This article was downloaded by: [Computing & Library Services, University of

Huddersfield]
On: 06 October 2014, At: 21:17
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Music Education Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmue20

Achievement goals, learning strategies

and instrumental performance
a
Siw Graabraek Nielsen
a
Norwegian Academy of Music , Oslo, Norway
Published online: 06 May 2008.

To cite this article: Siw Graabraek Nielsen (2008) Achievement goals, learning
strategies and instrumental performance, Music Education Research, 10:2, 235-247, DOI:
10.1080/14613800802079106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613800802079106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Music Education Research
Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2008, 235
247

Achievement goals, learning strategies and instrumental performance

Siw Graabraek Nielsen*
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

Norwegian Academy of Music, Oslo, Norway

The current study is a survey of the achievement goals of music students and the
manner in which their strategies and instrumental performance relate to these
goals. In the context of advanced instrumental learning, the rationale for the
present study was to contribute to the literature on motivation in music students,
and thereby, help teachers to support students in order to engage in more effective
practice. The participants were 130 first-year music students (71 women and
59 men) from six music academies/conservatoires. Factor analysis revealed three
factors: ability-approach goal; ability-avoidance goal; and task goal. Significantly,
low correlations were found between task goal and learning strategies; and
between ability-avoidance goal and learning strategies. Achievement goal
orientation variables were not correlated with instrumental achievement. In terms
of education, the results described in this article imply that advanced students
have the potential to improve and regulate their achievement goal orientations
during instrumental learning.
Keywords: motivation in musicians; self-regulated learning; advanced music
students; instrumental achievement; achievement goals; advanced instrumental
learning

Introduction
In the one-to-one teaching situation between the instrumental teacher and the
student studying music in higher education, students are given choice and control in
their independent practice that occurs between lesson meetings. It is expected that
their individual practice facilitates progress on the instrument, and thus, the
students’ motivations and learning strategies may be of concern to their instrumental
teachers in guiding them towards more effective learning strategies and maximising
performance.
Although there is a recent body of research on how students can enhance their
skills through increasing the amount and quality of practice undertaken (Ericsson,
Krampe, and Tesch-Römer 1993; Williamon and Valentine 2000), there is relatively
little research on how students can regulate their motivation and affect in order to
engage in more effective practice. Further, much of the research on motivation in
music has not been embedded within motivational research paradigms or theoretical
positions (Hallam 2002, 232). In fact, Maehr, Pintrich, and Linnenbrink (2002, 367)
state that ‘. . . the links between social cognitive motivational constructs and the
learning of fine motor skills, which are applicable to art, music, and athletic domains,
are largely unexplored’.

*Email: sgn@nmh.no

ISSN 1461-3808 print/ISSN 1469-9893 online

# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14613800802079106
http://www.informaworld.com
 236 S.G. Nielsen

A number of social cognitive theories are prominent in the study of motivation in

the academic domain today (e.g., achievement goal theory, self-efficacy theory,
intrinsic motivation theory) (Pintrich and Schunk 2002), and of these, achievement
goal theory is clearly the most generative and influential approach to academic
motivation in contemporary educational psychology (Bråten and Strømsø 2004).
The main construct involved in this theory is goal orientation, ‘ . . . which concerns
the reasons or purposes students have for engaging in achievement tasks, with
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

different purposes also implying that students view competence and success in
different ways’ (Bråten and Strømsø 2004, 371).
There may be a number of different goal orientations, but there is essentially a
distinction between two types of goal orientations:1 a task (mastery) goal orientation
and an ability (performance, ego) goal orientation (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000).
Although the distinction between task and ability goals parallels, to some extent, the
distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the focus in goal orientation
theories is more situational and context dependent than these general, more
personality-like constructs (Pintrich and Schunk 1996).
If students adopts a task goal orientation, then they focus on task mastery and
improvement of their own competence, developing new skills and trying to
accomplish something challenging (Bråten and Strømsø 2004). Other positive
aspects of behaviour attributed to task goals have been identified as persistence in
the face of difficulty or failure, the achievement of self-referenced standards, and the
recognition that effort and risk-taking are elements of achieving success (Hidi and
Harackiewicz 2000, 160). If students focus on demonstrating competence relative to
others, trying to outperform others, and considering ability, rather than effort, the
cornerstone of successful performance, they have adopted an ability goal orientation
(Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000).
Midgely and her colleagues (1998) have distinguished between two types of
ability goals: the goal to demonstrate ability (ability-approach goal orientation), and
the goal to avoid the demonstration of lack of ability (ability-avoidance goal
orientation). Students who are motivated by an ability-approach goal are oriented to
being better than others, to appear to be smarter or more talented (the best musician
in the band), and to be best in competitions (Maehr, Pintrich, and Linnenbrink 2002,
360). In contrast, students who adopt ability-avoidance goals seek to avoid looking
dumb or stupid relative to others (i.e., avoid playing a wrong note in orchestra so as
not to look dumb) (Maehr, Pintrich, and Linnenbrink 2002, 360).
The findings in academic subjects show that adopting a task goal orientation, in
contrast to adopting ability-oriented goals, leads to more cognitive engagement in
college students, especially in the use of more cognitive strategies (Pintrich and
Garcia 1991). Reviewing the research on adopting ability-approach goals, Bråten
and Strømsø (2004) conclude that the consequences are more debatable. Evidence
has accumulated that clearly indicates that, at least in the competitive college
classroom, ability-approach goals may be adaptive in the sense of promoting graded
academic performance. In regard to ability-avoidance goals, Bråten and Strømsø
(2004) claim that recent research unequivocally indicates that such goals lead to
maladaptive outcomes in terms of both poorer academic performance and less
intrinsic motivation or interest.
In the context of music education, Maehr, Pintrich, and Linnenbrink (2002, 361)
suggest that students with a task orientation would be more likely to engage in
 Music Education Research 237

adaptive behaviours that should enhance their development of musical skill. Further,
these students would be more likely to persist, even on pieces they find challenging
and where failure is a possibility. Thus, students with a task orientation should
engage in more effective practice, monitoring their progress and working in areas
that are particular troublesome. In contrast, students with an ability goal orientation
are less likely to persist in the face of difficulty. These students also may be less
inclined to practice because they may view practising as a signal that they do not
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

have ‘musical talent’ (i.e., if they have talent, they should not need to practice)
(Maehr, Pintrich, and Linnenbrink 2002, 361). However, considering the findings in
academic subjects in relation to competitive college classrooms and the adaptability
of ability-approach goals, holding ability-approach goals may also be adaptive in the
sense of promoting graded instrumental performance for advanced music students in
competitive music academies/conservatories.
Smith (2005) investigated the achievement goal orientations of undergraduate
instrumentalists at US colleges and universities in the context of instrumental
ensemble rehearsals. He examined the relationship of goal orientations to under-
graduates’ self-reported musical practice behaviour, and found that ability goals were
generally unrelated to levels of practice strategy use. Only small significant
relationships were found. In marked contrast to the ability goals patterns, Smith
found that adopting task goals were associated with a tendency to engage in varied
and focused musical learning behaviour. However, he states that ‘ . . . the results
should be viewed as more strongly related to the beliefs and behaviors of music
education majors at large universities [in the US] than more specialized or more
broad-based populations’ (Smith 2005, 46). To my knowledge, no other studies of
achievement goal theory in instrumental learning have been conducted. Thus, the
present study set out to investigate the relation between achievement goal
orientations, individual adaptive practice behaviour and instrumental achievement.
In the present study, music students’ individual adaptive practice behaviour was
conceived as their use of specific learning strategies. Learning strategies are generally
conceived of as deliberate or purposeful processes, originally consciously applied,
but normally undergoing automation as a result of development and practice
(Schneider and Weinert 1990). If we view learning and study strategies as activities
aimed at achieving a particular goal (Weinstein and Mayer 1986), no single learning
strategy will work equally well for all students, and few, if any, strategies will work
optimally on all tasks. The effectiveness of a strategy will be prone to change as a
skill develops (Zimmerman 1998). Several studies have illustrated the individual
diversity in the way advanced students and musicians learn during practice
(see Chaffin and Imreh 1997; Ginsborg 1999, 2000, 2002; Gruson 1981; Hallam
1992, 1995, 2000; Miklaszewski 1989; Nielsen 1999a,b, 2001).
With this in mind, the main purpose of the present study was to contribute to the
literature on motivation in musicians by investigating:
(1) What is the structure of achievement goal orientations in relation to
instrumental achievement with first-year music students?
(2) What are the relationships between first-year music students’ adopted
achievement goals and learning strategies?
(3) Are there any differences in adopted achievement goals with regards to
grade?
 238 S.G. Nielsen

Method
Participants
Participants were first-year music students (n 130) in church music, performance or
music education programmes enrolled in six Norwegian music academies/conserva-
toires. The sample included 71 women (54.6%) and 59 men (45.4%); a breakdown by
music genres was as follows: 105 students (80.8%) working in the classical genre and
25 students (19.2%) working in the jazz, pop and rock genres. However, the variables
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

of gender and musical genre were not used in the present study. Because of tough
competition for admission to these programmes, all students could be classified as
advanced students.

Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was structured into two sections:

Achievement goal orientations

Students’ goal orientations were assessed with a Norwegian adaption of
The Students’ Achievement Goal Orientations Scales (the AGOS-inventory) (Midgley
et al. 1998) to apply to instrumental practising. It included three subscales, one
focused on a task orientation and two focused on ability orientations, with six items
in each of the three scales. The task orientation scale had items pertaining to an
orientation towards learning, self-improvement, and the mastery of challenging
music (sample item: ‘An important reason I practice, is because I like to learn new
things’). The items of the ability-approach orientation scale concerned demonstrat-
ing higher competence than or outperforming other students (sample item: ‘Doing
better than other students on my principal instrument is important to me’). The
items on the ability-avoidance orientation scale focused on avoiding looking
incompetent or losing in competition with other students (sample item: ‘One of
my main goals is to avoid looking like I can’t perform the skills being taught on my
principal instrument’). For each of the 18 items, students rated themselves on a five-
point scale (1 not at all true of me; 5 very true of me).

Learning strategies
Students’ reported use of learning strategies were assessed with 43 items from a
Norwegian adaptation of The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (the
MSLQ-inventory) (Pintrich et al. 1991) to apply to instrumental practising. It
included three subscales: cognitive learning strategies, metacognitive learning
strategies and social learning strategies. The cognitive learning strategy scale
(14 items) is designed to assess to what extent students repeat, elaborate and
organise appropriate information (sample items: ‘I select important technical and
musical parts, repeating these over and over again’, ‘I try to develop musical ideas by
making connections between alternative interpretations from listening to music and
from lecturers’, ‘When I practise, I go through the music and try to find the most
important musical ideas’). The 11 items on the metacognitive learning strategy scale
focused on to what extent students plan, monitor and regulate their problem solving
during practice (sample item: ‘When practising, I set goals for myself in order to
 Music Education Research 239

direct my practising’). Further, the 18 items on the social learning strategy scale had
items pertaining to assess to what extent students control other resources besides
their cognition (sample item: ‘I find it hard to stick to a practice schedule’). For each
of the 43 items, students rated themselves on a seven-point scale (1 not at all true of
me; 7 very true of me).
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

Procedure
The questionnaires were administered as a group measure to one class at a time. The
students were informed that their participation in the project was purely voluntary,
and only sex, age and college background, not names, would be reported. Students
who missed the session in which the questionnaires were administered the first time
were given another opportunity to complete them if they wished.
The original scales in English were translated into Norwegian by a group
comprising one researcher in music education (who is also trained as a musician) and
four general educational psychology researchers, all of whom were proficient in
English in addition to Norwegian. The five researchers worked together on the
translations, resolving any disagreements through group discussion. All items were
translated to retain their essential meanings. Some items were altered to facilitate
understanding in the context of music performance.

Instrumental achievement
Instrumental achievement was measured as their instrumental performance grade on
their principal instrument. An examination concert is the context for giving the
grade. Grades are given on a five-point scale, from ‘excellent’ to ‘fail’. The
examination grades are mostly distributed between the three highest levels. Because
of some unanticipated problems with gathering data on grades from the participat-
ing music institutions, the present sample only represented 52 students (40.6% of the
total sample). Of these, seven students (13.5%) got ‘excellent’, 33 (63.5%) ‘very good’,
11 (21.2%) ‘good’, and one (1.9%) ‘accepted’. Although the number of students is
low, this distribution confirms the findings of Harald Jørgensen (2001). However,
this small and not randomly drawn research sample limits the comparisons that can
be made between high and low achievers.

Results2
The first research question concerned the dimensionality of achievement goal
orientations in relation to instrumental achievement. Prior to factor analysing the
data, the internal consistency for the 18 items of the AGOS was computed.
Coefficient alpha was .77, with item
total correlations ranging from
.47 to .75. One
item had negative item
total correlation, and three items had item
total correlations
less than .10. These four items were eliminated from further analyses. Coefficient
alpha for the remaining 14 items was .82. Initial analysis yielded three factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 that explained 56% of the total sample variation.
Inspection of the scree plot suggested a three-factor solution, with one large factor
with eigenvalue of 4.47 and two other factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.31.
 240 S.G. Nielsen

Because of the size of the eigenvalues as well as the scree plot (Bryman and Cramer
1999, 276
7), this solution was examined further.
Four items were eliminated because they loaded above .30 on more than one
factor (Bryman and Cramer 1999). When a three-factor solution was forced for a
second time, using the same procedure on the remaining 10 items, three factors with
high loadings (
.64) and no overlap for any item were identified. The three factors
had eigenvalues ranging from 4.48 to 1.10 and explained 64.1% of the total sample
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

variation. Item-to-factor loadings, eigenvalues, and reliability estimates (Cronbach’s

alpha) for each of the four factors are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Factor analysis of a music version of Midgley’s Achievement Goal Orientations

Scales.

Factor loadings

Ability-approach Ability-avoid Task goal

Variables a .84 a .72 a .47

I want to do better than other students .86

on my principal instrument.
Doing better than other students .84
on my principal instrument is
important to me.
I’d like to show my principal .76
instrument teacher that I’m better
than most of the other students in
school.
It’s important to me that other .73
students in my school think that
I am good performer.
I would feel successful in school if .64
I did better than most of the other
students on my principal instrument.
Ability-approach eigenvalue 3.48
The reason I practise is so my .84
principal teacher don’t think I am a
less competent performer than
others.
An important reason I practise my .78
principal instrument is so that
I don’t embarrass myself.
The reason I practise my instrument is .76
so others won’t think I’m dumb.
Ability-avoid eigenvalue 1.84
I like practising best when the music I .82
practise really challenges me.
I practise because I’m interested in the .78
music I practise.
Task goal eigenvalue1.10
 Music Education Research 241

The three factors were labelled in accordance with Midgley et al.’s goal
orientation scales: ability-approach goal orientation, ability-avoid goal orientation
and task goal orientation. The five items assigned to Factor 1, ability-approach goal
orientation, are all from the subscale ‘ability-approach goal orientation’ by Midgley
et al. (1998). High scores on this factor represent a goal orientation where the
student is concerned with demonstrating higher competence than or outperforming
other students. The results show that first-year music students to a certain degree
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

tend to be oriented towards ability-approach goals (see Table 2).

The three items assigned to Factor 2, ability-avoidance goal orientation, are all
from the subscale ‘ability-avoid goal orientation’ by Midgley et al. (1998). High
scores on this factor represent a goal orientation where the student is focused on
avoiding looking incompetent or loosing in competition with other students. The
results show that first-year music students tend not to be oriented towards ability-
avoidance goals.
The two items assigned to Factor 3, task goal orientation, are both from the
subscale ‘task goal orientation’ by Midgley et al. (1998). High scores on this factor
represent a goal orientation where the student is concerned with learning, self-
improvement, and the mastery of challenging music. The results show that first-year
music students tend to be oriented towards task goals.
Overall, these item-based factor analyses of the music version of AGOS with
Norwegian students demonstrated considerable cross-subject generalisability of
dimensions of goal orientations. That is, all three factors correspond to factors
reported by Midgley et al. (1998). The data of the present study from music students
appear to capture Midgley et al.’s academic-based dimensions reasonably well. This
confines with the findings in Smith’s (2005) study.
The second research question concerned the relationship between adopted
achievement goal orientations and learning strategies. As can be seen in Table 3,
scores on the task goal orientation (e.g., ‘I like practising best when the music I
practise really challenges me’) and ability-avoidance orientation (e.g., ‘The reason I
practice is so my principal teacher don’t think I am a less competent performer than
others’) subscales were significantly related to all the subscales of learning strategies.
However, students who focused on task mastery and improvement of their own
competence, were more likely to be cognitively (r .19), metacognitively (r .36) and
socially (r.27) involved in trying to learn the music, than students who were overly

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and reliability estimates for the achievement goal
orientations and strategy variables (n 129).

Variables M SD a

Goal orientations
Task goal orientation 4.01 .76 .47
Ability-approach goal orientation 3.17 .99 .84
Ability-avoid goal orientation 1.87 .84 .72
Strategy
Cognitive learning strategies 5.07 .71 .79
Metacognitive learning strategies 5.29 .68 .75
Social learning strategies 4.39 .66 .72
 242 S.G. Nielsen

Table 3. Correlations between achievement goal orientations and learning strategies.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Task goal orientation

2. Ability-approach orientation .16

3. Ability-avoidance orientation
.13 .30**

4. Cognitive learning strategies .19 .02
.29**

5. Metacognitive learning strategies .36**
.00
.27** .64**

Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

6. Social learning strategies .27** .03
.35** .39** .44**

Note: **pB.01, *pB.05.

conscious about how others evaluate them and with one of their main goals to
demonstrate ability. Students with such an adopted ability-avoidance goal orienta-
tion were less likely to use cognitive (r 
.29), metacognitive (r.27), and social
(r.35) learning strategies during their instrumental practice. An ability-
approach goal orientation (e.g., ‘I want to do better than other students on my
principal instrument’) were not significantly related to any of the learning strategy
subscales. However, the correlations are low.
Scores on the task goal orientation subscale were essentially not significantly
correlated to scores on the two ability orientation subscales. These are findings that
are in keeping with research in academic subjects (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000) and
with Smith’s (2005) study of music majors. In other words, some students may be
characterised as pursuing one predominant goal. However, even though analysis
indicated that the two ability goal orientation subscales formed distinct factors, there
was some overlap as indicated by the correlation between these two scales (r .30).
The third research question concerned potential differences in adopted achieve-
ment goals with regards to grade. Differences between students with the highest
grade level (grade ‘Excellent’ n 7 students) and one of the lowest grade levels (grade
‘Good’ n11 students) were studied. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with the three
achievement goal orientations as dependent variables indicated no significant
univariate effects of achievement on principal instrument.

Discussion
The current survey under investigation gives a detailed picture of the adopted
achievement goals of first-year music students regarding instrumental performance,
the relationships between goals and learning strategy use in instrumental practising,
and the relationships between goals and high and low achievers on their principal
instrument.
The study firstly examined the structure of achievement goal orientations in
instrumental performance, finding that within this sample a confirmatory three-
factor analysis verified the same structure of achievement goal orientations as in the
original measure by Midgley et al.’s (1998). The factors found were: ability-approach
goal orientation, ability-avoid goal orientation and task goal orientation. This
finding appears to be consistent with Smith’s (2005) study of music majors in
ensembles.
The present study found that the students, in general, tended to be oriented towards
task goals, and to a certain degree tended to be oriented towards ability-approach
 Music Education Research 243

goals. The investigated students tended not to be oriented towards ability-avoidance

goals. Smith (2005) found the same general tendency in his study of mainly music
education majors.
In general, these findings were to be expected. Studying music in higher
education involves periodic interaction in one-to-one music learning situations
between the principal instrument teacher and the student. It is expected that students
will practice repertoire on their own from one lesson meeting to the next, and thus,
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

student progress is facilitated by individual practice with self-imposed problem

solving that occurs between lesson meetings (Nielsen 2006). This provision of choice
and control for students in their independent practice gives the students the
opportunities to set the pace of learning and how the task will be accomplished.
These aspects can facilitate a task goal orientation (Pintrich and Schunk 1996).
Likewise, principal instrument teaching may imply forms of authority as it is
organised as a kind of apprenticeship learning (Nerland and Hanken 2002). The
teacher in the position of the master represents the profession and ways of pursuing
music, and thus, the students are given standards of a specific discipline for their
instrumental achievement (Nerland and Hanken 2002). These standards represent
specific task requirements of mastery. The one-to-one teaching situation between the
principal instrument teacher and the student gives the student the opportunity to
receive regular and detailed feedback on instrumental achievement in relation to
these requirements as part of the student’s learning process. This aspect may also
facilitate a task goal orientation on the part of the students.
Further, the students in the present study have participated in extensive entrance
auditions in competition with other applicants, and have experienced tough
competition for admission to their degree programmes in the music academies/
conservatoires. By means of such procedures (Nerland and Hanken 2002), the
accepted candidates conform within the direction offered by each degree programme
(Nerland and Hanken 2002). Musical study undertaken in the context of Higher
Education has a primary focus upon students’ practical and creative development
(Nerland and Hanken 2002), and thus, the students have on acceptance demon-
strated higher competence than and outperformed other candidates in this principal
study area. This may facilitate an ability-approach goal orientation in their first year
of study.
In addition, an ability-approach goal orientation on the part of the students
might be fostered by the competitive learning environment in the music academy/
conservatoire itself. Within these educational institutions several kinds of public
performances form part of the degree programmes (e.g., playing public concerts,
playing chamber music or in the school orchestras or bands, active participation in
master classes, and in interpretation classes/forums) in which the student’s own
performances are the object of evaluation and/or critical dialogue involving the
student’s own teacher, other teachers and fellow students. Displaying students’
instrumental achievement in these public performances, provide social comparison
information to all students about their relative performance on the instrument, and
can foster an ability-approach orientation.
Considering the finding that the investigated students tended not to be oriented
towards ability-avoidance goals, it seems plausible that a person whose primary
concern is to avoid looking incompetent or to loose in competition with other
students, is less likely to enter these kind of ability-oriented study contexts with
 244 S.G. Nielsen

extensive entrance auditions and public performances as part of the students’

learning processes.
Interestingly, the two ability goal orientation subscales were significantly related
to each other (r.30). Although the correlation is low, it indicates that some of the
students who wanted to do better than other students on their principal instrument,
also were oriented towards avoiding looking incompetent. This may support the view
that it is possible for individuals to have a mixture of different goals that they report
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

they are pursuing at the same time.

Second, an ability-approach goal orientation was unrelated to learning strategy
use in instrumental practising. This is in keeping with Smith (2005), who found that
ability goal orientations generally were unrelated to levels of practice strategy use.
In marked contrast to the ability-approach goal orientation, the ability-avoidance
goal orientation overall was significantly negatively related to all three subscales of
learning strategy use. In particular, a person oriented towards an ability-avoidance
goal tended to use social learning strategies to a lesser extent than other strategies. It
seems plausible that a person whose primary concern is to avoid looking dumb or
stupid relative to others is more likely to consider ability rather than effort and the
use of strategies the cornerstone of successful performance, and that this person
especially avoids the use of social learning strategies that may provide social
comparison information to all students about their relative performance on the
instrument.
The students who reported more use of learning strategies more often were
oriented towards a task goal. This finding suggests that first-year music students who
are concerned with learning, self-improvement, and the mastery of challenging music
also were more likely to be cognitively, metacognitively, and socially involved in
trying to learn the music. This finding appears to be consistent with findings in
academic subjects that show that adopting a task goal orientation, in contrast to
adopting ability-oriented goals, leads to more cognitive engagement in college
students, and in the use of more cognitive strategies (Pintrich and Garcia 1991). It is
also in accordance with Smith (2005), who found that the task goal level was
consistently and positively related to the use of practice strategies. Further, the
investigated students in particular tended to use metacognitive strategies to a higher
extent than other strategies. This is in keeping with Maehr, Pintrich, and
Linnenbrink (2002, 361), who point out that students with a task orientation should
be expected to engage in more effective practice, monitoring their progress and
working in areas that are particular troublesome.
Third, comparisons of students divided into high and low grade groups indicated
that adopted achievement goals may not have an impact on instrumental
achievement. This finding suggests that students’ actual instrumental performance
may not differ even though their achievement goals may differ. It also suggests that
both task and ability goals may be adaptive in the sense of promoting graded
instrumental performance in competitive music academies/conservatoires. However,
the research sample was small and not randomly drawn.
Finally, in terms of education, the results described in this article imply that
advanced students have the potential to improve and regulate their achievement goal
orientations during instrumental learning. Primarily, principal teachers in higher
education should give special attention to the fact that both task goal and ability
goals may be adaptive in the sense of promoting graded instrumental performance in
 Music Education Research 245

competitive music academies/conservatoires. Nonetheless, the teachers might find it

constructive to help their students to be more oriented towards a task goal as the
students then would be more inclined to view failure as merely part of the learning
process and persist with their strategic efforts following failure (McPherson and
Zimmermann 2002). Further, the lack of relationship between a task goal orientation
and ability goal orientations is also worth considering, and Smith (2005, 48) points
out that teachers should not hope to promote task motivation by increasing the level
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

of normative comparison or inter-student competition in a classroom or chamber

music group/ensemble. Instead of defining success in relation to others, the principal
teacher should nurture the students’ beliefs that success, primarily, is defined in
relation to the task and progress is measured in self-referential terms (Midgely et al.
1998).
In addition, further research with longitudinal data will show whether any
changes appear in achievement goal orientations in relation to instrumental
performance while studying music in higher education.

Note
1. In the present article the term ‘ability goal’ is used instead of the term ‘performance goal’.
In accordance with Smith (2005, 52), the term ‘performance goal’ is not used as it could be
misunderstood by musicians for whom ‘performance’ does not necessarily imply
comparison with others.
2. The description of the factor-analysis follows the example given by Bråten and Strømsø
(2005). Bråten and Strømsø are both members of the research group of the main project
that the present study is part of.

Notes on contributor
Siw G. Nielson is Professor in Music Education at Norwegian Academy of Music. Her
research interests include self-regulated learning and practising behaviour of musicians in
different genres (classical, jazz and folk musicians). Her address is Norwegian Academy of
Music, PB 5190-Majorstua, N-0302 Oslo, Norway. Email: sgn@nmh.no.

References
Bråten, I., and H.I. Strømsø. 2004. Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence
as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology 29: 371
88.
***. 2005. The relationship between epistemological beliefs, implicit theories of intelli-
gence, and self-regulated learning among Norwegian postsecondary students. British
Journal of Educational Psychology 75: 539
65.
Bryman, A., and D. Cramer. 1999. Quantitative data analysis with the SPSS release 8 for
Windows. London: Routledge.
Chaffin, R., and G. Imreh. 1997. ‘Pulling teeth and torture’: Musical memory and problem
solving. Thinking and Reasoning 3: 315
36.
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, no. 3: 363
406.
Ginsborg, J. 1999. Singing by heart: Memorisation strategies for the words and music of songs.
Paper presented at the first European conference on research relevant to the work of music
academies and conservatories, 2
5 September, in Lucerne.
***. 2000. Off by heart: Expert singers’ memorisation strategies and recall for the words
and music of songs. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on music perception
 246 S.G. Nielsen

and cognition, ed. C. Woods, G. Luck, R. Brochard, F. Seddon, and J.A. Sloboda, 525
39.
Keele, UK: Department of Psychology, Keele University.
***. 2002. Classical singers learning and memorising a new song: An observational study.
Psychology of Music 30: 58
101.
Gruson, L.M. 1981 What distinguishes competence: An investigation of piano practising. PhD
diss., University of Waterloo, Canada.
Hallam, S. 1992. Approaches to learning and performance of expert and novice musicians.
PhD diss., University of London, UK.
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

***. 1995. Qualitative changes in practice and learning as musical expertise develops. Paper
presented at the VIIth international conference on developmental psychology, 23
27
August, in Krakow.
***. 2000. The development of performance planning strategies in musicians. In
Proceedings of the sixth international conference on music perception and cognition, ed. C.
Woods, G. Luck, R. Brochard, F. Seddon, and J.A. Sloboda, 592
601. Keele, UK:
Department of Psychology, Keele University.
***. 2002. Musical motivation: Towards a model synthesising the research. Music
Education Research 4, no. 2: 225
44.
Hidi, S., and J.M. Harackiewicz. 2000. Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical
issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Psychology 70, no. 2: 151
79.
Jørgensen, H. 2001. Instrumental learning: Is an early start a key to success? British Journal of
Music Education 18, no. 3: 227
39.
Maehr, M.L., P.R. Pintrich, and E.A. Linnenbrink. 2002. Motivation and achievement. In The
new handbook of research on music teaching and learning, ed. R. Colwell and C. Richardson,
348
72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G.E., and B.J. Zimmermann. 2002. Self-regulation of musical learning: A social
cognitive perspective. In The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning, ed. R.
Colwell and C. Richardson, 327
47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Midgely, C., A. Kaplan, M. Middleton, and M.L. Maehr. 1998. The development and
validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology 23: 113
31.
Miklaszewski, K. 1989. A case study of a pianist preparing a musical performance. Psychology
of Music 17: 95
109.
Nerland, M., and I.M. Hanken. 2002. Academies of music as arenas for education: Some
reflections on the institutional construction of teacher
student relationships. In Research in
and for higher music education, ed. I.M. Hanken, S.G. Nielsen, and M. Nerland, 167
86.
Oslo, Norway: NMH-publications 2002:2.
Nielsen, S.G. 1999a. Learning strategies in instrumental music practice. British Journal of
Music Education 16: 275
91.
***. 1999b. Regulation of learning strategies during practice. Psychology of Music 27, no. 2:
218
29.
***. 2001. Self-regulating learning strategies in instrumental music practice. Music
Education Research 3, no. 2: 155
67.
***. 2006. Preparing for the teaching event: From guided practice to self-imposed problem
solving, Paper presented at the reflective conservatoire conference, 16
19 February, at the
Guildhall School of Music and Drama, London, UK.
Pintrich, P.R., and T. Garcia. 1991. Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college
classroom. In Advances in motivation and achievement, ed. M.L. Maehr and P.R. Pintrich.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P.R., and D.H. Schunk. 1996. Motivation in education. Theory, research, and
education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
***. 2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. 2nd ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
 Music Education Research 247

Pintrich, P.R., D.A. Smith, T. Garcia, and W.J. McKeachie. 1991. A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Technical Report No. 91-b-004,
University of Michigan, Michigan.
Schneider, W., and F.E. Weinert. 1990. The role of knowledge, strategies, and aptitudes in
cognitive performance: Concluding comments. In Interactions among aptitudes, strategies,
and knowledge in cognitive performance, ed. W. Schneider and F.E. Weinert, 286
302. New
York: Springer.
Smith, B.P. 2005. Goal orientation, implicit theory of ability, and collegiate instrumental music
Downloaded by [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield] at 21:17 06 October 2014

practice. Psychology of Music 33, no. 1: 36
57.

Weinstein, C.E., and R.E. Mayer. 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. In Handbook of
research on teaching, 3rd ed., ed. M.C. Wittrock, 315
327. New York: McMillan.
Williamon, A., and E. Valentine. 2000. Quantity and quality of musical practice as predictors
of performance quality. British Journal of Psychology 91: 353
76.
Zimmerman, B.J. 1998. Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-
regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist 33, no. 2/3: 73
86.