Students’ motivation to engage in music lessons: The Cypriot context

Abstract

Students’ motivation has often been the subject of discussion in the field of music education. This article reports on an exploration of students’ motivation during their first year of attending music lessons in Cypriot lower secondary schools (Year 7). This study was a longitudinal study tracking the students (N = 170) over one academic year. The first questionnaire was completed as students entered secondary school and the second at the end of their first year when students had encountered the new Cypriot music curriculum for the first time. The findings indicate that students’ overall motivation by the end of their first year at secondary school had diminished. As noted in previous research, problems with student motivation in school music were persistent, notwithstanding changes to the curriculum. The implications of the findings to enhance students’ motivation were examined, and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

enjoyment flow motivation music education musical goals self-efficacy

Introduction

Motivation issues, focusing on student engagement with school music lessons, have been discussed extensively. First, researchers such as Sloboda (2001) and Wigfield and Wagner (2005) have highlighted that students’ motivational beliefs toward general education often demonstrate a decline. Second, it has been suggested that school music lessons lack relevance and enjoyment, as claimed by Harland et al. (2000) and Jeanneret and Sommervelle (2010). Following this view, previous research in the Cypriot context showed that music seems to be irrelevant to students’ interests (Economidou, 2006; Teklos, 2011). These two key issues underpin the research reported in this article, whereby problematic issues with students’ motivation for school music were found.

Motivation seems to decline as students get older

Several studies (Bandura, 1995; Wigfield & Wagner, 2005) have shown that as school-aged students get older, their general education-related motivational beliefs demonstrated a noticeable decline. These studies have suggested that the biggest drop-out occurs immediately following the first year of lower secondary school. For example, Jacobs et al. (2002) conducted a longitudinal study of ability, self-perceptions, and subjective task values within the domains of mathematics, languages, arts, and sports. They found that students’ motivational beliefs declined over time. The findings suggested that the perceptions they had about their abilities influenced the value they accorded to adhered subjects.

Wigfield and Wagner (2005) stated that inappropriate instructional practices often lead to increasingly negative attitudes of school-aged students. For example, irrelevant topics and materials which do not stimulate their needs have a crucial role in students’ attitudes. Bandura (1995) proposed that ability groupings and competitive teaching environments can affect students’ fragile self-efficacy beliefs. Therefore, school learning environments that are impersonal and too controlling can disengage students from participating in elective programs.

Similar trends have been reported in the context of music. The decline in student participation in school music activities during the transition period, such as that from primary to secondary education, is also observed in the context of music (Colley & Comber, 2003; Marshall & Hargreeves, 2007; McEwan, 2013; O’Neil et al., 2002). Other researchers have suggested that most students decide to drop music during or after the first year of lower secondary school (Lowe, 2012; Sloboda, 2001).

Lack of relevance and enjoyment in school music lessons

Some researchers have proposed that school music lacks relevance for most young people (Bray, 2000; Green, 2008; Jeanneret & Sommervelle, 2010; Lowe, 2012; Ross, 1995). Lowe (2012) reported that keeping students engaged in lower secondary class music programs during their senior years is a challenge, internationally.

Research findings have proposed that motivational issues in the specific context of secondary school music may be particularly flawed. Harland et al. (2000) investigated the processes and effectiveness of arts-based education in the United Kingdom. Their project focused on five case study schools with reputations for good practices in art, drama, and music. Data from the case study schools included a questionnaire, secondary data analysis, and interviews with employers and employees in the arts. Results suggested that music was the most problematic art form regarding sustaining student motivation. Compared with art and drama, music was associated with a more limited range of outcomes; there were exceptionally low numbers enrolling for music at Key Stage 4 and there were lower levels of enjoyment in General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) music courses. Most pupils displayed an absence of enjoyment, relevance, skill development, creativity, and expressive dimensions in music. More recent research confirms that the low levels of music enrollments at Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5 continue to exist (McQueen & Hallam, 2010).

Previous research in the Cypriot context has shown that music seems to be irrelevant to students’ interests (Economidou, 2006; Teklos, 2011). At the primary school level, Economidou (2006) investigated the “received” primary music curriculum as experienced by children and how this corresponded with the expectations of the official music curriculum. This study revealed that music was one of pupils’ least favorite school subjects. A subsequent study carried out by Teklos (2011) examined pupils’ perceptions of the subject of music in Cypriot secondary schools. His research revealed largely negative attitudes towards school music. Almost half of the participants provided unenthusiastic and unfavorable responses toward the subject of music while there was more positive feedback toward private music lessons.

Theoretical framework for motivation

The framework that shapes student motivation and learning is complex, and there are various aspects that teachers need to monitor (Cogdill, 2014). Previous research studies on motivation have focused on various theoretical perspectives. This study took an exploratory approach that focused on theoretical constructs, exploring student motivation from several perspectives that should not be treated as separate entities but as features to help build a richer picture of the many factors that motivate students to engage with their learning (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Accordingly, this study explored both cognitive and humanistic theoretical perspectives derived from a review of the literature. In particular, the questionnaire explored motivation through the lens of cognitive and humanistic perspectives that have been linked with learning and particularly with engagement in music education. The four motivation subscales developed for the questionnaire were Self-Efficacy (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) which is defined as people’s judgments of their capabilities before a task; Enjoyment, which relates to musician’s motivation and learning practices (Green, 2008; Hallam et al., 2011; Koops & Keubel, 2018); Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2005; Elliott & Silverman, 2015), which was used to characterize optimal experience; and Musical Goals (Deci et al., 1981; Ryan & Deci, 2000), which are related to concepts found in self-determination theory (SDT) such as the need for competence, belongingness, and autonomy, and the need for fulfilling one’s potential.

Bandura (1995) defined self-efficacy theory as the beliefs people hold about their abilities to perform specific tasks. Various researchers have discussed the importance of students’ self-efficacy beliefs in the music context (Hallam, 2009; Hallam et al., 2011; Ritchie & Williamon, 2011). For instance, prior music experience and participation were found as the highest predictors of self-efficacy (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011).

The effects that self-efficacy has on the performance of instrumentalists were shown in McCormick & McPherson’s (2003) study, which investigated the relationship between aspects of motivation, music practice, and performance. Their findings suggested that self-efficacy was the best predictor of actual performance, which is consistent with research completed in other academic contexts. Further research in an instrumental music context (Lowe, 2012) has provided evidence that encouragement for their students, by teachers, was strongly related to self-efficacy among secondary school students.

The Expectancy-Value theory also describes motivation in terms of competence beliefs but at the same time considers the values that students place on the activities. Eccles et al. (1983) developed the Expectancy-Value theory, which stresses the notion that behavior is a joint function of students’ expectancies for success and the value they place on a task. They defined different components: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. O’Neill & McPherson (2002, p. 32) defined the four different components of achievement values in an instrumental music context. According to these music researchers, (a) “attainment value” referred to the importance that a student attaches to succeeding in a task, (b) “intrinsic motivation” indicated the feeling of enjoyment an instrumentalist has when performing music, (c) “extrinsic utility value” referred to the perceptions of students about how useful the activity is for their future goals and careers, and (d) “perceived cost” of an activity indicated the negative aspects of engaging in an activity such as the amount of practice one dedicates to improve.

Enjoyment has long been considered a major aspect of musicians’ motivation and learning practices (Green, 2008; Hallam, 2010; Hallam et al., 2011; Koops & Keubel, 2018). In the secondary school classroom context, Lamont et al. (2003) found that playing instruments, making up music, and having opportunities to connect with professional musicians were some of the most liked aspects of class music lessons. Green’s (2008) research revealed two main areas related to enjoyment: music-making and the autonomy students were given to direct their own learning. Playing instruments, making up music, and having opportunities to connect with professional musicians were some of the most liked aspects of class music lessons.

Another perspective of intrinsic motivation is the notion of “flow experiences,” developed by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (1990). He stressed that flow occurs when the presented challenge can potentially be reached. The concept of flow has been studied in high school classroom contexts (Shernoff et al., 2003) and in a variety of music contexts such as choral conducting (Durrant, 2003), instrumental learning (O’Neill, 1999), creativity in students’ compositions (Byrne et al., 2002), and live music performance (Sinnamon et al., 2012; Wrigley & Emmerson, 2013).

Shernoff et al. (2003) examined flow in high school classroom context by investigating how adolescents spent their time in high school. Participants were engaged when their skills were in balance with the challenge of the task. These researchers found that students experienced flow when they felt confident and could control their own learning. In another study, Wrigley & Emmerson (2013) examined flow in a live music performance context. Two hundred and thirty-six students from five instrument families completed the Flow State Scale (FFS-2) questionnaire immediately after their performance examination. The results showed that most students did not attain a high state of flow in their performance examination. Most students did not believe that they were skilled enough to encounter the challenge of the performance and did not enjoy the experience.

Deci & Ryan (1985) proposed SDT, a needs satisfaction theory that focuses on the environmental factors that can support or undermine students’ motivation. From this perspective, environmental factors that enhance intrinsic motivation may include optimal challenges, opportunities for self-direction, acknowledgment of feelings, and positive feedback. Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) which is a sub theory of SDT concerns intrinsic motivation and refers to doing an activity for its inherent satisfaction. CET addresses the impact of external events such as rewards, feedback, and communications on intrinsic motivation and interest. Ryan & Deci (2000) defined intrinsic motivation as doing something because it is inherently satisfactory and extrinsic as doing something because it offers a separable outcome. Extrinsic motivation, for example, is observed when students perform alien to them actions that do not motivate them, therefore lacking interest that drives them to feel externally forced or compelled to complete a task. Intrinsic motivation, on the contrary, might be characterized by strong and positive self-concept, and clear goal-directed behavior. In a music lesson, students might express high intrinsic motivation through being interested, or finding pleasure in optimal challenges. Students might express low intrinsic motivation by avoiding challenges and not believing in themselves. Thus, educational practices that encourage self-direction, optimal challenges, and positive feedback can enhance intrinsic motivation while conditions with fewer opportunities for autonomy and the articulation of competencies can undermine intrinsic motivation (Renwick & Reeve, 2012).

CET focuses on links between competence, autonomy, and intrinsic motivation, which is critical in education, arts, sport, and many other domains. According to this perspective, tasks that endorse greater perceived competence will increase intrinsic motivation, while tasks that reduce perceived competence will lead to diminished intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, when tasks are deemed internally controlling, they may be experienced as pressure toward achieving specific outcomes and may undermine intrinsic motivation while less controlling tasks can facilitate self-determined functioning and can enhance intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Dweck’s “Mind-Set” theory provided a research-based model of motivational processes showing how particular goals of students shaped their reactions to success and failure (Dweck, 1986, 2012). She explained that a performance goal focuses on ability, leading to fragile confidence and reluctance to engage with challenging tasks. In contrast, a learning goal encourages children to focus on effort. Classroom goal structures were shown by Anderman & Anderman (1999) to have an impact on the motivation of school-aged students in their school academic lessons. Among 660 students moving from fifth toward the sixth grade, data were found to indicate that students’ learning goals decreased and performance goals increased. Changes in students’ goal orientations were predicted by their perceptions of goal structures of their classrooms in sixth grade. The findings of this research point to the significance of teachers’ goal orientations and the influence of these goal orientations on students’ motivational orientations.

The findings of the studies mentioned above suggest that motivation may be enhanced when pedagogical strategies focus on improving students’ self-efficacy with positive reinforcement (Lowe, 2012), increasing the value they invest in their tasks (McPherson & O’Neill, 2010), offering opportunities for autonomy and development of self-esteem (Ryan & Deci, 2000), encouraging flow experiences (Shernoff et al., 2003), and encouraging mastery rather than performance goals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999).

Research questions

The literature has highlighted the importance of students’ motivation in learning and the significance of this in music. The focus of this article was to draw on the data derived from a longitudinal study in Cypriot schools to answer the following questions:

Research Question 1: To what extent are students motivated to engage in music lessons delivered under the new music curriculum?

Research Question 2: What are the facets of motivation that are most salient in this context?

Method

This article reports on a longitudinal correlational study tracking the students over one academic year. A total of N = 170, Year 7 students, representing eight different government schools, completed questionnaires at the commencement (Trial 1) and completion of their academic year (Trial 2). The sample comprised of one Year 7 class from each of the participating eight schools where each class ranged in size from 19 to 24 students. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Policy and Society, Institute of Education, University of London, and the Cypriot Ministry of Education and Culture.

The questionnaire consisted of a 4-point Likert-type scale where four indicated the highest score and one the lowest score (4: strongly agree, 3: agree, 2: disagree, 1: strongly disagree) and contained 26 items related to motivation constructs. The reason I chose to leave out the neutral position was to make students take a standpoint and avoid getting many neutral responses. The analysis conducted and presented in this study consisted of checking for the reliability of the subscales for motivation, preliminary analysis, descriptive statistics, and paired-samples t tests to ascertain whether the scores for individual items of motivation subscales had changed over time (Pallant, 2010).

The items included in the questionnaire (see Appendix 1) derived from motivation literature, and in particular, previous research concerned with motivation in secondary music (Hallam et al., 2011) and were based on theoretical constructs, exploring student motivation from several perspectives (Self-Efficacy, Enjoyment, Flow, Musical Goals, and Goal Orientations). These items were selected to represent the essential features of related motivational theories to build a richer picture of the factors that motivate students to engage with their learning. Accordingly, the motivation framework was not confined to one theoretical perspective but rather explored theoretical perspectives derived from a review of the literature concerned with motivation in secondary school music.

During the construction of the questionnaire, the indicators were organized into five subscales related to motivation: Self-Efficacy, Enjoyment, Flow, Musical Goals, and Goal Orientation. The Goal Orientation subscale (Dweck, 1986; Meece et al., 2006) comprised of four indicators, two indicating mastery goals and two indicating performance goals, each of which was related to the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS), which assessed classroom goal structures (Midgley, 2002). When the reliability of each subscale was checked, it was found that the Goal Orientation subscale had very low reliability (Trial 1 = .196 and Trial 2 = .238). Pallant (2010) suggested removing items with a reliability of less than .7. As this subscale was not reliable, the two indicators of mastery goals were reconceptualized as indicators of Self-Efficacy, which in turn increased the reliability of the Self-Efficacy subscale. Two indicators of performance Goal Orientations were excluded from the analysis.

The four motivation subscales that were used in this questionnaire were Self-Efficacy (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002), Enjoyment (Green, 2008; Hallam et al., 2011), Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Elliott, 1995), and Musical Goals (Deci et al., 1981; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In calculating the Flow subscale score, the score for the indicator “Music is a hard subject” was reversed as it indicated negative flow while other indicators indicated positive flow. The Flow subscale included items that could also be related to the area of Enjoyment (i.e., “I look forward to music lessons”). After a careful reading of the related literature (i.e., Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Shernoff et al., 2003), these items were contextualized in the flow construct. The Musical Goals subscale included statements related to the ideas found in the music curriculum (MoEC, 2010), which encouraged aspects such as playing music in groups, inviting musicians to schools, and performing in concerts outside school.

Limitations

This study has certain limitations including the participation of students which was not random and the size of the sample which could have been bigger. Another limitation is the collecting of data at the start and the end of the year only.

Results

Reliability and validity

The internal consistency of each of the motivation subscales was determined with alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1951). Reliability was high. For each of the subscales, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient at Trial 1 and Trial 2 exceeded .7, and in some instances .8 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Reliability for Subscales of the Motivation Measure.

Subscale	Cronbach’s α
Subscale	1	2
Self-Efficacy	.781	.818
Enjoyment	.839	.878
Flow	.773	.735
Musical Goals	.781	.747

Motivation subscales: Descriptive statistics

The means and standard deviations for the subscales are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for the Subscales at Trial 1 and Trial 2.

Subscale	Number of students		M		SD
Subscale	1	2	1	2	1	2
Self-Efficacy	86	103	3.15	3.09	.503	.546
Enjoyment	104	128	3.17	2.95	.624	.733
Flow	123	134	3.29	3.04	.646	.705
Musical Goals	112	124	3.07	2.95	.715	.718

SD: standard deviation.

The scores for the subscales at the beginning of the year (Trial 1) were calculated: Self-Efficacy (M = 3.15, SD = .503), Enjoyment (M = 3.17, SD = .624), Flow (M = 3.29, SD = .646), and Musical Goals (M = 3.07, SD = .715). Flow had the highest mean score and Musical Goals had the lowest mean score. Also, Self-Efficacy had the lowest standard deviation, indicating that the responses were less spread, while Musical Goals had the highest standard deviation indicating greater diversity among the responses for that subscale.

The scores for the subscales at the end of the year (Trial 2) were calculated: Self-Efficacy (M = 3.09, SD = .546), Enjoyment (M = 2.95, SD = .733), Flow (M = 3.04, SD = .705), and Musical Goals (M = 2.95, SD = .718). Self-Efficacy had the highest mean score. Enjoyment and Musical Goals had the lowest mean scores. As at Trial 2, Self-Efficacy had the lowest standard deviation, and Enjoyment had the highest. There was a decrease in the subscales’ scores at the end of the year (Trial 2). Self-Efficacy decreased by 0.06, Enjoyment by 0.22, Flow by 0.25, and Musical Goals by 0.12. However, as compared with Trial 1, the standard deviations at Trial 2 were higher, indicating that while the overall mean scores had decreased, the diversity among the students, as reflected in their responses, had increased.

Self-Efficacy

Table 3 shows the frequencies, means, and standard deviations for each indicator of Self-Efficacy.

Table 3.

Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations of Self-Efficacy Indicators for Trial 1 and Trial 2.

Indicator	Strongly agree		Agree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		M		SD
Indicator	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2
I could be better in music	62	52	63	75	17	19	7	12	3.21	3.06	0.824	0.869
	33.20%	27.80%	33.70%	40%	9.10%	10%	3.70%	6.40%
I want to fulfill my potential in music	82	65	43	54	14	19	6	11	3.39	3.16	0.827	0.916
	43.90%	34.80%	23%	29%	7.50%	10%	3.20%	5.90%
I think that with effort one can improve in music	95	85	57	62	3	8	2	5	3.56	3.42	0.603	0.731
	50.80%	45.50%	31%	33%	1.60%	4.30%	1.10%	2.70%
I think that I am good in music	52	35	55	86	19	18	9	9	3.11	2.99	0.887	0.778
	27.80%	18.70%	29%	46%	10%	9.60%	4.80%	4.80%
I can improve in music	59	49	81	90	11	12	4	7	3.26	3.15	0.701	0.739
	31.60%	26.20%	43%	48%	5.90%	6.40%	2.10%	3.70%
I can play at least one instrument	57	65	67	64	19	21	10	5	3.12	3.22	0.866	0.8
	30.50%	34.80%	36%	34%	10%	11%	5.30%	2.70%
I can sing well	44	46	52	48	27	29	13	20	2.93	2.84	0.952	1.032
	23.50%	24.60%	28%	26%	14%	16%	7%	10.70%
I can understand and analyze songs that we listen to during music lesson	34	31	61	70	28	28	6	16	2.95	2.8	0.818	0.902
	18.20%	16.60%	33%	37%	15%	15%	3.20%	8.60%
I can make up my own melodies	28	31	34	49	47	33	26	27	2.47	2.6	1.028	1.037
	15%	16.60%	18%	26%	25%	18%	13.90%	14.40%

SD: standard deviation.

All other indicators showed a decrease at Trial 2 except two indicators, one indicating student Self-Efficacy for playing instruments and the other indicating student Self-Efficacy for making up melodies increased. At Trial 2, more students said that they agreed and strongly agreed with the statement “I can play at least one instrument” (38.8%) whereas at Trial 1, fewer students agreed or strongly disagreed (36.5%). Similarly, at Trial 2, more students agreed and strongly agreed with the statement “I can make up my own melodies” (42.6%) whereas at Trial 1, fewer students agreed or strongly disagreed (33%).

Enjoyment

Table 4 shows the frequencies, means, and standard deviations for each indicator of Enjoyment.

Table 4.

Frequencies, Means, and Standard Deviations for each indicator of Enjoyment.

Indicator	Strongly agree		Agree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		M		SD
Indicator	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2
I think the way music is taught is interesting	54	40	73	85	26	23	5	16	3.11	2.91	0.79	0.878
	28.90%	21.40%	39%	46%	14%	12%	2.70%	8.60%
I like singing during the music lesson	73	63	51	46	15	32	16	23	3.17	2.91	0.979	1.067
	39%	33.70%	27.30%	25%	8%	17%	8.60%	12.30%
I like playing instruments during the music lesson	89	97	41	44	22	15	6	10	3.33	3.37	0.876	0.884
	47.60%	51.90%	21.90%	24%	12%	8%	3.70%	5.30%
I like composing during the music lesson	39	47	45	57	40	33	23	21	2.68	2.82	1.034	1.006
	20.90%	25.10%	24.10%	31%	21%	18%	12.30%	11.20%
I like listening and analyzing songs during the music lesson	35	31	61	66	32	40	13	18	2.84	2.71	0.907	0.919
	18.70%	16.60%	32.60%	35%	17%	21%	7%	9.60%
I enjoy music lessons	66	54	64	68	17	18	7	20	3.23	2.98	0.821	0.977
	35.30%	28.90%	34%	36%	9.10%	9.60%	3.70%	10.70%
I would like to do more music at school	54	58	41	26	22	30	29	43	2.82	2.63	1.137	1.237
	28.90%	31%	22%	14%	12%	16%	15.50%	23%
I like learning music at school	74	63	51	58	13	20	10	15	3.28	3.08	0.887	0.957
	39.60%	33.70%	27.30%	31%	7%	11%	5.30%	8%

SD: standard deviation.

Only two of the indicators increased at Trial 2. These were “I like playing instruments during the music lesson” and “I like composing during the music lesson.” At Trial 2, more students said that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I like playing instruments during the music lesson” (75.9%) whereas at Trial 1 fewer students agreed or strongly disagreed (69.5%). Similarly, at Trial 2, more students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I like composing during the music lesson” (56.1%) whereas at Trial 1, fewer students agreed or strongly disagreed (45%).

Flow

Table 5 shows the means, frequencies, and standard deviations for each indicator of Flow.

Table 5.

Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations of Flow Indicators at Trial 1 and Trial 2.

Indicator	Strongly agree		Agree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		M		SD
Indicator	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2
Overall I can understand what the teacher is talking about	51	39	70	87	17	18	10	16	3.09	2.93	0.852	0.87
	27.30%	20.90%	37.40%	47%	9.10%	9.60%	5.30%	8.60%
Music is a hard subject	9	9	21	59	59	59	68	9	3.36	3.4	0.992	0.993
	4.80%	4.80%	11.20%	32%	32%	32%	36.40%	4.80%
Time passes quickly and pleasantly during the music lesson	75	67	58	52	14	23	8	19	3.29	3.04	0.837	1.018
	40.10%	35.80%	31%	28%	7.50%	12%	4.30%	10.20%
I look forward to music lessons	72	49	50	60	11	20	12	24	3.26	2.88	0.919	1.034
	38.50%	26.20%	26.70%	32%	5.90%	11%	6.40%	12.80%

SD: standard deviation.

Only one indicator increased at Trial 2: “Music is a hard subject.” As this indicator was reversed because it had a negative loading, the results indicated that all Flow indicators decreased.

Musical Goals

Table 6 shows the means, frequencies, and standard deviations for each indicator of Musical Goals.

Table 6.

Means, Frequencies, and Standard Deviations of Musical Goals Indicators at Trial 1 and Trial 2.

Indicator	Strongly agree		Agree		Disagree		Strongly disagree		M		SD
Indicator	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2
I would like to learn how to make up my own music	59	58	49	61	24	19	18	16	2.99	3.05	1.02	0.959
	31.60%	31.00%	26.20%	33%	12.80%	10.20%	9.60%	8.60%
I want to play music in groups with my friends during the music lesson	66	74	59	54	15	14	7	14	3.25	3.21	0.826	0.942
	35.30%	39.60%	31.60%	29%	8%	8%	3.70%	7.50%
I want to play music in groups with my friends in school concerts	55	43	55	55	22	28	16	31	3.01	2.7	0.979	1.077
	29.40%	23.00%	29%	29%	11.80%	15%	8.60%	16.60%
I would like to listen to musicians performing live at my school	68	71	47	49	18	15	14	16	3.15	2.64	0.975	0.987
	36.40%	38%	25.10%	26.20%	9.60%	8.00%	7.50%	8.60%
I would like to perform in concerts outside school	57	42	29	45	34	28	22	34	2.85	3.05	1.117	1.122
	30.50%	23%	15.50%	24.10%	18.20%	15.00%	11.80%	18.20%

SD: standard deviation.

Only two indicators increased at Trial 2: “I would like to learn how to make up my own music” and “I would like to perform in concerts outside school.” At Trial 2, more students said that they agreed with the statement “I would like to learn how to make up my own music” (64%) whereas at Trial 1, fewer students agreed or strongly disagreed (57.8%). Similarly, at Trial 2, more students agreed and strongly agreed with the statement “I would like to perform in concerts outside school” (47.1%) whereas at Trial 1, fewer students agreed and strongly disagreed (35.5%).

Change over time

To test for change over time, a paired-sample t test was conducted. Out of the 26 indicators (Likert-type scale statements) of motivation which were included in both Trial 1 and Trial 2, there was a statistically significant difference over time for eight indicators of motivation subscales. Only the indicators that were found to have a statistically significant difference are presented here. A statistically significant difference was found in the mean scores for Trial 1 and Trial 2 for two indicators of Self-Efficacy: “I want to fulfill my potential in music” and “I can play at least one instrument” (Table 7). A small to moderate effect size (η² = 0.05) was found for the indicator “I want to fulfill my potential in music” which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 3.43, SD = .818) to Trial 2 (M = 3.25, SD = .866), t(2.458), p = .15. The mean decrease was 0.18 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.035 to 0.322. A small to moderate effect size was found for the indicator “I can play at least one instrument” which increased from Trial 1 (M = 3.09, SD = .879) to Trial 2 (M = 3.24, SD = .771), t(2.013), p = .46. The mean increase was 0.15 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.003 to 0.305. In this case, the effect size measured by the η² statistic was small, at 0.03.

Table 7.

Paired-Samples t Test for Self-Efficacy Indicators.

Indicator	1		2		t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
Indicator	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
I want to fulfill my potential in music.	3.43	.818	3.25	.866	2.458	128	.015	0.05
I can play at least one instrument.	3.09	.879	3.24	.771	2.013	142	.046	0.03

SD: standard deviation.

A paired-samples t test indicated statistically significant differences in the mean scores for Trial 1 and Trial 2 for two indicators of Enjoyment: “I like singing during the music lesson” and “I think that the subject of music is interesting the way it is taught” (Table 8). A small to moderate effect size (η² = 0.05) was found for the indicator “I like singing during the music lesson” which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 3.17, SD = .986) to Trial 2 (M = 2.95, SD = 1.060), t(2.957), p = .04. The mean decrease was 0.22 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.073 to 0.367. A small to moderate effect size was found for the indicator “I think that the subject of music is interesting the way it is taught” which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 3.14, SD = .787) to Trial 2 (M = 2.93, SD = .871), t(2.484), p = .14. The mean decrease was 0.21 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.041 to 0.364. The effect size for change over time regarding this indicator, as measured by the η² statistic was 0.04.

Table 8.

Paired-Samples t Test for Enjoyment Indicators.

Indicator	1		2		t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
Indicator	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
I like singing during the music lesson.	3.17	.986	2.95	1.06	2.957	149	.004	0.05
I think the way music is taught is interesting.	3.14	.787	2.93	.871	2.484	152	.014	0.04

SD: standard deviation.

A paired-samples t test indicated statistically significant differences in the mean scores for Trial 1 and Trial 2 for two indicators of Flow: “I look forward to music lessons” and “Time passes quickly and pleasantly in music” (Table 9). The highest effect size (0.10), considered to be moderate effect was found for the indicator “I look forward to music lessons,” decreasing from Trial 1 (M = 3.27, SD = .918) to Trial 2 (M = 2.91, SD = 1.018), t(3.893), p = .001. The mean decrease was 0.36 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.179 to 0.547. A small to moderate effect size (η² = 0.05) was found for the indicator “Time passes quickly and pleasantly in music” which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 3.35, SD = .791) to Trial 2 (M = 3.12, SD = .983), t(2.729), p = .007. The mean decrease was 0.21 at the 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0.064 to 0.399.

Table 9.

Paired-Samples t Test for Flow Indicators.

Indicator	1		2		t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
Indicator	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
I look forward to music lessons.	3.27	.918	2.91	1.018	3.893	134	.01	0.1
Time passes quickly and pleasantly during the music lesson.	3.35	.791	3.12	.983	2.729	146	.007	0.05

SD: standard deviation.

A paired-samples t test indicated statistically significant differences in the mean scores for Trial 1 and Trial 2 for two indicators of Musical Goals: “I want to play music in groups with my friends in school concerts” and “I would like to perform in concerts outside school” (Table 10). A small to moderate effect size (η² = 0.05) was found for the indicator “I want to play music in groups with my friends in school concerts” which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 3.02, SD = .989) to Trial 2 (M = 2.76, SD = 1.054), t(2.714), p = .007. The mean decrease was 0.26 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.069 to 0.285. A small to moderate effect size (η² = 0.05) was found for the indicator “I would like to perform in concerts outside school” which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 2.88, SD = 1.111) to Trial 2 (M = 2.60, SD = 1.114), t(2.662), p = .09. The mean decrease was 0.28 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.070 to 0.473. The significant decrease of the statement “I would like to perform in concerts outside school” was in contrast with the descriptive statistics result where an increase in Trial 2 was found. This is due to the missing values provided at Trial 1 and Trial 2.

Table 10.

Paired-Samples t Test for Musical Goals Indicators.

Indicator	1		2		t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
Indicator	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
I want to play music in groups with my friends in school concerts.	3.02	.989	2.76	1.054	2.714	138	.007	0.05
I would like to perform in concerts outside school.	2.88	1.111	2.6	1.114	2.662	128	.009	0.05

SD: standard deviation.

A paired-samples t test indicated statistically significant differences in the mean scores for Trial 1 and Trial 2 for Enjoyment and Flow (Table 11). A moderate effect size (η² = 0.06) was found for Enjoyment which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 3.19, SD = .623) to Trial 2 (M = 3.04, SD = .734), t(2.23), p = .28. The standard deviation increased, which means that the variability in the scores increased. The mean decrease was 0.15 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.016 to 0.280. A moderate effect size (η² = 0.10) was found for Flow which decreased from Trial 1 (M = 3.33, SD = .632) to Trial 2 (M = 3.12, SD = .671), t(3.513), p = .001. The mean decrease was 0.21 at the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.095 to 0.340.

Table 11.

Paired-Samples t Test for Subscales.

Indicator	1		2		t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
Indicator	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	Sig. (two-tailed)	η²
Enjoyment	3.19	.623	3.04	.734	2.229	85	.028	0.06
Flow	3.33	.632	3.12	.671	3.513	106	.001	0.10

SD: standard deviation.

Discussion

The findings of this study revealed that the motivation of students for classroom music declined between the beginning and the end of their first year in secondary school, thus confirming previous research (Sloboda, 2001; Wigfield & Wagner, 2005). There was a decrease in all subscales scores at the end of the year and statistically significant changes were found for Enjoyment and Flow. Teachers need to draw attention to the importance of finding ways to improve students’ motivation through making their lessons more enjoyable and providing opportunities for flow. They must be aware of the various aspects that shape student motivation and learning (Cogdill, 2014).

The descriptive analysis of this study revealed that the indicators “I can play at least one instrument”, “I can make up my own melodies”, “I like playing instruments during the music lesson”, “I like composing during the music lesson”, “I would like to learn how to make up my own music”, and “I would like to perform in concerts outside school” increased at Trial 2. Interestingly, all these indicators are related to performance and composing. This may suggest that the teachers managed to offer enjoyable performing and composing activities while managing to increase during the year students’ self-efficacy and future musical goals related to performing and composing.

The indicator “I can play at least one instrument” increased significantly, suggesting that students had more opportunities to play instruments and they felt that their performance abilities increased. Previous research findings (Hallam et al., 2011) showed that students value practical work, and their self-esteem increases when they can perform to others. There are certain implications for teachers based on the previous observation; by placing practice at the center of their teaching, student motivation can be enhanced. Thus, this finding might also suggest that the teachers of the students involved in the current research did subscribe to the idea of learning through practical experience. The increase of the indicator “I can make up my own melodies” may suggest that students were provided with opportunities to compose their own music, which is related to the wider body of literature that has pinpointed the importance of autonomy in motivating students (Green, 2008; Hallam et al., 2011).

The significant decrease of the Self-Efficacy indicator “I want to fulfill my potential in music” suggests that students were not motivated toward fulfilling their musical potential and that teachers should try to help students increase their positive self-efficacy to experience success in specific tasks (Hallam, 2009). In addition, this may be related to students’ low value placed on music education at school.

The significant decrease of the indicators of Enjoyment, “I like singing during the music lesson” and “I think the way music is taught is interesting,” suggests that students’ task values in terms of interest were diminished. Earlier research has recommended developing students’ reflective thinking about musical values by asking questions like “why might this knowledge be important or useful?” (McPherson & O’Neill, 2010, p. 134). Through engaging students in reflective thinking and bolstering their belief in themselves and their musical values, student motivation could, arguably, be enhanced.

Interestingly, none of the Flow indicators increased. A significant decrease was found for the indicators “I look forward to music lessons” and “Time passes quickly and pleasantly in music.” In addition, the indicator “I look forward to music lessons” had the highest effect size (0.10), thus revealing strong implications for music teachers who need to try to find ways to make music more appealing to students. This may suggest that students were not given the opportunity to work on tasks that were matched with their level. This finding agrees with previous research in music education showing that students had a low state of flow (Wrigley & Emmerson, 2013). As the authors proposed, through fostering students’ flow experiences, their self-efficacy and enjoyment can increase. Teachers need to provide tasks that are appropriate to students’ skills and help students experience flow by finding ways to develop their confidence and provide opportunities to control their own learning (Shernoff et al., 2003).

The significant decrease of the two indicators of Musical Goals, “I want to play music in groups with my friends in school concerts” and “I would like to perform in concerts outside school,” may suggest that students have low competence beliefs and thus do not feel encouraged to participate in concerts in and out of school. It might be related to previous findings suggesting that some students perceive that only those with high-level instrumental skills would succeed (Lamont et al., 2003). This finding may suggest that teachers’ classroom goal structures were not based on learning goals where effort rather than performance is encouraged. As students’ perceptions of classroom goals can predict their goals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999), teachers need to make sure that classroom tasks endorse greater perceived competence that can help increase intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, teachers can try to motivate students toward participating in concerts in and out of school by creating goals that students can align with and feel competent that they can achieve.

The findings of this research align with previous research in Cyprus, reporting the negative attitudes of students toward music (Economidou, 2006; Teklos, 2011). There is a need for further research on the motivation of students in both primary and secondary schools in Cyprus. This research has made an effort to investigate the motivation of students right at the beginning of the introduction of the new music curriculum. Future research examining issues of motivation a few years after the introduction of the curriculum is needed to see how the motivation of students has been influenced by the implementation of the new curriculum and whether the problematic issue of lack of motivation and engagement of students in the subject of music has finally been addressed. In addition, as Flow had the highest effect size (0.10), future research could concentrate on this factor and further investigate how pedagogy influences students’ state of flow in music.

These results agree with previous research indicating that music teachers might not be informed of the complex framework that shapes student motivation (Cogdill, 2014) and strongly suggest that music teachers should be provided with professional support which engages them in developing students’ motivational beliefs. Teachers need to be educated on the various aspects that may help them to increase student motivation.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Subscales of the Motivation Measure.

Subscale	Indicator
Self-Efficacy	I think that with effort you can improve in music. I could be better in music. I want to fulfill my potential in music. I think that I am good in music. I can improve in music. I can play at least one instrument. I can sing well. I can understand and analyze songs that we listen to during the music lesson. I can make up my own melodies.
Enjoyment	I think the way music is taught makes music more interesting. I enjoy music lessons. I would like to do more music at school. I like learning music at school. I like singing during the music lesson. I like playing instruments during the music lesson. I like composing during the music lesson. I like listening and analyzing songs during the music lesson.
Flow	Overall I can understand what the teacher is talking about. Music is a hard subject.^a Time passes quickly and pleasantly during the music lesson. I look forward to music lessons.
Musical Goals	I would like to learn how to make up my own music. I want to play music in groups with my friends during the music lesson. I want to play music in groups with my friends during school concerts. I would like to listen to musicians performing live at my school. I would like to perform in concerts outside school.

This indicator was reversed when calculating the score for the subscale.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Andrea Creech for the help and guidance throughout 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Chryso Hadjikou

Author biography

Chryso Hadjikou studied music at Surrey University with major piano performance. She completed her MA and PhD in Education at University College London Institute of Education. She is currently a scientific collaborator at the University of Nicosia. She has actively participated in many conferences in Cyprus and abroad on topics related to the pedagogical principles of the new Cypriot music curriculum. Her research interests include topics related to Curriculum Design, Teaching Methods, Psychology, and Sociology of Music Education. She has extensive experience of teaching music to nursery, primary, and secondary school levels.

References

Anderman

L.H.

Anderman

E.M.

(1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.

Bandura

(1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.

Bong

Skaalvik

(2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40.

Bray

(2000). Teaching music in the secondary school. Heinemann.

Byrne

MacDonald

Carlton

(2002). Flow and Creativity in the Music Classroom. Paper presented at the 10th Anniversary ESCOM Musical Creativity Conference, University of Liege.

Cogdill

S. H.

(2014). Applying Research in Motivation and Learning to Music Education: What the Experts Say. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 33(2), 49–57.

Colley

Comber

(2003). School subject preferences: Age and gender differences revisited. Educational Studies, 29, 59–67.

Cronbach

L.J.

(1951). ‘Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests’. Psychometrika. 16(3), 297-334.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Collins.

10.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1997). The masterminds series. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books.

11.

Csikszentmihalyi

Abuhamdeh

Nakamura

(2005). Flow. In Elliott

A. J.

Dweck

S. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–608). The Guildford Press.

12.

Deci

E. L.

Nezlek

Sheinman

(1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–10.

13.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

14.

Durrant

(2003). Choral conducting: philosophy and practice. New York: Routledge.

15.

Dweck

C. S.

(1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.

16.

Dweck

C. S.

(2012). Implicit theories. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2). (pp. 43–61). SAGE.

17.

Eccles

J. S.

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Kaczala

C. M.

Meece

J. L.

Midgley

(1983). ‘Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors’. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman.

18.

Economidou

(2006). The music curriculum as “received” by children: Evidence from Cyprus primary schools. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 187–204.

19.

Elliott

D. J.

(1995). Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education, New York: Oxford University Press.

20.

Elliott

D. J.

Silverman

(2015). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

21.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Ashgate.

22.

Hallam

(2009). Motivation to learn. In Hallam

Cross

Thaut

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 285–294). Oxford University Press.

23.

Hallam

Creech

McQueen

(2011). Musical futures: A case study investigation: Final report. Institute of Education, University of London, for Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

24.

Harland

Kinder

Lord

Stott

Schagen

Haynes

Cusworth

White

Paola

(2000). Arts education in secondary schools: Effects and effectiveness. NFER.

25.

Jacobs

Lanza

Osgood

D. W.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Ontogeny of children’s self-beliefs: Gender and domain differences across grades one through 12. Child Development, 73, 509–527.

26.

Jeanneret

Sommervelle

(2010). Musical and cultural relevance in a changing world of music education. Journal of Artistic and Creative Education, 4(1), 4–9.

27.

Koops

L. H.

Kuebel

C. R.

(2018). Observations of and perspectives on musical enjoyment in the preschool classroom. Contributions to Music Education, 43, 59–76.

28.

Lamont

Hargreaves

D. J.

Marshall

N. A.

Tarrant

(2003). Young people’s music in and out of school. British Journal of Music Education, 20(3), 229–241.

29.

Lowe

(2012). Lessons for teachers: What lower secondary school students tell us about learning a musical instrument. International Journal of Music Education, 30(3), 227–243.

30.

Marshall

N. A.

Hargreeves

D. J.

(2007). Crossing the hump-back bridge: Primary-secondary school transition in music education. Music Education Research, 9, 65–80.

31.

Meece

J. L.

Anderman

E. M.

Anderman

L. H.

(2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.

32.

McCormick

McPherson

(2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31(1), 37-51.

33.

McEwan

(2013). Secondary student motivation to participate in a Year 9 Australian elective classroom music curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 30, 1103–1124.

34.

McPherson

G. E.

O’Neill

S.A

. (2010). Students’ motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects: A comparison of eight countries. Research Studies in Music Education, 32, 101-137.

35.

McQueen

Hallam

(2010). Music in the secondary school. In Hallam

Creech

(Eds.), Music education in the 21st century in the United Kingdom: Achievements, analysis and aspirations (pp. 228–244). Institute of Education, University of London.

36.

Midgley

(2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Lawrence Erlbaum.

37.

Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) (2010). New Curricula, 2010–2011: Information Bulletin (Nicosia: Cyprus Pedagogical Institute).

38.

O’Neil

S.A.

McPherson

G.E

. (2002). Motivation. In M. A. Parncutt, The science and psychology of music performance (pp.31-46). New York: Oxford University Press.

39.

O’Neil

Sloboda

Boulton

Ryan

(2002). Young people and music participation project: Practitioner report and summary of findings. University of Keele. http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/ESRC

40.

Pallant

(2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

41.

Pintrich

P. R.

Schunk

D. H.

(2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

42.

Renwick

J.M.

Reeve

. (2012). ‘Supporting Motivation in Music Education’. Edited by In McPherson

G.E.

Welch

G. F.

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Education (Vol.1) (pp.143-162). New York: Oxford University Press.

43.

Ritchie

Williamon

(2011). Primary school children’s self-efficacy for music learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 146–161.

44.

Ross

(1995). What’s wrong with school music? British Journal of Music Education, 12, 185–201.

45.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

46.

Shernoff

D. J.

Csikszentmihalyi

Shneider

Shernoff

E. S.

(2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176.

47.

Sinnamon

Moran

O’Connell

(2012). Flow among musicians: Measuring peak experiences of student performers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 6-25.

48.

Sloboda

(2001). Emotion, functionality and the everyday experience of music: Where does music education fit? Music Education Research, 3(2), 243–253.

49.

Teklos

(2011). An investigation into pupils’ attitudes towards secondary music education in Cyprus [Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Hull].

50.

Wigfield

Wagner

(2005). Competence, motivation and identity development during adolescence. In Elliott

Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 222–239). The Guildford Press.

51.

Wrigley

W.J.

Emmerson

S.B.

(2013). The experience of the flow state in live music performance. Psychology of Music, 41(3), 292-305.