument in reorienting the parochial “achievement motiva-
tion” terminology towards “competence motivation”; researchers investigating self-efficacy
have, on occasion, interpreted the construct incorrectly and inadvertently compromised the
construct validity of their scales (see Bandura, 2006; Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011); and
concepts of metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning have been conceptually
reviewed as ways to advance a theoretical case that they are subtypes of the same general phe-
nomenon (Kaplan, 2008; Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008). Thus, the development of debates
around conceptual issues is critical for rigorous debate and discussion of research issues, as
well as to provide a basis for empirical researchers to apply theoretical frameworks. Examples of
such frameworks in music education have been valuable in the areas of parental influences in
children’s music learning (McPherson, 2009), the interactions between parents, teachers, and
students (Creech & Hallam, 2003), and, indeed, in musical motivation (Hallam, 2002). Such
contributions highlight researchers’ underlying search for ever more unified and theoretically
sophisticated explanations for important issues of interest.
The aim of this article is to provide an SDT-based conceptual overview of motivation in
music learning. This overview examines the limited amount of research that has been carried
out to date in SDT in music learning and identifies areas for future research. Two key concepts
underlie SDT research. The first is the concept of basic psychological needs, the nutriments that
form fundamental motives for psychological growth and wellbeing. The second is internaliza-
tion, the process by which externally regulated behaviours are aligned with the self. Research
on these two key areas are reviewed throughout the article followed by an integrated theoreti-
cal approach provided as a potential basis for future research.
Examples throughout this article are given in relation to instrumental learning and school
music classrooms in the Western, mostly classical tradition. While acknowledging that these
contexts may seem somewhat parochial, instrumental learning remains one of the most com-
mon and popular ways in which people all over the world engage in learning a musical instru-
ment, and, particularly in Western contexts, is the subject of a large body of research including
the studies cited above and throughout this article. Notwithstanding these limitations, SDT is a
broad, psychological theory that seeks to explain human behaviour across cultural and politi-
cal boundaries. So while the emphasis of the illustrative examples in this article is on Western
instrumental and classroom motivation, the theoretical mechanisms described in this article
are likely to extend to music education settings outside of these contexts.

Basic psychological needs

A fundamental feature of SDT is basic psychological needs theory. This theory contends that
humans have an innate set of psychological needs. Through interactions with the social envi-
ronment, these needs are either fulfilled, leading to growth and psychological wellbeing, or they
are thwarted, leading to psychological illbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2002). SDT considers the needs to
be innate and universal—that is, a fundamental aspect of the human psyche—rather than
acquired from the social or cultural environment. Three needs are posited: competence, related-
ness, and autonomy. While other needs can be identified, these can usually be explained

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

68 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

conceptually either as a subset or as combinations of the three needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000a;
Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001).

Competence
The need for competence relates to a desire to be effective in one’s skills, abilities, and interac-
tions in the social environment (Elliot, McGregor, & Thrash, 2002). The need for compe-
tence grows out of effectance motivation, which is first evident in infants when they
experience the joy of effecting change in their environments (White, 1959). It evolved in
humans to provide the adaptive advantage of being able to develop skills for negotiating and
manipulating their environments in order to avoid danger, hunt for and locate food, and find
shelter (Elliot et al., 2002).
The need for competence in music learning has only been examined indirectly, rather than
specifically with an SDT focus. The underlying result appears to be in line with the competence
construct: That is, that experiences of competence and achievement have a motivating influ-
ence, while experiences of excessive difficulty and inability thwart the competence need, lead-
ing to feelings of ineffectance. In a voluntary activity such as music learning, people are likely
to give up when their need for competence is not fulfilled or if it is thwarted.
Much work surrounds the idea of beliefs about abilities, which have been a focus of many
researchers and contentious debate in recent decades. Some researchers argue for a genetic,
innate basis for musical abilities (Gagné, 2009) while others argue against the existence of
innate musical talents, and look to the social environment for explanations of high abilities
(Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998). Regardless of whether musical abilities are innate and
immutable, it is beliefs about whether they are innate or immutable that seem to matter. Those
who believe that their ability is fixed are likely to avoid challenging situations and will not
pursue learning, particularly if their ability is low, while those who believe their ability can be
improved through effort (a so-called “mastery orientation”) are more likely to pursue chal-
lenges, attribute failures to effort rather than fixed ability, and persist in the face of difficulty
(Dweck, 2000; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Such findings have been
made with tertiary music students (Smith, 2005) who demonstrated an ego-involvement
rather than mastery orientation to tasks if they had fixed views of musical ability. O’Neill and
Sloboda (O’Neill, 2011; O’Neill & Sloboda, 1997) found that children with a mastery orienta-
tion made better progress than those with a fixed orientation. Further, their examination of
practice revealed that those with a fixed orientation were doing twice as much practice as
those with a mastery orientation to achieve the same level of performance, suggesting that
they tended to do less effective and efficient practice. Matthews and Kitsantas (2013) reported
that collegiate instrumentalists in an ensemble reported higher collective efficacy and better
performance if their conductor had a mastery orientation than if they had a performance
orientation.

Relatedness
People depend on the formation of close bonds with others in complex social networks.
Environments that are supportive of relatedness are those that provide warmth and the ability
to connect with others in mutually beneficial ways. Relatedness is not a motive for an outcome
to be attained from or with others (e.g., sex, friendship); rather, it is the need to feel close and
connected with feelings of belongingness and acceptance by others (Baumeister & Leary,
1995). Music learning tends to occur in the context of many social relationships, including

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

Evans 69

with teachers, parents, other family members, and various groups of peers. Therefore, the need
for relatedness within the context of music education may be particularly salient.
One aspect of relatedness that has been examined in music learning is relationships between
students and parents. In a study by Davidson, Howe, Moore, and Sloboda (1996) of a sample of
257 students of a range of abilities, the groups with the highest levels of achievement also had
the highest levels of parental involvement and support in lessons. They also found an interac-
tion between parental involvement and achievement level, where those who achieved more
highly had parents who gradually withdrew their support as the students gained independ-
ence, while those who achieved less had parents whose involvement increased, perhaps as a
“last-ditch” effort to help the child have a meaningful experience with learning their instru-
ment before they gave up. A similar interaction finding was made by Simpkins, Vest, and Becnel
(2010) who examined parental involvement in relation to musical self-concept. Zdzinski (1996)
also examined the degree and frequency of parental involvement in 406 children’s learning
and found modest correlations between involvement and a range of music achievement, moti-
vation, and performance tests, of which the strongest associations were with the motivation
outcomes. McPherson and Davidson (2002) also examined mothers’ involvement in their chil-
dren’s practice in the first year of learning a musical instrument. In their study of 157 children,
they found that mothers could predict whether their child would need support to practise, and
those who thought they would need more reminders to practise had children who practised less
and were more likely to cease learning within one year. In each of these studies, parental
involvement may have impacted the children’s learning through the fulfilment of their need for
relatedness. Future SDT-based research may further clarify these findings by emphasizing the
quality of the parental involvement, because SDT makes strong predictions about the effects of
involvement that depend on whether the involvement is controlling or autonomy-supportive
(Grolnick, 2009; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007).
Relatedness may also play an important role in relationships with teachers. Research shows
dynamic changes in teacher relationships throughout various stages of learning. In a land-
mark study of over 90 concert pianists, Bloom (1985) found three stages to teacher relation-
ships: in the early years, musicians reported having enjoyable, informal, fun interactions with
their teachers. In the middle years, teachers had higher standards and emphasized technical
skill development. In the later years, teachers had the highest standards, and both teacher and
student forged a relationship dedicated to mastery. Davidson, Moore, Sloboda, and Howe (1998)
made similar findings: In the early stages, personal characteristics of teachers (warmth, friend-
liness) were more important than professional characteristics (technical ability, reputation),
but this reversed in the later stages of learning. Creech (2012) categorized descriptions of
teacher and student behaviour according to various types of relationships, revealing a range of
approaches from those who were highly directive to those who were more responsive. The con-
clusion that may be reached from these studies is that in the early stages of music learning, the
security of a warm, friendly relationship may provide an important backdrop for the later focus
on competence and mastery.
Finally, it is worth noting that music itself provides a natural means for social connected-
ness. Dagaz (2012) used an ethnographic approach to document the way in which a marching
band provided the social backdrop in which members perceived a culture of acceptance and
trust. This backdrop of trust and acceptance is a critical aspect of relatedness, and without it,
the fulfillment of the other needs of competence and autonomy is difficult. Evans, McPherson,
and Davidson (2013) noted that while some students felt pressure from their friends for partici-
pating in a school band program, which was perceived as being less “cool” than other activities,
the band itself provided an environment in which new relationships could be formed.

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

70 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

Interestingly, other students felt that participating in the band in high school socially ostracized
them, or thwarted their need for relatedness, and they left the band so that they might be
socially accepted elsewhere.

Autonomy
In everyday language, the concept of autonomy shares some conceptual territory with notions
of independence, freedom, and self-governance. Within SDT, however, autonomy is defined
more precisely. Autonomous behaviour is congruent with the sense of self, and arises with feel-
ings of volition, choice and being the cause of one’s behaviour. It is the opposite of controlled
behaviour. In teaching, a common misconception of autonomy support is that it is equated
with a laissez-faire, structure-free form of teaching. In contrast, structure has been shown to be
supportive, not aversive, to the fulfilment of autonomy in students (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010).
Music has traditionally been an area in which teaching practices tend not to support auton-
omy. Classical studio music teaching, for example, tends to be prescriptive, with the teacher
deciding upon a set of learning activities for a regular lesson, then assigning a practice agenda
for the interim period before the next lesson. The student tends to have little input into the sub-
ject of the lessons, with the teacher charting the direction of the student’s music learning
(Creech, 2012), often including the choice of repertoire. One indication of this comes from a
study of studio lessons that uncovered a much higher proportion of time occupied by teacher
talk than by student activity (Young, Burwell, & Puckup, 2003). Music teachers, particularly in
conservatories, can be demanding, sometimes perfectionistic, and controlling (Syrjala, Saarela,
& Lehtonen, 2004). Moreover, the Western classical tradition is one that encourages conform-
ity; creative and innovative interpretations are only acceptable at the highest levels of perfor-
mance (McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002). In ensemble settings, the repertoire is almost always
selected by an ensemble director. Overall, students tend to have little input, choice, and owner-
ship of their learning. While it may often not be the intention of teachers to set up such a rela-
tionship, it is this style of teaching that often emerges (Jørgensen, 2002).
Examining different contexts reveals some exceptions to the generalization that music edu-
cation settings tend not to be autonomy supportive. de Bézenac and Swindells (2009) con-
trasted classical music students with non-classical (folk and popular) music students.
Non-classical students “reported experiencing more pleasure in engaging in musical activities than
their classical counterparts” (de Bézenac & Swindells, 2009, p. 4). The researchers also
described tendencies of classical music learners to have more controlled external regulation.
However, these results are tentative at best because no information is provided regarding the
data collection, sample, or procedures for statistical analysis. A similar conclusion was reached
by MacIntyre and Potter (2014) who compared guitar students with piano students at univer-
sity. Guitar students had more willingness to play their instrument and more autonomy than
piano students. Again, the researchers attributed this difference to the formal and rigid style of
piano teaching compared with the more relaxed and friendly style of guitar teaching. Higher
levels of autonomy support in university teaching have also been linked with passion and per-
sistence in students (Bonneville-Roussy, Vallerand, & Bouffard, 2013).
One case study of a young student by Renwick and McPherson (2002) is particularly illustra-
tive of the effects of autonomy support on learning strategies. Clarissa, a 12-year old girl, had
been learning to play the clarinet for 3 years in a school band program. She was learning to play
a clarinet arrangement of La Cinquantaine by Jean-Gabriel Marie. Her teacher mentioned Woody
Herman’s swing arrangement of the piece, Golden Wedding, during a lesson, and Clarissa asked if
she could play it. In Clarissa’s subsequent practice sessions, she spent more than 12 times longer
per note practising Golden Wedding. Her practice was also more strategic: Rather than stumbling
Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015
Evans 71

aimlessly through the piece as she did with La Cinquantaine, she used sophisticated strategies
such as humming, repeating bars to correct and contextualize passages, and practising slowly
then increasing tempo. This remarkable difference in the amount and effectiveness of her prac-
tice was attributed to the choice of repertoire.
An important point to make is that structures are a key element of autonomy support. To
illustrate this, SDT researchers have examined non-Western collectivist cultural contexts,
where students seem to respond better to highly-structured, teacher-directed classrooms. Even
in these environments, students can feel autonomously motivated, because they endorse the
value of the class and trust the teacher to guide their learning (Chirkov, 2009; Jang et al., 2010;
Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009). Educators in these contexts can still support autonomy by
nurturing students’ motivational resources, using non-controlling, informational language,
and acknowledging students’ feelings and perspectives (Jang et al., 2010).

Supporting psychological needs fulfilment in music

Research conducted specifically with a basic psychological needs approach in music appears to
be limited to a small number of studies. Evans et al. (2013) measured psychological needs fulfil-
ment retrospectively for over 100 young adults who had commenced in a primary school band
program 10 years earlier, and found that greater psychological needs fulfilment was associated
with the time when the participants were highly engaged in music activities in school, and less
fulfilment and greater needs thwarting when the participants ceased learning and playing
their instrument. Furthermore, their descriptions of why they ceased playing music vividly
illustrate the experiences of the students, even though they were not directly asked about psy-
chological needs, as with the student who stated, “I felt like I was forced to play it in the first
place and then forced to practise music that was not of my choosing so I felt restricted and
oppressed” (Evans et al., 2013).
Evans (2009) also found correlations between basic needs fulfilment and subjective task
value in primary school, but not in high school, suggesting the possibility that needs fulfilment
in music activities early in life might be strongly associated with the formation of resilient val-
ues that remain unchanged regardless of high school experiences. Further research is needed
to develop more reliable and valid measures of psychological needs in the music context, and to
understand the kinds of experiences that fulfil psychological needs in music learning.
Table 1 outlines various strategies for the fulfilment of basic psychological needs and exam-
ples in music pedagogy. Within this table, the overlapping nature of the psychological needs is
clear. For example, acknowledging students’ feelings is listed under autonomy but it may be inter-
preted as an example of relatedness. Indeed this has been a problem for researchers measuring
psychological needs in more general domains (Johnston & Finney, 2010; Sheldon & Hilpert,
2012; Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006) because the high inter-correlations between the items also
make for difficult factor analysis. However, this reflects the complex and interrelated nature of
the psychological needs themselves. The examples listed in Table 1 are synthesized from various
sources (Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1996; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Reeve, 2002; Renwick & Reeve,
2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000a) and are speculative in nature. Further research through observa-
tion or intervention is required to examine the consequences of various pedagogical techniques
according to the theory.
One final note to make about psychological needs is that they need to be fulfilled in balance.
In a study by Sheldon and Niemiec (2006), the effect of balanced psychological needs, where
each need was met to a similar degree, outweighed the effect of imbalanced need fulfilment,
even when the total amount of need fulfilment across the three needs was greater. It should also

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

72 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

Table 1.  Examples of needs-supporting and needs-thwarting behaviour in music teaching.

Needs supporting Needs thwarting

Competence
Encourage a growth, rather than a fixed, Maintain perfectionistic standards in music
mindset (Dweck, 2000). lessons.
De-emphasize notions of talent and fixed Compare musical achievement and ability to
ability, and emphasize effort. that of peers.
Praise efforts and strategies (e.g., checking the Emphasize norm-referenced evaluation criteria
time signature and tempo before attempting as the main outcome of music learning (e.g.,
sightreading) rather than outcomes and the Australian Music Examinations Board
abilities (e.g., sightreading well, pleasing a [AMEB], Trinity College London [TCL]).
crowd). Emphasize success in music competitions and
Teach practice strategies that will lead to the eisteddfods as indicators of success in music
development of new skills. learning.
Relatedness
Facilitate interactions with peers (e.g., within Maintain strict standards.
a music studio where students may not Withhold affection and pleasantry.
otherwise interact). Ignore affect and mood of students.
Be perceptive of how music learning affects the Emphasize formal learning activities as the only
student’s role in peer groups. valuable ones.
Educate parents on the demands necessary for Manipulate students through feelings of guilt or
learning so as to minimize conflict (e.g., about shame for not following instructions.
the noise of practice in the home).
Develop a warm, bidirectional relationship
with the student.
Acknowledge that music may be one of many
competing activities and that friendships may
at times be more important than practice.
Autonomy
Provide rationales when providing Pressure students to perform well.
instructions (e.g., explain the benefits of Follow the same lesson plan each lesson.
drilling scales or practising sight-reading). Instruct students to do things “because the
Acknowledge students’ feelings (e.g., teacher said so.”
performance anxiety). Exclude students from planning learning
Provide choice of repertoire and learning activities.
activities (as long as there are not so many Emphasize rules and regulations.
choices that it is overwhelming and thwarts
Assign practice tasks without explaining why
competence).
or how to do them.
Assist students in developing meaningful
practice goals (e.g., master a particular section Assign arbitrary practice goals (e.g., practise for
of music). 20 minutes)
Encourage creative activities such as Use rewards and punishments to manipulate
improvisation and composition.  student behaviour.

be noted that imbalance in the fulfilment of needs can create conflict between each one. For
example, consider a student who is obsessed with pursuing musical practice at the expense of
maintaining any friendships. In this case, the student’s obsessive pursuit of competence is
depriving the ability to fulfil the need for relatedness (Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2013).

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

Evans 73

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in music

Research in SDT began with investigations of the relationship between doing something
because it is inherently interesting or pleasurable (intrinsic motivation; IM) and doing some-
thing for some reason other than the task itself (extrinsic motivation; EM) (Deci & Ryan, 1985b).
This distinction has long been a core concept within motivation research for much of the his-
tory of psychology. In Deci’s (1971) initial work on the subject, experimenters asked partici-
pants to solve puzzles that increased gradually in difficulty. They gave one group a monetary
reward for each puzzle solved, and another group no such reward. After a set time period, the
experimenters told the participants that the experiment had finished, and they left the room,
ostensibly to calculate the results while the participant waited. During this free-time period, the
no-reward group continued to solve more puzzles than the group that was provided the mone-
tary reward. The extrinsic reward had not increased the participants’ total motivation. Rather,
it had undermined the motivation they would otherwise have had for solving the puzzles. Deci’s
experiment marked the beginning of a long line of research conducted over subsequent dec-
ades on the nature of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and their effects on intrinsic behaviour
(for extensive review and meta-analysis, see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Harackiewicz,
Rozek, Hulleman, & Hyde, 2012). The key finding is of an interactive, rather than additive,
relationship: EM, particularly in the form of rewards, is likely to undermine, rather than com-
plement, IM (Deci et al., 2001). Similar phenomena extend to other external events, including
evaluation (testing or examination), surveillance, competition, and threats of punishment.
External motivators abound in music teaching and learning. Going to lessons, practising, and
persisting with the immense learning curve that instrumental music learning presents may lead
parents and teachers to use external motivators to encourage practice. External motivators are
tempting because of their intuitive appeal—it seems to make sense that adding rewards and
incentives to practise would facilitate children’s motivation. Indeed, SDT may challenge many
music teachers who have long observed the effects of their external motivators, such as gold
stars and stickers for practising and for playing well, because they often appear to work in the
immediate circumstances. Consider a student in a clarinet lesson who plays a piece well and is
rewarded with a gold star. They may respond with positive affect and comply with the teacher’s
directives at that particular time. But consider also this student’s motivation within the music
domain more broadly. While the gold star will appear to motivate compliant behaviour in the
clarinet lesson, it is unlikely to encourage the student to independently practise and master a
piece when the teacher ceases using the gold stars or is no longer present. The gold star has the
effect of distracting from the intrinsic value of the task itself. The emphasis becomes on the
immediate, short-term moment, at the expense of longer-term learning, persistence, and value,
and it prevents the student from internalizing a sense of motivation for music learning. Faulkner,
Davidson, and McPherson (2010) observed this effect when they found that some parents in
their study of 157 children had used rewards such as monetary allowance or TV-watching time
as an incentive to practice. Not one child in their study whose parents had used rewards contin-
ued beyond one year of learning or reported playing or learning music as adults.
High-stakes examinations are another form of external motivator. Examinations play a sig-
nificant role in music teaching and learning, particularly in countries such as the UK and
Australia, where systems such as AMEB, TCL and the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of
Music (ABRSM) are prevalent. These independent bodies specify a graded set of performance
standards plus various additional awards at higher levels and are widely recognized in the
countries in which they operate. The examination systems in many cases form the curricular

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

74 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

basis for studio teaching. SDT would normally predict that evaluations such as examinations
are external motivators and would thus undermine intrinsic motivation for playing an instru-
ment (Deci, 2009). However, a study of students preparing for AMEB examinations found that
their motivation for exam preparation was closer in quality to intrinsic motivation than
expected, though intrinsic motivation was still far more predictive of effective practice more
than extrinsic motivation (Renwick, 2008). In this case it may have been that students looked
to exams as ways to improve mastery of their instrument or repertoire, not as controlling,
involuntary events focused on evaluating their ability. While these examination systems are
immensely popular, there is a dearth of research on the effects of their structure on motivation
and learning. Further work is needed to understand the kinds of conditions in which examina-
tions may provide a scaffolded pathway for students to recognize milestones in their developing
abilities and to celebrate their achievements, rather than providing a competitive, pressuring,
and evaluative external form of regulation that inhibits student autonomy.

Subtypes of extrinsic motivation

In the development of research on IM and EM, researchers observed robust main effects for
external motivators undermining IM, but in many cases, people still experienced IM
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). At the same time, researchers realized that IM is simply not possi-
ble for every imaginable task, and that surely not all behaviours that were not intrinsically
motivated were maladaptive. Consider practising scales, which is not inherently an intrinsically
enjoyable task. It is difficult to see how students could be intrinsically motivated to play scales—
they are more likely to be extrinsically motivated. SDT contends that extrinsic motivation con-
sists of varying types on a continuum. At one end would be students who are relatively
externally motivated: They practise because their teacher told them to, because they receive
praise from their parents, because of a belief that it is good and right to practise scales for a set
amount of time each day, or because of some other external reward. At the other end of the
continuum would be students who are relatively internally motivated: They practise because
they understand how valuable scales may be for warming up, developing dexterity, practising
rhythm, and so on. These students may even internalize their motivation for scales so much
that they enjoy them, resembling something like intrinsic motivation.
One of the early experiments in this area (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984) asked
children who were painting to keep their materials (brushes, water, paints) clean while they
worked. One group was relatively internally motivated: Experimenters explained that keeping
their materials clean is helpful because it avoids mistakes on the painting and spills that would
have to be cleaned. The other was relatively externally motivated: Experimenters stated the
rules, without any explanation. The more internally motivated children created more creative
paintings than those of the more externally motivated children. The authors concluded that
they had experienced the explanation as one that supported their motivation, and they endorsed
the instruction because they understood its value. The externally motivated children experi-
enced the instruction as controlling and did not internalize its value. The experiment exposed
the value of a very simple pedagogical technique: explaining to students the value of a particu-
lar task can have a considerable impact on the quality of their motivation and creativity.

Types of motivation
Researchers distinguish four types of extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Ryan & Deci,
2000b) ranging from relatively external to relatively internal. Table 2 shows the classic

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

Evans 75

distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation, as well as the four types of
extrinsic motivation elaborated with examples of behaviours in music learning to illustrate the
phenomena in the model.
External regulation represents a kind of behaviour that is imposed on an individual by the
social environment and generally takes the form of some kind of external reward or threat of
punishment. In truly external regulation, there is no involvement of personal identity, personal
endorsement of the behaviour, or consideration of personal values. When external rewards
and punishments regulate behaviour, the only real response that can occur is either compliance
or defiance. External regulators do not encourage people to maintain behaviour in their absence.
External regulators are evident in learning environments in the form of mandated, high-stakes
examinations, monitoring, excessive pressure to do well, emphasis on comparisons of ability
with peers, and competitions.
Introjected regulation is much like external regulation, though the external regulators are
imposed onto the self in such a way that they become self-administered rewards and threats
of punishment. Self-control and ego become the major focus of regulation. Pride, guilt,
shame, and other emotional and self-worth contingencies are commonly associated with
introjected regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). For example, students motivated purely by the
ego-boosting feelings of pride after a big performance, students who practise simply because
they feel they should or ought to practise, and students who feel they have to perform
because they would otherwise feel guilty or ashamed, are likely to be experiencing intro-
jected regulation.
Identified regulation represents the first stage on the continuum where behaviours are under-
taken because the person identifies the importance and significance of an activity in relation to
self. The person endorses and values the activity, feeling as though their behaviour is initiated
and sustained by their own self, rather than by something from the environment.
Integrated regulation represents the most internal and self-determined form of extrinsic moti-
vation. It occurs when a person not only identifies the importance of behaviours for goals con-
sidered to be close to the sense of self, but assimilates and synthesizes these regulations and
goals with other aspects of the self. As such, it strongly resembles intrinsic motivation.
Integrated regulation includes compatibility between life goals and the behaviours associated
with them. When a student practises because they want to become a better musician, and this
goal is fully aligned with goals that are intrinsic to their sense of self, they display integrated
regulation.

Internalizing motivation to practise

It follows that because integrated regulation and identified regulation are relatively close to the
self, they can be developed as ways to motivate behaviour that enhance, rather than under-
mine, intrinsic motivation. In music, many students commence learning for external reasons:
at a parent’s suggestion, because friends are doing the same activity, or because they want
something to occupy their time. Others may commence for intrinsic reasons: they like the
sound of the instrument from a young age, or the spontaneous creation of songs prompting
their parents to find them a music teacher. Both situations require specific efforts on behalf of
the student’s teacher or their parents. Using external pressures and demands such as excessive
praise and controlling teaching may discourage the internally motivated students and move
them toward external motivation. But starting with such practices may not be as damaging to
the externally motivated students, as long as the teacher’s focus is on gradually assisting the
student to internalize their motivations.

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

 76

Table 2.  Types of extrinsic motivation with music-relevant behaviours (adapted from Ryan and Deci, 2000b).

Type of Amotivation Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic Motivation

Motivation
Behavioural No regulation External Introjected Identified Integrated Intrinsic
regulation
Perceived locus Impersonal Relatively Relatively Internal Internal
of causality External
Characteristics No intention Rewards and Guilt, shame Social Understanding Identity pursuits are Behaviour is
and behaviours No behaviour punishments approval Ego the value and aligned with the self undertaken for its
Low perceived Compliance involvement importance of own sake
competence and defiance behaviour to identity
Music practice “I don’t want “I will get in “I practise because “It is important for “I know that “I enjoy playing
relevant to practise.” trouble if I I am supposed to.” me to practise.” if I want to be my favorite pieces.”
behaviours “Practising seems don’t do it.” “I “I will feel proud “I don’t enjoy a professional “When I play my
pointless, I’m not chose music of myself if I can practising but I can musician one day, instrument, I lose
a good musician because it practise.” “I will see that it will help I need to practise track of time and get

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

anyway.” “I don’t is an easy feel bad if I don’t me to learn this a lot.” “I practise lost in the moment.”
understand why subject.” practise.” “My difficult piece.” because music is “I love playing my
I should bother “I practise family will think I the most important instrument.”
practising.” because my am a good boy/girl if thing to me.”
mum said to.” I practise.”
Musicae Scientiae 19(1)
Evans 77

Renwick (2008) studied 677 school-aged children and adolescents who were preparing for
music performance examinations. Using an adapted form of the Academic Self-Regulation
Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989), Renwick examined the students’ motivations to under-
take practice behaviour and to study motives for preparing for their upcoming examination.
Despite being tested on the day following their high-stakes examination, many of the students
endorsed items in the questionnaire related to internal motivation. Renwick interpreted this
result as an indication that this young sample was resilient to the externalizing effects of high-
stakes examinations—in other words, that the examinations did not thwart their need for
autonomy. Another possible interpretation is that the examination material is so embedded
into the curriculum that students do not perceive it as controlling: They may see it as intrinsi-
cally central to the activity, and as an opportunity for themselves to bring to fruition work that
has otherwise been internally motivated. Yet another interpretation lies in the method used to
assess motivation: the items used were explicitly related to exam preparation and practice, so
they were more likely to produce a factor related positively to the exams, particularly given that
the questionnaire was completed immediately following the exam. Renwick’s study is therefore
important in clarifying the relationship between students’ internalization and motivation for
exam preparation in the context of their overall motivation for music learning and practice,
and warrants further investigation.

An integrated theoretical approach

The two theoretical ideas outlined in this article—the fulfilment of basic psychological needs,
and the types of motivation ranging from regulation external to the self to regulation by the
self—are connected. Motivation for an activity is internalized to the extent that the activity
satisfies basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Teachers, parents, and peers of music
students can do things to ensure that basic psychological needs are fulfilled—providing oppor-
tunities for competence motivation, providing an environment of social connectedness and
belongingness to support relatedness, and providing choice, acknowledging feelings, and nur-
turing inner motivational resources to support autonomy. The more these needs are fulfilled,
the more a music student is able to integrate the values of the social environment and of the
task of learning music—practising, performing, developing musical skills—into their identity
and sense of self. The reverse relationship also occurs: Doing an activity for internal reasons
rather than external motives is in itself inherently needs-fulfilling.
According to a hierarchical model of motivation proposed by Vallerand (1997), and
Vallerand and Ratelle (2002), motivation is experienced at several levels, illustrated in Figure 1.
The global level reflects an overall motivational disposition. This motivational disposition can be
experienced as autonomous, controlled, or impersonal, and has strong associations with
important life outcomes such as wellbeing and self-concept (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The contex-
tual level reflects life domains, such as work, sports, family life, and social activities. People can
be motivated in different ways in different domains; for example, they could feel very controlled
and extrinsically motivated at work, but experience fully integrated motivation in their family
life. Finally, the situational level represents moment-to-moment events in people’s lives. A music
student could experience a particular music lesson or interaction with their teacher as very
controlling, while the next could be more internally motivated.
According to the hierarchical model (Vallerand, 1997), bidirectional influences exist at each
level of the hierarchy. For example, a student who experienced a particularly negative interac-
tion with their teacher at the situational level would experience some decline in their motivation
for music at the contextual level. If they persisted, such experiences would leave them with a

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

78 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

Figure 1.  Hierarchical model of motivation in music learning (adapted with permission from Vallerand,
1997).

diminishing motivation for music—one that becomes more and more externalized. They would
likely start to regard music at the contextual level as a fairly unenjoyable activity. This would
influence their motivation in other domains. If they also had the same experiences of psycho-
logical needs thwarting in those other domains, they would experience a fairly external global
motivation orientation, one that is associated less with wellbeing and more with illbeing.

Concluding remarks
The question of how music teachers and parents can motivate their students and children to
practise may be misguided. Many strategies in common usage by parents and teachers are,
according to SDT, ineffective, and may inadvertently undermine motivation in undesirable
ways. The better question to consider is, how can parents and teachers create social environ-
ments in which their students are more likely to generate their own interest, enjoyment, and
motivation, so that they can identify the value of musical practice, integrate it with their sense
of self, and find intrinsic motivation in the inherent rewards that musical engagement has to
offer? This article has drawn from existing research in music education that aligns with SDT
phenomena, demonstrating empirical support that SDT may be an effective framework with
which to view motivation in music learning. Furthermore, it has drawn particular themes from
the literature about aspects of the social environment of music learning that may be particu-
larly relevant: The nature of studio instruction, differences between formal and informal learn-
ing, music examinations, and music practice as the main activity that improves musical ability.
These issues and many more have been longstanding themes within the music education litera-
ture, particularly with respect to motivation.
Learning music requires immense motivational resources. According to SDT, enticing chil-
dren to practise by using rewards and punishments, encouraging ego-involvement through the
use of excessive praise or ego-avoidance through the imposition of guilt or shame, teaching in
a controlling and prescriptive way, and encouraging damaging levels of competitiveness may
be at best ineffective strategies, and at worst, deeply harmful to their music motivation and their
wellbeing. There is little doubt that a systematic program of research with this perspective is a

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

Evans 79

productive and important endeavor for researchers interested in understanding motivation for
music learning. Notwithstanding a need for research on these issues, it seems clear that music
learning is best motivated within a social environment that fulfils basic psychological needs—
competence, relatedness, and autonomy—experiences that are as closely associated with
health and wellbeing as music itself.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.

References
Asmus, E. P. (1986a). Achievement motivation characteristics of music education and music therapy
students as identified by attribution theory. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 86,
71–85.
Asmus, E. P. (1986b). Student beliefs about the causes of success and failure in music: A study of achieve-
ment motivation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 262–278.
Austin, J. R., Renwick, J. M., & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Developing motivation. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.),
The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 213–238). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of perfor-
mance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045–2068.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–338). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117, 497.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
Bonneville-Roussy, A., Vallerand, R. J., & Bouffard, T. (2013). The roles of autonomy support and har-
monious and obsessive passions in educational persistence. Learning and Individual Differences, 24,
22–31.
Chirkov, V. I. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of autonomy in education. Theory and Research in Education,
7, 253–262.
Creech, A. (2012). Interpersonal behaviour in one-to-one instrumental lessons: An observational analy-
sis. British Journal of Music Education, 29(03), 387–407.
Creech, A., & Hallam, S. (2003). Parent–teacher–pupil interactions in instrumental music tuition: A lit-
erature review. British Journal of Music Education, 20, 29–44.
Dagaz, M. C. (2012). Learning from the band: Trust, acceptance, and self-confidence. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 41, 432–461.
Davidson, J. W., & Burland, K. (2006). Musician identity formation. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The child
as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 475–488). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., Moore, D. G., & Sloboda, J. A. (1996). The role of parental influences in
the development of musical performance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 399–412.
Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G., Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1998). Characteristics of music teachers
and the progress of young instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 141–160.
de Bézenac, C., & Swindells, R. (2009). No pain, no gain? Motivation and self-regulation in music learn-
ing. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 10(16), 1–33.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Deci, E. L. (2009). Large-scale school reform as viewed from the self-determination theory perspective.
Theory and Research in Education, 7, 244–252.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. F., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education:
Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

80 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in person-
ality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York:
Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 165–183.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York:
Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Competence and motivation: Competence as the core of achievement
motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 3–11). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). The need for competence. In E. L. Deci & R. M.
Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 361–387). Rochester, New York: University
of Rochester Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition
of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
Evans, P. (2009). Psychological needs and social-cognitive influences on music learning. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 70(06) (AAT 3362780).
Evans, P., & McPherson, G. E. (2014). Identity and practice: The motivational benefits of a long-term
musical identity. Psychology of Music [Online First]. doi: 10.1177/0305735613514471
Evans, P., & McPherson, G. E. (in press). Processes of musical identity consolidation during adolescence.
In D. Hargreaves, R. A. R. Macdonald, & D. Miell (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Musical Identities. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Evans, P., McPherson, G. E., & Davidson, J. W. (2013). The role of psychological needs in ceasing music
and music learning activities. Psychology of Music, 41, 600–619.
Faulkner, R., Davidson, J. W., & McPherson, G. E. (2010). The value of data mining in music education
research and some findings from its application to a study of instrumental learning during childhood.
International Journal of Music Education, 28, 212–230.
Gagné, F. (2009). Debating giftedness: Pronat vs antinat. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on
giftedness (Vol. 1, pp. 155–204). New York: Springer.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 26, 331–362.
Grolnick, W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation for education.
Theory and Research in Education, 7, 164–173.
Hallam, S. (1998). The predictors of achievement and dropout in instrumental tuition. Psychology of
Music, 26, 116–132.
Hallam, S. (2002). Musical motivation: Towards a model synthesising the research. Music Education
Research, 4, 225–244.
Hallam, S. (2011). Motivation to learn. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
music psychology (pp. 285–294). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adoles-
cents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological
Science, 23, 899–906.
Hargreaves, D. J., Macdonald, R. A. R., & Miell, D. (2012). Musical identities mediate musical develop-
ment. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp.
125–142). New York: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

Evans 81

Hargreaves, D. J., & Marshall, N. A. (2003). Developing identities in music education. Music Education
Research, 5, 263–274.
Hendricks, K. S. (2013). Changes in self-efficacy beliefs over time: Contextual influences of gender, rank-
based placement, and social support in a competitive orchestra environment. Psychology of Music,
42, 347–365.
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioural and
Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy sup-
port or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3),
588.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies
the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101, 644–661.
Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research
and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 280–296.
Jørgensen, H. (2002). Instrumental performance expertise and amount of practice among instrumental
students in a conservatoire. Music Education Research, 4, 105–119.
Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: What’s the pur-
pose? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 477–484.
Klassen, R., Tze, V. C., Betts, S., & Gordon, K. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of
progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behaviour: The dif-
ferential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal
of Personality, 52, 233–248.
La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close rela-
tionships. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49, 201–209.
Legette, R. M. (1998). Causal beliefs of public school students about success and failure in music. Journal
of Research in Music Education, 46, 102–111.
Lowe, G. (2011). Class music learning activities: Do students find them important, interesting and useful?
Research Studies in Music Education, 33, 143–159.
Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its
relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Potter, G. K. (2014). Music motivation and the effect of writing music: A comparison
of pianists and guitarists. Psychology of Music, 42, 403–419.
Martin, A. J. (2008). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a multidimensional frame-
work in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality, 76, 135–170.
Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). The role of the conductor’s goal orientation and use of shared
performance cues on collegiate instrumentalists’ motivational beliefs and performance in large musi-
cal ensembles. Psychology of Music, 41, 630–646.
McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34,
322–336.
McPherson, G. E. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stages of learn-
ing an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33, 5–35.
McPherson, G. E. (2009). The role of parents in children’s musical development. Psychology of Music, 37,
91–110.
McPherson, G. E., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Musical practice: Mother and child interactions during the
first year of learning an instrument. Music Education Research, 4, 141–156.
McPherson, G. E., & Gabrielsson, A. (2002). From sound to sign The science and psychology of music perfor-
mance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 99–116). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (1999). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of musi-
cal practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98–102.

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

82 Musicae Scientiae 19(1)

McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34,
322–336.
Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., & Williams,
G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7(4), 325–340.
Nielsen, S. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and individual practice: A study
of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32, 418–431.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying
self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144.
Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a
self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 444–453.
O’Neill, S. A. (2011). Developing a young musician’s growth mindset: The role of motivation, self-theo-
ries, and resiliency. In I. Deliège & J. W. Davidson (Eds.), Music and the mind: Essays in honour of John
Sloboda (pp. 31–46). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. A., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Motivation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science
and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 31–46). New York:
Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. A., & Sloboda, J. A. (1997). The effects of failure on children’s ability to perform a musical test.
Psychology of Music, 25, 18–34.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involve-
ment in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77,
373–410.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–201). Rochester, New York: University of
Rochester Press.
Renwick, J. M. (2008). Because I love playing my instrument: Young musicians’ internalised motivation and
self-regulated practising behaviour. (PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia). Retrieved
from http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/40823
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.
Renwick, J. M., & Reeve, J. (2012). Supporting motivation in music education. In G. E. McPherson & G. F.
Welch (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Music Education (Vol. 1, pp. 143–162). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons
for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological
needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical per-
spective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., Patrick, H., Deci, E. L., & Williams, G. C. (2008). Facilitating health behaviour change and
its maintenance: Interventions based on self-determination theory. The European Health Psychologist,
10, 2–5.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2013). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applica-
tions (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?
Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–339.
Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs (BMPN) scale: An
alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 439–451.
Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction
also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 331.

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

Evans 83

Simpkins, S., Vest, A., & Becnel, J. (2010). Participating in sport and music activities in adolescence: The
role of activity participation and motivational beliefs during elementary school. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39, 1368–1386.
Smith, B. P. (2005). Goal orientation, implicit theory of ability, and collegiate instrumental music prac-
tice. Psychology of Music, 33, 36–57.
Standage, M., Gillison, F. B., Ntoumanis, N., & Treasure, D. C. (2012). Predicting students’ physical activ-
ity and health-related well-being: A prospective cross-domain investigation of motivation across
school physical education and exercise settings. Journal of Sport & Exercise psychology, 34, 37–60.
Syrjala, M., Saarela, H., & Lehtonen, K. (2004). The relationship between master music teachers and
master students: Counseling concerns. Gifted Education International, 19, 275–278.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271–360.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting:
Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social psychology,
72(5), 1161.
Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In
E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 37–64). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-
determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. Advances in
motivation and achievement, 16, 105–165.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66,
297–233.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld,
P. C. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elemen-
tary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469.
Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Zeldman, A., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Testing a self-deter-
mination theory process model for promoting glycemic control through diabetes self-management.
Health Psychology, 23(1), 58.
Young, V., Burwell, K., & Puckup, D. (2003). Areas of study and teaching strategies in instrumental
teaching: A case study research project. Music Education Research, 5, 139–155.
Zdzinski, S. F. (1996). Parental involvement, selected student attributes, and learning outcomes in instru-
mental music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 34–48.

Downloaded from msx.sagepub.com by guest on October 21, 2015

View publication stats