The support of autonomy, motivation, and music practice in university music students: A self-determination theory perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practice may be the single most important activity that musicians can use to improve their performance. Yet practice requires significant effort and can sometimes feel difficult or unenjoyable. For this reason, substantial motivational resources are required to sustain consistent, high-quality practice over long periods. In this study, we used self-determination theory to study the kinds of motivation that predict practice behavior and the potential influence that teachers might have on their students’ behaviors. A total of 213 university music students in the United Kingdom and Canada completed measures of practice time, practice quality, motivation, and their teacher’s teaching style. Hypothesized relationships between these variables were examined using structural equation modeling. Results supported the process model in which teacher autonomy supported predicted autonomous motivation, which in turn predicted practice time and practice quality. Teacher control predicted controlled motivation, but controlled motivation was not predictive of practice time or practice quality. Indirect effects suggested that motivation fully mediates the link between teaching style and practice behavior. The findings add clarity to research aiming to understand the kinds of social environments that lead students to develop forms of motivation that enable them to practice in a way that is enjoyable and productive.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".