McPherson - Motivation To Study Music

Research Studies in Music
Education http://rsm.sagepub.com/
Students' motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects: A

comparison of eight countries
Gary E. McPherson and Susan A. O'Neill
Research Studies in Music Education 2010 32: 101
DOI: 10.1177/1321103X10384202
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/32/2/101
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research
Additional services and information for Research Studies in Music Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rsm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rsm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/32/2/101.refs.html
Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Article
Research Studies in Music Education

32(2) 101–137
Students’ motivation to study © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
music as compared to other school co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1321103X10384202
subjects: A comparison of eight http://rsm.sagepub.com
countries
Gary E. McPherson
University of Melbourne, Australia
Susan A. O’Neill
Simon Fraser University, Canada
Abstract
This study draws on an expectancy-value theoretical framework to examine the motivation (competence
beliefs, values and task difficulty) of 24,143 students (11,909 females and 10,066 males, aged 9 to 21
years) from eight countries (Brazil n = 1848; China n = 3049; Finland n = 1654; Hong Kong n = 6179;
Israel n = 2257; Korea n = 2671; Mexico n = 3613; USA n = 3072). Music was studied in comparison
to five other school subjects (art, mother tongue, physical education, mathematics, science) across
three school grade levels that included the key transition from elementary to secondary school. Results
indicated that music as a school subject was valued less and received lower task difficulty ratings than
other school subjects with the exception of art. Students reported higher competence beliefs for physical
education and mother tongue compared to music and lower competence beliefs for mathematics and
art. There was an overall decline in students’ competence beliefs and values across the school grade
levels for all countries except Brazil. Females reported higher competence beliefs and values and lower
task difficulty ratings for music, art and mother tongue than males. Males reported higher competence
beliefs and lower task difficulty ratings for physical education and mathematics. There were no gender
differences for values in mathematics. Music learners reported higher competence beliefs and values and
lower task difficulty across school subjects than non-music learners. Secondary analyses were used to
further explore differences within each of the eight countries. Findings suggest that once students have
experienced learning to play an instrument or voice, they become more motivated towards other school
subjects. Implications of the findings suggest that advocacy aimed at increasing the values that students
attach to music as a school subject may encourage more students to become music learners across a wide
range of countries.
Keywords
competence beliefs, cross-cultural comparisons, expectancy-value theory, motivation, music education,
school subjects, self-beliefs, task difficulty, values
Corresponding author:
Gary E. McPherson, Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne, Australia 3010.
[email: g.mcpherson@unimelb.edu.au]

102 Research Studies in Music Education 32(2)
Introduction
In the past decade, advocacy for music education has become increasingly globalized. In coun-
tries throughout the world, music educators are working to convince education policy makers
and parents that involving children and adolescents in music education has high value in
terms of artistic experience, personal fulfilment and educational development. This is despite
finding that many young people do not value music education as highly as other subjects at
school, particularly after they make the transition to secondary school (Ghazali & McPherson,
2009; McPherson, 2007; O’Neill, 2006; Pitts, 2005). Some students view music education as
too difficult or they are unable to overcome the sociocultural barriers that prevent them from
reaching their full musical potential (O’Neill, 2002). To what extent are these motivational
problems apparent in different countries? Is the apparent decline in young people’s motivation
towards formal music education a global trend? Can we identify any social, cultural or educa-
tional policies or practices from specific countries that might help us encourage more students
to engage in music education in ways that are meaningful to them and that offer them the best
chance of success?
This study begins our exploration of these questions by examining key motivational orien-
tations that impact on the decisions that students make about their engagement in music as
a school subject compared to other school subjects. Although recent research suggests that
participation in formal instrumental music education is associated with higher academic
achievement in other ‘core’ subjects (Gouzouasis, Guhn, & Kishor, 2007) and with higher
verbal (vocabulary) and non-verbal reasoning skills (Forgeard, Winner, Norton, & Schlaug,
2008), almost no research exists that attempts to establish how and why students develop the
desire to pursue music as a school subject and how their beliefs and attitudes about music
may differ from other school subjects. Consequently, we have only a modest understanding of
how students vary in the degree of persistence and intensity they display in accepting, valu-
ing and participating in music across the years of schooling, and in particular how their
beliefs about ‘elective’ subjects such as music may be different or similar to their beliefs about
core ‘academic’ subjects. The purpose of our study was therefore to investigate these issues
across a range of school grades with a special emphasis on the implications the findings may
have for understanding students’ motivation to study music in the school curriculum across
eight different social, cultural and educational contexts from around the world.
Theoretical framework
It is self-evident that the educational choices students make during their school years can serve
either to expand or to limit their range of subsequent vocational options. In making educa-
tional choices, students are influenced by their expectations for success and by their subjective
valuing of different subjects. Often their decisions are shaped by their parents’ aspirations
(Bornholt & Goodnow, 1999; McPherson, 2009). Parental expectancies have a strong influ-
ence on adolescent choices regarding course enrolment in high school and later career choices
(Eccles, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982; Patrikakou, 1997), and are also strong predictors of academic
outcomes among children (Alexander, Entwisle, & Bedinger, 1994), even in different cultures
(Chen & Lan, 1998). All those who work within an educational context, and especially arts
subjects, have witnessed the way that students’ decisions are affected by their expectations for
the subjects themselves, including their perceptions concerning their intrinsic merits and their
inherent difficulty and utility value, especially for achieving high marks.

McPherson and O’Neill 103
Given the importance that individual differences in students’ expectancies and values have
on school performance and other achievement-related behaviours, it is not surprising that
researchers have focused their efforts on explaining these motivational orientations (see
Austin, Renwick, & McPherson, 2006; O’Neill & McPherson, 2002). A major framework for
studying how children choose to pursue and then persist in a chosen task is expectancy-value
theory by Eccles and her colleagues (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998).
The motivational constructs associated with this framework are defined in the following section.
Across all school grades, motivational constructs for a subject are dependent on the interplay
between external factors such as the home environment, parental influences, society and peers,
and internal personal factors such as interest, self-esteem, self-determination and personal
goals for achievement.
Motivational constructs defined

Eccles and Wigfield (2002) define competence beliefs in terms of Atkinson’s (1964) seminal work
on expectations for success (i.e., a student’s belief about how well she or he can do in a subject or
upcoming task). Competence beliefs comprise evaluations that differ from other conceptions such
as Bandura’s (1997) conception of self-efficacy and Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination
theory in their level of specificity and measurement. For example, self-efficacy is generally consid-
ered to be someone’s complete concept of his or her ability to perform a specific type of task
related to a particular context and domain. However, Eccles and Wigfield tend to measure
these constructs at the domain-specific level using questions such as ‘How good are you at music?’
as part of measures that include comparative estimates of personal competence along with
questions dealing with expectations of ability both now and in the future. Competence beliefs
predict achievement-related outcomes such as grades (Covington & Dray, 2002).
For the subjective task values construct, Eccles and Wigfield (1995) offer a broad definition
that is determined by characteristics of the task itself and conceptualized in terms of four major
components: attainment value or importance, intrinsic value or interest, utility value or usefulness
and cost. Only the first three components (importance, interest, usefulness) represent charac-
teristics that affect the positive valence of the task (Eccles, O’Neill, & Wigfield, 2005; O’Neill,
Eccles, & Wigfield, 2003). We have therefore focused on these positive components in the
present study. Subjective task values have been shown to predict the choices that students make
to continue engaging with a given activity in the future (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002).
Eccles and her colleagues have also distinguished between competence beliefs and perceived
task difficulty. Although Eccles and Wigfield (1995) found that these two constructs load on the
same factor and can therefore be treated empirically as the same construct, other researchers
have argued that task difficulty can influence goals and motivational outcomes differently (e.g.,
Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). For example, it is possible for a student
to believe that he or she is good at music and also believe that music class at school is difficult.
If the student enjoys the challenge of overcoming the difficulties of music class, he or she is
likely to maintain high levels of performance achievement. However, if the student believes that
the difficulty is too great, he or she may begin to make less progress or even abandon musical
activities altogether (see further O’Neill, 2005; Wigfield, O’Neill, & Eccles, 1999). Within the
educational context of different countries, it may be that task difficulty is a more or less salient
feature of students’ motivation towards music as a school subject compared to other school
subjects. As these differentiated beliefs may predict different outcomes, we chose in the present
study to examine perceived task difficulty separately.

Students’ decline in motivation across the school years

A number of studies have demonstrated that as students progress through school their motiva-
tional beliefs show a marked decline. For example, in the USA, Jacobs, Hyatt, Osgood, Eccles and
Wigfield (2002) conducted a longitudinal study of ability self-perceptions and subjective task
values for mathematics, language, arts and sports, with 761 students across grades 1 through
12. They found that overall students’ motivational beliefs declined as they got older. However,
there were some important distinctions. Although the decline in beliefs for language arts was
rapid during elementary school, it levelled off or even increased to some extent as the children
progressed through high school. In contrast, the decline for sports accelerated during the high
school years. Significant gender differences in beliefs were also found in most domains, although
these differences did not increase with age. Interestingly, ability self-perceptions accounted for
most of the gender differences in task values for language arts and sports. The findings suggest
that as boys and girls get older their ability self-perceptions exert a greater influence on whether
they continue to value certain subjects at school.
Motivation to study music inside and outside school

A study of 1209 elementary and secondary school children in the UK used measures of ability
self-perceptions and subjective task values for instrumental music (O’Neill, Ryan, Boulton, &
Sloboda, 2000; Wigfield et al., 1999). The results confirmed a two-factor model, measuring
distinct factors for competence beliefs (Cronbach’s alpha = .84) and task values (Cronbach’s
alpha = .95). Predictive validity of the scales was confirmed by testing the extent to which the
scales related in the predicted direction to measures of participation in instrumental music. The
findings indicated that children who reported playing instruments also reported higher ability
beliefs and value beliefs than children who had given up playing instruments or considered
themselves to be non-players. Girls reported higher ability and value beliefs than boys. All
groups reported higher value beliefs for instrumental music than ability beliefs. Ability beliefs
correlated similarly with both formal (in school) and informal (outside school) instrumental
playing, whereas value beliefs correlated higher with informal than formal instrumental
playing (see further O’Neill, 2005). These results support similar findings obtained with children
in the USA (Wigfield et al., 1997).
Running in parallel with the above line of research, which attempts to understand more pre-
cisely students’ expectations and valuing of academic subjects and specific forms of musical
engagement such as instrumental learning, is the current project, which began by examining
the motivational beliefs of Hong Kong students. It subsequently developed into an eight-country
mapping exercise that aimed to develop a broader understanding of children’s and adolescents’
motivational beliefs about music as compared to other school subjects in various regions and
cultural contexts, according to three distinct levels of schooling (upper primary/elementary or
middle school, lower secondary, and upper secondary). Four key issues framed our efforts to
understand the motivational profiles of learners in each of the eight countries. First, we wanted
to find out whether competence beliefs and values for each of the school subjects as reported by
students in the eight countries declined across the school levels. Such information would be of
value in helping to determine the overall nature of our students’ motivational profile. Second,
we sought to determine whether students in the eight countries perceived each school subject as
being more difficult as they progressed through school. With the first two areas acting as a
framework we added an additional two areas of focus: one to determine if there were differences

in student competence beliefs, values and task difficulty for music as compared to the other
school subjects, and another to explore differences among boys and girls, and those students
who were or were not learning an instrument or voice.
Based on the above, four research questions form the basis of the analyses undertaken in this
article:
1. Is there a decline in students’ competence beliefs and values for school subjects across
three school levels (lower, middle, upper) for all eight countries (Brazil, China, Finland,
Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mexico, USA)?
2. Is there an increase in students’ perceptions of task difficulty for school subjects across
three school levels for all eight countries?
3. For each of the eight countries, are students’ ratings of competence beliefs, values, and
task difficulty higher or lower for music compared to other school subjects?
4. For each of the eight countries, is there a difference in competence beliefs, values and
task difficulty for school subjects according to gender and whether or not students were
learning an instrument or voice (music learners versus non-music learners)?
Method
Participants
Questionnaires were completed by 24,143 students (11,909 females and 10,066 males, aged
9 to 21 years) from eight countries (Brazil n = 1848; China n = 3049; Finland n = 1654; Hong
Kong n = 6179; Israel n = 2257; Korea n = 2671; Mexico n = 3613; USA n = 3072). Researchers
were sought across a range of disparate nationalities and were included in the study based on
their willingness to participate in the data collection. Table 1 shows the number (and percentage)
of participants for each of the eight countries according to gender and whether or not they
were receiving formal lessons on an instrument or voice inside or outside school (music learn-
ers or non-music learners) for three different school levels. To determine the school levels,
consideration was given to the grade divisions, music provision (i.e., compulsory music versus
grades when music is an elective subject) and key transitions that the majority of students expe-
rience in each country (see Table 2). For example, in the USA sample, students in middle school
transition to secondary school (high school) at the end of grade 8. However, in Mexico, Korea,
Israel, Finland and China, this transition occurs at the end of grade 9. As a result, there is some
overlap of grades occurring in each of the three school levels. Level 1 includes grades 4 to 7
(upper elementary/primary or middle school); Level 2 includes grades 7 to 9 (middle or lower
secondary school) and Level 3 includes grades 9 to 12 (upper secondary school).
Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of 36 items, four seeking background information (school grade,
age, gender, number of brothers and sisters), 21 involving Likert scales, seven rating scales and
four questions involving tick boxes to indicate preference or factual information.1 Participants
were asked to indicate if their family had a musical instrument, and if they were learning a musi-
cal instrument or voice (and, if so, where they were learning and which type of instrument).
Questions also asked about whether they had lessons in each subject outside of school and, if
they were given an opportunity to learn outside school, how much they might want to learn

Table 1. Number (and percentage) of participants according to school levels, gender and music learner
Country School level Music learner Non-music learner
Female Male Female Male
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Brazil Lower 368 (19.91) 324 (17.53) 114 (6.17) 141 (7.63)
Middle 239 (12.93) 235 (12.72) 77 (4.16) 72 (3.90)
Upper 139 (7.52) 121 (6.55) 5 (0.27) 10 (0.54)
China Lower 78 (2.56) 50 (1.65) 89 (2.92) 126 (4.13)
Middle 239 (7.84) 202 (6.62) 371 (12.17) 481 (15.78)
Upper 189 (6.20) 158 (5.18) 392 (12.86) 375 (12.30)
Finland Lower 120 (7.26) 112 (6.77) 76 (4.60) 70 (4.23)
Middle 200 (12.09) 187 (11.31) 216 (13.06) 180 (10.88)
Upper 111 (6.71) 38 (2.30) 213 (12.88) 121 (7.32)
Hong Kong Lower 513 (11.40) 369 (8.20) 286 (6.35) 409 (9.09)
Middle 432 (9.60) 186 (4.13) 746 (16.57) 521 (11.57)
Upper 200 (4.44) 65 (1.44) 505 (11.22) 263 (5.84)
Israel Lower 62 (3.01) 58 (2.82) 102 (4.96) 78 (3.79)
Middle 237 (11.52) 141 (6.85) 369 (17.94) 235 (11.42)
Upper 133 (6.47) 105 (5.10) 308 (14.97) 222 (10.79)
Korea Lower 247 (9.26) 167 (6.26) 103 (3.86) 148 (5.54)
Middle 221 (8.28) 267 (10.01) 193 (7.23) 419 (15.71)
Upper 152 (5.69) 78 (2.92) 542 (20.32) 130 (4.87)
Mexico Lower 283 (7.83) 253 (7.01) 297 (8.22) 282 (7.81)
Middle 256 (7.09) 294 (8.14) 584 (16.14) 570 (15.78)
Upper 78 (2.16) 122 (3.38) 254 (7.03) 214 (5.93)
USA Lower 158 (5.14) 161 (5.24) 206 (6.71) 219 (7.13)
Middle 255 (8.30) 217 (7.07) 474 (15.43) 459 (14.94)
Upper 177 (5.76) 157 (5.11) 300 (9.77) 254 (8.27)
Note: Some students left a question blank or did not clearly indicate their gender or whether they were learning an
instrument. This explains why the percentages do not total 100% for each country.
Table 2. Grades included in the three school levels for each country
Levels Brazil China Finland Hong Kong Israel Korea Mexico USA
1 6,7 5,6,7 5,6 P6 5,6 5,6 4,5,6 6

2 F8,HS1 8,9, 7,8,9 S3 (yr 9) 7,8,9 7,8,9 7,8,9 7,8
3 HS2,HS3 10,11,12 10,11,12 S5 (yr 12) 10,11,12 10,11,12 10,11,12 9,10,11,12
each school subject. Students were asked to supply information on their involvement in a range
of activities outside school, including details of how much time they devoted to these activities
each week, and their involvement in arts subjects, extra-curricular offerings and community-
based activities.
As the first country sampled, Hong Kong was used for the pilot investigation in order to
refine the techniques used to collect data from the other seven countries. Of most concern
for the Hong Kong study and for all other countries where English was not the students’ first
language, was the issue of the translation of the wordings used in the questionnaires (i.e.,

English to Cantonese, Hebrew, Finnish, Spanish, Mandarin or Portuguese). To ensure accuracy

of questions, each of the questionnaires was checked in each country by at least two education
researchers who were familiar with expectancy-value theory, at least two other native speakers
from the same country (to check for accuracy of intent and for any misunderstandings in the
language used in the questionnaire), and a sample of children at the youngest age group (to
ensure that students understood the questions).
The final questionnaire for each country included a range of school subjects that best repre-
sented the core academic subjects and enrichment subjects covered in their school curriculum.
For the purpose of the analyses undertaken here, comparisons are made about six school sub-
jects: music, art, physical education, mother tongue, mathematics and science. The exception is
the data from Hong Kong, where the questionnaire did not include science as a school subject.
Motivation measures
Competence beliefs. This measure indicated the degree to which participants believed in their
own ability and capacity to achieve or succeed in each school subject (for a detailed description
of scale reliability and validity, see Eccles et al., 2005). The measure consisted of four items,
rated on 5-point Likert scales, as follows:
1. How good are you at each of these subjects? (very bad–very good)
2. How well do you think you will do in these subjects this year? (very poorly–very well)
3. If you were to order all of the students in your class from best to worst, where would you
put yourself for each of the following subjects? (the best–the worst; this item was reverse
scored)
4. Compared to other students in your class, how well do you expect to do this year in each
of the following subjects? (much better than other students–much worse than other
students; this item was reverse scored)
Cronbach’s alphas confirmed the internal consistency of the four items, with alpha coefficients
ranging from .81 to .86 across the eight countries.2
Values. This measure examined participants’ subjective task values in terms of importance,
interest and usefulness of engaging in each school subject (for a detailed description of scale
reliability and validity, see Eccles et al., 2005). The measure consisted of 10 items, rated on
5-point Likert scales. Two items related to interest:
1. At school, how much do you like learning [subject]? (I don’t like it–I like it a lot)
2. At school, how interesting do you find [subject]? (not interesting–very interesting)
Three items related to importance:
1. For you, how important is it to learn [subject]? (not important–very important)

2. For you, how important is it to be good at [subject]? (not important–very important)
3. For you, how important is it to get good school results in [subject]? (not important–very
important)
Five items relate to usefulness (the first four were anchored with not useful–very useful):

1. In general, how useful is what you learn in each of these subjects?

2. How useful are these subjects compared to your other activities?
3. How useful do you think learning the following subjects will be for you when you leave
school and get a job?
4. How useful is learning the following subjects for your daily life outside school?
5. How worthwhile for you is the amount of effort it takes to do the following subjects? (not
worthwhile–very worthwhile).
Cronbach’s alphas confirmed the internal consistency of the 10 items, with alpha coefficients
ranging from .89 to .92 across the eight countries.
Task difficulty. Two items (rated on 5-point Likert scales) measured participants’ perceptions of
how difficult they believed each subject to be (for a detailed description of scale reliability and
validity, see Eccles et al., 2005). The items were:
1. How hard are the following subjects for you? (very hard – very easy)
2. Compared to your other school subjects, how hard are the following [subjects]? (my
hardest subject–my easiest subject)
The item correlations ranged from .79 to .86 across the eight countries.
Selection of schools and procedure

Ethical procedures for conducting research in schools for each country were strictly adhered
to and researchers from each country obtained the necessary approval to administer the
questionnaires by their appropriate authorities (state authorities, superintendents, principals).
To increase reliability, the school subjects were rotated for each item to maximize student atten-
tion and guard against set responses. Further details of the specific school selection criteria,
how participants were recruited within selected schools, and the questionnaire administration
procedure that was used for each country are provided below.
Brazil. Thirty-three schools were selected from 12 cities in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Five
schools were primary, four secondary and 24 offered tuition at both levels. As not every school
in Brazil has music education as a curriculum subject, schools that offered music as a school
subject were identified for administration of the questionnaire. The sample represents a broad
spectrum of schools that offer music education as part of formal education. Music education is
seldom taught in high schools as a curriculum subject, so the questionnaire was administered
to adolescents who took part in extra-curricular activities such as choirs, bands and junior
orchestras. After contacting each school and gaining informed consent, each school, in coordi-
nation with the research team, designated three to four classes that would be available to
answer the questionnaire. Two research assistants attended each school and helped with the
administration of the questionnaire to whole classes and, once they were completed, made sure
that every question was answered.
China. School selection consisted of three middle schools and four high schools that were rep-
resentative of schools in the Beijing school system. Research assistants attended four schools
and helped supervise the administration of questionnaires during normal classes. In the other

three schools, teachers who had been briefed on the research and who were therefore familiar
with the intent of the research administered the questionnaires to students.
Finland. Participants included students who were attending 29 different schools from all parts
of Finland, including remote locations such as Lapland. As Finland boasts a high level of tech-
nology use and computer literacy, the questionnaire was presented in an internet page and the
website address was sent to all Finnish middle and high schools where principals were asked to
inform their teachers about the research and to encourage their pupils to complete the ques-
tionnaire. The participants answered the questionnaire mostly during their own time and from
their home computers, but in some schools it was possible for whole classes to complete the
questionnaire during the school day.
Hong Kong. A system-wide survey drawn from a representative sample of all Hong Kong
schools, comparable in terms of the proportion of school types and districts was under-
taken. A total of 20 secondary schools (16 aided, 2 government, 2 private) and 23 primary
schools (19 aided, 1 government, 1 direct subsidy, 1 private, 1 international) agreed to par-
ticipate in the research. Two research assistants delivered the questionnaires to schools in
person. All primary grade 3 and most of the primary grade 6 students were guided by the
research assistants or teachers; while all secondary students completed the questionnaires
by themselves after a short briefing held by the research assistants or teachers. It should be
noted that the Hong Kong study preceded the administration of the other seven countries,
and included an additional surveying of students in primary grade 3 that are not included
in the analyses reported here.
Israel. Two primary schools, one combined primary and middle school, six combined middle
and high schools and one high school were chosen to participate in the study after consultation
with the Supervisor of Music Education at the Ministry of Education. The schools, located
mainly in urban areas, constitute a sample that covers the gamut of educational settings in
Israel relevant for this study. Each of the principals was contacted, and arrangements were
made to come into the schools and administer the questionnaires. Whole classes completed the
questionnaire during school academic class periods.
Korea. Three elementary schools, four middle schools and four high schools located in Seoul,
Incheon and Ilsan (small and large cities close to Seoul) participated in this study. The schools
were chosen after meetings with graduate music specialists who were teaching in these schools
and who were willing to help with the study. The schools were in the middle economic range
and were co-educational. With the permission of the principals, students in whole classes com-
pleted the questionnaire.
Mexico. Seven primary schools, six secondary (middle) schools and four preparatory (high)
schools were chosen from varied socioeconomic backgrounds and locations within an urban
area in Chihuahua State, Mexico. The researcher consulted with the Department of Educa-
tional Research at the Secretariat of Education and Culture in Chihuahua State, the Directors
of Primary and Secondary Education in both the state and federal school systems, as well as the
directors of the preparatory system in order to identify a representative sample of schools who
agreed to participate. The researcher contacted principals from a broad selection of the identi-
fied schools in urban and suburban settings in Chihuahua city. In one school, questionnaires

were completed as take home assignments; for the other 16 schools, whole classes completed
the questionnaire during school hours.
USA. Four middle schools and four high schools were chosen after consultation with the Office
of School–University Research–Relations Bureau of Educational Research at the University of
Illinois who liaised with regional superintendents in order to identify a representative sample of
schools that could be approached to participate in the study. After approval, the researcher
contacted principals from a broad selection of schools in rural and urban settings in the State
of Illinois. In one school, questionnaires were completed as take-home assignments; for the
other seven schools, whole classes completed the questionnaire during an academic class
(English, mathematics) or home period.
Results
Initial analyses
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the students’ cumulative
mean ratings for each of the three motivation measures (competence beliefs, values, task dif-
ficulty). Each analysis included a within-subjects factor for school subjects (music, art, physi-
cal education, mother tongue, mathematics – note: because science was not included as a
school subject in the Hong Kong questionnaire, this school subject was not included in the
initial combined country analyses to enable comparisons across all eight countries). Between-
subjects factors included country (Brazil, China, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mexico,
USA), school level (lower, middle, upper), gender (male, female), and whether participants
were learning an instrument or voice (music learner, non-music learner).
SPSS MANOVA was used for the analyses with sequential adjustments for non-orthogonality
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance and multi-
collinearity were found to be satisfactory. Effect sizes were calculated using the formula for
partial eta squared values (Kp2) where effect sizes indicate the proportion of the effect plus
error variance of the dependent variables (DVs) that are attributable to differences between
groups (Note: it is possible for partial eta squared values to be greater than 1.00). Due to the
large number of analyses, effect sizes of less than 1% are not reported here (although in some
cases they reached acceptable significance levels of p < .001; information about these results
may be obtained from the first author). Using Wilks’s criterion, the multivariate within-
subjects factor (school subjects) and between subjects factors and interaction effects for
country, school level, gender and music learner are reported below. Tukey tests were used for
post hoc comparisons.
Competence beliefs
School subjects Main effect sizes (Kp2) indicated that 6% of the variance in competence beliefs
was explained by differences between school subjects, F = 3.34 (d.f. = 4), p < .001 (Kp2 = .058).
The combined country analysis indicated that the highest competence beliefs were for physical
education (M = 3.76), which differed significantly from mother tongue (M = 3.64). Mother
tongue differed significantly from music (M = 3.54) and mathematics (M = 3.51). There was
no significant difference between music and mathematics for competence beliefs, however they
both differed significantly from art (M = 3.40).

Country Students’ ratings of competence beliefs across the eight countries accounted for
10% of the variance, F = 333.26 (d.f. = 7), p < .001 (Kp2 = .097). Post hoc contrasts revealed
the following (from highest to lowest and grouped according to significant differences between
countries at p < .001): 1) Brazil (M = 3.86); 2) USA (M = 3.77); 3) Israel (M = 3.68); China
(M = 3.66); Mexico (M = 3.65); 4) Korea (M = 3.40); Finland (M = 3.39); 5) Hong Kong
(M = 3.17).
School level There was a significant decline in students’ competence beliefs across the
school levels, F = 311.48, p < .001, (Kp2 = .028). Post hoc contrasts revealed that students
from the lower grades (M = 3.76) had higher competence beliefs than students from the mid-
dle grades (M = 3.54), who had higher competence beliefs than students from the upper
grades (M = 3.41).
Gender The main effect size for gender on competence beliefs was less than 1%. However, 4%
of the variance was explained by the interaction between school subjects and gender, F = 2.50
(d.f. = 4), p < .001, (Kp2 = .044). Females reported higher competence beliefs than males
for music (Females = 3.51; Males = 3.27), art (Females = 3.45; Males = 3.19), and mother
tongue (Females = 3.64; Males = 3.53). Males reported higher competence beliefs than
females for physical education (Males = 3.88; Females = 3.56) and mathematics (Males = 3.57;
Females = 3.36).
Music learner Overall, music learners (M = 3.66) showed significantly higher compe-
tence beliefs than non-music learners (M = 3.48), F = 223.47 (d.f. = 1), p < .001, (Kp2 =
.010). The interaction between school subjects and music learners accounted for 4% of the
variance, F = 2.30 (d.f. = 4), p < .001, (Kp2 = .041). Post hoc tests revealed that this differ-
ence was significant across all five subjects as follows: music (Music Learners = 3.80; Non-
music Learners = 3.24), art (Music Learners = 3.46; Non-music Learners = 3.32), physical
education (Music Learners = 3.76; Non-music Learners = 3.76), mother tongue (Music
Learners = 3.67; Non-music Learners = 3.61), mathematics (Music Learners = 3.55; Non-
music Learners = 3.47).
Other interaction effects A further 2% of the variance was explained by the interaction between
school subjects and country, F = 50.52 (d.f. = 28), p < .001, (Kp2 = .016). The three-way interac-
tion between school subjects × country × school level explained 1% of the variance, F = 10.73
(d.f. = 56), p < .001, (Kp2 = .007). All other effect sizes were less than 1% for the remaining two-
way, three-way and four-way interaction effects. The five-way interaction was non-significant.
Values
School subjects Main effect sizes (Kp2) indicated that 26% of the variance in the sample for
values was explained by differences between school subjects, F = 1.96 (d.f. = 4), p < .001
(Kp2 = .264). All school subjects differed significantly from each other as follows (from highest
to lowest values): mathematics (M = 4.03), mother tongue (M = 3.99), physical education
(M = 3.61), music (M = 3.32), art (M = 3.16).
Country Students’ ratings of values across the eight countries accounted for 5% of the vari-
ance, F = 177.95 (d.f. = 7), p < .001 (Kp2 = .054). Post hoc contrasts revealed the following
(from highest to lowest values): China (M = 3.94) differed significantly from Brazil (M = 3.74),
p < .001. There was no significant difference between Brazil and Mexico (M = 3.70), which dif-
fered significantly from the USA (M = 3.66), p < .01. The USA differed significantly from Israel
(M = 3.58), p < .001. Israel differed significantly from Hong Kong (M = 3.53), p < .01.
Hong Kong differed significantly from Finland (M = 3.43), p < .001. However, there was no

significant difference between Finland and Korea (M = 3.41), which had the lowest values
ratings of all the countries.
School level There was a significant decline in students’ values across the school levels,
F = 606.66 (d.f. = 2), p < .001 (Kp2 = .053). Post hoc contrasts revealed that students from the
lower grades (M = 3.88) had higher values than students from the middle grades (M = 3.57),
who had higher values than students from the upper grades (M = 3.42).
Gender The main effect size for gender on values was less than 1%. However, a further 5% of
the variance was explained by the interaction between school subjects and gender, F = 2.82
(d.f. = 4), p < .001, (Kp2 = .049). Females reported higher values than males for music (Females
= 3.241; Males = 3.20), art (Females = 3.32; Males = 2.99), and mother tongue (Females =
4.09; Males = 3.89). Males reported significantly higher values than females for physical edu-
cation (Males = 3.76; Females = 3.45). There was no significant difference between males and
females for mathematics values (Males = 4.03; Females = 4.02).
Music learner Music learners (M = 3.71) showed significantly higher values than non-music
learners (M = 3.53), F = 239.66 (d.f. = 1), p < .001, (Kp2 = .011). The interaction between school
subjects and music learners accounted for 5% of the variance, F = 3.00 (d.f. = 4), p < .001,
(Kp2 = .052). Post hoc tests revealed that this difference was significant for three of the five
subjects as follows: music (Music Learners = 3.62; Non-music Learners = 3.00), art (Music
Learners = 3.34; Non-music Learners = 3.07), mother tongue (Music Learners = 4.01; Non-music
Learners = 3.97. Differences were not significant for physical education (Music Learners = 3.62;
Non-music Learners = 3.60) and mathematics (Music Learners = 4.03; Non-music Learners = 4.02).
Other interaction effects A further 3% of the variance was explained by the interaction
between school subjects and country, F = 81.48 (d.f. = 28), p < .001, (Kp2= .025). There was
also an interaction effect between school subjects and school level that accounted for 2% of the
variance, F = 87.01 (d.f. = 8), p < .001, (Kp2 = .016). The three-way interaction between school
subjects × country × school level explained 1% of the variance, F = 22.17 (d.f. = 56), p < .001,
(Kp2 = .014). All other effect sizes were less than 1% for the remaining two-way, three-way, and
four-way interaction effects. The five-way interaction was non-significant.
Task difficulty
School subjects Main effect sizes (Kp2) indicated that 16% of the variance in the sample for
task difficulty was explained by differences between school subjects, F = 1.00 (d.f. = 4), p < .001
(Kp2 = .158). All school subjects differed significantly from each other as follows (from highest
to lowest task difficulty): mathematics (M = 2.81), mother tongue (M = 2.47), art (M = 2.32),
music (M = 2.23), physical education (M = 1.93).
Country Students’ ratings of task difficulty across the eight countries accounted for 13% of
the variance, F = 442.84 (d.f. = 7), p < .001 (Kp2 = .127). Post hoc contrasts revealed the
following (from highest to lowest task difficulty): Korea (M = 2.80) differed significantly at
p < .001 from Hong Kong (M = 2.71), which differed significantly at p < .001 from Finland
(M = 2.46), which differed significantly at p < .001 from Brazil (M = 2.22). There was no
significant difference between Brazil and China (M = 2.22), Mexico (M = 2.19) and the USA
(M = 2.15). The USA differed significantly at p < .001 from Israel (M = 2.06), which had the
lowest task difficulty ratings of all the countries.
School level There was a significant increase in students’ task difficulty ratings across the
school levels, F = 412.98 (d.f. = 2), p < .001 (Kp2 = .037). Post hoc contrasts revealed that stu-
dents from the lower grades (M = 2.12) had lower task difficulty ratings than students from the
middle grades (M = 2.42), who had lower task difficulty ratings than students from the upper
grades (M = 2.52).

Gender The main effect size for gender on values was less than 1%. However, a further
4% of the variance was explained by the interaction between school subjects and gender,
F = 2.04 (d.f. = 4), p < .001, (Kp2 = .037). Females reported higher task difficulty than
males for physical education (Females = 2.00; Males = 1.85) and mathematics (Females = 2.93;
Males = 2.70). Males reported higher task difficulty than females for music (Males = 2.40;
Females = 2.08), art (Males = 2.53; Females = 2.11), and mother tongue (Males = 2.58;
Females = 2.37).
Music learner Overall, music learners (M = 2.29) reported significantly lower task diffi-
culty than non-music learners (M = 2.42), F = 121.32 (d.f. = 1), p < .001, (Kp2 = .006). The
interaction between school subjects and music learners accounted for 2% of the variance,
F = 1.04 (d.f. = 4), p < .001, (Kp2 = .019). Post hoc tests revealed that this difference was sig-
nificant for all school subjects except physical education, as follows: music (Music Learners =
2.02; Non-music Learners = 2.46), art (Music Learners = 2.27; Non-music Learners = 2.37),
physical education (Music Learners = 1.93; Non-music Learners = 1.92), mother tongue (Music
Learners = 2.45; Non-music Learners = 2.50), mathematics (Music Learners = 2.76; Non-music
Learners = 2.86).
Other interaction effects. A further 2% of the variance was explained by the interaction
between school subjects and country, F = 66.27 (d.f. = 28), p < .001, (Kp2= .021). The three-
way interaction between school subjects × country × school level explained 1% of the vari-
ance, F = 8.67 (d.f. = 56), p < .001, (Kp2 = .006). All other effect sizes were less than 1% for
the remaining two-way, three-way and four-way interaction effects. The five-way interaction
was non-significant.
Secondary analyses
For each of the eight countries, a 3 × 2 × 2 MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of
the three motivation measures (competence beliefs, values, task difficulty) across six school
subjects (music, art, physical education, mother tongue, mathematics, science). Three inde-
pendent variables measured school level (lower, middle, upper), gender (male, female) and
music learner (music learner, non-music learner). Using Wilks’s criterion, the combined DVs
affected by school level, gender, and music learner for each country all reached significance
levels at p < .001.3 For the majority of countries, the effect sizes (Kp2) were greater than 50%,
with the exception of Brazil where the effect sizes were lower than 50%. This means that the
amount of variance accounted for in the sample from Brazil was lower than the other seven
countries.
For China and Finland, no significant interaction effects for combined DVs were found for
school level × gender, school level × music learner, or gender × music learner. No significant
3-way interactions were found for any of the eight countries. Significant interactions (but with
lower effect sizes of less than 15%) were found for each of the other six countries as follows:
Brazil for competence beliefs (gender × music learner, F = 4.09, Kp2 = .013); Hong Kong for
competence beliefs (school level × gender, F = 4.04, Kp2 = .004; school level × music learner,
F = 5.11, Kp2 = .006), values (school level × music learner, F = 4.51, Kp2 = .005), and task dif-
ficulty (school level × gender, F = 4.57, Kp2 = .005); Israel for competence beliefs (school level ×
music learner; gender × music learner, F = 4.63, Kp2 = .014), and values (school level × gender,
F = 3.25, Kp2 = .010); Korea for competence beliefs (school level × gender, F = 4.43, Kp2 = .008;
school level × music learner, F = 3.34, Kp2 = .006), values (school level × music learner, F =
2.47, Kp2 = .005) and task difficulty (school level × gender, F = 6.03, Kp2 = .011). Mexico for

competence beliefs (school level × gender, F = 3.050, Kp2 = .005) and values (school level ×
music learner, F = 4.547, Kp2 = .008); USA for values (school level × gender, F = 3.406, Kp2 = .007;
school level × music learner, F = 3.512, Kp2 = .007).
Follow-up ANOVAs were used to investigate the impact of each main effect on the individual
DVs. To correct for Type 1 error each ANOVA was tested at the 0.001 level. For significant uni-
variate results, the Tukey procedure was used to conduct multiple comparisons for school level
to indicate which means were significantly different. Means (and standard deviations) and the
results of main effects (and post hoc tests) for each of the DVs according to school level are
shown in Table 3. Means (and standard deviations) and the results of main effects for each of
the DVs according to gender and music learner are shown in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively.
Due to the large number of variables and effects, we have simplified the reporting of the analy-
ses to focus on the main research questions below.
(1) Is there a decline in students’ competence beliefs and values for school subjects between the three
school levels for each of the eight countries? Figure 1 shows the mean competence beliefs for
each school subject for each of the three school levels. The majority of school subjects
showed a decline in competence beliefs over the three school levels or between the lower and
middle school levels for all countries with the exception of Brazil. For competence beliefs in
music, the results indicated a significant decline between the three school levels for China,
Hong Kong and Israel. There was a significant decline between the lower and middle school
levels for Mexico and the USA. There was also a decline in competence beliefs for music in
Finland and Korea, although they failed to reach significance at p < .001. A notable excep-
tion in the data was found for Brazil where competence beliefs for music showed a significant
increase from lower to middle school levels and remained stable between middle and upper
school levels.
Figure 2 shows the mean values for each school subject for each of the three school levels.
The majority of school subjects showed a decline in values between the three school levels or
between the lower and middle school levels for all countries with the exception of Brazil. For
values in music, the results indicated a significant decline between the three school levels for
Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, and Mexico. There was a significant decline between the
lower and middle school levels for the USA. There was also a decline in values for music in China
although this failed to reach significance at p < .001. For Brazil, values for music showed a sig-
nificant increase between the three school levels.
(2) Is there an increase in students’ perceptions of task difficulty for school subjects between the three
school levels for all eight countries? Figure 3 shows the mean task difficulty ratings for each
school subject for each of the three school levels. The majority of school subjects showed a
steady increase in task difficulty between the three school levels or between the lower and mid-
dle school levels for all the countries except Brazil. No significant differences between school
levels were found for Brazil except for science, which showed an increase in task difficulty
between lower and middle school levels. For task difficulty in music, the results indicated a sig-
nificant increase between the three school levels for China and Israel. There was a significant
increase between the lower and middle school levels for Hong Kong, Mexico and the USA. Task
difficulty for music showed a greater increase for middle school levels than upper school levels
in Finland and Korea. In Brazil, there was no significant increase in task difficulty for music
between the three school levels.

Table 3. Means (standard deviations) and univariate effects for school level (*p < .001)
Subject Motivation School level d.f. F p Tukey’s B
Lower Middle Upper
n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)

McPherson and O’Neill
Brazil
Music Competence 944 4.03 (0.82) 623 4.18 (0.69) 274 4.17 (0.73) 2, 1829 9.644 .000* L<HM
Values 947 3.60 (1.04) 623 3.75 (0.92) 275 4.01 (0.75) 2, 1833 11.247 .000* L<M<H
Task difficulty 945 1.94 (0.93) 622 1.85 (0.83) 275 1.95 (0.86) 2, 1830 4.832 .008
Art Competence 944 3.93 (0.80) 623 3.93 (0.79) 274 3.85 (0.82) 2, 1829 0.790 .454
Values 947 3.36 (0.85) 623 3.31 (0.88) 275 3.33 (0.91) 2, 1833 1.254 .286
Task difficulty 945 1.85 (0.92) 622 1.89 (0.92) 275 1.90 (0.83) 2, 1830 0.735 .480
Physical Competence 944 4.23 (0.71) 623 4.03 (0.87) 274 3.84 (0.97) 2, 1829 6.982 .001
education Values 947 3.67 (0.90) 623 3.30 (0.96) 275 3.10 (1.00) 2, 1833 24.932 .000* L>M>H
Task difficulty 945 1.45 (0.78) 622 1.60 (0.94) 275 1.66 (0.87) 2, 1830 2.019 .133
Mother Competence 944 3.74 (0.76) 623 3.63 (0.84) 274 3.66 (0.83) 2, 1829 3.905 .020
tongue Values 947 4.25 (0.60) 623 4.12 (0.70) 275 4.13 (0.73) 2, 1833 2.419 .089
Task difficulty 945 2.76 (1.11) 622 2.92 (1.07) 275 2.81 (1.01) 2, 1830 6.527 .001
Mathematics Competence 944 3.61 (0.93) 623 3.50 (0.93) 274 3.42 (0.96) 2, 1829 1.267 .282
Values 947 4.29 (0.59) 623 4.12 (0.72) 275 3.90 (0.78) 2, 1833 9.507 .000* L>M>H
Task difficulty 945 3.00 (1.25) 622 3.12 (1.18) 275 3.15 (1.18) 2, 1830 1.032 .356
Science Competence 944 3.83 (0.73) 623 3.65 (0.80) 274 3.59 (0.72) 2, 1829 8.320 .000* L>MH
Values 947 3.98 (0.69) 623 3.87 (0.74) 275 3.77 (0.75) 2, 1833 4.423 .012
Task difficulty 945 2.50 (1.01) 622 2.85 (1.02) 275 2.87 (0.97) 2, 1830 18.791 .000* L<MH

China
Music Competence 337 3.75 (0.90) 1257 3.64 (0.89) 1060 3.40 (0.85) 2, 2642 35.105 .000* L >M>H
Values 337 3.72 (0.91) 1279 3.69 (0.92) 1084 3.60 (0.86) 2, 2688 5.158 .006
Task difficulty 334 1.90 (0.98) 1241 2.03 (1.02) 1041 2.25 (1.02) 2, 2604 21.887 .000* L <M<H
Art Competence 337 3.69 (0.90) 1257 3.54 (0.90) 1060 3.24 (0.87) 2, 2642 45.703 .000* L >M>H
Values 337 3.73 (0.85) 1279 3.52 (0.95) 1084 3.39 (0.91) 2, 2688 19.110 .000* L >M>H
Physical Competence 337 3.80 (0.94) 1257 3.70 (0.93) 1060 3.42 (0.92) 2, 2642 29.266 .000* LM>H
education Values 337 4.08 (0.87) 1279 4.02 (0.84) 1084 3.66 (0.90) 2, 2688 53.225 .000* LM>H
(Continued)
115
Table 3. (Continued)
116
Lower Middle Upper

Mother Competence 337 3.98 (0.77) 1257 3.75 (0.77) 1060 3.42 (0.80) 2, 2642 82.121 .000* L >M>H
tongue Values 337 4.59 (0.50) 1279 4.26 (0.71) 1084 3.89 (0.81) 2, 2688 138.956 .000* L >M>H
Mathematics Competence 337 3.88 (0.81) 1257 3.74 (0.87) 1060 3.36 (0.84) 2, 2642 75.249 .000* L >M>H
Values 337 4.55 (0.54) 1279 4.25 (0.75) 1084 3.81 (0.87) 2, 2688 153.312 .000* L >M>H
Science Competence 337 3.66 (0.81) 1257 3.64 (0.79) 1060 3.38 (0.77) 2, 2642 33.825 .000* LM>H
Values 337 3.87 (0.83) 1279 3.85 (0.85) 1084 3.75 (0.86) 2, 2688 5.387 .005
Finland
Music Competence 378 3.57 (0.92) 783 3.32 (0.99) 483 3.29 (1.02) 2, 1632 6.581 .001
Values 378 3.57 (0.97) 783 3.18 (1.02) 483 2.98 (1.02) 2, 1632 18.758 .000* L>M>H
Task difficulty 378 2.12 (0.97) 783 2.53 (1.14) 483 2.36 (1.10) 2, 1632 17.439 .000* L<H<M
Art Competence 378 3.49 (0.91) 783 3.20 (0.94) 483 3.03 (1.01) 2, 1632 25.889 .000* L>M>H
Values 378 3.48 (0.92) 783 2.95 (0.97) 483 2.57 (0.96) 2, 1632 95.122 .000* L>M>H
Task difficulty 378 2.09 (1.04) 783 2.59 (1.15) 483 2.56 (1.23) 2, 1632 24.760 .000* L<HM
Physical Competence 378 3.83 (0.85) 783 3.53 (.089) 483 3.47 (0.97) 2, 1632 16.773 .000* L>MH

tongue Values 378 3.77 (0.78) 783 3.42 (0.84) 483 3.69 (0.75) 2, 1632 28.995 .000* LH>M
Mathematics Competence 378 3.55 (0.95) 783 3.22 (0.97) 483 3.03 (0.97) 2, 1632 24.999 .000* L>M>H
Values 378 3.91 (0.80) 783 3.47 (0.86) 483 3.41 (0.91) 2, 1632 39.203 .000* L>MH
Task difficulty 378 2.37 (1.13) 783 2.95 (1.19) 483 3.25 (1.10) 2, 1632 53.542 .000* L<M<H
Science Competence 378 3.50 (0.77) 783 3.31 (0.81) 483 3.13 (0.87) 2, 1632 15.789 .000* L>M>H
Values 378 3.67 (0.80) 783 3.31 (0.88) 483 3.31(0.87) 2, 1632 24.963 .000* L>MH
Hong Kong
Music Competence 1577 3.48 (0.84) 1885 2.96 (0.83) 1033 2.84 (0.86) 2, 4483 139.860 .000* L>M>H
Research Studies in Music Education 32(2)
Lower Middle Upper

Values 1577 3.54 (0.86) 1885 2.98 (0.86) 1033 2.82 (0.92) 2, 4483 155.364 .000* L>M>H
Values 1577 3.52 (0.81) 1885 3.04 (0.89) 1033 2.86 (0.98) 2, 4483 177.197 .000* L>M>H
Physical Competence 1577 3.62 (0.89) 1885 3.05 (0.93) 1033 3.05 (0.89) 2, 4483 136.734 .000* L>MH
Mother Competence 1577 3.57 (0.71) 1885 3.12 (0.72) 1033 3.09 (0.74) 2, 4483 164.506 .000* L>MH
tongue Values 1577 4.32 (0.59) 1885 3.84 (0.69) 1033 3.78 (0.72) 2, 4483 256.448 .000* L>M>H
Values 1577 4.24 (0.64) 1885 3.91 (0.73) 1033 3.58 (0.88) 2, 4483 152.073 .000* L>M>H
Israel
Music Competence 298 3.74 (1.08) 947 3.48 (1.16) 735 2.96 (1.25) 2, 1968 41.061 .000* L>M>H
Values 300 3.17 (1.13) 972 2.93 (1.19) 760 2.61 (1.24) 2, 2020 13.833 .000* L>M>H

Values 300 3.37 (1.04) 972 2.76 (1.07) 760 2.37 (1.12) 2, 2020 83.033 .000* L>M>H
Physical Competence 298 4.08 (0.92) 947 3.80 (0.96) 735 3.74 (0.96) 2, 1968 16.582 .000* L>MH
tongue Values 300 4.02 (0.77) 972 4.04 (0.82) 760 4.22 (0.69) 2, 2020 11.507 .000* LM<H
Values 300 4.53 (0.59) 972 4.25 (0.70) 760 3.71 (0.91) 2, 2020 164.282 .000* L>M>H
117
(Continued)
118
Lower Middle Upper

Values 300 3.81 (0.88) 972 3.44 (0.99) 760 2.99 (1.15) 2, 2020 73.633 .000* L>M>H
Korea
Music Competence 665 3.43 (1.05) 1100 3.25 (1.01) 902 3.07 (1.03) 2, 2655 3.888 .021
Values 665 3.27 (0.85) 1100 3.07 (0.83) 898 2.85 (0.85) 2, 2651 19.132 .000* L>M>H
Task difficulty 656 2.56 (1.13) 1089 2.92 (1.02) 880 2.80 (0.92) 2, 2613 10.875 .000* L<H<M
Values 665 3.18 (0.89) 1100 2.79 (0.84) 898 2.57 (0.84) 2, 2651 72.297 .000* L>M>H
Physical Competence 665 3.79 (1.04) 1100 3.40 (1.07) 902 3.10 (1.12) 2, 2655 33.677 .000* L>M>H
Values 665 4.16 (0.71) 1100 3.77 (0.85) 898 3.45 (0.91) 2, 2651 96.218 .000* L>M>H

Values 665 4.00 (0.73) 1100 3.64 (0.82) 898 3.22 (0.95) 2, 2651 120.268 .000* L>M>H
Mexico
Music Competence 1098 3.56 (1.04) 1673 3.25 (1.04) 668 3.27 (1.00) 2, 3427 7.682 .000* L>HM
Values 1107 3.55 (1.03) 1688 2.98 (1.04) 667 3.12 (1.03) 2, 3450 62.806 .000* L>H>M
Values 1107 3.78 (0.92) 1688 3.15 (0.96) 667 3.12 (0.92) 2, 3450 144.967 .000* L>MH
Research Studies in Music Education 32(2)
Lower Middle Upper

Physical Competence 1098 4.20 (0.75) 1673 4.08 (0.70) 668 3.69 (0.94) 2, 3427 84.807 .000* L>M>H
Mathematics Competence 1098 3.61 (0.91) 1673 3.33 (0.95) 668 3.40 (0.91) 2, 3427 28.810 .000* L>HM
Values 1107 4.37 (0.60) 1688 4.14 (0.72) 667 4.08 (0.75) 2, 3450 45.741 .000* L>M>H
Values 1107 4.22 (0.65) 1688 3.68 (0.84) 667 3.47 (0.82) 2, 3450 206.367 .000* L>M>H
USA
Music Competence 730 3.85 (0.95) 1380 3.43 (1.15) 875 3.37 (1.14) 2, 2973 34.156 .000* L>MH
Values 735 3.44 (1.01) 1389 2.94 (1.13) 884 3.00 (1.15) 2, 2996 41.875 .000* L>HM
Values 735 3.56 (0.98) 1389 3.01 (1.08) 884 2.87 (1.10) 2, 2996 83.668 .000* L>M>H

Physical Competence 730 4.19 (0.77) 1380 4.11 (0.87) 875 4.05 (0.87) 2, 2973 4.067 .017
Task difficulty 699 1.58 (0.87) 1334 1.55 (0.90) 852 1.62 (0.91) 2, 2873 0.864 .422
tongue Values 735 3.99 (0.77) 1389 3.92 (0.81) 884 3.89 (0.78) 2, 2996 4.047 .018
Mathematics Competence 730 3.88 (0.90) 1380 3.80 (0.92) 875 3.67 (1.00) 2, 2973 10.886 .000* LM>H
Values 735 4.37 (0.67) 1389 4.29 (0.68) 884 3.97 (0.83) 2, 2996 77.048 .000* L>M>H
Values 735 4.16 (0.77) 1389 3.84 (0.89) 884 3.67 (0.87) 2, 2996 61.148 .000* L>M>H
119
Table 4. Means (standard deviations) and univariate effects for gender (*p < .001)
Subject Motivation Male Female d.f. F P
n M (SD) n M (SD)
Brazil
Music Competence 899 4.07 (0.82) 942 4.14 (0.72) 1, 1829 4.894 .027
Values 903 3.68 (0.97) 942 3.74 (0.97) 1, 1833 1.604 .205
Task difficulty 901 1.98 (0.95) 941 1.85 (0.81) 1, 1830 5.277 .022
Art Competence 899 3.81 (0.84) 942 4.02 (0.74) 1, 1829 7.489 .006
Values 903 3.22 (0.92) 942 3.45 (0.84) 1, 1833 10.912 .001
Task difficulty 901 1.97 (0.95) 941 1.77 (0.85) 1, 1830 6.370 .012
Physical Competence 899 4.19 (0.77) 942 4.02 (0.86) 1, 1829 4.472 .035
education Values 903 3.57 (0.94) 942 3.35 (0.98) 1, 1833 5.960 .015
Task difficulty 901 1.52 (0.87) 941 1.54 (0.84) 1, 1830 0.980 .322
Mother Competence 899 3.57 (0.82) 942 3.81 (0.77) 1, 1829 34.041 .000*
tongue Values 903 4.09 (0.70) 942 4.27 (0.60) 1, 1833 20.449 .000*
Task difficulty 901 2.94 (1.11) 941 2.71 (1.05) 1, 1830 15.410 .000*
Mathematics Competence 899 3.58 (0.92) 942 3.52 (0.95) 1, 1829 1.257 .262
Values 903 4.17 (0.68) 942 4.18 (0.67) 1, 1833 0.877 .349
Task difficulty 901 3.01 (1.22) 941 3.11 (1.21) 1, 1830 0.538 .463
Science Competence 899 3.70 (0.78) 942 3.77 (0.74) 1, 1829 10.943 .001
Values 903 3.85 (0.74) 942 3.97 (0.70) 1, 1833 6.208 .013
Task difficulty 901 2.70 (1.02) 941 2.65 (1.02) 1, 1830 3.286 .070
China
Music Competence 1356 3.44 (0.92) 1298 3.68 (0.83) 1, 2642 25.738 .000*
Values 1374 3.57 (0.93) 1326 3.74 (0.83) 1, 2688 7.003 .008
Task difficulty 1335 2.22 (1.07) 1281 1.98 (0.95) 1, 2604 15.412 .000*
Art Competence 1356 3.31 (0.91) 1298 3.58 (0.88) 1, 2642 39.218 .000*
Values 1374 3.39 (0.96) 1326 3.60 (0.86) 1, 2688 16.712 .000*
Task difficulty 1335 2.40 (1.14) 1281 2.09 (0.99) 1, 2604 39.411 .000*
Physical Competence 1356 3.73 (0.93) 1298 3.46 (0.93) 1, 2642 28.178 .000*
education Values 1374 4.07 (0.83) 1326 3.70 (0.90) 1, 2688 69.638 .000*
Task difficulty 1335 2.09 (1.06) 1281 2.38 (1.11) 1, 2604 21.109 .000*
Mother Competence 1356 3.57 (0.84) 1298 3.74 (0.76) 1, 2642 9.682 .002
tongue Values 1374 4.10 (0.81) 1326 4.22 (0.71) 1, 2688 8.591 .003
Task difficulty 1335 2.47 (1.05) 1281 2.35 (0.94) 1, 2604 5.052 .025
Mathematics Competence 1356 3.72 (0.88) 1298 3.48 (0.85) 1, 2642 34.946 .000*
Values 1374 4.17 (0.82) 1326 4.05 (0.81) 1, 2688 5.968 .015
Task difficulty 1335 2.35 (1.10) 1281 2.74 (1.10) 1, 2604 47.454 .000*
Science Competence 1356 3.67 (0.83) 1298 3.40 (0.74) 1, 2642 46.243 .000*
Values 1374 3.91 (0.86) 1326 3.71 (0.84) 1, 2688 28.73 .000*
Task difficulty 1335 2.19 (0.95) 1281 2.47 (0.92) 1, 2604 35.629 .000*
Finland
Values 708 2.99 (1.04) 936 3.38 (0.99) 1, 1632 51.925 .000*
Task difficulty 708 2.61 (1.08) 936 2.21 (1.08) 1, 1632 36.562 .000*
Art Competence 708 2.98 (0.95) 936 3.39 (0.95) 1, 1632 64.592 .000*
Values 708 2.69 (0.95) 936 3.16 (1.01) 1, 1632 112.125 .000*
Task difficulty 708 2.76 (1.11) 936 2.24 (1.16) 1, 1632 73.496 .000*
Task difficulty 708 2.13 (1.00) 936 2.18 (1.06) 1, 1632 0.819 .366
tongue Values 708 3.30 (0.81) 936 3.79 (0.75) 1, 1632 117.923 .000*
Task difficulty 708 2.78 (0.86) 936 2.35 (0.89) 1, 1632 73.501 .000*

n M (SD) n M (SD)
Values 708 3.57 (0.88) 936 3.54 (0.89) 1, 1632 0.327 .567
Task difficulty 708 2.70 (1.08) 936 3.06 (1.19) 1, 1632 25.967 .000*
Values 708 3.41 (0.89) 936 3.38 (0.86) 1, 1632 2.038 .154
Task difficulty 708 2.67 (0.95) 936 2.87 (0.99) 1, 1632 7.773 .005
Hong Kong
Values 1813 2.98 (0.94) 2682 3.25 (0.90) 1, 4483 72.641 .000*
Task difficulty 1813 2.89 (1.09) 2681 2.48 (1.00) 1, 4482 111.240 .000*
Art Competence 1813 2.83 (0.90) 2682 3.09 (0.87) 1, 4483 87.567 .000*
Values 1813 3.01 (0.94) 2682 3.27 (0.90) 1, 4483 87.248 .000*
Task difficulty 1813 2.87 (1.09) 2681 2.61 (1.00) 1, 4482 71.466 .000*
Task difficulty 1813 2.07 (1.00) 2681 2.51 (1.01) 1, 4482 119.849 .000*
tongue Values 1813 3.95 (0.76) 2682 4.02 (0.67) 1, 4483 34.768 .000*
Task difficulty 1813 2.76 (0.97) 2681 2.82 (0.91) 1, 4482 1.052 .305
Values 1813 4.02 (0.79) 2682 3.90 (0.76) 1, 4483 7.918 .005
Task difficulty 1813 2.80 (1.15) 2681 3.27 (1.07) 1, 4482 118.182 .000*
Israel
Values 830 2.72 (1.26) 1202 2.94 (1.18) 1, 2020 24.275 .000*
Task difficulty 767 2.51 (1.48) 1089 1.98 (1.19) 1, 1844 56.579 .000*
Art Competence 813 2.84 (1.19) 1167 3.58 (1.11) 1, 1968 146.705 .000*
Values 830 2.39 (1.10) 1202 2.92 (1.11) 1, 2020 96.186 .000*
Task difficulty 767 2.79 (1.51) 1089 1.86 (1.16) 1, 1844 150.560 .000*
Task difficulty 767 1.84 (1.10) 1089 1.88 (1.08) 1, 1844 0.000 .989
tongue Values 830 4.02 (0.82) 1202 4.16 (0.73) 1, 2020 14.391 .000*
Task difficulty 767 2.16 (1.09) 1089 2.13 (1.07) 1, 1844 3.063 .080
Values 830 4.05 (0.88) 1202 4.12 (0.79) 1, 2020 1.774 .183
Task difficulty 767 2.16 (1.14) 1089 2.23 (1.12) 1, 1844 2.285 .131
Values 830 3.22 (1.14) 1202 3.40 (1.02) 1, 2020 7.103 .008
Task difficulty 767 2.32 (1.21) 1089 2.30 (1.05) 1, 1844 0.048 .827
Korea
Values 1208 2.98 (0.86) 1455 3.10 (0.85) 1, 2651 26.335 .000*
Task difficulty 1191 2.99 (1.08) 1434 2.62 (0.95) 1, 2613 43.109 .000*
Art Competence 1209 2.82 (1.04) 1458 3.14 (1.10) 1, 2655 73.455 .000*
Values 1208 2.70 (0.86) 1455 2.91 (0.89) 1, 2651 57.278 .000*
Task difficulty 1191 3.30 (1.09) 1434 2.80 (1.03) 1, 2613 95.992 .000*
Task difficulty 1191 2.33 (1.12) 1434 2.70 (1.08) 1, 2613 47.745 .000*
(Continued)

n M (SD) n M (SD)
tongue Values 1208 3.88 (0.72) 1455 3.97 (0.68) 1, 2651 5.715 .017
Task difficulty 1191 2.68 (0.83) 1434 2.74 (0.85) 1, 2613 1.070 .301
Values 1208 3.86 (0.88) 1455 3.68 (0.87) 1, 2651 2.192 .139
Task difficulty 1191 3.15 (1.31) 1434 3.57 (1.14) 1, 2613 25.230 .000*
Values 1208 3.68 (0.89) 1455 3.51 (0.89) 1, 2651 0.502 .479
Task difficulty 1191 3.14 (1.18) 1434 3.42 (1.08) 1, 2613 14.328 .000*
Mexico
Values 1717 3.19 (1.06) 1745 3.19 (1.07) 1, 3450 1.899 .168
Task difficulty 1685 2.46 (1.18) 1716 2.28 (1.15) 1, 3389 18.633 .000*
Art Competence 1704 3.47 (0.97) 1735 3.71 (0.93) 1, 3427 52.184 .000*
Values 1717 3.26 (1.01) 1745 3.43 (0.95) 1, 3450 39.514 .000*
Task difficulty 1685 2.14 (1.08) 1716 1.88 (1.04) 1, 3389 44.539 .000*
Task difficulty 1685 1.49 (0.82) 1716 1.52 (0.84) 1, 3389 2.199 .138
tongue Values 1717 3.89 (0.79) 1745 4.08 (0.71) 1, 3450 54.734 .000*
Task difficulty 1685 2.38 (1.01) 1716 2.07 (1.02) 1, 3389 71.565 .000*
Values 1717 4.16 (0.72) 1745 4.24 (0.68) 1, 3450 7.670 .006
Task difficulty 1685 2.82 (1.23) 1716 3.02 (1.28) 1, 3389 11.707 .001
Values 1717 3.74 (0.84) 1745 3.88 (0.82) 1, 3450 27.472 .000*
Task difficulty 1685 2.23 (0.93) 1716 2.13 (0.91) 1, 3389 7.540 .006
USA
Values 1453 2.96 (1.15) 1555 3.19 (1.09) 1, 2996 32.658 .000*
Task difficulty 1394 2.30 (1.20) 1491 1.89 (1.00) 1, 2873 79.407 .000*
Art Competence 1440 3.37 (1.13) 1545 3.54 (1.09) 1, 2973 19.252 .000*
Values 1453 3.03 (1.11) 1555 3.18 (1.08) 1, 2996 18.717 .000*
Task difficulty 1394 2.31 (1.24) 1491 2.07 (1.13) 1, 2873 30.221 .000*
Task difficulty 1394 1.46 (0.81) 1491 1.68 (0.96) 1, 2873 35.903 .000*
tongue Values 1453 3.84 (0.84) 1555 4.02 (0.73) 1, 2996 40.212 .000*
Task difficulty 1394 2.49 (1.08) 1491 2.27 (1.04) 1, 2873 34.290 .000*
Values 1453 4.22 (0.76) 1555 4.21 (0.72) 1, 2996 0.151 .698
Task difficulty 1394 2.55 (1.26) 1491 2.72 (1.28) 1, 2873 5.800 .016
Values 1453 3.92 (0.86) 1555 3.82 (0.88) 1, 2996 6.156 .013
Task difficulty 1394 2.40 (1.07) 1491 2.49 (1.11) 1, 2873 3.640 .057

Table 5. Means (standard deviations) and univariate effects for music learner (*p < .001)
Subject Motivation Player Non-player d.f. F p
n M (SD) n M (SD)
Brazil
Music Competence 1422 4.18 (0.73) 419 3.83 (0.84) 1, 1829 11.762 .001
Values 1426 3.90 (0.89) 419 3.09 (0.97) 1, 1833 34.467 .000*
Task difficulty 1423 1.89 (0.87) 419 1.97 (0.94) 1, 1830 0.051 .821
Art Competence 1422 3.94 (0.78) 419 3.85 (0.84) 1, 1829 0.216 .642
Values 1426 3.38 (0.87) 419 3.20 (0.92) 1, 1833 0.033 .855
Task difficulty 1423 1.87 (0.90) 419 1.87 (0.94) 1, 1830 2.278 .131
Task difficulty 1423 1.57 (0.87) 419 1.41 (0.78) 1, 1830 7.606 .006
tongue Values 1426 4.19 (0.67) 419 4.16 (0.62) 1, 1833 0.638 .424
Task difficulty 1423 2.78 (1.09) 419 2.97 (1.04) 1, 1830 0.054 .816
Values 1426 4.17 (0.69) 419 4.20 (0.62) 1, 1833 0.041 .839
Task difficulty 1423 3.01 (1.22) 419 3.24 (1.20) 1, 1830 1.838 .175
Values 1426 3.92 (0.72) 419 3.90 (0.72) 1, 1833 0.143 .705
Task difficulty 1423 2.68 (1.03) 419 2.66 (1.00) 1, 1830 0.023 .879
China
Values 903 3.88 (0.83) 1797 3.54 (0.89) 1, 2688 71.806 .000*
Task difficulty 880 1.87 (0.98) 1736 2.22 (1.02) 1, 2604 43.444 .000*
Art Competence 889 3.55 (0.90) 1765 3.38 (0.90) 1, 2642 12.578 .000*
Values 903 3.56 (0.92) 1797 3.46 (0.92) 1, 2688 6.128 .013
Task difficulty 880 2.19 (1.08) 1736 2.28 (1.08) 1, 2604 0.155 .694
Task difficulty 880 2.22 (1.10) 1736 2.24 (1.09) 1, 2604 0.211 .646
tongue Values 903 4.21 (0.76) 1797 4.13 (0.77) 1, 2688 2.606 .107
Task difficulty 880 2.35 (1.03) 1736 2.44 (0.98) 1, 2604 2.902 .089
Values 903 4.14 (0.84) 1797 4.09 (0.80) 1, 2688 1.660 .198
Task difficulty 880 2.49 (1.16) 1736 2.57 (1.09) 1, 2604 6.497 .011
Values 903 3.85 (0.87) 1797 3.79 (0.84) 1, 2688 7.845 .005
Task difficulty 880 2.27 (0.99) 1736 2.36 (0.92) 1, 2604 6.167 .013
Finland
Values 768 3.59 (0.99) 876 2.87 (0.95) 1, 1632 167.273 .000*
Task difficulty 768 2.08 (1.07) 876 2.65 (1.06) 1, 1632 105.347 .000*
Art Competence 768 3.26 (0.92) 876 3.18 (1.02) 1, 1632 0.383 .536
Values 768 3.10 (0.99) 876 2.83 (1.01) 1, 1632 6.324 .012
Task difficulty 768 2.39 (1.16) 876 2.53 (1.17) 1, 1632 3.191 .074
Task difficulty 768 2.13 (1.03) 876 2.18 (1.04) 1, 1632 0.089 .765
tongue Values 768 3.63 (0.82) 876 3.54 (0.80) 1, 1632 2.718 .099
Task difficulty 768 2.49 (0.94) 876 2.56 (0.86) 1, 1632 2.097 .148
(Continued)

n M (SD) n M (SD)
Values 768 3.60 (0.91) 876 3.51 (0.86) 1, 1632 0.030 .861
Task difficulty 768 2.82 (1.21) 876 2.97 (1.11) 1, 1632 0.587 .444
Values 768 3.39 (0.88) 876 3.39 (0.87) 1, 1632 1.141 .286
Task difficulty 768 2.80 (1.00) 876 2.78 (0.96) 1, 1632 6.665 .010
Hong Kong
Values 1765 3.55 (0.85) 2730 2.88 (0.87) 1, 4483 367.193 .000*
Task difficulty 1765 2.30 (0.97) 2729 2.87 (1.05) 1, 4482 180.111 .000*
Art Competence 1765 3.15 (0.90) 2730 2.88 (0.87) 1, 4483 24.541 .000*
Values 1765 3.35 (0.89) 2730 3.05 (0.93) 1, 4483 21.627 .000*
Task difficulty 1765 2.56 (1.05) 2729 2.82 (1.03) 1, 4482 6.889 .009
Task difficulty 1765 2.29 (1.02) 2729 2.37 (1.03) 1, 4482 0.270 .603
tongue Values 1765 4.10 (0.68) 2730 3.92 (0.72) 1, 4483 3.454 .063
Task difficulty 1765 2.67 (0.96) 2729 2.87 (0.91) 1, 4482 0.953 .329
Values 1765 4.09 (0.71) 2730 3.86 (0.81) 1, 4483 23.469 .000*
Task difficulty 1765 2.96 (1.12) 2729 3.15 (1.13) 1, 4482 20.995 .000*
Israel
Values 730 3.54 (1.14) 1302 2.46 (1.08) 1, 2020 321.221 .000*
Task difficulty 680 1.77 (1.07) 1176 2.44 (1.42) 1, 1844 91.680 .000*
Art Competence 715 3.41 (1.15) 1265 3.20 (1.22) 1, 1968 10.164 001
Values 730 2.94 (1.12) 1302 2.57 (1.12) 1, 2020 30.923 .000*
Task difficulty 680 2.13 (1.32) 1176 2.31 (1.43) 1, 1844 4.761 .029
Task difficulty 680 1.84 (1.09) 1176 1.87 (1.08) 1, 1844 0.713 .399
tongue Values 730 4.12 (0.76) 1302 4.10 (0.77) 1, 2020 1.162 .281
Task difficulty 680 2.06 (1.08) 1176 2.19 (1.08) 1, 1844 3.497 .062
Values 730 4.09 (0.87) 1302 4.09 (0.81) 1, 2020 1.583 .208
Task difficulty 680 2.17 (1.12) 1176 2.22 (1.13) 1, 1844 0.308 .579
Values 730 3.42 (1.07) 1302 3.27 (1.08) 1, 2020 6.946 .008
Task difficulty 680 2.21 (1.11) 1176 2.36 (1.12) 1, 1844 8.756 .003
Korea
Values 1132 3.23 (0.85) 1534 2.91 (0.84) 1, 2666 90.983 .000*
Task difficulty 1119 2.60 (1.03) 1509 2.93 (1.01) 1, 2628 64.179 .000*
Art Competence 1119 3.16 (1.07) 1509 2.85 (1.05) 1, 2628 55.227 .000*
Values 1132 2.97 (0.89) 1534 2.69 (0.86) 1, 2666 63.108 .000*
Task difficulty 1119 2.90 (1.09) 1509 3.13 (1.07) 1, 2628 28.515 .000*

n M (SD) n M (SD)
Task difficulty 1119 2.40 (1.10) 1509 2.63 (1.12) 1, 2628 28.887 .000*
tongue Values 1132 3.95 (0.70) 1534 3.92 (0.69) 1, 2666 1.268 .260
Task difficulty 1119 2.59 (0.84) 1509 2.80 (0.83) 1, 2628 41.233 .000*
Values 1132 3.82 (0.87) 1534 3.73 (0.87) 1, 2666 6.643 .010
Task difficulty 1119 3.23 (1.25) 1509 3.49 (1.22) 1, 2628 27.214 .000*
Values 1132 3.66 (0.88) 1509 3.54 (0.90) 1, 2666 11.054 .001
Task difficulty 1119 3.21 (1.15) 1509 3.35 (1.13) 1, 2628 9.020 .003
Mexico
Values 1281 3.72 (0.94) 2181 2.88 (1.01) 1, 3450 489.993 .000*
Task difficulty 1267 1.90 (0.98) 2134 2.65 (1.18) 1, 3389 295.135 .000*
Art Competence 1276 3.79 (0.93) 2163 3.48 (0.96) 1, 3427 63.175 .000*
Values 1281 3.56 (0.96) 2181 3.22 (0.98) 1, 3450 65.704 .000*
Task difficulty 1267 1.85 (1.01) 2134 2.11 (1.09) 1, 3389 39.927 .000*
Task difficulty 1267 1.51 (0.82) 2134 1.50 (0.83) 1, 3389 2.424 .120
tongue Values 1281 4.01 (0.76) 2181 3.97 (0.75) 1, 3450 0.002 .965
Task difficulty 1267 2.19 (1.10) 2134 2.24 (0.98) 1, 3389 0.162 .687
Values 1281 4.22 (0.72) 2181 4.19 (0.70) 1, 3450 0.002 .967
Task difficulty 1267 2.85 (1.26) 2134 2.97 (1.26) 1, 3389 1.345 .246
Values 1281 3.93 (0.81) 2181 3.75 (0.83) 1, 3450 10.158 .001
Task difficulty 1267 2.15 (0.91) 2134 2.19 (0.93) 1, 3389 0.103 .748
USA
Values 1115 3.52 (1.06) 1893 2.82 (1.08) 1, 2996 266.003 .000*
Task difficulty 1091 1.81 (1.00) 1794 2.26 (1.18) 1, 2873 104.896 .000*
Art Competence 1111 3.63 (1.04) 1874 3.35 (1.15) 1, 2973 29.736 .000*
Values 1115 3.28 (1.07) 1893 3.00 (1.10) 1, 2996 30.363 .000*
Task difficulty 1091 2.06 (1.11) 1794 2.26 (1.23) 1, 2873 13.736 .000*
Task difficulty 1091 1.60 (0.91) 1794 1.56 (0.89) 1, 2873 0.953 .329
tongue Values 1115 4.02 (0.77) 1893 3.88 (0.80) 1, 2996 17.971 .000*
Task difficulty 1091 2.29 (1.04) 1794 2.43 (1.08) 1, 2873 9.822 .002
Values 1115 4.23 (0.75) 1893 4.21 (0.74) 1, 2996 0.236 .627
Task difficulty 1091 2.59 (1.24) 1794 2.67 (1.29) 1, 2873 2.181 .140
Values 1115 3.97 (0.87) 1893 3.81 (0.87) 1, 2996 18.694 .000*
Task difficulty 1091 2.38 (1.11) 1794 2.49 (1.08) 1, 2873 6.807 .009

Music Art PE
5 5 5
Brazil
Mean competence beliefs
4.5 4.5 4.5

China
4 4 4 Finland
3.5 3.5 3.5 Hong Kong
3 3 3 Israel
2.5 2.5 2.5 Korea
2 2 2 México
1.5 1.5 1.5 USA
1 1 1
Lower Middle Higher Lower Middle Higher Lower Middle Higher
Mother Mathematics Science

5 5 5
tongue
Mean competence beliefs
4.5 4.5 4.5
4 4 4
3.5 3.5 3.5
3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
1.5 1.5 1.5
1 1 1
Figure 1. Mean competence beliefs for school subjects according to school level
Note: No Science data for Hong Kong
Music Art PE
5 5 5
Brazil
4.5 4.5 4.5
China
4 4 4 Finland
Mean values
3.5 3.5 3.5 Hong Kong

3 3 3 Israel
2.5 2.5 2.5 Korea
2 2 2 México
1.5 1.5 1.5 USA
1 1 1

5 5 5
tongue
4.5 4.5 4.5
4 4 4
Mean values
3.5 3.5 3.5
3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
1.5 1.5 1.5
1 1 1
Figure 2. Mean values for school subjects according to school level


Music Art PE
5 5 5
Brazil
4.5 4.5 4.5
China
Mean task difficulty
4 4 4 Finland
3.5 3.5 3.5 Hong Kong
3 3 3 Israel
2.5 2.5 2.5 Korea
2 2 2 México
1.5 1.5 1.5 USA
1 1 1

5 5 5
tongue
4.5 4.5 4.5
Mean task difficulty
4 4 4
3.5 3.5 3.5
3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
1.5 1.5 1.5
1 1 1
Figure 3. Mean task difficulty for school subjects according to school level
(3) Are students’ ratings of competence beliefs, values and task difficulty higher or lower for music
compared to other school subjects? Students’ cumulative mean competence beliefs, values, and
task difficulty for each school subject are shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6 respectively. To summa-
rize the data further, Table 6 indicates the rank order for the cumulative means for competence
beliefs, values and task difficulty for each subject by country. Competence beliefs for music were
among the bottom two rankings for Hong Kong, Israel, Mexico and the USA. In other words,
students in these countries indicated lower overall competence beliefs for music compared to
other subjects. Competence beliefs for music were ranked fourth in China and Korea, third in
Finland and first in Brazil. Values means for music were among the bottom two rankings for
all the countries with the exception of Brazil where they were ranked fourth. Task difficulty
means for music were among the bottom two rankings for China, Finland, Hong Kong and the
USA. This means that students in these countries thought that music was less difficult com-
pared to other subjects. Task difficulty means for music were ranked fourth in Brazil, Israel
and Korea; whereas in Mexico they were ranked second (as one of the most difficult subjects
after mathematics).
(4) For each of the eight countries, is there a difference in competence beliefs, values and task difficulty
for school subjects according to gender or music learners (players versus non-players)?
Gender Significant gender differences (see Table 6) were found for motivation between
females and males across a variety of subjects and countries. The smallest number of gender
differences was found in Brazil where mother tongue was the only school subject to differ accord-
ing to gender. In Brazil, Finland, Mexico and the USA, females reported higher competence
beliefs for mother tongue than males. For all countries except Brazil, females reported higher

School level
Higher
Middle
Lower
Brazil China Finland Hong Kong

14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
Israel Korea México USA

14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
Figure 4. Cumulative mean competence beliefs for school subjects
competence beliefs for music and art than males. Males reported higher competence beliefs than
females for physical education in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Mexico and the USA. Males also
reported higher competence beliefs than females for mathematics in China, Finland, Hong Kong
and Korea.
Females reported higher values for music than males in all countries except Brazil and China.
For all countries except Brazil, females reported higher values for art than males. In Brazil,
Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Mexico and the USA females reported higher values for mother
tongue than males. Males reported higher values than females for physical education in China,
Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mexico and the USA. Females and males did not differ significantly in
their values for mathematics in all eight countries.
Females reported lower task difficulty for music and art than males in all countries
except Brazil. In Brazil, Finland, Mexico and the USA females reported lower task difficulty
than boys for the school subject mother tongue. Males reported lower task difficulty than
females for physical education in China, Hong Kong, Korea and the USA. Males also
reported lower task difficulty than females for mathematics in China, Finland, Hong Kong
and Korea.
Music learner Significant differences in motivation were also found between music learners
and non-music learners across a variety of school subjects and countries (see Table 5). Music
learners reported higher values for music than non-music learners in all countries, and higher

School level
Higher
Middle
Lower

14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0

14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
Figure 5. Cumulative mean values for school subjects
competence and lower levels of task difficulty than non-music learners in all countries
except Brazil.
In China, Hong Kong, Korea, Mexico and the USA music learners reported higher compe-
tence beliefs for art than non-music learners. In China, Hong Kong and the USA music learners
reported higher competence beliefs for mother tongue than non-music learners. Music learners
and non-music learners did not differ significantly in their competence beliefs for physical edu-
cation in all eight countries. Music learners also reported higher competence beliefs for
mathematics than non-music learners in China and Hong Kong.
In Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mexico and the USA music learners reported higher values for
art than non-music learners. The USA was the only country where music learners reported
significantly higher values for mother tongue than non-music learners. In Hong Kong, music
learners reported higher values for mathematics than non-music learners, and in the USA
music learners reported higher values for science than non-music learners.
Music learners reported lower task difficulty for music than non-music learners in all coun-
tries except Brazil. Music learners also reported lower task difficulty for art than non-music
learners in Mexico and the USA. No significant differences were found between music learners
and non-music learners in task difficulty for mother tongue or physical education for any of the
eight countries. Music learners reported lower task difficulty than non-music learners for
mathematics in Hong Kong.

School level
Higher
Middle
Lower

14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0

14 14 14 14
12 12 12 12
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
Figure 6. Cumulative mean task difficulty for school subjects
Table 6. Rank order of cumulative means for competence beliefs, values and task difficulty
Country Motivation Music Art Physical Mother Mathematics Science

education tongue
Brazil Competence beliefs 1 3 2 5 6 4

Values 4 6 5 1 2 3
Task difficulty 4 5 6 3 2 1
China Competence beliefs 4 6 3 1 2 5
Values 5 6 4 1 2 3
Finland Competence beliefs 3 6 1 2 5 4
Values 5 6 1 2 3 4
Hong Kong* Competence beliefs 4 5 2 1 3
Values 5 4 3 1 2
Task difficulty 4 3 5 2 1
Israel Competence beliefs 5 6 2 3 1 4
Values 5 6 3 2 1 4
Korea Competence beliefs 4 6 2 1 3 5
Values 5 6 4 1 2 3

Country Motivation Music Art Physical Mother Mathematics Science

education tongue
Mexico Competence beliefs 6 4 1 2 5 3
Values 6 5 4 2 1 3
USA Competence beliefs 5 6 1 3 2 4
Values 6 5 4 2 1 3
Note: Rank 1 = highest cumulative mean; 6 = lowest cumulative mean; therefore 1 = highest rank for highest
cumulative mean competence beliefs, values and task difficulty
* Science was not included in the data collected for Hong Kong, therefore the rank order for cumulative means only
ranges from 1 to 5.
Discussion
Students’ motivation to participate in music at school, as with any school subject, involves
complex interactions between the self-system (perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, emotions), the
social system (teachers, peers, parents and siblings), actions (motivated behaviours including
learning investment and regulation) and outcomes (learning, achievement) (Austin et al.,
2006). In this study we chose to focus on the personal beliefs that students hold about their
participation in various school subjects, including music, as a means of understanding how
their beliefs may differ and become more differentiated across three school levels. We were
also interested in studying the degree to which there might be any observable differences
according to country, gender and whether the students were or were not learning an instru-
ment or voice.
A key feature of expectancy-value motivation theory is the explicit assumption that deci-
sions to learn any other school subject occur within a complex social reality in which students
have many options, each of which involve both immediate and long-range implications, as well
as positive and negative consequences (Eccles, 2005). Any decision to enrol in music as a school
subject is typically made, therefore, in the context of other important decisions. In making
choices about whether or not to become involved in music, students are influenced by their
beliefs about their ability and by their interest and valuing of different subjects. Often their
decisions are shaped by parents’ aspirations and teachers’ predictions about their future
performance. All those who work within an educational context, and especially within subjects
as demanding as music, have witnessed the way that students’ decisions are affected by their
perceptions of, and beliefs about, the subjects themselves, perceptions concerning their intrin-
sic merits and their inherent difficulty and instrumental value, especially for achieving
high grades.
The major goal we set ourselves when initiating this eight-country survey was to clarify
further the expectations students held for studying music and the value they place on the
subject, as compared to other school subjects. Our analysis therefore sought to determine the
extent to which there might be differences in the way that students perceive music learning
as compared to other so called ‘academic’ subjects such as mathematics, mother tongue and
science, and ‘enrichment school’ subjects such as art and physical education. In doing so, the
study extends previous research by addressing a wider variety of school subjects across
geographically disparate nationalities.

The results of the study provide information that help frame conceptions of students’
motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects. First, consistent with other
literature (Eccles et al., 2005; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld,
1993), we observed a general decline in competence beliefs and values for a majority of sub-
jects, including music, across the three levels of schooling. Students tended to express less con-
fidence about their ability and less valuing of the subjects from the earlier to later years of their
schooling. At the same time, a majority of school subjects showed a steady increase in task dif-
ficulty, meaning that students more generally perceived their school subjects to increase in dif-
ficulty across the school years.
Second, students tended to rank music lower on the competence beliefs and valuing compo-
nents as compared with other subjects. Thus, students more generally held lower expectations
for becoming competent in music and valued the subject less than other subjects. It is also
important to note that their competence beliefs and valuing were typically lower for music (and
art) than the other so-called ‘academic subjects’ such as mother tongue, mathematics and
science. Across the eight countries, music varied in terms of student perceptions of its difficulty
compared to other school subjects. In general, mathematics, science, and mother tongue were
considered the most difficult school subjects, with music being rated among the easiest subjects
for all countries with the exception of Mexico.
Third, our analyses show important differences between female and male students. In all
countries except Brazil, females expressed higher competence beliefs and considered music an
easier school subject than did males. With the exception of Brazil, China and Mexico, females
also reported higher levels of valuing for music than males.
Fourth, as would be expected, students who were learning an instrument or voice in all eight
countries except Brazil felt more competent and considered music easier for them than non-
instrumentalists/vocalists. In all eight countries, these music learners also valued music more
than their non-music learning peers.
Finally, we observed major differences between Brazilian students and the other seven
countries. In contrast to the other countries (and other subjects in other countries) Brazilian
students reported increasing perceptions of competence and valuing of music from the lower
to upper levels of schooling. Our results suggest that they were more highly motivated to study
music in their schools. We believe these discrepancies may be because of the sample in that
few Brazilian schools offer music in the school curriculum, so only schools that offered this
subject were sampled to enable relevant comparisons with other countries. However, in contrast
to the other seven countries where many of the students had completed their compulsory
years of studying music at school but were not necessarily continuing with music as an elec-
tive school subject, the Brazilian secondary school students were all participating in extra-
curricular musical activities, such as choirs, bands and orchestras (see Hentschke, this issue,
for further information about the context of music education in Brazil). This suggests that the
majority of Brazilian secondary school students saw themselves as music learners compared to
students in the other seven countries.
Overall, we can conclude from the above that as students progress through school, many
report school music to be increasingly less valuable to them as a school subject, and a subject in
which they feel they are less capable than other subjects. In contrast, students who choose to
become actively engaged in music by learning an instrument or voice typically exhibit a much
stronger commitment to music learning that reflects their individual interest as well as more
stable beliefs about their capacity to become competent in music. In addition, they also express
stronger feelings of valuing the subject more highly. In this way, their beliefs are reinforced by
clear achievement goals.

Close scrutiny of the results for the music learners (see means, Table 6) in order to examine
their sense of competence and valuing for music as compared to the so-called ‘academic’
subjects of mother tongue, mathematics and science reveals a general trend across the eight
countries for music learners to feel more competent at music than at their academic subjects,
even though they value music less than the academic subjects in addition to believing that
music is easier than their academic subjects. This intriguing finding demonstrates that much
more work is needed in order to understand the many reasons why students who are more
actively engaged in music may hold higher competence beliefs while at the same time valuing
music less than other parts of their schoolwork. One reason we have explored previously
(McPherson, 2007) involves analysing the misconceptions about the short- and long-term
consequences of music as an area of study. For example, Robinson (2001, 2009) shows, in
his defence of subjects such as music, dance, drama and art, that arts subjects have histori-
cally been valued for recreation and cultural development and because of this are not always
seen as useful in a practical way. This is in contrast to the so-called ‘academic subjects’ involv-
ing verbal and mathematical reasoning that are typically considered indispensable for daily
life and essential for employment.
Another general public misconception is the idea that music is not a routine capacity but
rather requires a special gift. There is now available a number of studies that suggest that the
general public view musical ability as more innate than environmentally determined. That is,
when asked to express an opinion about whether musicians are born with natural innate
talent to become musicians versus acquiring skills through teaching and practice, many will
place greater emphasis on an innate view of musical talent. This view, which is probably
more common in western countries, often stands in contrast to how the general public views
other human endeavours such as sport and academic achievement where environmental
catalysts such as working hard are typically given greater emphasis. A good example is a
survey by Davis (1994) who asked educational psychologists, secondary teachers, primary
teachers and members of the general public to identify activities that they believe require a
‘natural talent’ or ‘gift’. Davis reports that most of the respondents viewed musical skills as
essentially innate. In fact, 75% of the educational professionals reported that playing instru-
ments, singing and composing were the result of a special innate gift or natural talent. Rea-
sons why the respondents suggested that musical ability was innate included the very young
age at which the ‘talent’ emerges and can be demonstrated (such as the unexplainable talent
of child prodigies) and the fact that many youngsters try hard but often fail to develop their
ability in music (see also, Gagné, Blanchard, & Bégin, 2001; Lehmann, Sloboda, & Woody,
2007; Winner, 1996).
This general public view of musical achievement as innate rather than environmentally
determined demonstrates a serious lack of understanding about the nature of musical poten-
tial and stands in stark contrast to research in music and psychology, which places a much
greater emphasis on environmental factors in developing children’s talent. For example, over
the past 20 years, music psychologists have compiled a great deal of evidence showing that
successful musicians are not born, but made (e.g., McPherson & Williamon, 2006; Sloboda &
Davidson, 1996).
If the above holds true, we would propose that the historical view of the so-called ‘academic’
subjects being considered more important and useful than music, working in combination with
the general public’s ‘innate’ or ‘natural talent’ view of music, translate into misconceptions
about the purpose of music education and negatively impact on how many children subse-
quently choose whether or not to participate in school music. We see these misconceptions in
our data, with students in the general population expressing lower competence and valuing of

music than for other ‘academic’ subjects, and where even music learners display lower levels of
valuing of music compared to their other school subjects.
Our findings suggest that music educators need to do more to counteract students’ miscon-
ceptions about the purpose and value of music education at school. One possibility is to focus
students’ attention on questions that move beyond asking ‘what do I know?’ or ‘what should I
know?’ in order to engage them in more reflective thinking about musical values by asking the
question ‘why might this knowledge be important or useful?’ Values serve as points for orienta-
tion through the diverse knowledge that exists in our world. Values contribute to the way that
knowledge is constructed, used and exchanged, both now and in the future. And, of course,
values influence all sorts of decisions that individuals make about music learning, such as
whether or not they will continue with lifelong music learning, whether or not they will attend
concerts and what kind of concerts they will attend, whether or not they will want their own
children to learn music, whether or not they will support the arts and music in the schools and
communities in which they live.
Obviously, context is important, which is the reason the other articles in the series reporting
on this international project involve separate analyses of data pertaining to each country.
Consequently, issues relevant to understanding school music within these varying cultural
environments can be discussed in even greater detail.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the NAMM Foundation through its Sounds of Learning
Foundation (RFP 2.7). Preliminary results from this study were reported during a symposium (G. E.
McPherson, Convenor) at the 28th International Society for Music Education World Conference, July 2008,
Bologna, Italy. The authors would like to thank the lead researchers from each country for their collabora-
tion and assistance (Patricia Gonzalez, Karin Hendricks, Liane Hentschke, Antti Juvonen, Bo Wah Leung,
Adena Portowitz, Moonjoo Seo, Jiaxing Xie). We would also like to thank all the educational authorities,
schools, and teachers for their cooperation, as well as the students who completed the questionnaires.
Notes
1. A copy of the full questionnaire can be obtained from the first author.
2. Like other reliability scales Cronbach reliability coefficients range from 0 to 1.0, with scores from 0.70
upwards suggesting that the items are measuring similar constructs (Vogt, 2005).
3. Readers may contact the first author for further details on statistical analyses.
References
Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Bedinger, S. (1994). When expectations work: Race and socioeconomic
differences in school performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(4), 283–299.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Austin, J., Renwick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Developing motivation. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The
child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 213–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bornholt, L. J., & Goodnow, J. J. (1999). Cross-generation perceptions of academic competence parental
expectations and adolescent self-disclosure. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(4), 427–447.
Chen, H., & Lan, W. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ academic expectations: Com-
parison of American, Chinese-American, and Chinese high school students. Adolescence, 33(130),
385–390.

Covington, M. V., & Dray, E. (2002). The developmental course of achievement motivation: A need-based
approach. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 33–56).
London: Academic Press.
Davis, M. (1994). Folk music psychology. The Psychologist, 7, 537.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In
A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Eccles (Parsons), J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expect-
ancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation
(pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Eccles (Parsons), J., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs:
Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321.
Eccles, J. E., O’Neill, S. A., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Ability self-perceptions and subjective task values in ado-
lescents and children. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptu-
alizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 237–249). New York: Springer.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement
values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 109–132.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and
task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfeld, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
pp. 1017–1055). New York: Wiley.
Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Norton, A., & Schlaug, G. (2008). Practicing a musical instrument in child-
hood is associated with enhanced verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning. PLoS ONE, 3 (10): e3566.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003566.
Gagné, F, Blanchard, D., & Bégin, J. (2001). Beliefs about the heritability of abilities in education, music, and
sports. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry
B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 155–178). Scottsdale AZ:
Great Potential Press.
Ghazali, G., & McPherson, G. E. (2009). Malaysian children’s attitudes toward learning music. Music
Education Research, 11(2), 193–219.
Gouzouasis, P., Guhn, M., & Kishor, N. (2007). The predictive relationship between achievement and
participation in music and achievement in core Grade 12 academic subjects. Music Education Research,
9(1), 81–92.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achieve-
ment goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.
Jacobs, J. E., Hyatt, S., Osgood, W. D., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self compe-
tence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development,
73(2), 509–527.
Lehmann, A. C., Sloboda, J. A., & Woody, R. H. (2007). Psychology for musicians: Understanding and acquir-
ing the skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E. (2007, 6–10 July). Children’s motivation to study music in schools. In R. Faulkner,
A. Stanberg, & J. MacIntosh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian Society for Music Education Biennial
National Conference [CD-ROM]. Perth, Western Australia.

McPherson, G. E. (2009). The role of parents in children’s musical development. Psychology of Music,
37(1), 91–110.
McPherson, G. E., & Williamon, A. (2006). Giftedness and talent. In G. McPherson (Ed.), The child as
musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 239–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. A. (2002). The self-identity of young musicians. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, &
D. Miell (Eds.), Musical identities (pp. 79–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. A. (2005). Youth music engagement in diverse contexts. In J. L. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. S. Eccles
(Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after school and community
programs (pp. 255–273). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Neill, S. A. (2006). Positive youth musical engagement. In G. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician: A
handbook of musical development (pp. 461–474). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. A., Eccles, J. A., & Wigfield, A. (2003, March). Measuring children’s and adolescents’ ability self-
perceptions and subjective task values. In: Indicators of Positive Development Conference. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
O’Neill, S. A., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Motivation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds), The science
and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 31–46). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, S. A., Ryan, K. J., Boulton, M. J., & Sloboda, J. A. (2000, April). Children’s subjective task values
and engagement in music. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Annual Conference,
Winchester, UK.
Patrikakou, E. N. (1997). A model of parental attitudes and the academic achievement of adolescents.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31, 7–26.
Pitts, S. (2005). Valuing musical participation. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone.
Robinson, K. (2009). The element. New York: Viking.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sloboda, J. A., & Davidson, J. W. (1996). The young performing musician. In I. Deliège & J. A. Sloboda
(Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 171–190). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and
achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Develop-
ment of achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). London: Academic Press.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, C., et al. (1997). Changes
in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A
3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469.
Wigfield, A., O’Neill, S. A., & Eccles, J. S. (1999, April). Children’s achievement values in different domains:
Developmental and cultural differences. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: myths and realities. New York: BasicBooks.
Author biographies
Gary E. McPherson is the Ormond Chair of Music and Director of the Melbourne Conservatorium of
Music. He is a former President of the Australian and International Societies for Music Education and

has delivered keynote addresses in various countries around the world and published well over 100 articles
and book chapters, including four edited books (two of which are for Oxford University Press). Cur-
rent work includes editing the Oxford Handbook of Music Education, which is expected to be released in
late 2011.
Susan A. O’Neill is Associate Professor in Arts Education at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver,
Canada. She is Director of Research for Youth, Music and Education (RYME) and Senior Editor of the
Canadian Music Educators’ Biennial Book Series, Research to Practice. She has published widely in music
psychology and music education, including chapters in 12 edited books for Oxford University Press. Her
research focuses on the way young people value music making, youth-led participatory action research,
and the impact of youth music engagement on motivation, identity, well-being, media literacy, and cul-
tural understanding.

McPherson - Motivation To Study Music

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McPherson - Motivation To Study Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Studies in Music

Students' motivation to study music as compared to other school subjects: A

The online version of this article can be found at:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

Email Alerts: http://rsm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Research Studies in Music Education

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Motivational constructs defined

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Students’ decline in motivation across the school years

Motivation to study music inside and outside school

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Country School level Music learner Non-music learner

Female Male Female Male

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

1 6,7 5,6,7 5,6 P6 5,6 5,6 4,5,6 6

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

English to Cantonese, Hebrew, Finnish, Spanish, Mandarin or Portuguese). To ensure accuracy

Three items related to importance:

1. For you, how important is it to learn [subject]? (not important–very important)

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

1. In general, how useful is what you learn in each of these subjects?

Selection of schools and procedure

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation School level d.f. F p Tukey’s B

Lower Middle Upper

n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation School level d.f. F p Tukey’s B

Lower Middle Upper

n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation School level d.f. F p Tukey’s B

Lower Middle Upper

n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation School level d.f. F p Tukey’s B

Lower Middle Upper

n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation School level d.f. F p Tukey’s B

Lower Middle Upper

n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation Male Female d.f. F P

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation Male Female d.f. F P

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation Male Female d.f. F P

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation Player Non-player d.f. F p

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011

Subject Motivation Player Non-player d.f. F p

Downloaded from rsm.sagepub.com at BOSTON UNIV on February 14, 2011