MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2017

VOL. 19, NO. 1, 74–98

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1202220

Parental involvement in children’s independent music lessons

Rena Upitisa, Philip C. Abramib, Julia Brooka and Matthew Kinga
a
Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bCentre for the Study of Learning and Performance,
Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of the study was to examine types of parental involvement Received 18 September 2015
associated with independent music lessons. A self-report survey was Accepted 30 May 2016
designed to explore parent characteristics, parental goals, students’ musical
KEYWORDS
progress, the teacher–student relationship, the practice environment, Parent–child dyad; parenting
and parent behaviours during practice sessions. The extent to which the goals; music practice support;
outcomes of enjoyment and progress could be predicted by parenting teacher effects
goals and values, time spent practising, teacher qualities, and student self-
regulation was also examined. The survey was distributed through
Canada’s Royal Conservatory, yielding 2583 surveys for analysis. Results
indicated that parents were deeply invested in their children’s music
lessons, as reflected in the years of commitment to music instruction, the
thoughtful roles that they took in supporting their children’s evolution as
self-regulating musicians, and the respect that they held for their children’s
teachers. Evidence suggested that positive teacher–student relationships
and parental involvement in practice sessions between lessons predicted
student enjoyment of music and musical progress.

There is abundant evidence indicating that parents can positively influence educational outcomes,
including student achievement and attitudes towards learning (Asmus 2006; Baker and Soden
1997; Pomerantz, Grolnick, and Price 2005). The involvement of parents is especially important
in musical development, not only because of the direct role that many parents play in providing a
suitable practice environment and supervising their children’s practice sessions, but also because
of the values, attitudes, and expectations that parents communicate regarding their children’s musi-
cal growth (Asmus 1986; Creech 2008; McPherson and Davidson 2006; McPherson, Davidson, and
Faulkner 2012; McPherson and Zimmerman 2002). Indeed, musically exceptional individuals often
had supportive parents in their childhood (Davidson et al. 1996; Sosniak 1990).
There are millions of children learning to play an instrument through independent music tea-
chers. In Canada alone, conservative estimates would suggest that 2 million school-aged children
annually are involved in music lessons outside of school (Upitis and Smithrim 2002). For these chil-
dren the role of the music teacher is an undeniably important one. But parents also play a primary
role by supporting the students’ development between lessons and by sharing their goals and aspira-
tions with their children. Despite the pivotal role that parents play in their children’s musical edu-
cation, very few studies have examined parenting influences (McPherson 2009). Of the studies that
have been conducted on the parent–student interaction in music education, most have focused on
instrumental music lessons in group settings (e.g. Davidson et al. 1996). Even more rare is the exam-
ination of the role of parents in the context of independent studio lessons. This under-representation
is not surprising, given the logistical difficulties involved in pinpointing individual students, parents,

CONTACT Rena Upitis rena.upitis@queensu.ca

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 75

and teachers to take part in systematic research. The present study begins to fill both gaps: that is, the
lack of empirical work in the studio context and the few studies on parents of music students in
particular.

Parental involvement: goals, aspirations, and values

Research has demonstrated that parental involvement in music lessons is positively correlated with
cognitive, affective, and performance outcomes for students (Creech and Hallam 2003). Further, stu-
dents at all levels of learning benefit positively from parental interest and involvement (Creech 2006;
Zdzinski 1996).
Parental aspirations and values, parents’ musical background, the home practice environment,
supervision of practice, and family dynamics have been identified as positively affecting students’
musical outcomes (Brokaw 1982; Creech and Hallam 2003; Davidson et al. 1996; Hallam 1998; Sos-
niak 1985; Zdzinski 1996). However, in order for this involvement to remain positive throughout the
adolescent years, students need to experience their parents as being both caring and supportive of
students’ growing autonomy or independence (Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch 1994). Put another way, a
balance needs to be struck in the style of parenting, supporting what Crozier (1999) terms agency
(the drive for independence) and communion (the need to interact with others). Crozier’s notions
of agency and communion are similar to two of the basic psychological needs described by other the-
orists: namely, autonomy and relatedness (e.g. Connell and Wellborn 1991; Ryan and Deci 2009). A
third basic psychological need also appears widely in the literature: that of competence. These three
psychological needs have been incorporated into theoretical models of motivation and self-determi-
nation (e.g. Ryan and Deci 2009), and have been applied by McPherson and his colleagues in the
music-learning context (McPherson 2009; McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner 2012). McPherson
has demonstrated that parents have a role in enabling their children to feel autonomous (to make
independent choices), to experience a sense of relatedness (feeling connected to others), and to per-
ceive themselves as competent (in order to persist when they encounter obstacles, and to utilise strat-
egies appropriately). McPherson suggests that one of the roles that parents can play in supporting
music lessons is to create an emotional climate where the needs of autonomy, relatedness, and com-
petence can be met through the ways in which the parents communicate their attitudes about their
child’s competence; he claims that children’s perceptions can be shaped even more by parents than
by teachers (McPherson 2009; Pomerantz, Grolnick, and Price 2005).

The role of the teacher in the parent–teacher–student triad

There is evidence that when parents, teachers, and students share a mutual understanding of goals
and purpose, students are more likely to consider their music learning to be successful (Duke 1999;
Jorgensen 1998). A high degree of satisfaction is experienced by students when teachers motivate
them with difficult challenges and parents actively encourage their progress (Rife et al. 2001).
Because engaged parents form an integral part of the parent–teacher–student learning triad, complex
relationships often develop between parent, teacher, and student (Creech and Hallam 2011). These
relationships may form over a decade or more, as students frequently study with the same teacher,
while at the same time, receiving practice support and other forms of scaffolding from parents
(Creech 2006; Creech and Hallam 2003).
In one of the few studies of one-on-one music teaching, involving 263 violin teachers, and 337
parents and 337 students of 80 of those teachers, Creech (2009) sought to determine how the inter-
personal interactions between teachers, students, and parents, might be described. Using a combi-
nation of surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews of 27 teacher–student–parent case
studies, Creech identified 6 underlying clusters with varying roles for all 3 members of the triad.
For example, the ‘solo leader’ cluster was typified by the parent who viewed the teacher as highly
skilled in helping the student progress musically, and where the student’s views were ‘subsumed
76 R. UPITIS ET AL.

under the weight of both parental and teacher expectations’ (Creech 2009, 395). On the other hand,
clusters such as the ‘double duo’ and ‘harmonious trio’ were marked by more agency on the part of
the student. Overall, Creech found that the most effective teaching and learning occurred where the
parents, teachers, and students communicated well, demonstrated mutual respect for one another,
shared a sense of common purpose, and adopted child-centred, as opposed to teacher-centered,
goals.
All of the studies described above are in keeping with McPherson’s (2009) theoretical stance that
parenting goals, styles, and practices (which we refer to as behaviours) are mediated by other factors.
These mediating factors include the student’s motivation to learn music, the student’s personal
beliefs about his or her musical ability, and the degree to which the student is able to self-regulate
his or her musical engagement within his or her socio-contextual context. In terms of the latter,
McPherson (2009) noted, for example, that cultural expectations may be different for Asian descen-
dent children than their European or American descendent peers. McPherson (2009) suggested that
parents should attempt to provide a home environment that offers challenges to the child ‘within a
loving, supportive atmosphere where high but realistic aspirations are encouraged’ (101). Such an
environment, in his model, would help not only develop autonomy and relatedness, two of the
psychological factors noted above as important to success in musical endeavours, but also would
lead to feelings of competence and purpose. Purpose is a fourth psychological need McPherson
(2009) identified. He has posited that purpose is experienced when the activity relates to children’s
personal goals, and that this sense of purpose enhances the likelihood of success (McPherson 2009;
McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner 2012).

Parents’ roles in supporting practice and developing self-regulated learning

In addition to valuing music instruction and holding aspirations for their children’s musical devel-
opment, parents can play an active role in scaffolding their children’s music learning when children
are practising in their home environments. Parents who actively assist their children with practising
are more likely to see positive musical achievements (Brokaw 1982; McPherson and Davidson 2002;
Spera 2006). Davidson and her colleagues examined parental influences by conducting interviews
with 257 students and at least one parent of each student (Davidson et al. 1996). They hypothesised
that students who experienced the most musical success would have parents who were involved in
the actual lessons, and further, that these parents would be directly involved with practice between
lessons. They also hypothesised that involvement in practice would have a greater effect than involve-
ment in lessons and that parents who ‘follow rather than lead’ (401) their children’s musicianship
would have more successful outcomes. The results of the study indicated that it was the parents’ active
role during the practice sessions that was of prime importance, concluding that ‘simply having a mod-
erate degree of parental support in practising [was] not enough to help children to develop their musical
skills successfully’ (Davidson et al. 1996, 409). This is in keeping with other studies – covering a wide
range of instruments and teaching contexts – showing that parents’ supervision of their children’s
home practice sessions is a strong predictor of musical success (e.g. Brokaw 1982; Doan 1973).
In a related study, it was found that a strong sense of parental self-efficacy was more important
than the parents’ own musical ability (Creech 2001). This strong sense of self-efficacy helped parents
to (a) motivate their children, (b) support focused practice sessions, (c) communicate effectively with
the teacher, and (d) respond to their children’s requests for support. Likewise, Davidson et al. (1996)
concluded that parental beliefs in their children’s abilities to succeed were critical in sustaining their
support of their children’s practising, and in accounting for children’s persistence and success.
But what, exactly, does it mean to support practice sessions, thus helping students bridge one
lesson to another? One of the purposes of the present study was to deepen our understanding of
how parents provide this bridge, and consequently, a number of questions in the survey were devel-
oped to learn more about the nature of parent involvement in student practice sessions. The devel-
opment of these sections of the survey was underpinned by the theory of self-regulation as it applies
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 77

to music learning. There is abundant literature demonstrating that student learning can be more
effective if students take greater control over their learning processes by developing habits of self-
regulation (Dignath, Büttner, and Langfeldt 2008; Zimmerman 2000, 2011). Zimmerman’s self-regu-
lation model is pervasive in the educational literature on learning in general and in the music-learn-
ing literature in particular. In large part due to the work of McPherson and his colleagues, this model
of self-regulation has been applied to the learning involved in singing or playing a musical instru-
ment (e.g. McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner 2012; McPherson and Renwick 2001, 2011; McPher-
son and Zimmerman 2002, 2011). Zimmerman defines the development of self-regulation as an
incremental process. At the beginning, young learners require scaffolding and social support to emu-
late expert learners, progressing to scaffolded self-control, and ultimately, to self-regulation. In the
earliest stages of music learning, where considerable support is required, it is often the parents
who provide that scaffolding, as it is during the time between lessons where most of the engagement
with the instrument takes place (Davidson et al. 1996; Ericsson 1997; Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-
Römer 1993).

Research questions
It is evident from the literature that parental involvement in scaffolding music learning is a multi-
dimensional phenomenon, with various psychological and contextual factors at play (Creech and
Hallam 2003; Davidson, Howe, and Sloboda 1997; Grolnick et al. 1997; McPherson 2009). The
research questions explored this multidimensional context. In addition to examining the parent
population descriptively, we explored several constructs in terms of their predictive value for musical
outcomes. These constructs included parenting goals, parenting behaviours, the physical practice
environment, student self-regulation, and teacher characteristics. Other issues that emerged from
the literature, such as parenting style, were not specifically addressed in the closed-ended questions,
but were reflected in the open-ended comments provided by respondents. Thus, the overarching aim
of the present study was to describe parental involvement in children’s independent music lessons.
Accordingly, the research questions, and sub-questions, were as follows:

(1) What key features describe the parents of children involved in studio music instruction?
(a) What are the parent demographics?
(b) What are the parents’ goals for their children’s music study?
(c) How do parents evaluate their children’s musical progress?
(2) How do parents support their children’s learning in the context of the parent–teacher–student
triad?
(a) What is the interaction between the teacher and student from the parent’s perspective?
(b) What specific roles do parents play in supporting their children’s music learning?
(3) To what extent are the outcomes of enjoyment and musical progress predicted by parenting
values, parenting behaviours, time spent practising, physical environment, other after-school
activities, student self-regulation, teacher qualities and characteristics, and quality of lessons?

Method
Development and deployment of the survey
Self-report surveys were used to explore parenting goals, parenting behaviours, student–teacher
interactions, and other constructs as described above. The self-report survey for parents was
designed in concert with a student survey and a teacher survey, both of which are reported
separately.
The parent survey was derived from several sources. First, questions were adapted from an
earlier parent study where self-regulated learning (SRL) (McPherson and Zimmerman 2002)
78 R. UPITIS ET AL.

and deliberate practice (Hallam et al. 2012) were explored (Brook et al. 2014). Questions regard-
ing the physical characteristics of the practice environment were based on the work of McPherson
and others (McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner 2012; McPherson and Zimmerman 2002).
Additional items regarding student self-regulation were derived from a survey for conservatory
students in Australia (McCormick and McPherson 2003; McPherson and McCormick 2006;
Renwick 2008).
The parent survey was distributed for comment to the project advisory board, representing tea-
cher associations, music publishers, independent music teachers, and software designers. Next, the
parent survey was piloted with a convenience sample of 20 parents to ensure that questions were
comprehended easily and to test item reliability. Adjustments were made, and the final survey
was produced in English and French, in both online and paper versions. The surveys are archived
at www.musictoolsuite.ca. The survey was distributed in accordance with the Canadian Tri-Council
Policy Statement governing research with human participants (Canadian Tri-Council 2010).
Deployment of the survey began in February of 2014 and data collection took place over a four-
month period. The Royal Conservatory of Music (RCM) database was used to contact parents
through an email list of combined student and parent contact information, containing 69,419
records in total. All of the parents who received the invitation had at least one child who had com-
pleted a conservatory exam in the two-year period prior to the deployment of the survey. Through
the email invitation, parents were provided with links to the English and French versions of the sur-
vey. A bilingual reminder was sent a week later, and a final bilingual reminder was sent to parents
three weeks after the initial request. This process yielded 3104 initial responses (calculating a return
rate is not possible, as we have no way of ascertaining whether students had both personal and par-
ental emails in the system).
For other music schools, the team conducted Internet searches to locate schools and conserva-
tories across Canada, which yielded 86 schools in total. An administrator at each of these schools
was contacted by phone or email, and if he or she agreed to take part in the research, paper surveys
were distributed for parents, teachers, and students in the numbers specified by each of the 30 par-
ticipating schools. Over 900 paper surveys were provided to music schools for distribution to
parents, and 54 were returned (6% response rate). There were seven schools that requested the online
link. In total, parents filled out 3158 surveys.

File preparation
We began data cleaning by removing anomalous responses. We then removed any files that did not
have at least a 90% completion rate, which left us with 2583 surveys for analysis. Next, we used maxi-
mum likelihood expectation-maximisation to impute for missing values of interval and continuous
variables and hot deck imputation for categorical variables (Cheema 2014; Young, Weckman, and
Holland 2011). The number of missing values was less than 1% in total. In addition to the questions
with closed-ended responses, parents had an opportunity to respond to the prompt, ‘Is there any-
thing else that we should have asked?’; 601 parents provided responses.

Analysis
Descriptive statistics were produced for all of the closed-ended questions using SPSS (Version 22).
We employed the five broad constructs used to shape the survey to guide the identification of com-
posite measures. These constructs included parenting goals and behaviours (McPherson 2009), stu-
dent self-regulation (e.g. McCormick and McPherson 2003), the physical environment (e.g.
McPherson and Zimmerman 2002), and teacher effects (e.g. Rife et al. 2001).
Composite scales were developed through factor analysis of the predictor survey items, using both
oblique and Varimax rotation, running the default settings in SPSS. Because of concerns about item
collinearity, the data file was randomly divided in half and the analyses were carried out separately on
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 79

each half, as well as the data file as a whole, to ensure the stability of the final factors and their item
loadings. Factors and items that were inconsistent across these analyses or that had weak factor load-
ings (<0.45) were excluded. A reliability analysis was carried out with each set of variables.
This approach yielded a final set of 11 composite scales with each item in the factor weighted
equally: (a) teacher qualities and characteristics, (b) quality of lessons, (c) parenting behaviours:
practice monitoring, (d) parenting behaviours: practising assistance, (e) parenting values: valuing
music as a career, (f) parenting values: valuing music itself, (g) student SRL, (h) practice environ-
ment, (i) parenting behaviours: deliberate practice strategies, (j) parenting behaviours: supporting
musicianship, and (k) parenting behaviours: SRL support. The factors and loadings appear in
Table 1.
Several unique items, not derived from the factor analysis, were also identified. This included the
question regarding whether parents valued music for fun, which was the only predictor that failed to
load on the factor analysis. Two items were combined as measures of total practising time. Other
additional items included measures for time spent on formal out-of-school activities, time spent
on chores, and homework.
The 11 composite measures, along with the unique items, were used in step-wise regressions for
two outcome variables: (a) the extent to which the parents reported that children made music for
enjoyment, and (b) the satisfaction that parents reported with their children’s musical progress.
Two members of the research team coded the open-ended responses using the following a priori
codes, based on the constructs defined by McPherson (2009): (a) parenting goals, (b) parenting
values, (c) parenting behaviours, (d) teacher-related comments, (e) student self-regulation, and (f)
socio-contextual factors. Other comments (dealing with the cost of music lessons, experiences
with the RCM exam system, and specific aspects of the survey itself) were coded but not reported.
The 2 coders worked together for the first 30 comments, establishing the parameters for the 6 con-
structs. Then each coder independently coded another 30 comments. Having reached high inter-
rater agreement on the second set of comments (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.752, p < .001), the coders divided
the remaining comments, scored them independently, and discussed any comments that were
ambiguous in order to reach consensus.

Results
The details regarding the open-ended comments can be found in Appendix 1. The full set of survey
items and descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations, appears in
Appendix 2.

Demographics of parents and students (Q1a)

Most of the parents and guardians who filled out the survey were female (86%). These mothers were
very well educated: 90% of the respondents had completed some form of post-secondary studies,
with 38% reporting that they had a graduate or professional degree, meaning that they had com-
pleted five or more years of university training. Compared with the national average, where 64%
of the population has completed some post-secondary training (Statistics Canada 2011a), it is
clear that this group of parents is far more educated than the national norm. The annual household
income for these parents ranges from under $30,000 per year to well over $150,000, with 44% report-
ing a household income of over $100,000. The income of these parents is also markedly different
from the national norms: households with incomes over $100,000 in Canada represent a mere 8%
of the population (Statistics Canada 2011b).
Most of these parents received their childhood education in Canada (76%). The parents taking
part in the survey represented all of the provinces and territories in Canada. Most respondents
(51%) were from Ontario, Canada’s largest province, with 38% of the country’s population (Statistics
80 R. UPITIS ET AL.

Table 1. Composite scales, items, and factor loadings based on a principal components analysis with Varimax rotation.
Composite scale Items Factor loadings
Teacher qualities/characteristics Child admires/respects teacher (Q13.i) 0.87
Cronbach’s alpha 0.91 Teacher responsive to needs/interests (Q13.ii) 0.90
Child comfortable with teacher (Q13.iii) 0.85
Teacher encouraging and supportive (Q13.iv) 0.91
Teacher has clear expectations (Q13.v) 0.77
Quality of lessons Lessons challenging (Q14.i) 0.68
Cronbach’s alpha 0.79 Teacher motivates child to practice (Q14.ii) 0.86
Rapport motivates lesson attendance (Q14.iii) 0.82
Teacher helps with practising skills (Q14.iv) 0.77
Parenting behaviours
Practice monitoring Remind child to practice (Q20.i) 0.84
Cronbach’s alpha 0.74 Specify practice times (Q20.ii) 0.86
Monitor practice times (Q20.iii) 0.83
Child practises on his or her own (Q21.i) 0.71
Child distracted while practising (Q23.i) 0.49
Parenting behaviours
Practising assistance Answers questions during practice (Q20.iv) 0.85
Cronbach’s alpha 0.68 Assists with entire practice (Q20.v) 0.80
Helps with the use of technology (Q20.vi) 0.68
Listens while child practises (Q20.vii) 0.48
Parenting values
Valuing music as a career Importance of career in music (Q12.ii) 0.82
Cronbach’s alpha 0.75 Music important to child’s heritage (Q12.iv) 0.55
Developing skills through specialisation (Q12.viii) 0.85
Opportunities to perform (Q12.ix) 0.80
Parenting values
Valuing music itself Enjoying music as an adult (Q12.iii) 0.52
Cronbach’s alpha 0.60 Importance of well-roundedness (Q12.v) 0.77
Importance of self-discipline (Q12.vi) 0.81
Importance of activity without technology (Q12.vii) 0.65
Student SRL Child sets goals for practice session (Q21.ii) 0.79
Cronbach’s alpha 0.66 Child chooses what to practice (Q21.iii) 0.58
Uses teacher’s notes to structure practice (Q21.iv) 0.67
Uses technology to listen or record (Q21.v) 0.62
Uses the metronome (Q21.vi) 0.60
Practice environment Space is set up to support practising (Q23.ii) 0.90
Cronbach’s alpha 0.76 Teacher would approve of practice space (Q23.iii) 0.90
Parenting behaviours
Deliberate practice strategies Identifies strategies for learning difficult passages (Q19.v) 0.93
Cronbach’s alpha 0.83 Breaks down complex task into small parts (Q19.vi) 0.93
Parenting behaviours
Supporting musicianship Shares child’s music-making (Q19.xi) 0.67
Cronbach’s alpha 0.59 Encourages child to improvise/compose (Q19.xii) 0.76
Helps child become independent musician (Q19.xiii) 0.79
Parent behaviours
SRL support Sets musical goals for the year (Q19.i) 0.51
Cronbach’s alpha 0.70 Sets goals for time between lessons (Q19.ii) 0.62
Chooses child’s repertoire (Q19.iii) 0.54
Defines expectations for learning from notation (Q19.iv) 0.65
Creates practice schedule with child (Q19.vii) 0.50
Critiques recordings of child’s playing (Q19.viii) 0.55
Locates recordings for child to listen to/analyse (Q19.ix) 0.54
Helps identify lessons learned from performance (Q19.x) 0.63
Note: Full items appear in the archived surveys at www.musictoolsuite.ca.

Canada 2011a). Sizeable groups of respondents were from British Columbia (17%), Alberta (13%),
and Manitoba (6%). A small proportion of respondents (5%) resided in countries outside of Canada.
Just over half (51%) of the families had two children, while another 18% of families had one child
and 20% had three children. Most families reported having one (42%) or two (44%) children enrolled
in music lessons. In the case of two or more children taking part in music lessons, parents were asked
to fill out the survey with one child in mind.
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 81

Nearly two-thirds of the students referred to by the parents were female (63%), and most were
teenagers (Medianage = 13.1 years, age range: 6–24 years). Students began taking music lessons at
quite a young age: 43% began taking lessons at the age of 5 years or younger, and another 51%
began their lessons between the ages of 6 and 9 years. In this population, the most common main
instrument was piano (81%), followed by strings (8%), and voice (6%). Very few parents identified
their child’s main instrument as percussion, woodwinds, guitar, or brass.

Parental aspirations and values (Q1b)

Parents responding to the survey valued music: 73% had been involved in music lessons themselves,
and of this group of parents, more than half (60%) were still playing an instrument. When asked who
made the decision to begin music lessons, 10% of the parents reported that it was the child’s decision;
another 41% claimed that it was a parental decision, and the remaining 49% indicated that it was a
decision made jointly by the parent(s) and child. Almost half of the parents (42%) said that they had
no expectations about how long their children would remain in lessons, although fewer than 2%
expected that their students would remain in lessons for only a year. A third of the parents (36%)
reported that they expected that their children would remain in lessons for at least eight years, indi-
cating that these parents expected their children, from the very outset of their studio music edu-
cation, to be engaged in music lessons for a sustained period of time. Many of the parents
completing the survey had already been supporting music lessons for five or six years (26%); a sub-
stantial group – nearly a fifth – had supported their children’s involvement in music lessons for a
decade or more (19%) at the time that the survey was completed.
When asked why they valued music lessons, on a scale from not important (1) to very important
(7), the reasons that were most often identified as very important were: to develop enough proficiency
to enjoy music as an adult (53%), for well-roundedness (44%), to develop self-discipline (42%), for
enjoyment (38%), and to engage in an activity that did not involve technology (31%). These percen-
tages were mirrored in the open-ended comments coded for parenting goals and values. As one
parent described it:
Learning to play the piano has been so great for my four daughters. It gives them structure to the day, and gives
them enjoyment. It is exercise for the brain and they have all done so well at school, I think, because of the rigor
of practising and learning an instrument.

Parental views of musical progress (Q1c)

It is clear that parents value music lessons for a multitude of interrelated reasons, some of which have
to do with music specifically, while others are related to overall cognitive and emotional develop-
ment. One simple but powerful outcome measure of the lessons that the parents so value is whether
the parents are pleased with their children’s musical progress. On a scale from not at all pleased (1) to
extremely pleased (7), not a single parent chose the lowest ranking. Fully 42% reported that they were
extremely pleased (7) with their child’s progress, with another 51% selecting the upper end of the
scale (5 or 6). One parent wrote, ‘My son’s music makes our household come alive. That’s why I
love to hear him every day. Even the cats run to the living room where he plays’. Another encoura-
ging outcome is that 85% of the parents reported that their children played their instruments purely
for enjoyment either ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’.

Teacher relationships and music lessons (Q2a)

Most parents indicated that their children admired and respected their teachers: on a scale from not
true (1) to very true (7), 85% selected 6 or 7. Similar patterns were found for the teachers’ respon-
siveness to the students’ needs and interests (79% selected 6 or 7), the students’ feelings of safety and
82 R. UPITIS ET AL.

comfort with the teacher (92% selected 6 or 7), the teachers’ encouragement and support (88%
selected 6 or 7), and the students receiving clear expectations from the teacher (84% selected 6 or
7). The importance of the relationship between the child and teacher was reflected in the open-
ended comments as well; parents typically commented not only on positive relationships, but
also, on the consequences when the teacher–student dyad was dysfunctional. This parent noted
both positive and negative aspects:
We have had a difficult time finding a teacher to teach a child to play and read music. Often I found that the
teacher would insist on helping the child memorize the music more than assisting them in learning to read the
music and be more independent … [I]n the last two years we have found a teacher who is teaching them … to
be independent, instilling the habits needed to play music for pleasure.

Parents were also asked to reflect on whether the lessons challenged their children. On a scale from
not true (1) to very true (7), parents selected 6 or 7 for most of the questions in this area. Parents
claimed that the lessons were challenging (81%), that there was a positive rapport between teacher
and child, which motivated practising (78%), that the positive rapport between teacher and child
motivated the child to attend lessons (82%), and that the teacher helped the child learn practising
skills (74%).
When asked to predict if and why children might stop taking lessons, most parents speculated
that lessons would cease when their children no longer had time for lessons and practising (69%),
when the students began post-secondary education (66%), or when the students were no longer
motivated or interested (60%). Many parents (41%) expected that their children would always
take lessons in some form.
Some of the survey questions asked parents to identify other out-of-school activities in which
their children were involved, including, for example, homework, sports, clubs, religious activities,
and jobs. It is arguable that students with heavy demands on their time outside of school have to
manage their time well in order to devote time to music lessons and practising between lessons.
The results indicated that these students were heavily involved in a number of pursuits: well over
a third (40%) devoted five or more hours during the week to homework, along with five or more
hours (27%) to other formal activities (including music lessons), and five or more hours (12%) to
practising their instruments. Leisure time was substantial for a third of the students (29% reported
spending five or more hours of time in leisure activities during the week). There were a number of
parents (38%) who reported that their children were sometimes double-booked (e.g. they had to
choose between a birthday party and a soccer game that were scheduled at the same time). Although
students took part in household chores regularly, they were not expected to invest many hours com-
pleting such chores: 90% spent less than two hours during the week completing chores; 95% spent
less than two hours on weekends completing chores. It would appear that one way in which parents
support their children’s musical learning is to carry the burden of the household. But, as we will see
in the next section, parents’ support of student learning goes much deeper than this.

Parental support of student learning (Q2b)

Many questions focused on the students’ practising habits and the role that parents played in sup-
porting practising. The parents reported that most students (83%) practise between four and seven
days a week, and practices ranged from under a half hour (44%) to over an hour (16%). Not surpris-
ingly, the amount of practice varied with years of engagement, so that students who had been taking
lessons for longer practised longer as their ability levels increased and tasks became more demanding
(Pearson correlation for age with practice time: R 2 = .298, p < .01). Just over half of the students
(55%) practised at the same time of day, and most (75.7%) practised in a living room or some
other shared family space. An impressive 15% reported having a dedicated home music room for
practising. When asked to rate the physical environment of the practice space on a scale from not
true (1) to very true (7), that is, whether it was set up to help the student practise well, 61% indicated
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 83

that the space was well designed by selecting 6 or 7 on the scale. Similar frequencies were obtained in
response to the question about whether the teacher would approve of the child’s practice space.
For some aspects of musical study, parental input was relatively constant across the years, as indi-
cated by cross-tabulations. For example, on average, 60% of the parents encouraged their children to
improvise or compose during the duration of their musical studies. Similarly, throughout all levels of
musical studies, 30% of the parents helped their children identify lessons learned from reaching a
performance level for notated repertoire.
Most parents (60%) set goals with the child and/or the teacher at the beginning of the year. How-
ever, when it came to setting goals between lessons, the involvement of parents dropped significantly
in a roughly linear fashion from the early years to the later years, ranging from 50% involvement
in the first year to 29% for students studying 10 years or more (χ 2 = 42.14, df = 9, p < .001). The
same relationship was found for parents helping students identify strategies for difficult passages
(χ 2 = 65.31, df = 9, p < .001), and for helping students break down a complex task into smaller
parts. In the latter instance, parents assisted the youngest children 61% of the time by breaking
down a complex task, which diminished to 36% once children had spent 10 years or more with
their instruments (χ 2 = 89.63, df = 9, p < .001).
When we examined the specific parenting behaviours involved with practice sessions between les-
sons, and with every type of practice support, ranging from reminding students to practice, to spe-
cifying practice times, to assisting with the use of technology to record practising, there were
differences from the early years to the later years. For example, while 71% of the parents reminded
students who had taken lessons for a year or less to practise, this dropped to 36% for students who
had studied for ten years or more. Similarly, while parents monitored practice times regularly (55%)
for the least experienced students, this dropped to 14% for students who had studied for ten years or
longer.
Parents believed that their children became more capable of assuming responsibility for their own
learning over time. The least experienced students regularly set goals for the practice sessions on
their own 5% of the time, but the parents reported that by the time their children had been studying
for ten or more years, students regularly set goals for practice sessions 51% of the time. The same
trends were evidenced for using technology to listen to repertoire or to record one’s own playing,
using the metronome, and choosing what to practise.
A few parents made explicit comments about supporting student self-regulation, describing how
they played a deliberate role in scaffolding their children’s learning. These parents articulated how
their role changed as their children became more self-regulating over time. One parent noted:
My child is now almost 18 and I rarely am involved in her musical development, other than being supportive.
When she began at age 5, however, I directed the show: I attended the lessons, determined practising times and
content, assisted with all of the practising until she was almost 12 years old. Then my involvement went down,
and [over time] she did all of this herself.

Predicting student outcomes from parenting goals, parenting behaviours, physical

environment, student self-regulation, and teacher characteristics (Q3)
The regression analysis indicated that three composite scales and one unique item accounted for 23%
of the variance for predicting the extent to which students made music for enjoyment (see Table 2).

Table 2. Step-wise regression analysis for enjoyment outcome.

Step Adjusted R 2 R 2 change df F-value change*
(1) Parenting behaviours: practice monitoring .124 .124 1/2581 365.398
(2) Parenting behaviours: supporting musicianship .187 .064 1/2580 202.153
(3) Student SRL .211 .024 1/2579 79.611
(4) Reasons for lessons: fun .231 .020 1/2578 68.168
*p < .001.
84 R. UPITIS ET AL.

Table 3. Step-wise regression analysis for progress outcome.

Step Adjusted R 2 R 2 change df F-value change*
(1) Teacher qualities and characteristics .143 .143 1/2581 432.037
(2) Parenting behaviours: practice monitoring .195 .052 1/2580 168.187
(3) Time spent practicing .220 .025 1/2579 81.918
(4) Lack of distraction while practising .240 .020 1/2578 69.177
(5) Quality of lessons .253 .014 1/2577 47.638
*p < .001.

These factors included the extent to which (a) parents monitored practices, with less monitoring cor-
responding to greater enjoyment, (b) parents valued the benefits of music, such as the ability to enjoy
music as an adult and self-discipline, (c) students were able to self-regulate their learning, and (d)
parents identified fun as a reason for taking lessons.
The second outcome measure, musical progress as reported by the parents, was predicted by three
composite scales and two unique items, as reported in Table 3. These five predictors accounted for
25% of the variance. The first of these was teacher qualities and characteristics, including admiration
for one’s teacher, responsiveness to needs and interests, finding the teacher to be encouraging and
supportive, and having a teacher that sets clear expectations. Next, as with the enjoyment outcome,
progress was negatively predicted by parental monitoring of practices, so that less monitoring cor-
responded with greater perceived progress. The remaining three predictors were: amount of time
spent practising, with more practising leading to greater progress; lack of distractions while practis-
ing; and the quality of lessons, including setting challenges and paying attention to practising skills.

Discussion
The results give every indication that parents of students involved in studio music instruction are
dedicated to their children’s musical education. This dedication is reflected in the years of commit-
ment they make to supporting music learning, the active and thoughtful roles that they take in sup-
porting their children’s evolution as self-regulating musicians, and the respect that they hold for the
teachers of their children. These results are in keeping with other studies, where it was reported that
parents were deeply invested in their children’s music lessons, often for a dozen years or more (e.g.
Davidson et al. 1996).
We share McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner’s (2012) view that it is not possible to ‘definitively
and exhaustively explain what factors promote musical development … because of the complexities
that are actually involved in this agency in real musical lives’ (187). The present study provides a
glimpse into the complex ways in which parents are part of the parent–teacher–student triad of stu-
dio music instruction. It also provides empirical support for the theorising that appears in the litera-
ture regarding the role of parenting goals and parenting behaviours as mediated by students’ self-
regulation, teacher effects, and students’ growing abilities to work with greater autonomy. In this
regard, the regression analyses are particularly important in confirming the findings of prior studies
where young musicians were studying not only in studio music settings, but also through instrumen-
tal instruction in schools.
We noted at the outset that researchers have claimed that the effect of parental involvement is
most prominent in the earliest stages of learning and that the assistance that parents provide to estab-
lish habits of independent musicianship diminishes over time (e.g. Davidson et al. 1996). While this
general statement was borne out in the results of the present study, our findings show that the pat-
terns of scaffolding and withdrawal of that scaffolding are complex. Some parent behaviours drop off
in an almost textbook-case, linear fashion, particularly those that involve practice supervision and
direction, both of which would come under the category of parenting behaviours in McPherson’s
(2009) model. These practices include, for example, reminding children to practise and specifying
practice times. Other forms of scaffolding for student SRL are also significantly less common with
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 85

older students, such as helping students set goals for their practice sessions. These results are mir-
rored in the parents’ beliefs about students’ SRL capabilities: for example, parents believe that
older students are more able to use their teachers’ notes to structure their practices. But there are
some areas where parents are just as involved in the later years as they are in the early years: notably,
setting musical goals for the year, encouraging students to improvise or compose, and overall, help-
ing students become independent musicians. Put another way, while these forms of involvement may
change in nature, they remain stable throughout their children’s musical studies. A future study
might characterise more fully how the nature of those activities changes over time. For example,
in what ways do parents encourage their children to become independent musicians in the early
years, and how might these methods differ as time passes and students become more proficient
musicians?
Another important aspect of parental support that could be more fully addressed in future
research would be to further examine the nature of that support. For example, the results indicated
that parental monitoring of practice sessions was not a positive behaviour for engendering enjoy-
ment or musical progress. While this finding might seem perplexing – that is, that parental moni-
toring contributed negatively to progress and enjoyment – there are plausible reasons for this
result. It may be that by stepping back from simple monitoring behaviours, these parents helped
their children become more self-regulated. But that is not to say that parents who were actively
involved in their children’s learning always led to detrimental outcomes. The results indicated
that there were other parental behaviours, such as those that supported musicianship (e.g. sharing
their child’s musical making, encouraging children to improvise and compose) that positively pre-
dicted musical outcomes. Clearly, the nature of parental interventions needs to be carefully articu-
lated, as some behaviours and actions may be more helpful than others in supporting children as
developing musicians. The survey questions concentrated primarily on behavioural and cognitive
support, such as logging practice times, helping to set goals, identifying strategies for learning, sup-
porting musicianship, and other types of activities. However, the comments made by parents in
response to the open-ended question indicated that they provided what might be termed personal
support as well, including emotional support and direct encouragement. A future study might
more fully explore not only the forms of personal support, but also, the interactions between per-
sonal, behavioural, and cognitive support as described by Creech (2010).
The results of the regression analyses made it evident that teachers also play a vital role in
musical outcomes. For instance, most of the variance for the progress outcome measure was
explained by teacher qualities and characteristics. On the other hand, the practice environment
– while emerging as a factor – did not predict either outcome. It is possible that the physical
environment is not as critical as the literature suggests. Indeed, McPherson, Davidson, and Faul-
kner (2012) related a case where a 10-year-old trumpet player practised with a bird flying about in
the room, seemingly without negative consequences. It is also possible that the present study did
not fully explore the features of the practice setting; findings in the parallel teacher survey suggest
that the quality of the instruments may be more important than the practice setting (Upitis et al.,
forthcoming-a).

Limitations and implications for further research

A number of additional issues bear further scrutiny. For example, while we addressed some aspects
of the interplay between music, other after-school activities, and socio-contextual factors, this inter-
play was not fully explored. In a comprehensive literature review on the role of extracurricular activi-
ties during the adolescent years, Feldman and Matjasko (2005) made clear that after-school activities
affect social outcomes for students, as well as educational attainment. Feldman and Matjasko noted
that there is a need to highlight the parent–adolescent relationships when describing the effects of
such activities; all of these aspects of after-school activities should be examined in future research.
86 R. UPITIS ET AL.

Another area for future research would be to examine the differences, if any, between those
students whose parents once played or still play a musical instrument as compared to students
with parents who have not pursued musical studies, particularly in terms of whether musical
knowledge on the part of the parents helped them more effectively support practice. As noted
at the outset, and substantiated by the results of the present study, parents who assist their chil-
dren with practice can expect better musical outcomes (McPherson and Davidson 2002; Spera
2006). However, it is also the case that some researchers have found that the musical abilities
of parents are less important, for example, than their abilities to motivate their children to engage
in their musical studies (Creech 2001). Creech’s finding is in keeping with the finding reported in
our parallel paper on student experiences (Upitis et al., forthcoming-b), where regression analyses
were carried out on five outcome measures for students. Whether parents played an instrument
contributed positively to only one of the five outcomes: parents who played musical instruments
contributed positively to student self-efficacy. This factor, while significant, accounted for only 2%
of the variance.
As was the case in other related studies (e.g. Howe and Sloboda 1991; Sosniak 1985), we were not
able to include a group of students who were unsuccessful in learning to play an instrument. Those
parents filling out the survey were reporting on successful student musicians by definition, since
respondents were identified through a conservatory system with the criterion that they had taken
an exam in their recent history. A further study might explore students who did not experience suc-
cess at their instruments in order to assess whether and how the parent–child dyad was a factor for
the less successful student musicians.
The role of the mother in relation to the father is another underexplored aspect of parental invol-
vement (McPherson 2009), as is the country of origin. Pomerantz, Grolnick, and Price (2005) suggest
that Asian descendent children are more likely to take on their parents’ goals and aspirations. The
gender of the parent and the country of origin, as well as the potential interaction between these two
factors, are also worthy of exploration.
Perhaps the greatest limitation of the present study – as well as the greatest potential for expan-
sion – was our inability to link the parent, teacher, and student surveys at the level of individual
respondents. A powerful future study would involve direct links between each parent–teacher–stu-
dent triad, echoing the approach of Creech (2009) as described previously. Thus, in the next phase of
our work, we will attempt to design three inter-linked surveys that allow us to make even more
powerful connections between the three players. One aspect of the parent–student dyad that
would be important to address in a series of linked surveys is that of the students’ responsiveness
to parental involvement, building on the empirical work of Creech and Hallam (2011) regarding
this aspect of parental involvement. In keeping with the responsiveness theme, we anticipate devel-
oping additional outcome measures for the next parent survey, such as student satisfaction with les-
sons, student motivation, and student self-efficacy, as reported by the parents. Further, in the next
phase we will again be surveying Canadian parents, students, and teachers, but in addition, parents,
students, and teachers from other countries where there are independent music lessons offered in
conjunction with examination structures. This international expansion will allow us to link the
three populations, as well as to address some of the additional questions that have arisen through
the present study.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the thousands of parents who filled out the survey, and would also like to acknowledge the
contributions made by Jane Willms, Gerry Dimnik, Angela Elster, and Serena Manson.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 87

Funding
This research was made possible by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
[grant number 895-2011-1000]; the Canada Foundation for Innovation; Queen’s University; Concordia University;
and The Royal Conservatory of Music.

Notes on contributors
Rena Upitis, EdD, is a Professor of Education at Queen’s University. For many decades, she has focused her research
on the transformative powers of the arts for teachers, parents, and students. Current research interests include asses-
sing the value of digital music tools in studio settings, as well as explorations of how school architecture influences
learning.
Philip C. Abrami, PhD, is a Professor, University Research Chair, and the Director of the Centre for the Study of
Learning and Performance, a multi-institutional and internationally recognized educational research centre. Abrami’s
interests include: (a) the design, development, and validation of educational software for promoting the teaching and
learning of essential competencies; (b) systematic reviews of educational research, particularly using quantitative
methods such as meta-analysis; and (c) issues in knowledge mobilization in education, particularly the high quality,
sustained and scalable implementation of educational software in classrooms worldwide. Among his numerous awards
and distinctions, in 2010 he received the Canadian Education Association (CEA), Whitworth Award for Education
Research.
Julia Brook, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Music Education at the Dan School of Drama and Music, Queen’s Uni-
versity. Her research program explores the intersections between music education and the communities in which they
are situated. Julia remains active as a studio music teacher and collaborative pianist.
Matthew King is the National Project Manager for the Social Program Evaluation Group at Queen’s University. He has
close to three decades of experience as an analyst and project manager. His recent publications and reports are pri-
marily in the areas of health behaviours in school-aged children and youth.

References
Asmus, E. 1986. “Student Beliefs About the Causes of Success and Failure in Music: A Study of Achievement
Motivation.” Journal of Research in Music Education 34: 262–278.
Asmus, E. 2006. “The Influence of Music on the Home, School, and Community.” In Sounds of Learning, edited by D.
Hodges, 6.1–6.16. Carlsbad, CA: International Foundation for Music Research.
Baker, A., and L. M. Soden. 1997. “Parent Involvement in Children’s Education: A Critical Assessment of the
Knowledge Base.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL, 24–28 March, ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED407127.
Brokaw, J. P. 1982. “The Extent to Which Parental Supervision and Other Selected Factors Are Related to Achievement
of Musical and Technical-physical Characteristics by Beginning Instrumental Music Students.” Unpublished PhD
diss., University of Michigan.
Brook, J., W. Varela, K. Boese, R. Upitis, and P. C. Abrami. 2014. “Examining How Self-regulatory Dimensions Affect
Students’ Music Practice Habits.” Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education Annual
Conference, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON.
Canadian Tri-Council. 2010. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2).
Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Cheema, J. R. 2014. “A Review of Missing Data Handling Methods in Education Research.” Review of Educational
Research 20 (1): 1–22. doi:10.3102/0034654314532697.
Connell, J. P., and J. G. Wellborn. 1991. “Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness: A Motivational Analysis of Self-
system Processes.” In Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, edited by M. Gunnar and L. A. Sroufe, 43–47.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Creech, A. 2001. “Play for Me: An Exploration Into Motivations, Issues and Outcomes Related To Parental
Involvement in Their Children’s Violin Study.” Unpublished MA diss., University of Sheffield.
Creech, A. 2006. “Dynamics, Harmony and Discord: A Systems Analysis of Teacher-pupil-parent interaction in
Instrumental Learning.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of London.
Creech, A. 2008. “The Role of the Family in Supporting Learning.” In The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology, edi-
ted by S. Hallam, 295–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creech, A. 2009. “Teacher-parent-pupil Triads: A Typology of Interpersonal Interaction in the Context of Learning a
Musical Instrument.” Musicae Scientiae 13 (2): 387–413.
88 R. UPITIS ET AL.

Creech, A. 2010. “Learning a Musical Instrument: The Case for Parental Support.” Music Education Research 12 (1):
13–32.
Creech, A., and S. Hallam. 2003. “Parent-teacher-pupil Interactions in Music Tuition: A Literature Review.” British
Journal of Music Education 20 (1): 29–44. doi:10.1017/S0265051702005272.
Creech, A., and S. Hallam. 2011. “Learning a Musical Instrument: The Influence of Interpersonal Interaction on
Outcomes for School-aged Pupils.” Psychology of Music 39 (1): 102–122. doi:10.1177/030573561037022.
Crozier, G. 1999. “Parent Involvement: Who Wants It?” International Studies in Sociology of Education 9 (2): 111–
132.
Davidson, J. W., M. J. A. Howe, D. G. Moore, and J. A. Sloboda. 1996. “The Role of Parental Influences in the
Development of Musical Performance.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 14: 399–412.
Davidson, J. W., M. J. A. Howe, and J. A. Sloboda. 1997. “Environmental Factors in the Development of Musical
Performance Skill in the First Twenty Years of Life.” In The Social Psychology of Music, edited by D. J.
Hargreaves and A. C. North, 188–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doan, G. 1973. “An Investigation of the Relationships Between Parental Involvement and the Performance Ability of
Violin Students.” Unpublished PhD diss., Ohio State University.
Dignath, C., G. Büttner, and H. P. Langfeldt. 2008. “How can Primary School Students Learn Self-regulated Learning
Strategies most Effectively? A Meta-analysis on Self-regulation Training Programmes.” Educational Research
Review 3 (2): 101–129.
Duke, R. A. 1999. “Teacher and Student Behaviour in Suzuki String Lessons: Results from the International Research
Symposium on Talent Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 47: 293–307.
Ericsson, K. A. 1997. “Deliberate Practice and the Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Overview.” In Does Practice
Make Perfect? Current Theory and Research on Instrumental Practice, edited by H. Jørgensen and A. C. Lehmann,
9–51. Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole.
Ericsson, K. A., R. T. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Römer. 1993. “The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert
Performance.” Psychological Review 100: 363–406.
Feldman, A. F., and J. L. Matjasko. 2005. “The Role of School-based Extracurricular Activities in Adolescent
Development: A Comprehensive Review and Future Directions.” Review of Educational Research 75: 159–210.
doi:10.3102/00346543075002159.
Grolnick, W. S., C. Benjet, C. O. Kurowski, and N. H. Apostoleris. 1997. “Predictors of Parent Involvement in
Children’s Schooling.” Journal of Educational Psychology 89: 538–548.
Hallam, S. 1998. “The Predictors of Achievement and Dropout in Instrumental Tuition.” Psychology of Music 26:
116–132.
Hallam, S., T. Rinta, M. Varvarigou, A. Creech, I. Papageorgi, T. Gomes, and J. Lanipekun. 2012. “The
Development of Practising Strategies in Young People.” Psychology of Music 40 (5): 652–680. doi:10.1177/
0305735612443868.
Howe, M. J. A., and J. A. Sloboda. 1991. “Young Musicians’ Accounts of Significant Influences in Their Early Lives:
1. The Family and Musical Background.” British Journal of Music Education 8: 39–52.
Jorgensen, E. R. 1998. “Modeling Aspects of Type IV Music Instructional Triads.” Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education 137: 43–56.
McCormick, J., and G. E. McPherson. 2003. “The Role of Self-efficacy in a Musical Performance Examination: An
Exploratory Structural Equation Analysis.” Psychology of Music 31: 37–51.
McPherson, G. E. 2009. “The Role of Parents in Children’s Musical Development.” Psychology of Music 37 (1): 91–110.
doi:10.1177/0305735607086049.
McPherson, G. E., and J. W. Davidson. 2002. “Musical Practice: Mother and Child Interactions During the First Year of
Learning an Instrument.” Music Education Research 4: 141–156.
McPherson, G. E., and J. W. Davidson. 2006. “Playing an Instrument.” In The Child as Musician: A Handbook of
Musical Development, edited by G. McPherson, 331–351. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E., J. W. Davidson, and R. Faulkner. 2012. Music in our Lives: Redefining Musical Development, Ability
and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E., and J. McCormick. 2006. “Self-efficacy and Music Performance.” Psychology of Music 34 (3):
322–336.
McPherson, G. E., and J. M. Renwick. 2001. “A Longitudinal Study of Self-regulation in Children’s Musical Practice.”
Music Education Research 3: 169–186.
McPherson, G. E., and J. M. Renwick. 2011. “Self-regulation and Mastery of Musical Skills.” In The Handbook of
Self-regulation of Learning and Performance, edited by B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Shunk, 234–248. New York,
NY: Routledge.
McPherson, G. E., and B. J. Zimmerman. 2002. “Self-regulation of Musical Learning: A Social Cognitive Perspective.”
In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, edited by R. Colwell and C. Richardson,
234–248. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 89

McPherson, G. E., and B. J. Zimmerman. 2011. “Self-regulation of Musical Learning: A Social Cognitive Perspective
on Developing Performance Skills.” In MENC Handbook of Research on Music Learning, Volume 2: Applications,
edited by R. Colwell and P. Webster, 130–175. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pomerantz, E. M., W. S. Grolnick, and C. E. Price. 2005. “The Role of Parents in How Children Approach
Achievement: A Dynamic Process Perspective.” In Handbook of Competence and Motivation, edited by A. J.
Elliot and C. S. Dweck, 259–278. New York, NY: Guilford.
Renwick, J. M. 2008. “Because I Love Playing My Instrument: Young Musicians’ Internalized Motivation and Self-
regulated Practising Behaviour.” Unpublished PhD diss., University of New South Wales.
Rife, N. A., Z. M. Shnek, J. L. Lauby, and L. B. Lapidus. 2001. “Children’s Satisfaction with Private Music Lessons.”
Journal of Research in Music Education 49 (1): 21–32.
Ryan, R. M., and E. I. Deci. 2009. “Promoting Self-determined School Engagement: Motivation, Learning, and
Well-being.” In Handbook of Motivation at School, edited by K. R. Wentzel and A. Wigfield, 171–195.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., J. D. Stiller, and J. H. Lynch. 1994. “Representations of Relationships to Teachers, Parents, and Friends as
Predictors of Academic Motivation and Self Esteem.” Journal of Early Adolescence 14: 226–249.
Sosniak, L. A. 1985. “Learning to be a Concert Pianist.” In Developing Talent in Young People, edited by B. S. Bloom,
477–506. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Sosniak, L. A. 1990. “The Tortoise, the Hare, and the Development of Talent.” In Encouraging the Development of
Exceptional Skills and Talents, edited by M. J. A. Howe, 149–164. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Spera, C. 2006. “Adolescents’ Perceptions of Parental Goals, Practices, and Styles in Relation to their Motivation and
Achievement.” Journal of Early Adolescence 26: 456–490.
Statistics Canada. 2011a. “Census of Population.” http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/
pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=101&SR=1&S=3&O=D.
Statistics Canada. 2011b. “National Household Survey.” http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/99-
012-x2011001-eng.pdf.
Upitis, R., P. C. Abrami, J. Brook, K. Boese, and M. King. Forthcoming-a. Characteristics of Independent Music
Teachers. Music Education Research. doi: 10.1080/14613808.2016.1204277.
Upitis, R., P. C. Abrami, W. Varela, and J. Brook. Forthcoming-b. Student Experiences of Studio Music Instruction.
Music Education Research. doi: 10.1080/14613808.2016.1202221.
Upitis, R., and K. Smithrim. 2002. Learning Through the ArtsTM: National assessment – A Report on Year 2 (2000–
2001). Toronto: The Royal Conservatory of Music. 78.
Young, W., G. Weckman, and W. Holland. 2011. “A Survey of Methodologies for the Treatment of Missing Values
within Datasets: Limitations and Benefits.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 12 (1): 15–43.
Zdzinski, S. 1996. “Parental Involvement, Selected Student Attributes, and Learning Outcomes in Instrumental Music.”
Journal of Research in Music Education 44: 34–48.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. “Attaining Self-regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective.” In Handbook of Self-regulation,
edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 13–39. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2011. “Motivational Sources and Outcomes of Self-regulated Learning and Performance.”
In Handbook for Self-regulation of Learning and Performance, edited by B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk,
49–64. New York, NY: Routledge.

Appendix 1. Parents’ responses to the open-ended question

Most of the open-ended comments were on single topics (e.g. teacher effects or parenting goals), but a small number of
parents made observations on multiple topics. Hence of the 601 responses, there were 636 comments coded, as indi-
cated in Appendix 1. By far, the bulk of the coded comments were in the areas of parenting goals (110 comments),
parenting behaviours in terms of supporting the practices between lessons (67 comments), and socio-contextual fac-
tors (64 comments). Comments made by parents that were not directly addressed by the survey included detailing
more of their children’s accomplishments, especially in terms of a second or even third instrument (125 comments),
and commenting on the survey itself (76 comments).
Table A1 details the comment frequencies, whether the comments were positive or negative in nature (e.g. in favour
of the exam system vs. identifying problems with the exam system), and examples of each type of comment. Comments
that embedded ideas for improvements for music teaching were coded as negative, such as comments about the impor-
tance for teachers to have greater sensibility for students with special needs. In some cases, parents commented both
positively and negatively regarding a single construct; hence, the total number of positive/negative comments is, in
some cases, a larger number than the overall comments for a particular construct. For example, some parents described
both positive and negative experiences with music teachers within a single comment, emphasising, through both types
of examples, the importance of the teacher’s role in music learning.
90 R. UPITIS ET AL.
Table A1. Nature of responses to the open-ended question with sample comments.
Code
Reported constructs
Parenting goals (values, beliefs,
attitudes, aspirations)
Parenting behaviours (goal-oriented,
support during lessons)
Socio-contextual (family factors,
cultural heritage)
Teacher effects (expectations,
relationship with student)
Parenting style (emotional climate,
attitudes about child’s competence)
Student SRL (metacognitively,
motivationally, behaviourally)
Not reported
Details on children’s accomplishments
and other aspects of their music
learning
Positive/
Number of negative
comments comments Sample comments (positive/negative)
110 110/0 Cultivating the love for music and developing a
musical mind is crucial to a child’s well-being and
that informs our decisions for our child’s musical
education.
67 65/2 I feel strongly that parents need to be involved in
their child’s musical education for real success
and progress … for years while she was growing
up I would set the practice schedule, teach her
how to practice, accompany her on piano, and
work with her at every practice session.
If given the option, all four of my kids would quit
piano today. Getting them to practise is a constant
aggravation.
64 64/0 My husband started fiddle a few years ago and we
have set up a dedicated music room in our house.
Our daughter learned how to chord while they
play fiddle, so that she can join along with him
when they are jamming.
53 44/15 My son would not be taking music today if it
weren’t for the dedication, flexibility, and support
of the instructors in the music studio. Music
teachers who truly understand their students are
critical for the advancement of music education.
Having more strategies from the teacher about how
to practice would be helpful (e.g. not just practising
entire songs but perhaps just concentrating on a
few bars at a time).
35 35/0 More than the example of having a parent that
played an instrument, I think the example of
having a parent who sang constantly when my
children were young was what made them so
musically receptive. I think that experiencing
music-making spontaneously, naturally – as a
central form of parent–child communication
from Day 1 – has tremendous impact in setting a
young person up for a musical future.
16 16/0 My child plays two instruments, piano and oboe.
She takes two lessons a week, one for each
instrument. She is self-motivated; she is able to
manage her practice schedule and her learning
progress by herself and of course with her
teachers. She plays musical instruments because
she wants to and for her own pleasure and
enjoyment, not mine.
125 117/8 My son started voice lessons at his request; he was
already in piano lessons and studied trombone at
school. He went to an art school in Toronto and is
now auditioning for musical theatre programs at
a post-secondary level. I attribute much of his
success to the lessons that helped him sing
through his voice change.
Students are stressed and do not have time for
leisure, and to stay healthy and well-rounded as a
person.
(Continued)

Table A1. Continued.
Code
Survey related
Exam experiences and costs
Suggestions about broadening
repertoire or pedagogical approaches
Note: Survey related responses primarily included comments about additional questions that could have been asked, how their
responses would have differed in previous years, praise for the questions in the survey, suggestions for improving the survey.
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 91
Positive/
Number of negative
comments comments Sample comments (positive/negative)
76 63/19 Your survey has helped me visualise where my
child and I could focus on improving her music
learning experience. I will start using recordings
more.
I dislike surveys asking for income amounts. It is not
necessary.
51 3/49 I think it would be useful to have a rating system of
Conservatory instructors.
The costs of private lessons, exams, festival entries,
and accompanist fees are very expensive. This
makes advanced music study exclusive and not
open to many children.
39 11/32 My child started music lessons with the Music For
Young Children (MYC) program, and did all six
years, with the end result that she passed her
Grade 1 piano exam with honours – a great way
to start her music education!
I do wish the Conservatory would invest in iOS apps
that would help with certain skills – ear training,
music theory, etc.
92 R. UPITIS ET AL.

Appendix 2. Means and standard deviations, and selected frequencies for

demographics (Q1), parents’ goals and aspirations (Q2), views of musical progress
(Q3), teacher relationships, lessons, and other activities (Q4), and parenting
behaviours (Q5)
Appendix 2.1
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 93

Appendix 2.2
94 R. UPITIS ET AL.

Appendix 2.3
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 95

Appendix B4
96 R. UPITIS ET AL.
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 97

Appendix B5
98 R. UPITIS ET AL.
Copyright of Music Education Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.