Relationships between practice, motivation, and examination outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there has been a great deal of research on instrumental practice and the nature of motivation to engage with music making, there has been relatively little that has considered the relationship of these with instrumental examination outcomes. This research aimed to address this issue. A total of 2,131 young musicians, aged 6–19, across a wide range of expertise, with a range of examination outcomes responded to a series of statements on a 7-point Likert scale relating to practice and motivation. Those merely awarded a pass grade in their examinations tended to undertake the least practice. Factor analysis revealed seven factors relating to practice and six to motivation. Multivariate analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences between those with different examination outcomes in relation to the organization of practice, the use of recordings and the metronome, the adoption of analytic strategies, social life, and self-belief in musical ability. Students who received merely a pass grade in their examination responded least positively to these statements. Those who had failed were most likely to adopt ineffective practice strategies and were less likely to enjoy performing, playing, lessons, and practice. The findings are discussed in relation to earlier research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".