Abstract
Self-determination and future orientation theories confirm a relationship between motivational context, hopes/fears, and positive/negative outcomes. This study’s aims are threefold: to provide a qualitative inquiry into earlier quantitative findings; to probe whether music professors’ self-perceived motivational styles (autonomy-supportive or controlling) are consistent with their students’ perceptions; and to analyze the relationship between students’ perception of professors’ motivational styles, their hopes/fears (as a cognitive representation of Future Orientation), and engagement concerning their career. Seven dyads from a Peruvian university’s music program participated in the study. Qualitative studies in Peruvian music schools are scarce. An interview was used for data collection, and Atlas.ti 7.5.4. software was employed for analysis. Professors reported their motivational style mostly as autonomy-supportive, but not every student confirmed this self-perception. Some professors are perceived as controlling, and in some instances, the professor’s self-perception corroborates this description. Students’ hopes were generally related to music engagement. A clear relationship between students’ perception of their professor’s autonomy support, their hopes, and music engagement was found. In one dyad, the perception of a controlling motivational style was found to be associated with fears and with a lack of engagement. These findings confirm previous reports from quantitative studies.
Teaching music performance requires regular one-on-one instruction, to the point that professors and students can be described as “communicating vessels” (Matos, 2005). In such a teaching/learning setting, the motivational variable is key. Motivation explains the origin, persistence, or disappearance of behaviors associated with multiple situations (Reeve, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2017). This study considers different motivational variables to understand the relationship between the motivational context (motivational styles as self-perceived by professors and as perceived by students), the cognitive dimension of future orientation, and music engagement. Two theoretical frameworks underpin our analysis: self-determination theory (SDT) and future orientation theory. SDT posits contextual influences as relevant for personal growth and development (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). Future orientation theory highlights an individual’s subjective images of the future, which regulate present behaviors, thinking, and emotions (Seginer, 2009; Seginer & Lens, 2015). Like many socializing agents, professors in the music field face the challenge of motivating and activating their students’ potential (Van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2017).
Over the years, a large body of research has contributed to our understanding of the role that different factors or strategies play in the music training process (Hamann et al., 2000). For instance, general directives, teacher demonstrations, and praise are often used as music teaching strategies in Australian higher education. However, these strategies are deployed unequally according to the student’s gender, with male students being more likely to receive criticism from instructors; moreover, male and female instructors behave differently in the process of teaching (Zhukov, 2012). As teaching strategies are also perceived by students, previous studies have reported a tendency for evaluators’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness to be affected by the teacher’s delivery style (according to their experience), regardless of the accuracy of the instruction (Madsen & Cassidy, 2005). In turn, a qualitative study by Burwell (2021) found evidence of authority- and teacher-centered orientation during one-on-one instruction, in classes imparted with characteristics of cognitive scaffolding. The conclusion is that authoritative teaching is contingent, among other aspects, on the presence of expertise, commitment, and purpose among class participants.
As a contemporary theory on motivation, SDT highlights the value of learning contexts and theorizes different, very specific motivational styles. In that vein, this study analyzes the relationship between the perception of those styles, hopes/fears, and the presence or absence of music engagement in one-on-one instructional settings.
Before referring to relevant research findings in the music education field, it should be noted that each style represents distinct paths in teacher–student interaction. A professor who is not autonomy-supportive is not necessarily controlling. Some professors may prioritize behaviors or strategies that are relatively neutral. Nevertheless, each style can be associated with different outcomes (adaptive or maladaptive) in students (Haerens et al., 2015).
In the music education field, an autonomy-supportive motivational style as defined in SDT is associated with positive effects, whereas the opposite is true for a controlling motivational style (Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2020; Herrera et al., 2021). When professors consider students’ perspectives and needs, provide feedback oriented toward improvement, and foster free choice, changes in students’ well-being and autonomous motivation appear (Black & Deci, 2000; Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2013); students are more likely to explicitly express the desire to continue their training (Anguiano, 2006; Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2013, 2020). The teaching context is important in many ways. Professors foster learning not only through the provision of an optimal physical environment but also by strengthening a positive relationship with their students (McRae, 2012). Autonomy-supportive professors increase students’ academic engagement by devoting the necessary time to clarifying tasks, thus demonstrating enjoyment in their interactions with students (Sierens et al., 2009). These behaviors can be interpreted not only as autonomy-supportive but they also promote other teaching styles centered on the structure and positive relations. In sum, context matters, as it promotes constant interactions between the instructor and learner. For this reason, this article focuses on motivational styles as perceived by both the professor and the student.
Meanwhile, controlling professors constrain the expression of internal motives and pressure students constantly to act according to the professors’ expectations. In general, this type of professor is coercive and does not allow students to freely present and express opinions or views (Haerens et al., 2015; Reeve, 2009a; Reeve & Jang, 2006). This motivational style relates negatively to autonomous motivation, achievement, and academic engagement (Reeve, 2009b; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004).
Specifically for the music field, West and Rostvall (2003) document cases in which professors rejected students’ initiatives and exercised power asymmetrically, leading students to drop out early from their classes. It has also been found that professors’ controlling behaviors affect students’ well-being (Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2020). Students who are extrinsically motivated regularly seek social approval and success in competitions (Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2020; Evans, 2015; Herrera et al., 2021).
These SDT findings have been replicated for different educational fields, in a variety of countries and regions (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In Peru, a number of quantitative studies on general education confirm a positive relationship between the motivational styles of professors and associated variables, including student well-being and engagement (Matos et al., 2018; Pérez et al., 2017). Furthermore, and again specifically for the music field, an autonomy-supportive motivational style has been found to positively predict flourishing and adaptive perfectionism, mediated by the satisfaction of basic psychological needs in Peruvian music students (Herrera et al., 2021). According to SDT, a teaching-learning process based on autonomy-supportive motivational style favors students’ engagement (Reeve et al., 2004). It is noteworthy that engagement implies an individual’s connection with a task of interest in which they actively participate (Chin & Rickard, 2012; Reeve et al., 2004; Russell et al., 2005). It is a dynamic process wherein behaviors reflect high levels of initiative, responsibility, and activity (Dvir et al., 2002). In music-related contexts, engaged students invest time in their learning tasks; they practice constantly and assign value to musical activities. These students show an active interest in experiencing pleasure, high individual commitment to music, and interest in completing a certified music program (Chin & Rickard, 2012).
Along with the contributions of the SDT, which links the motivational contexts to different outcomes (well-being and engagement, among others), the concept of future orientation is also relevant to understand motivation in music students. To our knowledge, this concept has been scarcely explored in the music field. Future orientation is a multidimensional concept with three components. It allows us to understand how people subjectively construct images of their future and how these representations guide their present behavior (Seginer, 2009; Seginer & Lens, 2015). Studies focusing on youth cohorts have found a close relationship between future orientation (plans and goals) and positive behaviors (well-being or academic achievement) linked to various areas of life, such as health and education (Johnson et al., 2014; Seginer, 2009).
The multidimensionality of the concept of future orientation involves the presence of three components: Motivational, which helps the person to consider their future goals, assign them value, feel optimistic about their fulfillment, and see themselves as possessing the necessary skills and resources to achieve them; Cognitive, which refers to the representation of goals and to the drive to approach (develop hopes) or avoid (generate fears) certain future events; and Behavioral, which implies exploration and engagement (Seginer, 2003, 2009; Seginer & Lens, 2015). In the present study, goals associated with the career/work-life domain were analyzed, and specific attention was given to them in terms of a musical career. Due to the qualitative nature of the study, only information related to the cognitive component (hopes and fears) was collected.
As the scientific literature has shown sustained interest in understanding the psychological processes involved in the music learning process, the relevance of the professors’ motivational style has been underscored (Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2013). In addition, the professor–student relationship has been analyzed in qualitative terms, with researchers aiming to identify and describe patterns of teaching practice or teaching strategies in a music studio or other settings (Burwell, 2005, 2006; Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2020; Gholson, 1998; Young et al., 2003). However, other variables are involved in teaching and learning in individual and small group settings (i.e., performance, flow) (Burwell, 2021; Valenzuela et al., 2017). In consequence, there is much interest in different methods of collecting information to identify teaching strategies, describe their use, and explore their relationship to student learning, well-being, and other positive outcomes (Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2020; Burwell, 2021).
In addition to the studies mentioned above, a relevant research path was developed with a quantitative approach. Those studies also illustrate the psychological experience of the music teaching-learning process and conclude that the student’s context is related to their enjoyment, the value they place on musical practice, and their interest in selecting elective classes and their intention to do so (Evans, 2015; Freer & Evans, 2019).
Noticing the scarcity of research into the professor–student relationship in music classes in Peru, we decided to study professor–student dyads (one-on-one teaching) from the music department of a private university in Lima. We analyzed the relationship between the professor’s motivational style and the student’s hopes and fears (a cognitive component of future orientation) and music engagement in seven dyads.
The dyadic music teaching-learning process is interactive. This qualitative study intended to explore the relationships between a number of specific psychological variables involved. To that end, the following research questions were proposed:
How does a professor’s self-perception of his or her motivational style (autonomy-supportive or controlling) relate to the student’s perception of this style?
How does the student’s perception of his or her professor’s motivational style relate to the student’s hopes and fears for a successful career?
How does the student’s perception of his or her professor’s motivational style relate to the student’s musical engagement?
How do the student’s hopes and fears relate to the student’s musical engagement?
Method
Participants and procedure
This research project was conducted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, after coordinating with authorities in the music school of a private university in Lima, Peru. The entire faculty (31 professors) and every student registered in the musical performance program received an e-mail invitation to participate in a research project. Seven professor–student dyads agreed to a remote interview. Each member of the dyad was interviewed separately for approximately 1 hr.
Five male and two female students, aged 20 to 28 years old and at different stages in the program (second to tenth semester), participated in the study. Student participants pursue different specializations: string and wind instruments as well as vocal performance. Four male and three female professors also participated, with varying lengths of teaching experience (some had taught for more than 10 years; others, for less).
Data processing was conducted in 2020 and took approximately 90 days. The content of the collected information was transcribed and analyzed with a qualitative approach. The study was carried out with the approval of university’s Ethics Committee, and authorities at the music school were informed regularly about the research process and always collaborated with researchers. Participants gave informed consent verbally, and all agreed voluntarily to cooperate and be recorded during the interview. They were also made aware of their ability to withdraw from the study at any point without detrimental consequences. Confidentiality was guaranteed; participants were informed that the data collected would be accessible only to the researchers and only for a limited period, and that results were to be disseminated for academic purposes only. Names and descriptors have been modified to ensure anonymity. Some responses have been edited to remove identifying information not relevant to the response itself.
Data collection technique
The data collection technique was a semistructured interview. The interview guide was created considering the purpose of the study and the psychological variables of interest. Specifically, these variables were: (1) professor’s motivational style (autonomy-support vs. control), self-perceived by professors and perceived by students; (2) students’ future orientation cognitive dimension (hopes and fears); and (3) students’ music engagement. The guide was developed by the researchers in charge of the study and refined based on input from two experts in the field. For a better understanding, the instrument developed for this research was adjusted after applying a pilot study to four music students and professors with similar profiles to the study’s participants.
The questionnaire was developed specifically for professors and students. Each member of the dyad was asked open-ended questions. To present the content of the interview guide, the questions are listed in Table 1 in Supplementary Materials online.
Interviews were analyzed following a deductive thematic approach to identify patterns of meaning or themes related to the variables and models under study. Transcripts were coded based on a pre-established theoretical model and taking into account the context of the music specialty, and common themes were sought among the following variables: professors’ motivational style (autonomy-support or control), future orientation (hopes and fears), and music engagement. An initial codebook was prepared and reviewed by the authors in consultation with experts in the research field. After adjustments, the interviews were coded using the Atlas.ti program. 7.5.4. To ensure accuracy, a second reader—a specialist in qualitative analysis—supported the team in code checking. Categories were grouped and linked to the proposed theoretical models. Results are reported based on the study’s research questions.
Results and discussion
The information collected was analyzed according to the stated research questions.
We grouped results taking into account how a professor’s self-perception of his/her motivational teaching style (autonomy-supportive or controlling) related to the student’s perception of this style. Furthermore, we considered how the student’s perception of his/her professor’s motivational style related to the student’s hopes and fears about a successful career, and these variables were in turn examined to determine their relationship to the student’s musical engagement.
To analyze the information obtained from the interviews, different codes were deductively identified in the transcripts, with SDT and future orientation models in mind. For example: “professor openness about listening to students’ difficulties”; “acceptance of students’ negative emotions”; “students’ positive expectations regarding their future performance as musicians”; and so on.
The codes thus identified were then grouped into categories such as “encouragement of self-regulation,” “ignoring students’ motivational inner resources and using pressuring language or codes,” “students’ hopes for their academic (future) performance,” “conceptions and actions associated with the lack of music engagement reported by the professor,” as well as some unrelated topics that had become contextually relevant such as “emotions generated by the COVID-19 pandemic,” “content associated to remote classes,” and so on. Finally, the categories were grouped into seven areas, five representing the motivational variables in this study and two having to do with the pandemic and with technology-related issues. To focus on the research questions, the latter are not included here. The five areas are: (1) professor’s self-perceived autonomy-supportive motivational style and student’s perception of this style; (2) professor’s self-perceived controlling motivational style and student’s perception of this style; (3) hopes about future career/work expressed by students; (4) fears about future career/work expressed by students; and (5) music engagement and a lack of music engagement expressed by the student and the professor respectively. Some answers obtained from the interviews have been included in Table 3 in Supplementary Materials online to illustrate the content of the five areas, for transparency reasons. To present key information related to the content of each selected area and its categories, a brief description of the involved variables and the dyads that represent them will be shown.
Professors’ motivational styles
Autonomy-supportive motivational style
The main characteristic of a professor’s autonomy-supportive motivational style is that it nurtures students’ inner resources, such as preferences, interests, and goals. Some of the strategies employed to enhance students’ quality of motivation are encouragement of self-regulation, flexibility regarding working and practice time, consideration of student’s perspective, promotion of a sense of choice, and responsiveness to questions (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2017). These strategies have been considered in this study as categories for content analysis.
All the dyads interviewed (professors and students) reported characteristics associated with this motivational style, and all professors self-perceived as regular users of it. Students who perceived their professor’s motivational style as predominantly autonomy-supportive described these professors as supportive of their musical learning activities (dyads 1, 2, 4, and 5). However, not every student perceived their professor as exclusively autonomy-supportive (dyads 3 and 7). Only one student perceived the professor exclusively as controlling (dyad 6).
Controlling motivational style
The main feature of a professor’s controlling motivational style is that it ignores the student’s inner motivational resources. Controlling professors regularly demand that students follow their instructions by offering extrinsic rewards or punishments or by imposing their own rules. The communication style of these professors dismisses the student’s inner motivational resources and leans on pressuring language or codes. All this has an impact on the student’s thinking, feelings, and behaviors (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2017). These characteristics have been considered in this study as categories for content analysis.
Reports about the professor’s controlling motivational style were found most prominently in dyad 6, but this style is also mentioned, either by the student or the professor, in dyads 3 and 7. It is noteworthy that although some professors admitted using some controlling-style strategies, only three students shared this perception. Students who perceive controlling professor characteristics (dyads 3, 6, and 7) reported feeling afraid of making comments, asking questions, or criticizing their professor’s methodology. These students tend to do exactly what their professor requires even when it risks negative consequences, such as damaging their musical instrument (dyad 3) or experiencing negative emotions after receiving feedback (dyad 7).
Future orientation
Bearing in mind the cognitive component of the multidimensional model of future orientation, students’ hopes and fears were collected as, respectively, expressions of approach and avoidance regarding future goals (Seginer, 2009). The cognitive component is one of the three dimensions of future orientation and, as part of the model, it also encompasses content focused on different life domains, in this case, career/work. This information was reported by the students who participated in the study.
Hopes
Hopes were categorized in terms of academic performance (dyads 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7), career and work (all dyads), and personal development (dyads 2 and 7). It was observed that hopes differ according to the stage at which students are in their training. Students in advanced semesters (dyads 1 and 2) emphasize hopes for their future careers and define, specifically, the professional area in which they aspire to work. Students in earlier stages (dyads 3–7) refer to fewer concrete desires related to their future careers and are more interested in networking and recognition. Only one student (dyad 5) did not express hopes for future academic performance.
Fears
Fears can relate to academic performance (dyads 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7) and career/work performance (all dyads). These students did not express fears related to personal development. It is noteworthy that students constantly mention fears associated with the labor market; this might be linked to the current crisis caused by the pandemic and the perception that age could be a competitive disadvantage (dyads 1 and 2).
Fears as an aspect of cognitive representation of future orientation appear in every interviewed dyad (see Table 3 in Supplementary Materials online). Nevertheless, the higher frequency of fears compared with hopes has been taken into account when patterns of consistency are found (see Table 2 in Supplementary Materials online).
Music engagement
This variable is studied at the individual level and reflects active participation in music tasks. It involves not only the frequency and consistency of music activities but also the value assigned to them (Chin & Rickard, 2012).
Across all dyads, students seem to perform actions consistent with engagement in their music career. They emphasize their self-determination to become musicians while avoiding situations that could impede them from reaching this goal. They recognize the importance of engagement for good performance.
A lack of music engagement was not reported directly by students. Some professors did describe facts associated with limited music engagement (dyads 1 and 6). Of note, in dyad 1, most answers related to music engagement were provided by the student, and only a few indicating a lack of engagement came from the professor. Dyad 6 shows a higher frequency of answers related to the lack of engagement provided by the professor. This is the reverse of dyad 1, where most answers related to music engagement were provided by the student (see Tables 2 and 3 in Supplementary Materials online).
This information corroborates the theoretical arguments of self-determination theory and future orientation theory. The former postulates that professors’ motivational styles are clearly associated either with positive or negative outcomes like well-being/ill-being, adaptive/maladaptive perfectionism, engagement, and flourishing (Evans, 2015; Herrera et al., 2021; Matos et al., 2018). It has also been reported that a professor’s autonomy-supportive motivational style can foster the satisfaction of basic psychological needs in music-related contexts (Freer & Evans, 2019). In the same vein, music engagement has been explored and verified in this study as a positive outcome of the motivational context. In turn, future orientation theory argues that hopes and fears, as part of the cognitive dimension of future orientation, are related to positive or negative results evinced through well-being/ill-being, academic performance, and engagement (Elmore & Huebner, 2010; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Gupta & Bakker, 2020; Murray, 2009; Seginer, 2017; So et al., 2016). Findings in this study show, through explicit testimonials, that music engagement is related to hopes and fears.
The frequencies of answers in each area and category are shown in Table 2 in Supplementary Materials online. Professors and students’ testimonies are presented in three groups: First, dyads perceived by students and self-perceived by professors as autonomy-supportive; second, dyads clearly seen by the student as controlling, even when the professor’s self-perception includes elements of both the controlling and autonomy-supportive styles; and third, dyads perceived by both student and professor as sharing characteristics of both motivational styles. Along with professors’ self-perceptions and students’ perceptions of motivational style, the patterns of hopes and fears and of music engagement as reported by students are presented for each group of dyads. The lack of engagement is reported only by professors.
Three groups of dyads will be exemplified below. The examples represent different categories but also reflect those with a higher frequency of answers (flexibility regarding working and practicing time for learning). (See Tables 2 and 3 in Supplementary Materials online.)
Dyads perceived by students and self-perceived by professors as autonomy-supportive
Dyad 1
Autonomy support perceived by the student
[. . .] she said to me: “Eduardo, I recommend some of these catalogs [. . .] choose one work, that is the one you are going to do” She gave me Chopin’s nocturnes, which are about twenty, “choose the one you like the most.” [. . .] that’s it, more or less that flexibility [. . .].
Autonomy support self-perceived by the professor
[. . .] they often tell me “professor, I haven’t been able to practice all that much.” [. . .] and I ask them “when can you present it? How long do I keep the assignment open for you?.” So, we handle it in a flexible way. [. . .] they always present it, because they choose by themselves. [. . .]
Hopes
[. . .] I want to make a name for myself as a collaboratore and also as an arranger. [. . .]
Music engagement
[. . .] I am committed to music because everything I do, I do it with music, that is, everything, everything [. . .] I transcribe, I make musical arrangements, [. . .] I teach a lot [. . .].
Dyad 2
Autonomy support perceived by the student
I was late because I had no electricity, [and] I had no way to record. [. . .] I explained it to my professor and he understood. It was something external, nothing related with my music performance [. . .].
Autonomy support self-perceived by the professor
[. . .] If you also do your lessons and listen well to yourself during your homework, I can support you and we can progress as much as you want during the semester [. . .].
Hopes
[. . .] my goal has always been to be a military musician and to wear a uniform, either in the armed forces or the police.
Music engagement
[. . .] I enjoy the instrument classes because of curiosity, I ask questions, there is always something new [. . .] time flies [. . .].
Dyad 4
Autonomy support perceived by the student
[. . .] He has been very incisive [. . .] in technical aspects of the instrument [playing] and he always gave me a lot of advice on [. . .] how I had to play, what things I had to correct, but in a very constructive way [. . .].
Autonomy support self-perceived by the professor: [. . .] I believe that progress in this context of remote teaching, the student’s progress or learning process [. . .] is also quite autonomous. That is, with the directions given by the teacher, the student has to prompt his or her own learning process by choosing between those alternatives.
Hopes
[. . .] In the future I plan to be a session musician, and I understand that I have to be highly qualified and able to play many styles [. . .].
Music engagement
It implies that if you make a commitment with a person to do a job, any kind of musical work, you fulfill it. For example, [. . .] if you have to send a track within a deadline, you send it; if you have a rehearsal with a person or a band, you go; and if you can’t go, you let them know in advance.
Dyad 5
Autonomy support perceived by the student
[. . .] I was allowed to choose my piece, but certain requirements were involved and a certain level was expected. [. . .], the choice of pieces was entirely personal.
Autonomy support self-perceived by the professor
[. . .] The fact that students have to prepare their videos gives them greater autonomy, they decide how they are going to make and evaluate these videos. They are going to [. . .] be aware of what they are learning and how they are demonstrating it to the professor.
Hopes
[. . .] I mainly plan to be a music writer. I desire to play my own music, manage my projects and to have contacts. I hope [. . .] to be able to play or learn to play what I want, to give myself a certain musical freedom [. . .].
Music engagement
[. . .] I think of myself as a musician more than as a student; however, being a musician, I am a perennial student.
Dyad perceived by the student and self-perceived by the professor as controlling (this professor is also self-perceived as autonomy-supportive)
Dyad 6
Controlling style perceived by the student
[. . .] she places limits on my exploration [. . .] she tells me “no, you should not see this now, we will see it later, do not get into this, do not do this, or this will ruin your technique so do not do it,” she puts barriers all the time to things you want to do or [. . .] say. “[. . .] that is how we learn everything, it is more like an exercise, everything is exercise, exercise, exercise. So it is very static.”
Controlling style perceived by the professor
[. . .] I explained everything [to the student], but then she [. . .] sabotaged me tremendously with the other students, she talked to them about me and complained. [. . .] I expressed my disagreement passionately about this student’s behavior [. . .] I pretended to be annoyed that day and there was silence, she had to accept it.
Fears
The fear I have is of not being able to make it [to perform as a musician] on my own. Or thinking that I would struggle financially to do all that [to be a full-time student and work]. Who is going to listen to me? I ask myself a lot of questions.
A lack of music engagement was not reported clearly by students. However, some professors mentioned facts that evince limited music engagement, as in the following example: She did not own up to her lack of practice for the midterm exam. She came in without having studied anything, she did not care about the results.
Dyads perceived by both student and professor as sharing characteristics of both motivational styles
Dyad 3
Autonomy support perceived by the student
[. . .] he (my professor) gives me a song [. . .] my technique is not at 100% in that song, then what he usually does is he tones it down or in extreme case changes the song. He can also resort to methods like slowing it down, if the song is too fast in some vocal embellishments [. . .].
Autonomy support perceived by the professor
[. . .] “I say, are you sure you want to sing this song? [. . .] Do you realize that [. . .] in class you are still not very comfortable singing these high notes,” “yes, professor,” then I say: “I support you, if you want to take on this challenge [. . .] let’s go with this song for the midterm and, depending on the results, we will talk and see which song you will sing for the final exam.”
Controlling style perceived by the student
[. . .] Sometimes she [the professor] is a bit harsh with her words, she says stuff that can make you a bit upset or put you down, she is very direct [. . .] and tells you things in full and does not consider the consequences.
Controlling style perceived by the professor
[. . .] I always remind them, “look, don’t be surprised when you see your ongoing assessment grades,” because the language between a professor and a student in a university is mainly the grade.
Hopes
[. . .] My goal is to be able to do a specialization or master’s degree in singing in London. I already found the school and everything.
Music engagement
[. . .] For me, to be musically engaged [implies] that one has the will and determination [to prioritize music]. If your colleagues, friends or others tell you “let’s go to a party,” you simply say “I can’t because I have to study for this exam.”
Dyad 7
Autonomy support perceived by the student
[. . .] I am very grateful to Nadia [. . .] because she has helped me not only as a student, but also at a more personal level. She has helped me manage my fears and problems better, to be able to perform better and to show my full potential.
Autonomy support perceived by the professor
[. . .] I tell them: “I’m not going to tell you what you can sing, you have to tell me what you want and what you would be interested in singing.” [. . .] When they bring me their alternatives [of types of music and singers], then I get a full picture [. . .].
Controlling style perceived by the student
[. . .] she scolds you, she asks you how this is possible, she tells you many things about your laziness in her class . . . sometimes it seems a bit exaggerated. When the class is over, you come out a little bit down because of the scolding [. . .].
Controlling style perceived by the professor
[. . .] There are the others [students] who are the defiant ones . . . [. . .] I told him, “Don’t say anything to me, you take your exam and whatever you do, we will grade you.” [. . .] They should not expect special treatment [. . .] I tell him “Don’t tell me anything, I can’t do anything for you, we are about two weeks away from the exam, what are we going to do? We can’t work miracles, assume your responsibility.
Hopes
[. . .] I would like to improve my technique so that I can show my full potential without harming myself in any way. I wish to acquire confidence as I move forward in my studies [. . .] so that I can perform in public.
Music engagement
[. . .] It would be [to] invest all your time in practicing, rehearsing, studying, going over what is still not coming out well . . . looking for perfection in what you do. [. . .] to devote yourself 100% to that, not to be held back by other things, people or situations.
In the analysis of the information reported by the seven dyads, a consistent pattern was found between a professor’s self-perception and a student’s perception of his or her professor’s motivational style. Professors appear to overestimate their disposition to offer choices and consider students’ perspective. Content from dyads 1, 2, 4, and 5 evinces the students’ perception of the professor’s strategies as autonomy-supportive perceived, and does not specify controlling strategies. These dyads also report mostly positive hopes and few fears for future careers and work, as well as music engagement. In the main, this relationship is reinforced by the professors’ testimonials.
However, dyad 6 shows a clear relationship between the student’s perception of the professor’s strategies as controlling, evidence of greater fears than hopes for future career/work, and limited answers about engagement. At the same time, some facts related to the lack of music engagement were brought up by the professor. Remarkably, the professor in this dyad mentioned explicitly that this student is unlikely to be successful as a musician.
It is important to keep in mind that in this article, dyads have been grouped into three patterns of results. First, dyads coincide in the perception of an autonomy-supportive motivational style, either by student or professor. In this group, there is a pattern of a higher frequency of answers related to hopes and engagement. Second, only one dyad perceived the professor’s style as controlling, which was corroborated by the professor. However, at the same time, some of the professor’s answers qualified her self-perception as autonomy-supportive. In this dyad, the number of answers related to fears is greater than the number of answers related to hopes, and the professor identified a lack of engagement in the student. The third group includes dyads in which the professor’s motivational styles are perceived either as autonomy-supportive or controlling. Here, the pattern of answers related to hopes and engagement coincides with those in the first group.
Conclusion
This qualitative study represents a new effort to further understand the relevance of the motivational context associated with hopes, fears, and music engagement. Following a quantitative approach, some empirical studies have supported the relationship between motivational context and positive outcomes (Freer & Evans, 2019; Matos et al., 2018). However, to our knowledge, testimonial reports were lacking in the psychological study of the music field in Peru. Based on the dyadic analysis, this research offers detailed information to describe the reported content of both participants (professor and student). Individual interviews with each member of the dyad were conducted separately. Collecting data in this way permits clear analysis of participants’ speech, contrasting and identifying substantial overlaps or coincidences (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010; Koren, 2008).
Two important observations can be underlined. First, the findings of this qualitative research are consistent with quantitative findings reported in the psychological literature. When the motivational context is perceived as autonomy-supportive, both members of the dyad highlight its benefits. Furthermore, this supportive context is associated with positive hopes regarding music career, as well as with engagement (albeit with some variance, as expected in a small sample.) However, professor–student dyads showed a marked agreement about the disadvantageous relationship between the professor’s controlling style, fears about the future career, and a lack of engagement (reported by the professor). According to contemporary research findings (Burwell, 2021), and perhaps contrary to expectations, certain patterns of teacher-centered behavior identified in advanced studio lessons show characteristics of cognitive scaffolding that are not consistent with this teacher discourse.
These findings need to be analyzed in greater depth in further research. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that professors’ authoritative discourse is contingent on the student’s and the professor’s level of mastery, engagement, and purpose.
Second, in describing music engagement, one of the variables explored in this study, both members of the dyads recognized the relevance of assigning value to musical training. Interestingly, a lack of student engagement was mentioned only by professors. Further research is needed on the music engagement variable, which has not been measured systematically in Peruvian contexts. It should be considered for future quantitative research in the field of music and psychology.
Finally, qualitative and quantitative approaches offer valuable options for understanding educational and instructional realities. However, it is important to combine them to strengthen the consistency of findings, especially when musical training takes place in one-on-one settings. Class observation is a possible option for collecting direct information. The findings reported here shed light on the importance of motivational context, future orientation, and engagement for music students. Future interventions would benefit from considering relevant variables to improve motivational styles, student’s hopes regarding future careers, and learning in music schools.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-pom-10.1177_03057356221135348 – Supplemental material for Professors’ motivational styles, future orientation, and engagement: A qualitative study in professor–student dyads in the school of music
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pom-10.1177_03057356221135348 for Professors’ motivational styles, future orientation, and engagement: A qualitative study in professor–student dyads in the school of music by Dora Herrera, Carlos Iberico, Lennia Matos and Yasmin Cerna in Psychology of Music
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the music professors and students from the private university who participated in this research.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Vice-Rectorate of Research of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (grant number 728).
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
