MENC: The National Association for Music Education

Relations among Motivation, Performance Achievement, and Music Experience Variables inSecondary Instrumental Music StudentsAuthor(s): Charles P. SchmidtReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Summer, 2005), pp. 134-147Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of MENC: The National Association for Music EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345514 .Accessed: 13/10/2012 16:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and MENC: The National Association for Music Education are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Research in Music Education.

http://www.jstor.org

134 JRME 2005, VOLUME 53, NUMBER 2, 134-147

The purpose of this study was to (1) reexamine academic achievement motivation ori- entations within the context of instrumental music, and (2) examine relations among achievement motivation orientations, self-concept in instrumental music, and atti- tude to band in relation to teachers' ratings of performance achievement and effort, and students'grade level, gender, instrument, self-reported practice time, and selected music experience variables. Participants (N = 300) were band students (Grades 7-12) in four school districts. Data were gathered concerning students' (a) motiva- tion orientations (mastery, intrinsic, individual, cooperative, ego, competitive, approach success, avoid failure), self-concept, and commitment to band; (b) instru- ment, grade level and gender, practice time per week, and experience in private lessons, solo festival, and all-county band; and (c) performance achievement and effort as rated by their teachers. Results indicated that ratings of performance and effort were most strongly correlated with self-concept and intrinsic motivation, respectively. Practice time was most strongly correlated with intrinsic motivation. Factor analysis revealed three factors of motivation: Learning/Task Orientation, Performance/Ego Orientation, and Individual Orientation. The factors essentially replicated those found in a general academic achievement setting. Learning/Task Orientation was positively correlated with practice time, ratings of performance and effort, solo festival and private-lesson experience, and grade level. Performance/Ego Orientation was negatively correlated with grade level and solo festival ratings. Individual Orientation scores were positively correlated with ratings of performance and effort and solo festival ratings. Differences by gender and instrument group were non- significant.

Charles P. Schmidt, Indiana University

Relations among

Motivation, Performance

Achievement, and Music

Experience Variables in

Secondary Instrumental

Music Students

The author gratefully acknowledges Kevin Bleiler, Stephen Bloom, Scott Bradley, Nancy Russo, Alden Snell, and Jared Streiff for their generous assistance in this research. Charles P. Schmidt is a professor of music and coordinator of graduate stud- ies in music education in the School of Music, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405; e-mail: schmidtc@indiana.edu. Copyright @ 2005 by MENC: The National Association for Music Education.

JRME 135

Motivation of students is an important issue facing instrumental music educators. A growing body of motivational research involving instrumental music students has focused on (a) the development of instrumentation (e.g., Fortney, 1992; Hartley, 1991); (b) compar- isons of motivation and attitude by age or gender (e.g., Asmus, 1986; Sandene, 1997; Zdzinski, 2002) or by program characteristics (Hartley, 1991); and (c) the prediction of performance achievement (e.g., Austin, 1988; 1991; Klinedinst, 1991), student perceptions of teaching (e.g., Schmidt & Stephans, 1991), or attrition (e.g., Sandene, 1987, 1997). This research has primarily involved elemen- tary or middle school students (e.g., Austin, 1988, 1991; Hartley, 1991; Klinedinst, 1991; McPherson & McCormick, 2000; Sandene, 1997) and, to a lesser extent, high school students (e.g., Fortney, 1992; McPherson & McCormick, 2000; Zdzinski, 2002).

Among motivation theories, attribution theory in particular has received considerable attention in music. The research indicates that music students have significantly greater tendencies toward internal attributions (ability and effort) over external attributions (luck, task difficulty) for success and failure (e.g., Asmus, 1995; Austin & Vispoel, 1998), and these seem to be consistent across grade levels (e.g., Asmus, 1986, Legette, 1998; McPherson & McCormick, 2000; Schmidt, 1995), school settings, and music populations (e.g., Asmus, 1986; Legette, 1998). Furthermore, students who persist in instru- mental music have been found to have greater internal locus of con- trol (Sandene, 1987) and higher self-esteem and effort attributions (Sandene, 1997) when compared with dropouts.

Asmus (1995) has suggested that motivation may explain approxi- mately 20% of the variance in music achievement and related behav- iors. The evidence, however, is mixed. Ability attributions, for exam- ple, have been linked with cognitive achievement in junior high gen- eral music students (Austin & Vispoel, 1998; Vispoel & Austin, 1995), and effort attributions have correlated positively with instrumental- ists' practice time (Chandler, Chiarella & Auria, 1988). Conversely, Austin (1988) observed no association between either internal or external attributions and performance achievement of elementary band students, and Miksza (in press) found that locus of control did not predict high school trombonists' performance achievement. Klinedinst (1991) reported that, although academic achievement and music audiation (in order) predicted performance achievement of beginning band students, motivation, attitude, and self-concept did not. Likewise, Austin (1991) found no difference in performance achievement between elementary band students who had been exposed to competitive versus noncompetitive goal structures.

The conflicting results suggest that greater clarity is needed con- cerning motivation constructs and their measurement in instrumen- tal music. In one such attempt, Sandene (1997), in a study involving a sample of 672 students in Grades 5-8, investigated relations among students' (a) motivation and self-esteem in instrumental music, (b) task/goal orientation (i.e., intrinsic motivation) and ego/goal orien-

136 SCHMIDT

tation (i.e., valuing of normative, external feedback), (c) attributions for ability, effort, environment, affect, and background, and (d) teachers' ratings of student motivation.

Results indicated that students' task orientation had moderately high correlations with motivation in instrumental music, self-esteem, and internal attributions, while students' ego orientation had a sole significant (but low) negative correlation with motivation to instru- mental music. Teachers' ratings of motivation were moderately cor- related with self-esteem and had low correlations with effort and abil- ity attributions. Similarly, relations for teachers' ratings with task and

ego variables and attributions of affect, environment, and back- ground attributions were very low. In contrast, the strongest relations were found between self-esteem and motivation in instrumental music, task orientation, and internal attributions. Although the results suggest the existence of underlying motivation factors, factor analysis was not used.

Sandene found grade-level differences in motivation in instru- mental music, personal task orientation, and selected attributions. With the exception of background attributions, all gender differ- ences were nonsignificant for the student motivation variables. These results suggest that task versus ego orientations and their interaction with grade and gender should be studied in relation to instrumental

performance achievement. The present study addressed this ques- tion directly.

Recently, Marsh, Craven, Hinkley, and Debus (2003) have hypoth- esized task/learning versus performance/ego orientations as two

higher-order factors of academic achievement motivation. Drawing on landmark work (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984; Ryan & Deci, 2000), Marsh et al. defined task orientation as intrinsic motivation and learning goals, whereas they defined ego orientation as extrinsic motivation and performance goals (p. 194). Marsh et al. investigated the hypothesized two-factor model by means of the following moti- vation orientations: mastery, intrinsic, cooperation, individual, ego, competition, approach success (i.e., positive feedback), and avoid failure (i.e., negative feedback). Their sample included 606 high- achieving students in Grades 3-6 from 23 Australian schools. Strong support was found for internal and retest reliability, and for construct validity. Factor analysis with oblique rotation revealed two higher- order factors: Task and Performance. A simple structure was attained, and loadings were highly stable across both administra- tions. The Task factor was best defined by mastery and intrinsic ori- entations. Cooperation loaded only moderately on the Task factor, while individual orientation did not load strongly on either factor. The Performance factor was defined by the variables of competition, ego, avoid failure, and approach success; the latter variable also had modest loadings on the Task factor. The two factors had negligible relations with age and gender.

Marsh et al. concluded that there was moderately strong support for the two-factor model of motivation: Over 90% of the variance in

JRME 137

ego and competition was explained by the higher-order factors, although a majority of the variance remained unexplained for the cooperative, individual, avoid failure, and achieve success orienta- tions. Thus, the authors cautioned that both the first- and second- order factors should be considered in future research.

The purpose of the present study was to (1) reexamine the Marsh et al. achievement orientation variables within the context of instru- mental music, and (2) examine relations among achievement orien- tations, self-concept in instrumental music, and attitude to band in relation to teachers' ratings of performance achievement and effort, self-reported practice time, and selected demographic and music experience variables. The research questions were as follows:

1. To what extent are motivation orientations, self-concept in instrumental music, and attitude to band correlated?

2. To what extent are these variables related to ratings of perfor- mance and effort, practice time, music experience, and demograph- ic variables?

3. What is the factor structure underlying the set of motivation variables?

4. To what extent are the identified factors related to ratings of performance and effort, practice time, music experience, and demo- graphic variables?

METHOD

Participants

Participants were Grade 7-12 students (N= 300) enrolled in band programs in four school districts in New York and Massachusetts. The sample included 131 male students (43.7%) and 169 female students (56.1%). Grade level distributions were as follows: Grade 7 (n = 58), Grade 8 (n = 47), Grade 9 (n = 67), Grade 10 (n = 49), Grade 11 (n = 42), and Grade 12 (n = 36). All participants had been playing a band instrument for at least 2 years. They were the students of six instru- mental teachers, each of whom had a minimum of 3 years' teaching experience; five of the six teachers had taught in their districts for at least 5 years. The school districts varied in size (i.e., Grade 7-12 enrollments of 600 to 2,200), music program characteristics (e.g., student-to-music-teacher ratio, ensemble performance level, degree of festival participation, inclusion of jazz, and marching band), and demographic location (suburban, rural).

Survey Instrument

A survey instrument was developed to gather information con- cerning (a) grade level, instrument, gender, years of experience in band, and practice time per week, (b) participation in private lessons, all-county band, and solo and ensemble festival; and (c) grade level of solos and ratings received at solo festival. The solo fes-

138 SCHMIDT

tival data were transformed into a 20-point ordinal scale on the basis of four division ratings within each grade level (e.g., grade II-level solo with rating of satisfactory = 1; grade VI solo with rating of out- standing = 20).

The survey also presented 58 randomly ordered 5-point Likert items, which in turn were used to define continuous scales for the variables of commitment to band, self-concept in instrumental music, and the motivation variables (mastery, intrinsic, individual, cooperative, competitive, ego, approach success, avoid failure). Items defining commitment to band and self-concept in instrumental music were adapted from Asmus and Harrison's (1990) measure. The motivation orientation scales were adapted slightly from those developed by Marsh et al. (2003). Items such as "I do my school work because I like learning new things" were rephrased (e.g., "I practice my music because I like learning new things"). Each of the motiva- tion scales had a maximum possible range of 30 points, and self-con- cept had a maximum possible of 20 points. Examples of items for each scale are shown in Figure 1. Given the very slight rephrasing of items from previously published measures, no pilot study was under- taken.

Teacher Ratings of Performance Achievement and Effort

Teachers were asked to rate individual performance achievement (excluding any consideration of the student's attitude) and overall effort (excluding any consideration of the student's performance achievement). Thus, teachers were instructed to make independent judgments of performance and effort in order to reduce as much as possible any halo effect from one category to the other. For both tasks, teachers rated the student in comparison with all students they had taught at the given grade level by using the following scale: (1) lowest 10%, (2) lowest 25%, (3) lower 40%, (4) middle 20%, (5) upper 40%, (6) highest 25%, (7) highest 10%. Retest reliability (within a three-week interval) was determined for ratings of 164 stu- dents (55% of the sample) and was found to be high for both scales (r= .95).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for all continuous variables and reliability coefficients appear in Table 1. Internal reliability coefficients for the motivation variables were high to very high (ac = .80 to .93). The non- normal distributions (i.e., those with Skewness > + 1.00) for mastery orientation, N of years for all-county band, N of years of private lessons, and practice time per week were normalized in subsequent analyses. The results for categorical experience variables were as fol- lows: 39.4% of the sample had participated in all-county band; 37.6% had studied privately on their instrument; and 55.7% had participat- ed in solo festival.

JRME 139

Mastery: I feel most successful in band when I reach my own goals. I feel most successful in band when I really improve.

Intrinsic: I practice my music because I enjoy a challenge. I do my assigned work in band because the music we learn is really interesting.

Individual: I learn the most in music when I work on my own. I do my best work in music when I work on my own.

Cooperative: I learn the most in music when I work with other students. I like to help other people do well in band.

Competitive: I like trying to do better than other students in music. I work harder in music when I try to do better than other students.

Ego: I feel most successful in band when I am the best. I feel most successful in band when I know more than other students.

Approach I do my assigned work in band because I want to receive Success: high grades from my teacher.

I do my assigned work because I want my band teacher to think that I am a good musician.

Avoid Failure: I do my assigned work in band because I DO NOT want my teacher to think that I am a poor student. I do my assigned work in band because I DO NOT want to receive criticism from my teacher.

Commitment Band is a very important part of my life. to Band: I am willing to work harder on band than on anything else.

Self-Concept: I am an excellent music student. I am confident in my ability to perform on my instrument.

Figure 1. Examples of Motivation Scale Items.

In general, students held a relatively strong musical self-concept, (M = 14.54, maximum possible = 20). Among the motivation vari- ables, the highest means, M = 25.25 and M = 22.25, in order, were found for mastery and cooperative orientations (maximum possible = 30). By contrast, relatively low means of 18.72, 18.59, and 18.71, respectively, were observed for competitive and ego orientations and commitment to band. The latter variable had the greatest variability

140 SCHMIDT

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients for Continuous Variables (N = 300)

Variable M SD Sk a

Commitment to Band 18.71 6.64 -.21 .93 Self-Concept in Music 14.54 3.67 -.82 .85 Mastery Orientation 25.25 4.28 -1.40 .88 Intrinsic Orientation 20.68 5.42 -.55 .88 Individual Orientation 19.62 5.19 -.09 .82 Cooperative Orientation 22.25 4.82 -.76 .83 Competitive Orientation 18.72 5.71 -.17 .89 Ego Orientation 18.59 5.63 -.08 .88 Achieve Success 21.35 4.71 -.43 .80 Avoid Failure 20.28 5.39 -.48 .84 Teacher Ratings-

Performance 4.73 1.53 -.29 Teacher Ratings-

Effort 4.68 1.63 -.25 N of yrs.-All-County Band .90 1.47 2.02 N of yrs.-Private Lessons .74 1.24 2.02 Highest Solo Rating 14.19 4.60 -.55 Practice Time per Week 115.82 128.59 2.31

(in minutes)

and indicated that the full range of attitudes to band existed within the sample.

For all inferential analyses, a was set at p < .001. Interitem correla- tions within each of the motivation scales were statistically significant and moderately high to high, with the median r for each set ranging from .43 (achieve success) to .68 (commitment to band). Results of confirmatory factor analyses provided evidence in support of the construct validity of each motivation variable (i.e., for each, items loaded on a single factor each with an Eigenvalue > 1.00). For each variable, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values and median factor loadings were, in order, commitment to band (.90, .87), self-concept in music (.81, .84), mastery (.89, .79), intrinsic (.90, .82), individual (.83, .82), cooperative (.82, .73), competitive (.90, .81), ego (.88, .81), achieve success (.76, .68), and avoid failure (.82, .79). In all cases, the results of Bartlett's tests were significant (p < .001).

To address the first research question, correlations were deter- mined among motivation variables (Table 2). Commitment to band was significantly positively correlated with intrinsic, cooperative, mas- tery, and individual orientations, and self-concept. The relation between commitment to band and approach success was significant, but low. Competitive and ego orientations were very highly correlat- ed as were the approach success and avoid failure orientations. The correlation between mastery and intrinsic orientations was also sig-

JRME 141

Table 2 Pearson Correlations among Motivation Variables (N = 300)

Self Mast Intrin Indiv Coop Comp Ego Succ Fail

Commit .47** .58** .70** .25** .46** .14 .06 .27** .08 Self-Concept .42** .54** .40** .29** .32** .22* .30** .16 Mastery .69** .21* .55** .28** .22* .47** .28** Intrinsic .26** .52** .26** .17 .44** .20 Individual -.16 .23** .16 .23** .23** Cooperative .13 .05 .30** .15 Competitive .86** .43** .40** Ego .42** .37** Success .76**

* p < .001; ** p < .0001.

Note. Commit = Commitment to Band; Self = Self-Concept; Mast = Mastery; Intrin = Intrinsic; Indiv = Individual; Coop = Cooperative; Comp = Competitive; Succ = Approach Success; Fail = Avoid Failure.

nificant and relatively strong. Moderate, positive correlations were found for (a) self-concept with mastery, intrinsic, and individual ori- entations, (b) mastery orientation with cooperative and approach success orientations, (c) intrinsic with cooperative and approach suc- cess, and (d) achieve success with competitive and ego orientations. Except for its correlation with competitive and mastery orientations, ego orientation was not significantly related to other motivation vari- ables. Likewise, while competitive orientation was significantly corre- lated with ego, achieve success, and avoid failure orientations, its cor- relations with other variables were low. Notably, ego and competitive and avoid failure orientations were not correlated significantly with commitment to band. Cooperative orientation was not correlated with ego, competitive, or avoid failure orientations, nor was there a significant negative relationship between cooperative orientation and these variables as might be hypothesized.

To address Research Question 2, correlations were determined between the motivation variables and student achievement, experi- ence, and demographic variables (Table 3). Teachers' ratings of per- formance and effort were correlated at .74 (p < .001). Hence a com- posite measure of performance and effort was also calculated. Self- concept, commitment to band, and intrinsic orientation had signifi- cantly moderate correlations with teachers' ratings of performance achievement. Correlations for teachers' ratings of effort were gener- ally stronger, with strength of the significant correlations in descend- ing order: intrinsic, commitment to band, self-concept, mastery ori- entation, and achieve success. For both performance and effort, cor- relations with individual, cooperative, competitive, ego, and avoid failure were nonsignificant.

The results for experience variables and practice time were mixed. Correlations between motivation variables and years of private lessons

142 SCHMIDT

Table 3 Correlations among Motivation Variables and Student Achievement and Experience Variables (N = 300)

All-Co Lsn Prac Solo Grade Sex Perf Effort Comp

Commitment -.01 .26** .54** -.29** .25** -.01 .32** .41** .39** Self-Concept .22** .18* .32** -.29** .06 -.02 .36** .35** .38** Mastery .03 .20* .45** -.26** .07 .17 .12 .28** .22** Intrinsic .08 .23** .57** -.30** .09 .10 .29** .44** .39** Individual .01 .18* .27** -.07 -.04 .03 .12 .17 .16 Cooperative .08 .12 .31** -.19* .15 .12 .10 .18 .15 Competitive .07 .03 .11 -.04 -.10 -.08 .08 .09 .09 Ego .02 -.04 .02 -.01 -.16 -.06 -.01 .00 -.01 Success -.04 .10 .28** -.06 -.16 .11 .09 .21* .17 Failure -.07 .09 .12 .04 -.14 .09 .06 .09 .08

* p<.001; ** p< .0001.

Note. All-Co = number of yrs. in all-county band; Lsn = number of yrs. of private lessons on the band instrument; Prac = practice time time in minutes; Solo = participated in solo and ensemble festival yes/no; Grade = grade level (7-12); Perf = teachers' ratings of performance; Effort = teachers' ratings of effort; Comp = composite of performance and effort.

were statistically significant and positive, but were low (in descending order: commitment, intrinsic, mastery, individual orientation, self-con- cept) or nonsignificant (cooperative, competitive, ego, achieve suc- cess, and avoid failure). Self-concept yielded the sole significant corre- lation for number of years of all-county band participation. For prac- tice time, several correlations were significant and ranged from mod- erately strong to weak (in descending order: intrinsic orientation, com- mitment to band, mastery orientation, self-concept, cooperative orien- tation, and achieve success). Similarly, correlations for motivation vari- ables and solo festival participation (yes/no) indicated significant, but low correlations for intrinsic, commitment to band, self-concept, mas- tery, and cooperative orientations. Notably, the motivation variables of competitive, ego, and avoid failure orientations were not significantly related with any of the student experience or achievement variables.

Results indicated that all correlations for motivation variables by sex were nonsignificant. Likewise, correlations among motivation variables for subgroups of male and female students indicated no significant dif- ferences (p < .001) in degree of association by sex. Correlations between grade level and motivation variables were nonsignificant, with the sole exception of commitment to band in which there was a low positive relation. Group means for the motivation variables did not dif- fer significantly by instrument group (woodwinds excluding saxo- phone, brass, and percussion) [A = 1.76 (30, 831), p > .001].

To examine the third research question, the set of motivation vari- ables was subjected to factor analyses with orthogonal and oblique rotation, which produced highly similar results. The results of the

JRME 143

Table 4 Factor Analysis of Motivation Variables with Varimax Rotation

Factor Loadings

Variable F1 F2 F3 Communalities

Commitment to Band .80 -.03 .29 .72

Self-Concept in Inst. Music .52 .16 .58 .63

Mastery Orientation .80 .26 .10 .71 Intrinsic Orientation .84 .15 .25 .80 Individual Orientation .06 .16 .87 .79

Cooperative Orientation .79 .11 -.35 .76

Competitive Orientation .06 .82 .24 .74

Ego Orientation -.03 .84 .17 .73 Achieve Success .40 .74 .00 .70 Avoid Failure .15 .76 -.03 .61

Note. F1 = Learning/Task Orientation; F2 = Performance/Ego Orientation; F3 = Individual Orientation.

procedure with orthogonal (Varimax) rotation are presented in Table 4. Results revealed three factors, with percentages of variance explained, respectively, of 40.65%, 19.23%, and 11.95%. The analy- ses were supported by a subject-to-variable ratio of 30:1, a Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin coefficient of sampling adequacy of .75, and a Bartlett's test (p < .001).

Factor 1, Learning/Task orientation, was defined by intrinsic, mas- tery, and cooperative orientations and commitment to band (all with loadings > .79). Intrinsic orientation was the best marker variable. Self-concept and approach success had moderate loadings on Factor 1. Factor 2, Performance/Ego orientation, was defined clearly by competitive, ego, approach success, and avoid failure orientations. Factor 3, Individual orientation, was defined primarily by the indi- vidual orientation, with a moderately high loading for self-concept. Cooperative orientation had a low, negative loading on Factor 3. Seven of the 10 motivation variables were factor simple (i.e., they loaded on a single factor with loadings on the remaining factors < .30). In contrast, the variables of self-concept, cooperative orientation and achieve success loaded on two of three factors. Self-concept had a rel- atively strong representation on Factors 1 and 3, while cooperative orientation had a strong loading on Factor 1 and a marginal loading on Factor 3. Similarly, approach success had a strong loading on Factor 2, but a relatively modest loading on Factor 1. Communalities for the motivation variables were relatively high (> .70), with the sole exception of avoid failure.

Research Question 4 addressed correlations between students' fac- tor scores and the achievement and experience variables. The results

144 SCHMIDT

clarify further the tendencies noted for the individual motivation variables. For example, scores for Factor 1, Learning/Task, were sig- nificantly correlated with practice time, teachers' ratings of effort and performance, participation in solo festival, and grade level. The strongest relations were found for practice time (r = .54) and ratings of effort (r =.40), while relatively modest correlations (r > .27) were noted for grade level and performance ratings. There was a slight tendency for upper grade levels and higher performance achieve- ment to be associated with higher factor scores on task orientation. For Factor 2, Performance/Ego, the sole significant relations were for grade level (r = -.22) and solo festival rating (r = -.28). Younger students and those with relatively low solo ratings tended to have higher scores on this factor, respectively, than older students and those with high ratings. Factor 3, Individual Orientation, had signifi- cant but low positive correlations (r < .27) with ratings of perfor- mance and effort and with practice time.

DISCUSSION

Several of the motivation variables examined were significantly associated with musical achievement and experience. The signifi- cant, albeit moderate, relation between motivation constructs and performance achievement stands in contrast to nonsignificant find- ings for attributions and locus of control (e.g., Austin, 1988; Klinedinst, 1991; Miksza, in press). This disparity may well be explained by differences in sampling techniques and operational definitions of motivation and achievment. Of the motivation vari- ables, intrinsic orientation, self-concept, and commitment to band were significantly correlated across teachers' ratings of performance and effort, students' self-reported practice time, and solo festival par- ticipation, with intrinsic orientation most strongly associated with practice time and ratings of effort. Notably, ego, competition, and avoid failure orientations were not correlated with achievement or experience variables.

Overall, instrumental students in this study tended to report that their own success was best defined by mastery and cooperative orien- tations, while they placed less emphasis on competitive and ego ori- entations. Participants tended to agree with statements in which suc- cess was perceived as reaching personal goals, and sensing improve- ment or accomplishment. Similarly, subjects on average tended to agree that they learned the most or did their best when working with other students. The results suggest that students may respond best to the intrinsic or cooperative aspects of instrumental music, rather than its extrinsic or competitive aspects.

Teachers' ratings of student performance and effort were seen as key dependent measures, as teachers have an extensive sample of student behavior on which to base their judgments. The current results were supported by very high intrateacher reliability. The findings suggest specific motivation variables are manifest in the

JRME 145

behaviors teachers observe: Teachers' ratings of effort appear to reflect students' intrinsic motivation, while performance ratings were best predicted by self-concept in instrumental music. Students' views of their own performance skills were similar to those of their teachers and this finding is in line with literature showing that stu- dents' self-evaluations of performance correlate well with those of external observers (e.g., May, 2003). While the present study found intrinsic motivation to be most strongly related to ratings of effort, the moderate correlation for self-concept and ratings of effort cor- roborates to some extent Sandene's (1997) finding for middle school students.

A primary question of this study addressed relations among moti- vation variables within the context of instrumental music. Internal reliability and confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the validity of the selected motivation, self-concept, and commitment to band variables. Even with the addition of the latter two variables, the factors of Task/Learning and Performance/Ego identified by Marsh et al. were essentially replicated. This is noteworthy, since Marsh et al.'s study involved academically gifted students in Grades 3-6 and scale items that addressed motivation for academic work. One differ- ence in the present study was the strong loading of cooperation on Task/Learning. Another was the emergence of a third factor defined primarily by individual orientation, a variable for which Marsh et al., interestingly, had found weak loadings. A third higher-order factor defined by individual orientation and self-concept is theoretically plausible and calls for additional research.

Extrinsic orientations in instrumental music (e.g., competition, emphasis on normative feedback) might well be hypothesized to be negatively correlated with intrinsic and cooperative orientations. Little or no relation was found, however, in the present study. Moreover, two independent constructs emerged for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They were not bipolar aspects of a single factor. Importantly, competitive, ego, and avoidance of failure orientations were not significantly related with any of the selected achievement or experience variables. However, given the pervasiveness of such com- petitive orientations within the field of music, they likely warrant fur- ther research.

Correlations among factor scores with student achievement and experience variables largely confirmed those of individual motiva- tion variables. The results suggest the possibility of a parsimonious and theoretically coherent explanation of motivation constructs in instrumental music. Given that the three factors explained approxi- mately 72% of the total variance, however, both the first- and second- order factors should be considered in future research.

In general, relations between the selected motivation variables and demographic variables were low or nonsignificant. Overall, the pre- sent results indicated that motivation tendencies and relations between motivation and achievement and experience variables were relatively stable across grade levels. This was the case despite the self-

146 SCHMIDT

selection that likely occurs with increasing grade level. At the same time, however, there appears to be a slight tendency for older stu- dents to have relatively higher scores on intrinsic or mastery orienta- tions, while younger students tend toward higher scores on competi- tive, ego, and avoid failure orientations. The present results corrob- orated Sandene's findings of nonsignificance for gender and lack of relation between ego orientation and grade level. His result of a decline in task orientation by grade, however, was not confirmed.

In conclusion, motivation is a crucial element in instrumental music education at all levels. This study suggests that, within a sample of secondary instrumental students, the selected motivation variables can be reliably measured and that their underlying factor structure is not unlike that found for general academic achievement motivation. The constructs studied here hold promise for future research. Although this study involved a relatively heterogeneous set of stu- dents, band programs, and school districts, future research should seek to enhance generalizability. That is, future investigations in this area should extend sampling to include elementary and college level band students. Likewise, future research in motivation of secondary instrumental music students should exploit the full range of variables pertaining to school demographic characteristics and music program quality. Investigators in this line of inquiry should also examine links between student motivation and performance achievement as a func- tion of parent and teacher behaviors and attitudes.

REFERENCES

Asmus, E. P. (1986). Student beliefs about the causes of success and failure in music: A study of achievement motivation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 262-278.

Asmus, E. P. (1995). Motivation in music teaching and learning. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 5, 5-32.

Asmus, E. P., & Harrison, C. (1990). Characteristics of motivation for music and musical aptitude of undergraduate nonmusic majors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38, 258-268.

Austin,J. R. (1988). The effect of music contest format on self-concept, moti- vation, and attitude of elementary band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 95-107.

Austin, J. R. (1991). Competitive and non-competitive goal structures: An analysis of motivation and achievement among elementary band students. Psychology of Music, 19, 142-158.

Austin J. R., & Vispoel, W. P. (1998). How American adolescents interpret success and failure in classroom music: Relationships among attribution- al beliefs, self concepts and achievement. Psychology of Music, 26, 26-45.

Chandler, T. A., Chiarella, D., & Auria, C. (1988). Performance expectancy, success, satisfaction, and attributions as variables in band challenges. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, 249-258.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivation processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

JRME 147

Fortney, P. M. (1992). The construction and validation of an instrument to measure attitudes of students in high school instrumental music pro- grams. Contributions to Music Education, 19, 32-45.

Hartley, L. A. (1991). The relationship of student attitude toward instru- mental music to beginning instructional grade and grade level organiza- tion. Contributions to Music Education, 23, 46-61.

Klinedinst, R. E. (1991). Predicting performance achievement and retention of fifth-grade instrumental students. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 39, 225-238.

Legette, R. (1998). Causal beliefs of public school students about success and failure in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 102-111.

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley,J. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Evaluation of the big-two factor theory of academic motivation orientations: An eval- uation of jingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 189-224.

May, L. F. (2003). Factors and abilities influencing achievement in instru- mental jazz improvisation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 245-258.

McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2000). The contribution of motivation- al factors to instrumental performance in a performance examination. Research Studies in Music Education, 15, 31-39.

Miksza, P. (in press). The effect of mental practice on the performance achievement of high school trombonists. Contributions to Music Education.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1. Student motivation (pp. 39-73). New York: Academic Press.

Ryan, R M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic def- initions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Sandene, B. (1987). Selected personality and motivation variables as predictors of attrition in instrumental music. Unpublished master's thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Sandene, B. A. (1997). An investigation of variables related to student moti- vation in instrumental music. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (10), 3870. (UMI No 9315947)

Schmidt, C. P. (1995). Attributions of success, grade level, and gender as fac- tors in choral students' perceptions of teacher feedback.Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 313-329.

Schmidt, C. P, & Stephans, R. (1991). Locus of control and field depen- dence as factors in students' evaluations of applied music instruction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 131-136.

Vispoel, W. P., & Austin, J. R. (1995). Success and failure in junior high school: A critical incident approach to understanding students' attribu- tional beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 377-412.

Zdzinski, S. E (2002). Parental involvement, musical achievement, and music attitudes of vocal and instrumental music students. Contributions to Music Education, 29, 29-45.

Submitted October 11, 2004; accepted March 20, 2005.