05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 418

A RT I C L E

Strategies and self-efficacy Psychology of Music

Psychology of Music
beliefs in instrumental and Copyright © 
Society for Education, Music
vocal individual practice: a and Psychology Research
vol (): ‒ [-

study of students in higher () :; ‒]

.⁄

music education www.sagepublications.com

SIW G. NIELSEN
N O RG E S M U S I K K H O G S KO L E

A B S T R AC T This article reports the findings of a study investigating the learning

and study strategies of advanced music students and the manner in which their
self-efficacy beliefs relate to the strategies employed. Participants were first-year
students in Norwegian higher music education aged 18 to 43 years. They were
asked to fill out a questionnaire detailing their use of strategies. It was found that
students in general apply cognitive, metacognitive and resource management
strategies during practice. Overall, they used strategies to manage their resources
to a lesser extent than other strategies. The findings also indicate that music
students high in self-efficacy were more likely to be cognitively and
metacognitively involved in trying to learn the material compared with students
low in self-efficacy. Further, while there were significant differences between
female and male students with regard to self-efficacy, no significant differences in
self-efficacy emerged with regards to main instrument groups or degree
programme. However, the interaction effect between gender and degree pro-
gramme on self-efficacy was significant.

K E Y W O R D S : advanced music students, deliberate practice, instrumental teaching,

self-confidence, self-regulated learning

Introduction
This article focuses on the way in which advanced music students practise
their instruments.1 Many students enter higher music education with the
perception that they have not been taught how to practise by their instru-
mental teachers (Jørgensen, 1999), and the quality of their practice seems to
be the outgrowth of direct experience with a variety of musical materials and
tasks. With this in mind, the main purpose of the present study was to
contribute to the literature on strategic learning in music by investigating
the activities during practice that are most relevant to improving music

sempre :
Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015
05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 419

Nielsen: Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in individual practice 419

performance (i.e. the students’ deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993)).

As sustained effort may be necessary but not sufficient to make practice
work (Lehmann, 1997), the strategic learning in instrumental and vocal
individual practice becomes vitally important.
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 particu-
lar 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).
Some research has addressed strategies in instrumental and vocal practice
of advanced students and musicians that takes account of musicians as
active participants responsible for their own learning (see Chaffin and Imreh,
1997; Ginsborg, 1999, 2000, 2002; Gruson, 1981; Hallam, 1992, 1995,
2000; Miklaszewski, 1989; Nielsen, 1999a, 1999b, 2001). These studies
illustrate the individual diversity in the way advanced students and musicians
learn during practice.
Students pursuing higher music education spend most of their study time
practising their instrument. Instrumental teaching in higher music educa-
tion is given as a weekly or bi-weekly individual lesson on the relevant main
instrument, and first-year students assume most of the responsibility for their
own instrumental achievement. In this situation, students’ feelings of confi-
dence about their ability to learn or perform a task may play an important
role in promoting and sustaining their strategies in practice, and may thus
become a fundamental factor influencing the success of their practice
sessions (Cantwell et al., 2000; Hallam, 2002; McCormick and McPherson,
2003). Thus, the present study also investigated the self-efficacy beliefs of
these advanced students.
Self-efficacy is defined as ‘people’s judgement of their capabilities to organize
and execute the courses of action required to attain designated types of
performances’ (Bandura, 1986: 391). According to this definition, academic
self-efficacy beliefs (as distinct from non-academic, general, social, emotional,
or physical self-efficacy beliefs) represent a specific and situational perceived
competence in terms of including the behavioural actions or cognitive skills
that are necessary for competent academic performance (Bong and Skaalvik,
2003). Researchers in educational psychology have long been interested in the
role of academic self-efficacy. Individuals who are otherwise similar feel differ-
ently about themselves, and choose different courses of action, depending on
how they construe themselves. Without doubt these subjective convictions
about oneself, once established, play a determining role in the individual’s
further growth and development (Bong and Skaalvik, 2003). However, self-
efficacy represents relatively malleable conceptions of the self and its potential.

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 420

420 Psychology of Music 32(4)

Findings in academic subjects show very positive relations between

academic self-efficacy beliefs and use of learning and study strategies for
college students (Pintrich, 1999; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990). Academic
self-efficacy beliefs have also been found to relate strongly to persistence and
performance (Schunk, 1991). It is hypothesized that individuals who feel effi-
cacious work harder and persist for longer when they encounter difficulties,
than those who doubt their capabilities. However, in the musical performance
area, McCormick and McPherson (2003) studied young instrumentalists
aged 9–18 years and found that their self-efficacy beliefs of instrumental
learning did not predict cognitive strategy use, but that there was a strong
relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and music performance quality.
To my knowledge, no other studies of self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental
learning have been conducted. Moreover, there are no studies on the influ-
ence of self-efficacy beliefs on the strategy use of advanced music students in
instrumental practising.
There is also relatively little research regarding the effects of the nature of
the particular task to be undertaken on the way that students practise
(Hallam, 1997). The physical and cognitive demands made by the instru-
ments themselves may affect the students’ strategic processing as indicated
by Jørgensen’s (1996) report on differences in average practice time between
students playing different instruments. Aside from the demands inherent in
the instruments themselves, Jørgensen (1997) concludes that the attended
degree programme also affects the students’ time for practising. The students’
most frequent reasons for not practising as much as they want include factors
such as total workload, other subjects to study, and the time schedule
(Jørgensen, 1996). On the basis of this research, differences can be expected
to be found between instruments and degree programmes. Since my sample
of first-year students encompassed a wide range of instruments and degree
programmes, the present study considered cross-instrument groups and
cross-degree programme differences.
In addition, gender differences in students’ academic self-efficacy and use
of learning strategies are often reported (Bråten and Olaussen, 2000;
Pajares, 2002; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990). The findings suggest
females as greater users of learning strategies, but less efficacious than
males. There is a need for research on the role of gender in the strategic
learning of music, and, thus, the present study examined gender differences
in self-efficacy beliefs and strategy use.
In the light of the foregoing, the present study set out to address the
following questions:
1. To what extent do first-year music students use specific learning and
study strategies?
2. What is the relationship between first-year music students’ self-efficacy
beliefs and strategy use?

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 421

Nielsen: Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in individual practice 421

3. Are there any differences in use of strategies and self-efficacy beliefs with
regard to main instrument, degree programme or gender?

Method
PARTICIPANTS
The participants were first-year music students in the church music, perform-
ance or music education programmes at six Norwegian institutions of higher
music education. All started their studies in autumn 2000. The sample
included 130 advanced music students (71 women and 59 men). The
students ranged in age from 18 to 43 years (M = 20.8 years; SD = 6.3 years).
The sample included 105 students (80.8%) working in the classical genre
and 25 students (19.2%) working in the jazz, pop and rock genres. Because of
tough competition for admission to these programmes, all students in the
sample could be classified as advanced students.

MATERIALS
Self-regulated learning and study strategies
Students’ reported use of learning and study strategies were assessed with
50 items from a Norwegian adaptation of The Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (the MSLQ-inventory) (Pintrich et al., 1991) to apply to
instrumental practising. In developing the Norwegian version of the MSLQ-
inventory, all items were carefully translated so as to retain their essential
meanings. Some items were altered to facilitate understanding in the context
of music performance and the situation of the Norwegian higher music
education student.
There are three general types of scales in the learning strategies section of
the MSLQ-inventory:
● Cognitive strategies: rehearsal, elaboration, organization and critical
thinking;
● Metacognitive strategies: metacognitive self-regulation;
● Resource management strategies: time and study environment, effort
regulation, peer learning and help seeking.
The first cognitive subscale addresses to what extent students use strategies to
repeat parts of the material to master the task (sample item: ‘I select impor-
tant technical and musical parts, repeating these over and over again’). The
items on the elaboration scale address to what extent students use strategies
to integrate new information with existing knowledge (sample item: ‘I try to
develop musical ideas by making connections between alternative interpreta-
tions from listening to music and from lecturers’). The items on the organ-
ization scale address to what extent the students use strategies to select
appropriate information and to construct connections within the informa-
tion (sample item: ‘When I practise, I go through the music and try to find the

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 422

422 Psychology of Music 32(4)

most important musical ideas’). The items on the critical thinking scale
address to what extent the students make critical evaluations with respect
to standards of excellence (sample item: ‘I often find myself questioning tech-
nical solutions and interpretations on my main instrument to decide if they
work’).
The items on the metacognitive self-regulation scale address 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 direct my
practising’).
The resource management scale includes four subscales on students’ regula-
tory strategies for controlling other resources besides their cognition:
1. Time and study environment (sample item: ‘I find it hard to stick to a
practice schedule’);
2. Effort regulation (sample item: ‘I often feel so lazy or bored when I prac-
tise, that I quit before I finish what I planned to do’);
3. Peer learning (sample item: ‘When practising repertoire, I often try to
perform the piece for a classmate or a friend’);
4. Help seeking (sample item: ‘Even if I have trouble learning the music, I
try to work on my own, without help from anyone’).
For each of the 50 items, students rated themselves on a 7-point scale
(1 = not at all true of me; 7 = very true of me).

Self-efficacy beliefs
Students’ self-efficacy beliefs were assessed with eight items from a Norwegian
adaptation of one of the motivation subscales of the MSLQ-inventory to
instrumental practising: self-efficacy beliefs, referring to self-appraisal of one’s
ability to master a task (sample item: ‘I am confident I can perform the most
complex music I practise’). For each of the eight items, students rated them-
selves on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all true of me; 7 = very true of me).

PROCEDURE
The questionnaire was administered as a group measure to one class at a
time. Data collection took place during the first semester of the students’ first
year in higher music education. The students were informed that their
participation in the project was purely voluntary, and only sex, age and
college background, not names, were reported. Students who missed the ses-
sion in which the questionnaire was administered the first time were given
another opportunity to complete it voluntarily.

INTERNAL RELIABILITY
Construct validity of the MSLQ-inventory has been established in a
large number of studies and is summarized in Pintrich et al. (1991). In
the present study, the internal consistency of the Norwegian version of the

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 423

Nielsen: Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in individual practice 423

MSLQ-inventory for the music participants ranged from a medium of .56

(peer learning) to a high of .81 (self-efficacy). On the whole, these data
suggest that the MSLQ-inventory is somewhat less internally consistent for
our Norwegian music students than for the American college students who
comprised the norming sample. However, all the resulting reliabilities appear
to be acceptable for my research purposes.

Results
USE OF SPECIFIC LEARNING AND STUDY STRATEGIES
Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations for the individual
subscales assessing the specific learning and study strategies using the
sample of first-year higher music education students.
Table 1 shows that, to a certain extent, students employed rehearsal
strategies (e.g. ‘I select important technical and musical parts and repeat
these over and over again’), elaboration strategies (e.g. ‘I try to develop
musical ideas by making connections between alternative interpretations
from listening to music and from lecturers’), critical thinking strategies (e.g. ‘I
often find myself questioning technical solutions and interpretations on my
main instrument to decide if they work’), and metacognitive strategies (e.g.
‘While I practise, I test my performance to better enable myself to direct my
efforts’). Organization strategies (e.g. ‘When I practise, I go through the
music and try to find the most important musical ideas’), and strategies to
control time and study environment (e.g. ‘I make good use of my time for
practising’), effort regulation (e.g. ‘Even when the material is dull and
uninteresting, I manage to keep practising until I finish’), peer learning (e.g.
‘When practising repertoire, I often try to perform the piece to a classmate or
a friend’) and help seeking (e.g. ‘I ask the teacher for help when I have trouble
learning the music’) were utilized to a lesser extent. These results indicate

TA B L E 1 Means (Ms), standard deviations (SDs) and reliability estimates for the MSLQ-
scales for the entire sample ( N = 130)

Subscale M SD Alpha

Rehearsal 5.36 1.26 .73

Elaboration 5.10 1.05 .69
Organization 4.41 1.19 .69
Critical thinking 5.20 1.02 .71
Metacognition 5.24 0.86 .67
Time and study environment 4.62 0.96 .59
Effort regulation 4.87 1.15 .60
Peer learning 3.13 1.21 .56
Help seeking 4.08 1.21 .58

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 424

424 Psychology of Music 32(4)

that first-year music students overall used cognitive and metacognitive strate-
gies in their individual practice, and that they employed strategies to manage
their resources to a lesser extent.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF - EFFICACY BELIEFS AND STRATEGY USE

As shown in Table 2, scores on the self-efficacy subscale were significantly
related to all the subscales of learning and study strategies, save the effort
regulation subscale. They ranged from a low Spearman’s rho of .19 (rehearsal)
to a medium of .33 (metacognition). Thus, students who perceived them-
selves as able to learn or perform a task by their instrumental practice also
reported using more learning and study strategies.
Next, the effect size on each of the learning and study strategy subscales
was examined. This showed that the different subscales of learning and study
strategies and the self-efficacy subscale shared from 29 percent (organiza-
tion) to 35 percent (rehearsal and help seeking) common variance.

MAIN INSTRUMENT, DEGREE PROGRAMME AND GENDER DIFFERENCES

In terms of differences between groups, there were no significant differences
in the use of specific strategies with regard to main instrument or degree pro-
gramme. Further, a Mann-Whitney U test between male and female students
showed that only one of the differences in use of strategies was significant.
On average, male students made significantly greater use of critical thinking
strategies than female students (Mann-Whitney U = 1566,5: p < .05).
However, there were significant differences between groups in students’

TA B L E 2 Correlation matrix for strategies and self-efficacy, and summary statistics for self-efficacy
for the entire sample (N = 130)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Rehearsal –
2. Elaboration .33** –
3. Organization .17* .46** –
4. Critical thinking .16 .55** .55** –
5. Time and study
environment .05 .18* .12 .01 –
6. Effort regulation .05 .27** .24** .27** .40** –
7. Peer learning .07 .27** .33** .19* .12 –.01 –
8. Help seeking .14 .27** .23** .16 .21* .10 .65** –
9. Metacognition .19* .57** .64** .62** .31** .40** .19* .14 –
10. Self-efficacy .19* .31** .21* .32** .27** .14 .24** .23** .33** –
M = 5.29
SD = .90
Alpha = .81

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 425

Nielsen: Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in individual practice 425

6,2

6,0
Estimated marginal means of self-efficacy

5,8
Estimated marginal means of self-efficacy

5,6

5,4

5,2

5,0

4,8 Gender

4,6 Man

4,4 Woman
Music education Performance Church music

Degree programme
Degree programme

FIGURE 1 Estimated marginal means of self-efficacy for learning and performance.

instrumental practice efficacy. An ANOVA revealed a main effect of gender on

the self-efficacy subscale (F(1,91) = 7.5, p < .05). Male students (M = 5.40;
SD = .89) rated themselves more efficacious than did female students
(M = 5.18; SD = .91). Students in different main instrument groups
(F(6,91) = 1.13, p > .05) or in different degree programmes (F(2,91) = .72,
p > .05) did not differ with regard to self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental prac-
tising. However, the interaction effect between gender and degree programme
on self-efficacy was significant (F(2,91) = 6.09, p < .05).
As Figure 1 shows, the effect of gender depended on the student’s degree
programme. Male students in the performance and church music
programmes were more likely to have higher self-efficacy beliefs than female
students in these two programmes, while male students in the music educa-
tion programme were more likely to have lower self-efficacy beliefs in
instrumental practising than female students.

Discussion
The present study investigated the specific learning and study strategies
employed by first-year advanced music students in instrumental practising
and their self-efficacy beliefs related to the employed strategies.
First, the findings of this study suggest that first-year music students in

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 426

426 Psychology of Music 32(4)

general apply a full range of cognitive, metacognitive and resource manage-

ment strategies during practice rather than one particular type. This finding
appears to be consistent with Hallam (2001), who found that professional
musicians had a range of strategies that could be adopted in response to their
needs, and that they demonstrated extensive metacognitive skills. It is also in
accordance with Ginsborg’s (2002) study of the memorizing strategies of
classical singers. Ginsborg found that the proficient memorizers made use of
a wider range of learning and memorizing techniques than did less proficient
memorizers.
However, overall the advanced students used strategies to manage their
resources to a lesser extent than cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In
particular, they tended to use help-seeking and peer-learning strategies to a
lesser extent than other strategies. According to Ericsson (1997), new music
students establish social networks with their teachers and other music
students that provide them with support and encouragement for further
improvement. The findings of the present study give reason to believe that
first-year music students do not use fellow students to help and support their
individual learning on the instrument. In this context, the institutions of
higher music education should take responsibility for helping the students to
create an environment in which they not only can seek assistance from other
students, but in which they can also benefit from hearing different perspec-
tives regarding a particular piece or task at hand. Pogonowski (1989) points
out that, as mature musicians may be affected in their interpretation of a
given musical work by listening to a variety of artists’ renditions of the same
work, consideration of alternative views regarding the interpretation of a
particular musical work prepares musicians to set their own goal and strat-
egy for the interpretation of the music. Likewise, being encouraged to discuss
the technical and musical challenges of a piece with fellow students can
result in a greater proliferation of ideas that, in turn, spur each person’s
capacity to engage in metacognitive strategies in his or her individual
practice (Pogonowski, 1989). Study activities regulated in the curriculum as
interpretation seminars and participation in ensembles may serve these
purposes if put in focus by both the instrumental teachers and the students.
Other resource management strategies such as setting aside blocks of time
to practise, ensuring effective use of that practice time, organizing the study
environment and committing oneself to completing practice goals are seen as
important aspects of the process of planning instrumental practice. However,
the findings of the study reported in this article are in accordance with
Jørgensen (1998), who found that advanced music students did not seem to
engage in practice planning.
Second, music students who perceived themselves as able to learn or
perform a task by their instrumental practice also were more likely to be
cognitively and metacognitively involved in trying to learn the music in com-
parison to those who doubted their capabilities. This finding is in keeping

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 427

Nielsen: Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in individual practice 427

with studies of college students in academic subjects, indicating that the use
of learning and study strategies is related not only to the actual ability level of
students, but also to their level of perceived ability (Bråten and Olaussen,
2000). Pintrich (1999) found that university students who feel more effica-
cious about their ability to do well in a course are more likely to report using
all three types of cognitive strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, and organiza-
tional strategies) and metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring,
and regulating. It is interesting to note that the findings of the present study
indicate the same positive relationship between self-efficacy and different
types of learning and study strategies for advanced music students. However,
this finding does not conform with McCormick and McPherson (2003), who
found that self-efficacy beliefs of instrumental learning did not predict cogni-
tive strategy use, and that there was a negative path from cognitive strategy
use to self-efficacy in instrumental learning. McCormick and McPherson
(2003) studied young instrumentalists (M = 12.8 years) and their self-
efficacy beliefs about their capacity to perform well in a graded music exami-
nation. The students in the study reported in this article are older (M = 20.8
years), and the study assessed the students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding how
able to learn or perform the music they practised they perceived themselves to
be, and not their overall skill as a musician. Thus, as self-efficacy represents
the individual’s expectations of what he or she can accomplish in specific
tasks, the inconsistent findings may be due to both age differences and
different performance contexts.
Third, group comparisons of students divided into different main instru-
ment groups and degree programmes indicated that the demands inherent in
the instruments themselves or provided by the degree programme may not
have an impact on the strategic processes utilized by students. These findings
suggest that students use the same full range of strategies during their
individual practice time even though the time advanced students allot to
practising may differ due to the physical and cognitive demands of playing
the respective instruments or the curriculum text of the attended degree
programme. Further, the findings suggest that female and male students use
the same range of learning strategies with the exception that male students
reported making significantly more critical evaluations with respect to stand-
ards of excellence than female students. Although some studies in academic
subjects have indicated that students’ strategy use may differ with regard to
gender, the finding of the present study indicates that there are large within-
group differences in use of learning and study strategies among male and
female students in their instrumental practising.
Likewise, there were no significant differences in self-efficacy with regards
to main instrument groups or degree programme. However, female and male
students differed significantly with regard to self-efficacy, and this finding is
in keeping with Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990), who found
that females are less efficacious than males. Further, there was a significant

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 428

428 Psychology of Music 32(4)

interaction effect between gender and degree programme on self-efficacy in

instrumental practising. Based on these findings it seems reasonable to specu-
late that female and male first-year music students have different prior expe-
riences with the tasks in question. A Danish study of Conservatoire students
by Klaus Nielsen (1999) points out that potential students who have decided
to seek admission into higher music education, enter a period of what he calls
the ‘pre-Conservatoire culture’. During this period, the potential students
actively seek assistance from ‘established’ students and teachers in the
Conservatoire. Many of them also test out their skills by participating in
amateur concerts and contests where they may meet up with ‘established’
students from the Conservatoire. If we define instrumental learning as learn-
ing by apprenticeship, where the instrumental teacher and the ‘established’
students have the role of the master, the potential students enter this
‘community of practice’ before they are admitted into higher music educa-
tion (Nielsen, 1999). Past experiences, social comparison and reinforcement
from others in this ‘community of practice’ may contribute to shaping the
first-year student’s self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, the findings of the present study
suggest that males have had more enactive mastery experiences than
females, as successes strengthen self-efficacy, whereas repeated failures
undermine it. A firm sense of efficacy built on the basis of past successes is
believed to withstand temporary failures (Bong and Skaalvik, 2003).
Finally, in terms of education, the results described in this article imply
that advanced students have the potential to improve their strategic learning
during instrumental practice. Primarily, they might find it constructive to be
greater users of strategies such as peer-learning and help-seeking in spite
of the fact that practising is an individual activity. Further, instrumental
teachers in higher music education should give special attention to the fact
that female students in general perceive themselves as less efficacious in
practising their instrument than male students. Nonetheless, it remains the
shared responsibility of instrumental teachers and the institutions to
increase their students’ competence and confidence as they progress through
higher music education. Educational programmes that seek to empower
students must not only cultivate the skills to succeed but must endeavour to
maximize the will for success by nurturing the belief that one can indeed
succeed and encouraging the self-regulatory strategies required to help bring
about that success (Pajares, 2002).
In addition, further research with longitudinal data will show whether
any changes appear in gender differences in self-efficacy and strategy use
while studying in higher music education.

NOTE

1. In this article the terms ‘instrument’ and ‘instrumental’ also include the vocals.

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 429

Nielsen: Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in individual practice 429

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

The work to complete this article was supported by a grant from Fondet for dansk-
norsk samarbejde (The fund for Danish-Norwegian cooperation), Shaeffergaarden,
Danmark, 2002.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bong, M. and Skaalvik, E.M. (2003) ‘Academic Self-concept and Self-efficacy: How
Different Are They Really?’ Educational Psychology Review 15(1): 1–40.
Bråten, I. and Olaussen, B. (2000) ‘The Learning and Study Strategies of Norwegian
First-Year College Students’, Learning and Individual Differences 10(4): 309–27.
Cantwell, R.H., Jeanneret, N., Sullivan, Y. and Irvine, I. (2000) ‘A Metacognitive
Account of Musical Knowledge and Musical Processing’, in C. Woods, G. Luck,
R. Brochard, F. Seddon and J.A. Sloboda (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Music Perception and Cognition. Keele: Keele University Press.
Chaffin, R. and Imreh, G. (1997) ‘“Pulling Teeth and Torture”: Musical Memory and
Problem Solving’, Thinking and Reasoning 3(4): 315–36.
Ericsson, K.A. (1997) ‘Deliberate Practice and the Acquisition of Expert Performance:
An Overview’, in H. Jørgensen and A.C. Lehmann (eds) Does Practice Make Perfect?
Current Theory and Research on Instrumental Music Practice, pp. 9–51. Oslo:
Norwegian State Academy of Music.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) ‘The Role of Deliberate
Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance’, Psychological Review 100(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, Lucerne,
September.
Ginsborg, J. (2000) ‘Off by Heart: Expert Singers’ Memorisation Strategies and Recall
for the Words and Music of Songs’, in C. Woods, G. Luck, R. Brochard, F. Seddon
and J.A. Sloboda (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Music
Perception and Cognition. Keele: Keele University.
Ginsborg, J. (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’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Hallam, S. (1992) ‘Approaches to Learning and Performance of Expert and Novice
Musicians’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London, London.
Hallam, S. (1995) ‘Qualitative Changes in Practice and Learning as Musical Expertise
Develops’, paper presented at the VIIth International Conference on
Developmental Psychology, Krakow.
Hallam, S. (1997) ‘What Do We Know About Practising? Towards a Model
Synthesising the Research Literature’, in H. Jørgensen and A.C. Lehmann (eds)
Does Practice Make Perfect? Current Theory and Research on Instrumental Music
Practice, pp. 179–231. Oslo: Norwegian State Academy of Music.
Hallam, S. (2000) ‘The Development of Performance Planning Strategies in
Musicians’, in C. Woods, G. Luck, R. Brochard, F. Seddon and J.A. Sloboda (eds)

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 430

430 Psychology of Music 32(4)

Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition.

Keele: Keele University.
Hallam, S. (2001) ‘The Development of Metacognition in Musicians: Implications for
Education’, British Journal of Music Education 18(1): 27–39.
Hallam, S. (2002) ‘Musical Motivation: Towards a Model Synthesising the Research’,
Music Education Research 4(2): 225–44.
Jørgensen, H. (1996) ‘Tid til øving? Studentenes bruk av tid til øving ved Norges
musikkhøgskole, 1. del.’ (Time for practising? Students’ use of time for practising
at the Norwegian State Academy of Music, Part 1). Oslo: Norwegian State
Academy of Music.
Jørgensen, H. (1997) ‘Time for Practising? Higher Level Music Students’ Use of Time
for Instrumental Practising’, in H. Jørgensen and A.C. Lehmann (eds) Does Practice
Make Perfect? Current Theory and Research on Instrumental Music Practice, pp.
123–39. Oslo: Norwegian State Academy of Music.
Jørgensen, H. (1998) Planlegges øving? (Is practice planned?). Oslo: Norwegian State
Academy of Music.
Jørgensen, H. (1999) ‘Studentenes læring i høyere instrumentalundervisning’ (The
learning of students in higher instrumental teaching), in E. Nesheim, B. J.
Bjøntegaard, I. M. Hanken and I. Karevold (eds) Flerstemmige innspill 1999, pp.
89–101. Oslo: Norwegian State Academy of Music.
Lehmann, A.C. (1997) ‘The Acquisition of Expertise in Music: Efficiency of Deliberate
Practice as a Moderating Variable in Accounting for Sub-Expert Performance’, in
I. Deliège and J. Sloboda (eds) Perception and Cognition of Music, pp. 161–87. Hove:
Psychology Press.
McCormick, J. and McPherson, G.E. (2003) ‘The Role of Self-Efficacy in a Musical
Performance Examination: An Exploratory Structural Equation Analysis’,
Psychology of Music 31(1): 37–51.
Miklaszewski, K. (1989) ‘A Case Study of a Pianist Preparing a Musical Performance’,
Psychology of Music 17(2): 95–109.
Nielsen, K. (1999) ‘Musikalsk mesterlære’ (Musical apprenticeship), in K. Nielsen and
S. Kvale (eds) Mesterlære: Læring som sosial praksis, pp. 112–24. Oslo: Ad Notam.
Nielsen, S.G. (1999a) ‘Learning Strategies in Instrumental Music Practice’, British
Journal of Music Education 16(3): 275–91.
Nielsen, S.G. (1999b) ‘Regulation of Learning Strategies During Practice’, Psychology
of Music 27(2): 218–29.
Nielsen, S.G. (2001) ‘Self-Regulating Learning Strategies in Instrumental Music
Practice’, Music Education Research 3(2): 155–67.
Pajares, F. (2002) ‘Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Self-Regulated Learning’,
Theory into Practice 41(2): 116–25.
Pintrich, P.R. (1999) ‘The Role of Motivation in Promoting and Sustaining Self-
Regulated Learning’, International Journal of Educational Research 31(6): 459–470.
Pintrich, P.R. and De Groot, E.V. (1990) ‘Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning
Components of Classroom Academic Performance’, Journal of Educational
Psychology 82(1): 33–40.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., Garcia, T. and McKeachie, W.J. (1991) A Manual for the Use
of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), Technical Report No.
91-b-004. Michigan: University of Michigan.
Pogonowski, L. (1989) ‘Metacognition: A Dimension of Musical Thinking’, in
E. Boardman (ed.) Dimensions of Musical Thinking, pp. 9–19. Reston, VA: MENC.
Schneider, W. and Weinert, F.E. (1990) ‘The Role of Knowledge, Strategies, and

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015

05Nielsen 23/8/04 9:55 am Page 431

Nielsen: Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in individual practice 431

Aptitudes in Cognitive Performance: Concluding Comments’, in W. Schneider and

F.E. Weinert (eds) Interactions among Aptitudes, Strategies, and Knowledge in Cognitive
Performance, pp. 286–302. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schunk, D.H. (1991) ‘Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation’, Educational Psychologist
26(3&4): 207–31.
Weinstein, C.E. and Mayer, R.E. (1986) ‘The Teaching of Learning Strategies’, in M.C.
Wittrock (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 315–27, 3rd edn. New York:
Macmillan.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1998) ‘Academic Studying and the Development of Personal Skill:
A Self-Regulatory Perspective’, Educational Psychologist 33(2/3): 73–86.
Zimmermann, B.J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1990) ‘Student Differences in Self-
Regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex, and Giftedness to Self-Efficacy and
Strategy Use’, Journal of Educational Psychology 82(1): 51–9.

SIW GRAABRÆK NIELSEN trained as a church organist and as an instrumental

teacher. She now works at the Norwegian Academy of Music in Oslo, where she is
Associate Professor of Music Education. She has been leader of the Network of Nordic
Research in Music Education and is now Head of Doctoral Programmes at the
Academy. Her special fields of interest, in which she has published several articles, are
the behavioural and scientific theories of practising musical instruments.
Address: Norges musikkhogskole, Postboks 5190 Majorstua, N-0301 Oslo, Norway.
[email: siw.g.nielsen@nmh.no]

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 10, 2015