Intrinsic Motivation in Music Education

Possible Uses of Self-Determination Theory to Increase Intrinsic Motivation in Music Students

One of the most important factors that determines a music student’s learning success is student motivation. Motivation can be defined as the influence behind why a person does something; motivation is also a mental state and internal need which can also include an outward goal that causes a person to take action (Korb 2012). Without motivation, students will not practice their instruments or engage in music activities which are key to advancement in music education. High levels of student motivation has been proven to lead to improved academic achievement, greater conceptual understanding, and higher school-completion rates. High levels of motivation also have emotional benefits such as increasing self-esteem and improved social adjustment. Conversely, low motivation in students leads to lower student academic achievement and of the students who drop-out of high school, 70% described themselves as unmotivated (Usher & Kober 2012). As with other educational subjects and endeavors, a student’s success in music education is heavily impacted by student motivation. It is important to understand different forms of motivation to help music students engage in musical practice and increase participation so that they can develop the skills necessary to succeed in their music education. Research indicating the profound impact that student motivation has on general academic success can help music educators develop motivational strategies in music education to increase the success of their music students.

There are many theories and studies in the field of motivational psychology that explore the influences and impact that high motivation levels can have on success and how to potentially increase motivation. One of these theories is called the Self- Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self- Determination Theory defines two forms of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In an article titled “Using Self-Determination Theory to Examine Musical Participation and Well-Being” [Krause, A. E., North, A. C., & Davidson, J. W. (2019)], the authors explore what has been done so far regarding the implementation of Self- Determination Theory in music education. According to the authors, the application of Self-Determination Theory to the field of music education is relatively underdeveloped and the article cited only a few authors (e.g., Douglas, 2011; Küpers et al., 2014; Evans, 2015; Evans and Bonneville-Roussy, 2016; Lee et al., 2016; Krause and Davidson, 2018; Valenzuela et al., 2018) who have written about the possible impacts that Self-Determination Theory could have in music education. As explored by the aforementioned authors, the application of Self-Determination Theory and the use of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has the potential to help music educators increase their students’ motivation which may lead to greater student success in music.

To understand how music educators can potentially increase student motivation, it is important to explore the two major forms of motivation as presented in the Self- Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985): intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation can be defined as the reason behind doing something due to personal enjoyment or interest. Extrinsic motivation refers to the kind of motivation that is a result of a desirable outcome or incentive (Deci & Ryan 2000). A musical example of intrinsic motivation would be a student playing the piano because the student enjoys it: the act of playing piano has a direct positive emotional effect on the student. A few examples of possible extrinsic motivators music educators or parents may use include: a physical reward (their parent gives them a cookie when they practice the piano), an academic achievement award (the student receives a certificate or a good grade in music class), a monetary award (the student receives money for practicing), social pressure (expectations, positive reinforcement, pleasing others, competition), or through punishment (disciplined for not practicing or performing well). It is frequent that a person is both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated; for example, a student who loves playing piano (intrinsic) but is also paid to play piano (extrinsic).

The kind of motivation that a student has the potential to determine the student’s attitude towards music and can be used to predict the kind of engagement a student will display. The article, “How Motivation Influences Student Engagement” (Saeed & Zyngier 2012), explores the relationship between motivation and student engagement. Students who favored extrinsic motivators were characterised as conforming to “ritual and retreatist forms of engagement” meaning that, despite some evidence of engagement, the extrinsically motivated students’ participation indicated a lack of interest in the subject and they rejected conventional ways of completing goals. This contrasts with the students who were more intrinsically motivated. The intrinsically motivated students displayed higher levels of authentic engagement. Authentic engagement has been linked to lower anxiety levels, increased feelings of competence, and higher levels of achievement overall (Saeed & Zyngier 2012). Another article that explored studies involving intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in gifted students (determined by an IQ of over 130) showed that gifted students generally had higher measured levels of intrinsic motivation especially towards activities such as “reading, thinking, and solitude” (Clinkenbeard 2012). In underachieving gifted students, it was found that the patterns of underachievement could be reversed by implementing specific variables to encourage intrinsic motivation. These variables inspired intrinsic motivation through intellectual and creative activities outside of school, advanced classes that encouraged independent study, and the formation of a relationship between academic achievement and personal goals (Clinkenbeard 2012). These variables also are likely to lead to a deeper state of intellectual involvement called flow, from Csikszentmihalyi’s (1991) theory of flow, which is defined as “a state of deep involvement associated with intrinsic motivation” (Clinkenbeard 2012). Flow occurs when a person is engaged in a level-appropriate task that is not too difficult, as to induce anxiety, nor too easy, which would lead to disengagement (Clinkenbeard 2012). The same article also acknowledges the frequent use of extrinsic motivators by teachers and parents in attempts to inspire underachieving gifted students, and states that inspiring genuine intrinsic motivation seems to have better results on achievement (Clinkenbeard 2012). There are occasions where it is not possible to inspire intrinsic motivation. People simply have different interests and are unlikely to have the same level of interest in all subjects. An example could be math related subjects or tasks such as cleaning; people usually really like or dislike those subjects. The same can be said about music, if a music educator finds a lack of intrinsic motivation in their student, there are several things they may consider implementing based on the principles of Self-Determination Theory to increase student participation and possibly generate intrinsic motivation.

While teaching strategies that implement intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can both be effective in increasing student engagement; studies have shown that certain extrinsic motivators can have negative effects on intrinsic motivation which could impact success over longer periods of time (Deci & Ryan 2000). In fact, when people performed a task incentivised by certain extrinsic rewards, their intrinsic motivation actually diminished (Deci & Ryan 2000). The types of extrinsic rewards used to incentivise task performance in the subjects included tangible rewards, threats, deadlines, and competition pressure which all negatively influenced the intrinsic desire for the task completion (Deci & Ryan 2000). An example of how this theory could work in regards to music would be a student who has some level of genuine interest in violin, but is then given an extrinsic incentive (positive or negative) for engaging in violin practice which would diminish the student's level of genuine interest in the violin. While this result may seem counterintuitive, in Cognitive Evaluation Theory (a subcategory of the Self-Determination Theory), presented by Deci and Ryan in 1985, all of those types of extrinsic motivators are interpreted as ways to control behavior- and people do not like being controlled (Deci & Ryan 2000). This is further supported by the theory of reverse psychology in that people will desire to do the opposite of what they are told to do. Based on the results of the study, music educators who want to increase intrinsic motivation in their students may want to avoid certain types of extrinsic motivators evaluated in the study such as: tangible rewards (prizes), threats (negative verbal warnings), deadlines, and competition pressure (comparing students’ abilities or promoting a competitive musical environment) especially when the student already has some level of genuine interest in music.

There are additional and more extreme negative effects of certain extrinsic motivation where extreme or unbalanced punishment is used. While some forms of discipline can encourage improved behavior in the classroom which can lead to improved engagement, other forms of discipline that do not produce a clear message to the student as to why the punishment was administered, negatively affect the child’s self-esteem, produce feelings of shame, fear, or embarrassment, negatively affects the student’s well-being, or impliment corporal punishment will lead to significant reductions or eliminate intrinsic motivation in students (Hutcheson 2016). When intrinsic motivation is reduced in students, the student’s future success in that area will also be reduced. This reduction in intrinsic motivation due to harsh punishment can be seen in studies that have confirmed the negative impact on achievement from corporal punishment in schools. In a joint statement titled “Corporal Punishment in Schools and Its Effect on Academic Success” (2010) by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), it was reported that corporal punishment has been found to be not only ineffective in improving student behavior but it also creates an environment unconducive to learning. It also showed that children who have been subjected to corporal punishment will also develope disruptive and violent behaviors. Hutcheson (2016) explains that discipline can be enforced without punishment through focusing on behavior modification through positive interactions. Hutcheson (2016) explains that positive reinforcement through praise will boost self-esteem and confidence which will naturally lead to students to be calmer and tolerant of others and more willing to follow instruction. Hutcheson (2016) explains that bad behavior often stems from “frustration and a feeling of social inadequacy”. Music educators who want to increase intrinsic motivation, overall success, and student engagement should avoid the ineffective punishments described above and encourage good behavior and participation through positive reinforcement. It is important to note that not all kinds of extrinsic motivation lead to negative results. There are many ways music educators can encourage engagement and potentially inspire intrinsic motivation through carefully implementing specific extrinsic motivators in the event of low or absent intrinsic motivation.

In the scenario that intrinsic motivation is extremely low or unable to be inspired, some specific kinds of extrinsic motivation may be useful to fill the motivational void which will potentially produce some level of engagement according to Clinkenbeard (2012). While some kinds of extrinsic motivators have a negative impact on intrinsic motivation, there are specific kinds of extrinsic motivators that may increase intrinsic student motivation. Based on the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci & Ryan 1985), extrinsic motivators that are conducive to “feelings of competence” have the potential to increase intrinsic motivation because they satisfy a psychological need for the ability to complete tasks successfully. These extrinsic motivators may include: level-appropriate challenges, constructive feedback, and being free from degrading assessments and negative criticism (Deci & Ryan 2000). Deci and Ryan clarify in the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (1985) that in order for extrinsic motivators to increase intrinsic motivation, not only is it required to promote “feelings of competence”, but the extrinsic motivator must be combined with student autonomy (Deci & Ryan 2000). In other words, people need to feel that their competence and abilities are a result of personal control over his or her life.

When intrinsic motivation towards music is limited, this theory can be used to increase student motivation in music through extrinsic motivators that combine “feelings of competence” and autonomy. Music educators may be able to increase intrinsic motivation in their students by presenting their students with level-appropriate challenges (carefully selected performances or repertoire), offering constructive feedback based on their students’ musical performances, and by avoiding negative criticism that could result in feelings of shame. Constructive feedback should be carefully delivered so that the student’s self-esteem is not negatively affected, as self-esteem is essential to intrinsic motivation and key to student engagement and success. Constructive criticism should focus on problem solving, a string music educator might say: “let’s explore how to increase the speed and width of your vibrato” instead of saying “your vibrato is not good”. Negative evaluations from a music educator may be internalised by the student and could reduce the confidence a student needs to be an expressive artist. Considering the Cognitive Evaluation Theory, a music educator should implement those kinds of positive extrinsic motivators while also allowing the student to feel autonomous.

Since it is possible to increase intrinsic motivation through combining positive extrinsic motivators with student autonomy, it is important for music educators to let students make decisions regarding their musical education. The importance of autonomy as described in Self-Determination Theory, is also supported in various studies. One study of a school that discarded rewards and textbooks in a second-grade math classroom and focused instead on implementing a teaching system that encouraged “intellectual autonomy” led to the development of higher levels of reasoning skills and did not negatively impact the completion of basic tasks. The school gave children “intellectual autonomy” by allowing the children to take active problem-solving roles while working in groups, and permitting the children to move freely around the classroom to gather the materials they needed (Kohn 1993). While students should not be given complete control in class, there are many ways music educators can give students the sense of autonomy that they need to encourage intrinsic motivation while still allowing the level of control needed to teach effectively. Possibilities include allowing the student to pick their repertoire from a few options provided by the instructor- in this scenario the instructor still has the majority of control but the student is given a choice which empowers the sense of autonomy. Another way music educators can give students autonomy is by allowing them to choose the order of the materials that will be covered in the class: for example, letting them choose to start with repertoire A or B even though the class will still cover both pieces. Following the motivational theories of Self- Determination Theory, music educators may be able to increase intrinsic motivation and authentic class engagement by allowing students to make controlled decisions in their music education combined with the careful implementation of positive extrinsic motivators that foster “feelings of competence” as defined in the Self-Determination Theory.

The application of Self-Determination Theory in music education has a lot of potential to increase student success and the exploration of how the theory may be used in music education is a relatively recent development. As in most other artistic areas such as visual arts, dance, and theater; successful music performers need high levels of confidence and motivation to be successful in their career. Performing in front of large audiences is nerve-racking for the majority of musicians and it requires a high level of confidence for the musician to acknowledge the importance of sharing their artistic expression with others. Musicians with low self-esteem may feel that their musical voice is not worth being heard. This low self-confidence has the potential to create a cycle of lower musical participation which may lead to lower levels of success. Studies show that students who are happy and optimistic tend to be more creative, engaged, and learn much faster than the students who are unhappy according to a study of children in grades K-12 (Jones 2015). The study found a positive correlation between students’ grade point average and student happiness and motivation. The study also found that happiness increased students’ levels of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as positively affecting students’ relationships with their teachers and satisfaction with their school’s culture (Jones 2015). Creating a learning environment that promotes happiness, intrinsic motivation, and self-confidence in students of all ages is extremely important to the individual’s potential as a performer. Music educator may want to apply the principles of Self-Determination Theory to avoid reductions in intrinsic motivation by: avoiding certain types of extrinsic motivators that reduce intrinsic motivation such as: tangible rewards (prizes), threats (negative verbal warnings), deadlines, and competition pressure (comparing students’ abilities or promoting a competitive musical environment). Music educators should consider avoid using ineffective punishments as extrinsic motivators that lead to greater reduction in intrinsic motivatio such as punishments that: do not produce a clear message to the student; negatively affect the child’s self-esteem; produce feelings of shame, fear, or embarrassment; negatively affect the student’s well-being; and the paracice of corporal punishment. Music educators may want to consider applying the principles of Self-Determination Theory to increase intrinsic motivation by: encouraging the state of “flow” [from Csikszentmihalyi’s (1991) theory of flow] through variables such as creative activities outside of the classroom, classes that encourage independent study, and forming a relationship between musical achievement and personal goals. Music educators may also want to consider giving students autonomy to encourage a sense of competence by allowing them to make structured choices and combine this with positive extrinsic motivators such as level-appropriate challenges (carefully selected performances or repertoire), offering constructive feedback based on their students’ musical performances, and by avoiding negative criticism that could result in feelings of shame.

Bibliography

Clinkenbeard, Pamela R. “Motivation and Gifted Students: Implications of Theory and Research.” Psychology in the Schools, vol. 49, no. 7, 2012, pp. 622–630., doi:10.1002/pits.21628.

Hutcheson, Sabine. “The Mentality of Reward and Punishment in Education.” International School Parent, International School Parent Magazine, 31 Mar. 2016, www.internationalschoolparent.com/articles/reward-punishment-education/.

Jones, Victoria. “Because I'm Happy.” Usable Knowledge, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 26 Mar. 2015, www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/15/03/because-i%E2%80%99m-happy.

Kohn, Alfie. “Choices for Children Why and How to Let Students Decide.” Semantics Scholar, PHI DELTA KAPPAN, Sept. 1993, pdfs.semanticscholar.org/df20/c38740afa121d89f3b4b2b1bc648b03c0862.pdf?_ga=2.251852169.1071914476.1582091899-1730495216.1582091899.

Korb, Rich. "Introduction to Student Motivation." Motivating Defiant & Disruptive Students to Learn: Positive Classroom Management Strategies.Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, 2012. 2-15. SAGE Knowledge. Web. 6 May. 2020, doi: 10.4135/9781483387710.n2.

Krause, Amanda E., et al. “Using Self-Determination Theory to Examine Musical Participation and Well-Being.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, 2019, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00405.

Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, 2000, pp. 54–67., doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

Saeed, Sitwat, and David Zyngier. “How Motivation Influences Student Engagement: A Qualitative Case Study.” Journal of Education and Learning, vol. 1, no. 2, 2012, doi:10.5539/jel.v1n2p252.

Usher, Alexandra, and Nancy Kober. “Student Motivation—An Overlooked Piece of School Reform .” Center on Education Policy, 2012. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532666.pdf

“‘Corporal Punishment in Schools and Its Effect on Academic Success’ Joint HRW/ACLU Statement.” Human Rights Watch, ACLU, 15 Apr. 2010, www.hrw.org/news/2010/04/15/corporal-punishment-schools-and-its-effect-academic-success-joint-hrw/aclu-statement#.