595611

research-article2015
JRMXXX10.1177/0022429415595611Journal of Research in Music EducationHewitt

Article
Journal of Research in Music Education
2015, Vol. 63(3) 298­–313
Self-Efficacy, Self-Evaluation, © National Association for
Music Education 2015
and Music Performance Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
of Secondary-Level Band DOI: 10.1177/0022429415595611
jrme.sagepub.com
Students

Michael P. Hewitt1

Abstract
In the present study, relationships between two components of self-regulation
(self-efficacy and self-evaluation) and gender, school level, instrument family, and
music performance were examined. Participants were 340 middle and high school
band students who participated in one of two summer music camps or who were
members of a private middle school band program. Students indicated their level of
self-efficacy for playing a musical excerpt before performing it and then self-evaluated
their performance immediately afterward. Findings suggest that there is a strong
and positive relationship between self-efficacy and both music performance and self-
evaluation. There was also a strong negative relationship between self-evaluation
calibration bias and music performance, indicating that as music performance ability
increased, students were more underconfident in their self-evaluations. Gender
differences were found for self-evaluation calibration accuracy, as female students
were more accurate than males at evaluating their performances. Middle school males
were more inclined than females to overrate their self-efficacy and self-evaluation
as compared to their actual music performance scores. These gender differences
were reversed for high school students. There were no other statistically significant
findings.

Keywords
self-efficacy, self-evaluation, music performance, gender differences

1University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:
Michael P. Hewitt, University of Maryland School of Music, 2110CSPAC, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Email: mphewitt@umd.edu

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 299

Good musicians spend countless hours developing the skills necessary for individual
and ensemble performance. For successful practice to occur, musicians must be prop-
erly motivated to practice, set goals for their practice sessions, and select appropriate
practice strategies to develop their ability to perform music of their own and others’
choosing. Furthermore, they need to monitor their progress while practicing and then
make judgments concerning the success (or lack of success) of their efforts. This infor-
mation then is used to readjust goals and practice plans. Because musicians generally
practice in isolation, it is particularly important for them to develop dispositions,
skills, and abilities that allow them to self-regulate their learning.
Zimmerman’s (2000) cyclical view of self-regulation has provided a theoretical
framework for the study of student learning in academic contexts. He described self-
regulation as the “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and
cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (p. 14) and posited that it
incorporates three sequential phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection.
The forethought stage precedes action and includes motivational structures, such as
self-efficacy, along with task analysis, goal setting, and planning. The performance
stage involves strategies related to the action being attempted; it includes the tactics
that a learner uses to accomplish a given goal and the metacognitive processes used
to self-monitor progress during performance. Self-reflection occurs after perfor-
mance, as students make judgments about their performance and modify strategies
based on those decisions. Judgments include self-evaluation of the performance and
decisions about what may have caused the results. These conclusions then influence
forethought and the beginning of another self-regulatory cycle (Labuhn, Zimmerman,
& Hasselhorn, 2010).
Zimmerman’s (1998a) framework, or theory, of self-regulation has its roots in the
social cognitive theory of Bandura (1997), which seeks to explain the triangular and
reciprocal relationship among an individual’s behaviors, personal factors, and envi-
ronmental circumstances. Bandura believes that reciprocity is best illustrated in the
notion of self-efficacy, or the beliefs that one has about his or her capabilities to per-
form specified tasks. Self-efficacy beliefs are related to a student’s choice of tasks,
persistence, achievement, and effort. Behaviors, such as self-observation and record-
ing, can impact the student’s efficacy beliefs by causing the student to view his or her
activity more or less favorably. The environment impacts the framework as students
receive feedback from teachers, parents, and others as to their progress toward specific
goals (Schunk, 1995). Variables, such as gender (e.g., Nielsen, 2004), school level
(e.g., Hewitt, 2005), and instrument type (e.g., Wrigley & Emmerson, 2013), also may
be related to self-efficacy.
In the present study, I examined the relationships among a number of components
of self-regulation, including motivational orientations (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs),
metacognitive elements of practice (i.e., accuracy of self-evaluation), and music per-
formance. Self-efficacy has been defined by Bandura (1997) as the judgments of an
individual’s capability to organize and execute a course of action required to achieve
selected performance goals, while self-evaluation is the comparison of self-monitored
information with a standard or goal (Zimmerman, 1998b). Additionally, I examined

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

300 Journal of Research in Music Education 63(3)

the impact of gender (male, female), school level (middle school, high school), and
instrument family (woodwind, brass, percussion) and the interaction effects that these
attributes may have on the dependent variables.

Literature Review
The study of self-efficacy is important in education, as students who feel more effica-
cious about their learning are more likely to engage in self-regulatory actions and create
ideal learning environments for themselves (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Sources of musi-
cal self-efficacy can include individual and group performances, observational experi-
ences, particular forms of social persuasion, and certain physiological elements, such as
sweating, headaches, and rapid heartbeat experienced by an individual while perform-
ing musical tasks (Schunk, 1991). Self-efficacy influences individual choices, because
people tend to select tasks and activities in which they feel competent and confident and
avoid those in which they do not (Schunk & Pajares, 2004). Self-efficacy correlates
positively with children’s effort and achievement in various educational contexts and
content areas, including reading (Salomon, 1984), ability to employ general learning
strategies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), math and verbal skills (Zimmerman & Martinez-
Pons, 1990), and writing (Meier, McCarthy & Schmeck, 1984). One possible reason for
this relationship is that students with higher self-efficacy tend to engage in tasks for a
longer period while also investing in activities that they believe will produce learning
(Meece & Painter, 2012; Schunk, 1995). High self-efficacy does not appear, however,
to produce competent performances when students lack the knowledge and skills to
perform the task competently (Schunk, 1995). Teaching learning strategies and instill-
ing positive beliefs have been shown to help students develop a higher sense of self-
efficacy and achievement (Schunk & Gunn, 1985).
Relatively little research exists on self-efficacy in music students. Perhaps the most
important are two studies of young instrumentalists preparing for solo examinations
(McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006). Using structural
equation modeling, the authors examined the impact that a variety of variables (includ-
ing self-efficacy) had on music performance. In the first study (McCormick &
McPherson, 2003), 332 Australian instrumentalists, ages 9 to 18, who were perform-
ing graded exams, were participants. They completed multiple measurement scales
immediately prior to performing the graded piece. The second study (McPherson &
McCormick, 2006) involved 686 students in Grades 1 though 8 (64.7% female) who
completed a graded instrument exam along with a self-efficacy measure immediately
prior to the performance. Together, the studies revealed that self-efficacy was the best
predictor of music performance among the variables examined, including anxiety,
grade level, and time spent in practice. Nielsen (2004) found that 1st-year college
music students who exhibited high self-efficacy used more specific learning strategies
than students with lower self-efficacy.
The relationship between self-efficacy and self-evaluation has been investigated in
a number of educational contexts. White, Kjelgaard, and Harkins (1995) found that
self-efficacy may rise with periodic self-evaluation. Self-evaluation was associated

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 301

with higher self-efficacy among fourth graders learning to solve fraction problems
(Schunk, 1996) and among college students studying computer applications (Schunk
& Ertmer, 1999). Positive self-evaluations appear to lead students to feel efficacious
about their learning and motivate them to continue to work diligently, because they
believe they are capable of making further progress (Schunk, 1991). In music perfor-
mance, one study showed a moderate and positive correlation (r = .30) between self-
evaluation of the quality of progress of learning and self-efficacy for learning (Ritchie
& Williamon, 2013). Furthermore, students with low self-evaluations who neverthe-
less believe that they are capable of completing a task tend to alter learning strategies
in order to obtain the specified goals (Schunk, 1990).
The degree of accuracy of learners’ self-assessments is important for effective per-
formance and academic success (Bandura, 1997; Chen, 2003; Chen & Zimmerman,
2007). When self-efficacy judgments are in line with performances, they are said to be
well calibrated (Garavalia & Gredler, 2002; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Schunk &
Pajares, 2004). Most empirical studies on the accuracy of self-evaluation show that
low-ability students have difficulty calibrating their performances accurately (Labuhn
et al., 2010). Students who overestimate their capabilities often attempt—and fail at—
challenging tasks, with the result that their motivation to continue attempting the task
decreases; on the other hand, those who underestimate their abilities seek to avoid
challenging tasks (Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2008; Schunk & Pajares, 2004), reducing
their motivation for future learning.
In music education, the calibration of music performance has been investigated in
terms of a musician’s ability to accurately assess performance through self-evaluation
(Aitchison, 1995; Bergee, 1993, 1997; Hewitt, 2002, 2005, 2011; Kostka, 1997;
Morrison, Montemayor, & Wiltshire, 2004). Generally, findings suggest that instru-
mentalists are not particularly effective at evaluating their performances (Hewitt,
2005, 2011; Morrison et al., 2004), although the precise nature of the inconsistency is
in doubt. While Hewitt (2002, 2005) discovered that middle and high school students
overrated their performances, Kostka (1997) found that college students rated their
own performances lower than experts did. Bergee (1993, 1997) found that university
musicians showed no consistency in the direction of their assessments. While accu-
racy of self-evaluation has been investigated in instrumental music, the accuracy of a
musician’s self-efficacy as it relates to performance (self-efficacy calibration) in music
has not yet been investigated. Given that high self-efficacy is important for music
performance success (Faulkner, Davidson, & McPherson, 2010; McPherson &
McCormick, 2006), examining the accuracy of student musicians’ perceived musical
competence seems warranted.
Gender differences have been reported for self-efficacy in a number of fields and
appear to vary according to subject area. A meta-analysis of 187 studies (Huang,
2013) showed that males displayed higher self-efficacy than females in math and
computer skills, while females showed higher self-efficacy in language arts. Hansen
and Bubany (2008) found that men tend to have high opinions of their capabilities in
technology, mechanical fields, math, science, and data management, while women
report high capability scores in cultural sensitivity, teamwork, office services, and

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

302 Journal of Research in Music Education 63(3)

project management. In academic areas, girls report high self-efficacy in writing

(e.g., Andrade, Wang, Du, & Akawi, 2009), while boys report it in math (T. Williams
& Williams, 2010) and some computer skills (He & Freeman, 2010), while other
curricular areas show no clear gender pattern. Females appear to use more self-
evaluation strategies when learning (Leutwyler, 2009). Girls sometimes tend to
report lower self-efficacy than do boys, especially at higher academic levels, even
when their performance is equivalent (Pajares & Miller, 1997). While differences
may exist in self-efficacy, females’ self-beliefs appear to be more accurate than
those of males in math achievement, and females are less inclined to overrate them-
selves (Pajares, 1996).
Differences in music performance self-regulation skills and beliefs based on gen-
der, age, or instrument type/family have received very little attention in peer-reviewed
research. Nielsen (2004) examined the self-efficacy beliefs of 130 first-year college
music students and found that males displayed higher self-efficacy for music perfor-
mance and greater use of critical thinking strategies than did female students. When
broken down by program, results showed that male students in performance and
church music programs displayed higher self-efficacy than did females, while females
in the music education program had higher scores than males concerning their music
performance capabilities. Middle school music students exhibited lower music perfor-
mance self-evaluation scores than high school students in some aspects of individual
performance (Hewitt, 2005), but scores were similar when evaluation took place in an
ensemble setting (Morrison et al., 2004). In subjects other than music, research sug-
gests that gender may be related to differences in achievement as children move from
elementary to middle school, with differences being fully articulated in high school
and beyond (e.g., Willingham & Cole, 1997). However, others have shown consistent
gender differences favoring girls in literacy achievement (e.g., Ready, LoGerfo,
Burkham, & Lee, 2005). Finally, in a middle school sample, Duckworth and Seligman
(2006) found a significant gender gap favoring girls in classroom grades in English,
math, and social studies but a nonexistent or small gap favoring boys on standardized
achievement and IQ tests. Instrument family may be minimally related to some meta-
cognitive aspects of music performance (e.g., Wrigley & Emmerson, 2013), but it has
been examined only sparingly in music performance.

Purpose
It is desirable for instrumental music teachers to understand and monitor student
beliefs concerning their ability to achieve success in music performance so that stu-
dents can further develop as independent, self-regulated musicians. A greater under-
standing of motivational beliefs also could lead to better teaching and learning.
Relationships among these beliefs, music performance, and other variables—such as
gender, school level, and instrument family—have not been explored. Therefore, in
the present study I investigated the relationships among self-efficacy, self-evaluation,
and music performance of secondary school band students. Specifically, the following
questions were addressed:

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 303

1. What correlations exist among self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and music perfor-

mance among secondary school band students?
2. What differences based on gender, school level, and instrument family (con-
sidered alone or in combination) exist in secondary school band students’ self-
efficacy, self-evaluation, and music performance and in their calibration of
self-efficacy and self-evaluation?

Method
Participants
Instrumentalists (N = 354) were selected from three sites: (a) a summer band camp
sponsored by a large suburban school district (n = 51), (b) a summer band camp spon-
sored by a large mid-Atlantic university (n = 92), and (c) a private middle school
located in a large metropolitan area in which all students were enrolled in band (n =
211). Data sets for 14 students were incomplete and not used in the analysis, leaving
340 participants in the study: 175 females and 165 males. There were 215 woodwind,
105 brass, and 20 percussion players. The students ranged from 5th to 12th grades (see
Table S1 in online supplemental materials, http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental).
Data were collected at three separate points between 2006 and 2012.
Students from the school district band camp were selected after auditioning for a
panel of district music teachers. Teachers selected students based on grade level, per-
formance ability, and the number of spaces available for each instrument at the camp.
The mean grade level of students at this camp was 9.40 (SD = 1.50), while the mean
amount of performing experience was 4.51 years (SD = 1.82), and the mean private
lesson experience was 2.35 years (SD = 2.24). Students attending the university band
camp had a mean grade level of 7.51 (SD = 1.11), mean instrumental experience of
2.68 years (SD = 1.08), and mean private lesson experience of 0.87 years (SD = 1.08).
Finally, the mean grade level for students enrolled at the private middle school was
6.46 (SD = 1.18), while the mean years of experience was 1.95 (SD = 1.13). Twenty-
one (10%) of the private middle school participants were taking private lessons at the
time of data collection. Institutional review board approval was obtained, and signed
informed parent/guardian consent forms and student assent forms were acquired prior
to the collection of data.

Tasks
Students in the two band camps performed an excerpt from the first movement of
Highbridge Excursions (M. Williams, 1995). Students at the private middle school
performed an étude in three parts developed by the researcher from a number of
sources and approximately 2 min in length. The first was slow, legato, and in the con-
cert key of B♭. The second was titled “Gigue” and marked at a tempo of allegro with
a meter signature indicating 6/8. The third section was marked allegretto con moto
with a meter of 2/4 and in the concert key of A♭. The music was transposed into

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

304 Journal of Research in Music Education 63(3)

appropriate keys and ranges to equalize difficulty among instruments. The music was
selected in order to (a) incorporate a variety of musical demands appropriate for the
grade level, (b) be at a difficulty level to ensure that neither a floor nor ceiling effect
be established during the pretest or posttest performances, and (c) show a similarity in
difficulty for each instrument within each grade level. The two instrumental music
teachers at the private middle school affirmed that the music was appropriate for stu-
dents at each grade level. Separate music selections were chosen for both fifth and
sixth grade (with one selection overlapping both grades’ tasks), while seventh- and
eighth-grade musicians learned identical music.
The entire data collection process took approximately 5 min for each participant.
Each student entered an isolated room where he or she was greeted by the researcher
or a research assistant. The student first completed a self-efficacy measure (described
in the following section), in which the student indicated how capable he or she thought
he or she was at performing the musical selection. The student then performed the
assigned music, which was recorded using an M-Audio MicroTrack digital recorder.
Immediately following the performance, each participant evaluated his or her perfor-
mance by completing the Woodwind Brass Solo Evaluation Form (WBSEF; Saunders
& Holahan, 1997). He or she was then thanked for his or her participation and left the
room.

Measures
Music performance.  Students’ music performance achievement was assessed using the
Solo Evaluation portion of the WBSEF, which measures instrumental performance in
seven subareas: tone, intonation, melodic accuracy, rhythmic accuracy, tempo, inter-
pretation, and technique/articulation. Six subareas utilize a 5-point scale, while tech-
nique/articulation uses an additive assessment approach that lists five descriptors. The
authors state that the instrument’s validity is strong, as there are low correlations
among subareas and strong correlations between each subarea and the overall score.
The median reliability has been reported as α = .92 across components and subareas of
the WBSEF, while interrater reliability has been reported as strong (r = .50–.97;
Hewitt, 2002, 2005). Possible total scores ranged from 6 to 35.
Two separate three-judge panels were used: one to evaluate performances of
Highbridge Excursions and a different panel for recordings of the solo étude. For each
set, recordings were transferred to a computer, edited for length so that only the ele-
ments to be evaluated were heard, and placed on a CD in randomized order. Judges
were all experienced band directors unfamiliar with the aims of the project. A different
order was used for each set of recordings. A mean score was calculated for each per-
formance and converted to a 10-point scale for easier comparison to other variables
during analysis and to more easily compute the derived variables. The mean judge
performance scores were analyzed for internal consistency and found to be high
(Cronbach’s α = .92), supporting the notion that the judges were evaluating the same
construct.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 305

Self-efficacy.  The self-efficacy measure consisted of a single question developed using

Bandura’s (2006) guidelines and adapted for use in music (McPherson & McCormick,
2006). Bandura proposed that self-efficacy be measured immediately prior to under-
taking a given event. Thus, students rated their capability for performing using a
10-point scale by circling the number that best represented how capable they thought
they were at performing the piece. Descriptive anchors were provided, with 0 listed as
not capable at all and 9 as highly capable.

Self-evaluation.  To measure self-evaluation, students completed the WBSEF immediately

following their performance. These scores were converted to a 10-point scale using the
following formula: x = 10y/35, where x is the 10-point scale score and y represents the
WBSEF score. The Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal reliability was .88.

Self-efficacy calibration bias.  Self-efficacy calibration bias was calculated by subtracting

the music performance score from the self-efficacy score (Pajares & Miller, 1997) and
shows the direction of errors in judgment. Thus, if a student’s self-efficacy assessment
(e.g., 10) and actual performance were roughly equivalent (e.g., 9.5), the bias score
(0.5) would be close to zero. If a student made a low assessment of his or her own
capability (3) but then performed well (5.5), the bias score would be negative (–2.5),
suggesting underconfidence. If a student expressed a high degree of capability (8) but
performed poorly (4), the bias score would be positive, indicating overconfidence.

Self-efficacy calibration accuracy.  To calculate this measure, the absolute value of each
bias score was subtracted from 9 (Pajares & Miller, 1997). This score conveyed the
degree of error in judgment. A score of 0 represented maximum possible inaccuracy,
while 9 denoted complete accuracy.

Self-evaluation calibration scores.  Self-evaluation calibration bias and accuracy scores

were calculated similarly to self-efficacy bias and accuracy scores, respectively, using
student self-evaluation scores and music performance ratings.

Results
To answer the study’s first question, Spearman rank correlations were calculated to
examine relationships among self-efficacy, self-evaluation, music performance, and
the four calculated calibration variables. Table 1 presents a correlation matrix for all
variables along with the means and standard deviations associated with each variable.
There was a statistically significant, strong, positive relationship (r = .69) between
self-efficacy and music performance. The relationship between self-efficacy bias and
self-evaluation bias was also statistically significant, strong and positive (r = .59),
indicating that students’ confidence in their capabilities before the performance and
their self-evaluations after the performance were similar. The performance itself did
not appear to mediate the students’ beliefs about their capabilities.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

306 Journal of Research in Music Education 63(3)

Table 1.  Music Performance, Self-Efficacy, Self-Evaluation, and Calibrated Variables: Means,
Standard Deviations, and Spearman’s Correlations (N = 340).

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Self-efficacy 7.06 1.89 —  
2. Music performance 6.80 2.18 .69* —  
3. Self-evaluation 6.38 1.51 .44* .27* —  
4. Self-efficacy bias 0.25 1.61 .26* –.52* .15* —  
5. Self-efficacy acc. 7.77 1.07 .01 .41* –.07 –.53* —  
6. Self-evaluation bias –0.41 2.25 –.36* –.76* .42* .59* –.43* —
7. Self-evaluation acc. 7.13 1.30 –.34* –.29* .21* –.02 .09 .42*

Note. acc. = accuracy.

*p < .01.

We used a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to investigate the impact

of gender, instrument family (woodwind or brass), and school level (middle or high
school) on self-efficacy, music performance, self-evaluation, and each calibrated vari-
able. Data obtained from each collection site were standardized using T scores
(Guilford, 1978; Jaccard & Becker, 1997) before being combined for analysis. Because
MANOVA procedures are particularly sensitive to the presence of outliers, the 20
participants who exceeded 1.5 times the interquartile range were removed (Tukey,
1977). Each statistically significant multivariate test was followed by a univariate test.
The nature of any differences was examined using Bonferonni post hoc tests, while
relationship strength was determined using partial eta squared (ηp2). An alpha level of
.05 was set. Because Box’s M test of equality of covariance matrices was significant
and because cell sizes were unequal, the robust Pillai’s trace statistic was used.
Statistically significant findings were identified for only the main effect of gender,
F(7, 306) = 4.37, p < .01, ηp2 = .09, and the interaction of gender and school level, F(7,
306) = 3.87, p < .01, ηp2 = .08. Univariate ANOVA tests for the gender main effect
revealed statistically significant findings for self-evaluation calibration accuracy only,
F(1, 312) = 5.79, p < .05, ηp2 = .02, as females (M = 52.03, SD = 1.26) were more
accurate in their self-evaluation than males (M = 47.76, SD = 1.25). Univariate ANOVA
tests for the interaction of gender and school level revealed significant findings for
music performance, F(1, 312) = 4.24, p < .05, ηp2 = .01; self-efficacy bias, F(1, 312) =
7.68, p < .01, ηp2 = .02; and self-evaluation bias, F(1, 312) = 9.39, p < .01, ηp2 = .03.
Middle school female music performance scores (M = 50.28, SD = 1.08) were higher
than middle school male scores (M = 48.02, SD = .83), while high school female
scores (M = 48.15, SD = 2.18) were lower than those of males (M = 52.96, SD = 2.28).
Middle school female self-efficacy bias scores (M = 49.35, SD = 1.05) were lower than
middle school male scores (M = 51.76, SD = .81), whereas high school female scores
(M = 54.03, SD = 2.14) were higher than those of high school males (M = 47.12, SD =
2.23). Female middle school self-evaluation bias scores (M = 48.36, SD = 1.10) were
lower than those of middle school males (M = 51.89, SD = .84), though high school

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 307

female scores (M = 54.21, SD = 2.22) were higher than those of males (M = 47.04,
SD = 2.32). No other statistically significant findings were identified.

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships among self-efficacy, self-
evaluation, and music performance of secondary school band students. Self-efficacy
appears to be a predictor of music performance, as the correlation between these two
variables was strong and positive. This result supports Bandura’s (1997) theory and is
similar to previous findings, both in music (e.g., Faulkner et al., 2010; McPherson &
McCormick, 2006) and in other academic areas (e.g., Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2008;
Schunk & Gunn, 1985; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Self-efficacy is impor-
tant for learning a music instrument, as students with higher self-efficacy tend to
engage in tasks necessary for improvement, such as practicing their instrument for
longer periods, and investing in tasks that they believe will help them to learn
(McPherson & McCormick, 2006). Pajares (1996) suggested that teachers should pay
as much attention to students’ predictions about their capabilities as to their actual
capabilities, as student predictions may be a better indicator of future motivation.
Therefore, music teachers may want to spend time teaching learning strategies and
helping to instill positive beliefs in students, as these interventions raise self-efficacy.
There was a statistically significant, strong, negative correlation (r = –.52) between
students’ self-efficacy calibration bias scores and their music performance scores.
Furthermore, self-efficacy calibration accuracy scores showed a statistically signifi-
cant moderate and positive relationship (r = .41) with music performance. Combined,
these results suggest that students with higher scores were less confident in their per-
formance ability (relative to their actual performance), though more accurate, than
students with lower scores. The latter result, regarding accuracy of assessment, is simi-
lar to the finding by Pajares and Miller (1997) that more capable math students were
better judges of their competence than those with less skill. It seems, as suggested by
Pajares and Kranzler (1995), that teachers may wish to assist students in determining
what they know and do not know so that they can implement effective learning strate-
gies. This approach could be of particular assistance to lower-achieving musicians,
who tend to overrate performances and be less accurate in assessments than higher
achieving students.
The correlation between self-evaluation calibration bias and music performance
scores was statistically significant and demonstrated a strong and negative (r = –.76)
relationship, while the statistically significant correlation between self-evaluation cali-
bration accuracy and music performance was weak and negative (r = –.29). These data
suggest that higher-performing students in the present study underrated their perfor-
mance ability while lower-performing students overrated their achievement. This
result supports and extends the findings of earlier music studies that students are not
particularly adept at evaluating their music performance capabilities. Furthermore, the
data support past research concerning the direction of the inaccuracies in relation to
student ability. Hewitt (2005, 2011) found that middle school students tended

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

308 Journal of Research in Music Education 63(3)

to overrate their performances, while Kostka (1997) determined that college-level

musicians underrated their capabilities. Interestingly, in the present study, as perfor-
mance ability increased, self-evaluation accuracy decreased. The reason for this rela-
tionship is not clear, though there is evidence that more gifted females may be
especially critical of themselves in some subject areas (Pajares, 1996).
The relationship between self-efficacy and self-evaluation was statistically signifi-
cant, moderate, and positive (r = .44), while the relationship between self-efficacy
calibration bias and self-evaluation calibration bias was also statistically significant,
strong, and positive (r = .59), indicating that students’ self-ratings both before and
after their performance were similar and that the direction of their misdiagnoses did
not change. These data reinforce the conclusion that students were consistent in their
ratings and that the performance did not affect their self-perception. However, the cor-
relations between self-efficacy and self-evaluation calibration bias (r = –.36) and
accuracy (r = –.34), while statistically significant, were moderate and negative, indi-
cating that students who thought they were more capable of performing prior to the
performance were less accurate in their assessment and more inclined to underrate
their performance after it took place. Some researchers (Hewitt, 2002, 2005;
Zimmerman, 2000) have suggested that having students record and then listen to their
own performances may improve their ability to listen to their performance while play-
ing. Further investigation of this particular strategy and others could be helpful in
enabling students to become more capable of self-regulating their music performance
behavior.
The effect sizes for all statistically significant findings related to the MANOVA
were very small, indicating that while differences related to gender and the other mea-
sured variables existed, the magnitude of any differences was quite small. With this in
mind, it is still important to point out that a gender difference was found for self-
evaluation calibration accuracy, as females were more accurate judges of their perfor-
mance than males. Pajares (1996) found that girls tended to be better self-evaluators in
math, but the present study is the first to examine relationships among these variables
in music. The interaction of gender and school level showed differences regarding
calibration bias of both self-efficacy and self-evaluation. At the middle school level,
females were more overconfident in both self-efficacy and self-evaluation, while male
high school students were more overconfident than female high school students; again,
the differences were relatively small. These findings tend to support previous research
indicating that self-efficacy and self-evaluation gender differences may change with
age or life stage (Huang, 2013).
While males and females demonstrated slight differences for self-evaluation cali-
bration accuracy, they viewed their capabilities for self-efficacy and self-evaluation
similarly. In previous studies, males displayed higher self-efficacy in some subject
areas (e.g., Hansen & Bubany, 2008) and females in other areas (e.g., Andrade et al.,
2009). This was the first study to examine differences in gender on these variables, and
at this global level of evaluation, there were none. It may be interesting to examine, in
future studies, whether any gender differences appear with regard to particular ele-
ments of music performance (e.g., tone quality, expression).

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 309

Some researchers have found that gender contributes to achievement disparity as

students move from elementary to middle school and that these gender differences
become even more apparent in high school and thereafter (e.g., Willingham & Cole,
1997); others (e.g., Ready et al., 2005) have found that that gender differences remain
relatively constant over time. While the present study did not examine elementary
grade–level students, gender differences were found between middle and high school
students in terms of both music achievement and self-perception. Males outperformed
females and were more overconfident in their abilities, as reflected by self-efficacy
and self-evaluation calibration bias scores; however, when school level is considered,
the results show that high school males outperformed their female counterparts while
middle school males did not. Furthermore, males were more underconfident (relative
to actual performance) in both self-efficacy and self-evaluation than were females at
the high school level, while the opposite was true for middle school musicians. Further
studies should be undertaken to examine this transformation from middle to high
school.
The present study did not explain all of the variance among the variables related to
self-regulation. Clearly, there are other variables in the forethought, performance, and
self-reflection stages of Zimmerman’s (2000) model that may impact an individual’s
ability to self-regulate for music performance. These unexamined variables should be
investigated through descriptive and experimental studies to better understand the
development of independence among young musicians. The impact of specific task
strategies, such as imagery, goal setting, and self-recording, should be examined to
help researchers and teachers alike develop successful teaching strategies for instru-
mentalists. An all-inclusive self-regulation model, developed through structural equa-
tion modeling, of instrumental music performance may be helpful to the profession.
Researchers also may wish to better control, a priori, the performance tasks under-
taken. The present study involved participants who performed one of two sets of music
in different contexts. While similar procedures have been used in other music studies
of self-regulation (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick,
2006), and statistical controls were undertaken prior to analysis, it may be interesting
to examine results based on a more controlled design, though doing so presents other
issues related to generalizability. For instance, the behaviors, comments, and attitudes
toward the musicians and camp instructors may have influenced students’ self-beliefs
concerning the future and past performances.
Accurate self-efficacy and self-evaluation skills are important for musicians to
develop if they wish to become self-regulated musicians; both of these variables are
associated closely with music performance. Efforts to improve music students’ self-
regulation capacity are needed as the profession continues to examine ways in which
young students learn. As practitioners develop effective methods and curricular mate-
rials for developing independent musicianship skills, they may also wish to be aware
of gender and school-level differences among students’ beliefs, so that they can adopt
appropriate instructional approaches. Researchers can contribute to the quality of
instruction by continuing to examine other components of self-regulation of music
performance.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

310 Journal of Research in Music Education 63(3)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Supplemental Material
Table S1 is available at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental.

References
Aitchison, R. A. (1995). The effects of self-evaluation techniques on the musical performance,
self-evaluation accuracy, motivation, and self-esteem of middle school instrumental music
students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(10A), 3875.
Andrade, H. L., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment
and self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 287–301. doi:10.3200/
JOER.102.4.287-302
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. P. T. Urdan (Ed.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury
performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 19-27. doi:10.2307/3345476
Bergee, M. J. (1997). Relationships among faculty, peer, and self-evaluations of applied per-
formances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 601–612. doi:10.2307/3345425
Chen, P. P. (2003). Exploring the accuracy and predictability of the self-efficacy beliefs of
seventh-grade mathematics students. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 79–92.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2003.08.003
Chen, P. P., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). A cross-national comparison study on the accuracy
of self-efficacy beliefs of middle-school mathematics students. Journal of Experimental
Education, 75, 221–244. doi:10.3200/JEXE.75.3.221-244
Duckworth, A. L, & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in
self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98, 198–208.
Faulkner, R., Davidson, J. W., & McPherson, G. E. (2010). The value of data mining in
music education research and some findings from its application to a study of instrumen-
tal learning during childhood. International Journal of Music Education, 28, 212–230.
doi:10.1177/0255761410371048
Garavalia, L. S., & Gredler, M. E. (2002). An exploratory study of academic goal setting,
achievement calibration and self-regulated learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
29, 221–230.
Guilford, J. P. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Hansen, J. T., & Bubany, S. T. (2008). Do self-efficacy and ability self-estimate scores reflect
distinct facets of ability judgments? Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 41, 66–88.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 311

He, J., & Freeman, L.A. (2010). Are men more technology-oriented than women? The role of
gender on the development of general computer self-efficacy of college students. Journal
of Information Systems Education, 21, 203–212.
Hewitt, M. P. (2002). Self-evaluation tendencies of junior high instrumentalists. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 50, 215–226. doi:10.2307/3345799
Hewitt, M. P. (2005). Self-evaluation accuracy among high school and middle school
instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 148–161. doi:10.2307/
3345515
Hewitt, M. P. (2011). The impact of self-evaluation instruction on student self-evaluation,
music performance, and self-evaluation accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education,
59, 6–20. doi:10.1177/0022429410391541
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: a meta-analysis. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y
Jaccard, J., & Becker, M. A. (1997). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kostka, M. J. (1997). Effects of self-assessment and successive approximations on “know-
ing” and “valuing” selected keyboard skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45,
273–281. doi:10.2307/3345586
Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation
and mathematics performance: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards.
Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 173–194. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2
Leutwyler, B. (2009). Metacognitive learning strategies: Differential development patterns in
high school. Metacognition Learning, 4, 111–123. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9037-5
McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance
examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31, 37–51.
doi:10.1177/0305735603031001322
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology
of Music, 34, 322–336. doi:10.1177/0305735606064841
Meece, J. L., & Painter, J. (2012). Gender, self-regulation, and motivation. In D. H. Schunk &
B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 339–368). New York, NY: Rutledge.
Meier, S., McCarthy, P. R., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984) Validity of self-efficacy as a predic-
tor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 107–120. doi:10.1007/
BF01173038
Morrison, S. J., Montemayor, M., & Wiltshire, E. S. (2004). The effect of a recorded model
on band students’ performance self-evaluations, achievement, and attitude. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 52, 116–129. doi:10.2307/3345434
Nielsen, S. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual
practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32, 418–431.
doi:10.1177/0305735604046099
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0025
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathemati-
cal problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426–443. doi:10.1006/
ceps.1995.1029
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. (1997). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematical problem solving:
Implications of using different forms. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 213–228. doi:
10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

312 Journal of Research in Music Education 63(3)

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Ramdass, R., & Zimmerman, B. (2008). Effects of self-correction strategy training on middle
school students’ self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and mathematics division learning. Journal
of Advanced Academics, 20, 18–41.
Ready, D. D., LoGerfo, L. F., Burkam, D. T., & Lee, V. E. (2005). Explaining girls’ advantage
in kindergarten literacy learning: Do classroom behaviors make a difference? Elementary
School Journal, 106, 21–38. doi:10.1086/496905
Ritchie, L., & Williamon, A. (2013). Measuring musical self-regulation: Linking processes,
skills, and beliefs. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(1), 106–117. doi:10.11114/
jets.v1i1.81
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of
mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 647–658. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.76.4.647
Saunders, T. C., & Holahan, J. M. (1997). Criteria-specific rating scales in the evaluation of
high school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 259–
272. doi:10.2307/3345585
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 25, 71–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26,
207–231. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-
efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 281–303).
New York, NY: Plenum.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359–382. doi:10.3102/00028312033002359
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisi-
tion: Goals and self-evaluative influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 251–
260. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.251
Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1985). Modeled importance of task strategies and achievement
beliefs: Effects on self-efficacy and skill development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5,
247–258. doi:10.1177/0272431685052008
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited. Empirical and applied
evidence. In D. M. McInerney & S. V. Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 115–138).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
White, P. H., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1995). Testing the contribution of self-
evaluation to goal-setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 69–79.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.69
Williams, M. (1995). Highbridge excursions. Van Nuys, CA: Alfred.
Williams, T., & Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal
determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 453–466. doi:10.1037/
a0017271
Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (Eds.). (1997). Gender and fair assessment: Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015

Hewitt 313

Wrigley, W. J., & Emmerson, S. B. (2013). The experience of the flow state in live music per-
formance. Psychology of Music, 41, 292–305. doi:10.1177/0305735611425903
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998a). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-
regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73–86. doi:10.1080/00461520.1998
.9653292
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998b). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analy-
sis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-
regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In
M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (2nd ed.,
pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & 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, 51–59. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.51

Author Biography
Michael P. Hewitt is professor of music education at the University of Maryland. His research
interests include self-regulation in music, music performance assessment, and music teacher
education.
Submitted September 18, 2013; accepted November 14, 2014.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at Doðu Akdeniz Üniversitesi on December 3, 2015