42

Students’ Attributions Of Sources Of Influence On

Self-Perception In Solo Performance In Music

Allan Hewitt
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore university students’ attributions of
sources of influence on their Perceived Control beliefs in relation to solo
performance in music. Drawing on data collected in semi-structured interviews,
the paper outlines three principal sources of influence; assessment, previous
performance experiences, and significant others (most particularly the peer group
and the solo performance tutor). Students described a variety of ways in which
these sources of influence were believed to shape and inform how they view
themselves in terms of ability, confidence and work-rate, and the paper explores the
significance of these attributions for those involved in the delivery and
management of music programmes in the higher education sector. Attention is
drawn in particular to the contrasting experiences of musicians from varying
traditions and genres of music, and to the highly significant influence of the peer
group upon self-perception as a performer.

H
istorically, assessment has played an important role at all levels of formal
education. Most often, and especially in higher education, the outcome of
assessment has been a summative and quantitative evaluation of learning in
the form of a grade or a percentage for a particular course or module. More recently,
however, greater emphasis has been placed on the formative aspects of assessment,
adding a further dimension (and increased workload) to the process.
Most commonly this can be seen in the standard practice of providing
‘feedback’ to a student in addition to the summative grade or mark. This is typically
intended as an explanation and justification of the grade awarded, an opportunity
for the assessor to make suggestions as to how the work might be further improved
or to comment on aspects of the work that have been particularly impressive. In the
area of music education this feedback is most often related to a specific piece of
work, for example an essay, a recital, or a composition, rather than a more general
reflection of performance across a range of activities. However, it appears to be an
important development, both from the learning and teaching perspective and from
the students’ viewpoint. Martens and Dochy (1997), for example, reported that
students highly value the provision of such information and believe it to contribute
significantly to overall academic achievement.
The process of feedback, even if it relates to a single activity such as a recital,
can be considered to operate on two levels. First, as I have noted it provides specific
information about the quality of a piece of work. Second, and at a somewhat deeper
level, it may also play an important role in developing the recipient’s sense of
identity as a learner and, in the context of music, as a performer, composer, analyst
and so on. This is an exceedingly important consequence of any assessment process;
it suggests that through assessment feedback, educators have the opportunity to
influence and inform how students subsequently approach future activities that
require them to draw upon this sense of ‘identity’, such as a future solo performance

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 43

recital. If this sense of self-perception is an important influence on how the

individual performs in future contexts, it is imperative that those involved in
providing assessment feedback develop an understanding of its potential in
empowering subsequent performance.
The concept of identity, or how individuals view themselves, has been the
subject of increased interest in the field of music research (e. g. MacDonald,
Hargreaves, & Meill, 2002; McCormick & McPherson, 2003). The development of the
musician’s sense of identity is influenced by a wide range of factors which relate both
to the individual as a ‘musician’ and to the individual more generally. Specific
characteristics of a ‘musical’ identity may be seen to emerge at a fairly early age
(O'Neill, 2002) in the same way as more generalised self-perceptions in relation to
competence and achievement (Dweck, 1986). From a social constructionist
perspective, however, these views of the self remain flexible and open to change
across the lifespan, in across different contexts. The important factor for the research
reported in this article is that self-perception can be influenced by factors outwith the
individual, and that it exerts a degree of control upon behavioural patterns.
Research has suggested, for example, that the individual musician’s sense of
identity can have a significant influence on a range of behaviours, including practice
strategies and attainment in performance examination. This corresponds with
research into the significance of self-perception in more general academic contexts,
where the relationship between a sense of identity and attainment has been well-
documented. To take some examples, Lane and Lane (2001) have suggested that self-
efficacy (belief in one’s ability to produce the behaviours required for successful
outcomes in a given situation) plays an important role in determining academic
achievement. Ruggutt et al (1998) have reported similar findings, and suggest that
students’ sense of self-efficacy in learning is a more potent factor in determining the
outcomes of learning than variables such as perceptions of the classroom
environment or personal motivation to succeed. Stoever (2002) has argued that
students’ attributions of locus of control (the extent to which they feel responsible for
the outcomes of learning and teaching) play an influential role in overall academic
success, while Clary and Thieman (2002), working with university students, found
that participants who felt able to take personal responsibility for problem-solving
within their academic work achieved higher levels of academic success than those
who lacked this sense of responsibility.
A further factor that is notable both in the research into identity in a musical
sense and in educational contexts in general is that investigators have sought to
(necessarily) tie down what they mean by ‘identity’. Some of the studies cited above,
for example, have explored self-efficacy as a component of identity, recognising that
self-perception or identity is a particularly difficult concept to define and theorise.
For this reason, one theoretical framework of self-perception, that of Perceived
Control Theory (Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Connell, 1998), was selected as the
basis for two studies, one of which is reported here. The theory was identified as an
appropriate model by which self-perception can be operationalised because it is an
attempt to combine salient aspects of previous models, and because it has been used
fairly extensively with high school and, to a lesser extent, college-level students.
Perceived Control Theory is based on the premise that individuals have strategic and
capability beliefs about particular situations; the strategic is concerned with what
they need to do to succeed, and the capability with the extent to which they think
they will be able to produce the ‘success’ behaviours. Researchers working in the
field have recognized five key variables which appear important to individuals
across all age ranges; ability, effort, confidence, luck, and significant others (Skinner,
Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004
© 2004 Callaway Centre
44

Wellborn & Connell, 1990; Chapman, Skinner & Baltes, 1990). Crucially, the
underlying hypothesis of the model is that the disparity between the individual’s
capability and strategic beliefs is the most significant influence on subsequent
academic performance. In an exploratory study with a group of music education
students this was found to the case (Jeanneret, 1993). This was replicated in an
exploratory study with music students in the area of solo performance (Hewitt,
2003).
One of the more interesting aspects of this field, in the context of academic
performance, is whether perceptions of control are more important than actual
control. Hammarberg and Hagekull (2000), for example, suggest that subjective or
perceived control is more important for actual behaviour than real levels of control.
It therefore seems appropriate that researchers in music education explore the
underlying assumptions and influences on students’ self-perception within this
particular framework. The purpose of this article is to report on a study that
focussed on the underlying reasons for music students believing the things they do
about their abilities, confidence and effort in solo performance1. A particular focus
was to investigate the extent to which students would, unprompted, declare that
written and grade-based feedback from previous assessments had influenced their
subsequent belief patterns about themselves and about the activity.
There is in the literature a body of work that explores this relationship
between assessment and subsequent belief patterns. To take a limited selection,
Dweck and Repucci (1973) have suggested that it is possible to modify a learner’s
attributions of failure into patterns which produce more successful outcomes.
Dweck (1975) developed this idea by arguing that the simple provision of ‘success
experiences’ is not enough to influence academic success; individual students must
change their attributional patterns for such change to be achieved. Assessment
feedback is one possible method for such change to take place; indeed, I would argue
that it is vital that the feedback given to students forms the basis of subsequent self-
perception, and more general feelings about learning. As such it is worthy of
attention.

Methodology
As the purpose of the study was to investigate the influences on self-
perception (operationalised with the Perceived Control model) that students identify
as being significant, a semi-structured interview approach was taken. This
complemented a related study in which the same group of participants were asked to
identify the manner in which they saw Perceived Control beliefs influencing their
performance in solo performance assessments, and facilitated a broad, exploratory
approach to data gathering. Indeed, as there have been no previous applications of
Perceived Control as a method of operationalising self-perception in music, a
qualitative paradigm seemed most appropriate as a way of establishing a baseline of
student perceptions upon which further work can be undertaken.
Fourteen undergraduate music students in the second year of an
undergraduate music degree agreed to participate in interviews with the researcher.
Participant selection was based on random sampling of the total second year

1 It is important to note that two variables within the Perceived Control framework (luck and significant others)
have been omitted in this study due to time constraints.

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 45

population, resulting in eight male and six female students being invited for
interview. Participants represented a broad range of instruments and genres1:
• A rock rhythm guitarist (male)
• A jazz/ rock drummer (male)
• A traditional fiddle (or violin) player (male)
• A classical violinist (female)
• Three classical pianists (two female and one male)
• One jazz pianist (male)
• A classical trumpet player (male)
• A traditional clarsach (or harp) player (female)
• Two rock vocalists (one male and one female)
• Two classical vocalists (one male and one female)
Students ranged in age from 18 to 37. Interviews lasted around one hour and
were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis. The structure of the
interviews was heavily influenced by the research focus, specifically probing
participants for the underlying influences behind their perceptions of their own
ability, effort and confidence prior to, and following, a solo performing examination
undertaken in the previous academic year. Core questions, which formed the basis
of each interview, were as follows;
1. How do you see yourself in terms of your ability on your solo performance
instrument? Can you describe the reasons why you think that about yourself?
2. How do you see yourself in terms of your confidence when playing in public
on your solo performance instrument? Can you describe the reasons why you
think that about yourself?
3. How do you see yourself in terms of the effort you put into developing your
skills on your solo performance instrument? Can you describe the reasons
why you think that about yourself?
Analysis took place in NVivo using an interpretive phenomenological
approach and involved the search for significant themes or aspects that related to
each of the three variables (ability, confidence, and effort) under investigation. In a
second analytical phase the significant themes that emerged from the analysis of
responses relating to each discrete variable were consolidated into a further set of
generic attributions made by participants. This process produced a rich set of
concepts that form the basis of the following results section. As is common in semi-
structured interview approaches the analytical process produced more thematic
material than is possible (or desirable) to include in a paper-length work. To this end
the results that follow concentrate on what appeared to be the three most significant
attributions (i.e., they attracted most comment during interviews) that participants
made in terms of influences on their Perceived Control beliefs in solo performance,
namely assessment, significant others, and previous performing experience.

Results
In the following section each influence is reviewed in turn, subdivided into
appropriate themes and exemplified with quotations from individual participants.

1 The styles named here represent the main area of repertoire performed by each student as identified by them
during the interview. Most students will, however, regularly perform music from some or all of the genres
listed.

Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004

© 2004 Callaway Centre
46

The Influence of Assessment

As expected, assessment was believed to be a significant influence on student
self-perception. Four key aspects of this were identified during interview analysis:
1. The ‘raw’ assessment result1;
2. The written feedback provided to the student subsequent to the assessment;
3. The assessment process itself;
4. Previous experiences of assessment.
Perceptions Relating to Assessment Results
Assessment results were reported as influential factors on self-perception in
situations where the result of an assessment was felt to match what the student
thought about their performance:
Failing made me realise my judgement of my ability was good, because I knew I deserved to fail (Female
classical pianist)
For this student, while the result of the assessment was negative, the effect was
considered positive in that it reinforced their belief in their own evaluative
capabilities. In the context of confidence, participants also reported that a negative
result would not dent their confidence if it was felt to be deserved. However, when
discussion turned to the influence on effort of negative results, some participants
suggested that a negative result might confirm feelings of worthlessness, and a
common reaction of students other than themselves might be to say “I’m no good, so
I’m giving up”.
A second role for the examination result was in the provision of valuable
information about the level of ability of the student, principally because it was, for
many, the first time they were being compared to “seriously good players”. As one
student noted,
Receiving the assessment result was the first time I had any kind of bearing on where my ability is.
(Male rock drummer)
In addition to these two roles, which essentially confirm existing perceptions,
the assessment result was held to be responsible for some degree of change in the
way students view themselves in the context of the activity. Assessment results, for
example, were reported to inspire greater effort rather than dent confidence;
At first it made me feel even worse (in terms of confidence)…but I needed that kick…(Female classical
pianist)
Results may encourage greater effort and, by doing so, influence ability
levels because the experience of failing may encourage the student to increase their
effort;
I want to get a merit this year, so obviously I’ll work harder. (Male rock guitarist)
The result could, however, have little influence on students’ self-perception,
again depending on the students’ views of the examination context. In terms of how
a student views their instrumental ability, for example, the exam outcome may not
be considered to truly reflect the ability of the player; exam outcome and ability may
not, in other words, be the same thing:
You could be an average player who does extremely well on the day, and gets a great mark…(Male folk
violinist)

1 The students involved in this study would have received a single grade from 0 to 9 for their previous solo
performance assessment.

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 47

Notably, this quote was provided by a student for whom the examination
system was considerably at odds with their usual performance environment. The
influence of assessment context will be returned to later in this article. Finally,
participants felt that the result may not truly reflect development in ability levels
over the year; everyone is placed on a level playing field which may not be fair, as
some students may have made significant progress yet not perform to as high a
standard as those who entered with very high levels of skill, but have made little
progress.
Perceptions Relating to Assessment Feedback
During interviews the term ‘feedback’ was used to denote the written
information passed back to students additional to, and in explanation of, the raw
score for their assessment1. Students identified a range of ways in which this
extended feedback was believed to shape and inform their own beliefs about
themselves as musicians, and as learners.
First, participants suggested that feedback informs their perceptions of how
important particular variables are in determining exam outcome. This strategic role
of assessment feedback was described in various ways, for example:
I know what to work on now, I know what they’re looking for. (Male rock guitarist)
Assessors’ comments could, for example, confirm that particular deficiencies
in variables (e.g., confidence) had negatively affected the exam result, hence
consolidating the supposed role of these variables. In many cases, this particular
type of feedback would inform students of the direction they should take in future
developmental work (such as the need to work on technical aspects like bowing).
The clarification of the strategic importance of certain variables through feedback
suggested to those students that these were areas in which they should focus if they
wished to be successful in future assessments. As such, it could be seen to perform
an important role in influencing subsequent development and attainment.
Written feedback was also believed to influence students’ capacity beliefs. In
the instance outlined above, the student found that assessment feedback confirmed
their perceptions of themselves on a particular variable (confidence). Other students
felt that assessment feedback provided similar confirmation of their own perceptions
of themselves in aspects such as ability, effort, and confidence. This could be overt
(e.g., through specific comments about, say, ability) or implied (e.g., positive
comments about the performance were taken to indicate that, for example, levels of
effort expended in exam preparation had been sufficient).
Furthermore, assessment feedback was reported to increase students’ perceptions of their own
capacity. So, for example, some students reflected that receiving positive feedback from the
assessment panel increased their self-perception, particularly in the area of ability. This, in
turn, was felt to have a positive influence on personal confidence levels:
It’s good to have other people saying this was good…(Male jazz pianist)
Assessment feedback was not, however, unanimously agreed to be a
significant influence on perceived control beliefs in either in the strategic or capacity
sense. This lack of influence was variously attributed to perceived problems in the
nature of the assessment process and in students questioning the validity of the
process. To take one example, several students (notably the non-classical musicians)

1 Each student would have received a detailed commentary on each piece played as part of the recital. This
commentary does not follow a set pattern and can focus on, among other things, technical, aesthetic, or
performance-related aspects of the recital.

Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004

© 2004 Callaway Centre
48

suggested that assessment feedback had limited influence on their self-perceptions

because the process itself did not accurately reflect their ‘true’ levels of, for example,
ability. As one participant, a rock guitarist, said, “it’s not changed how I see myself
as a player”. Two students who undertake a significant amount of semi-professional
work outside the university described a perceived separation between themselves ‘as
players’ in a semi-professional context and the role they were obliged to adopt in the
examination. These were non-classical musicians who, although used to public
performance, were very unused to performing in a solo context. Any feedback
gained from such assessment experiences, while welcomed, was not believed to
significantly change the recipients’ capacity beliefs as the situated context of the
assessment was dramatically different from their usual performance experience.
Second, the validity of the process was questioned, with participants
suggesting that, often, assessed performances upon which feedback was based were
not ‘true’ reflections of their ability, effort and so on. Other factors, they argued,
contaminated the process (such as a lack of confidence). So again, while feedback
was welcomed, its influence on self-perception was felt to be significantly reduced.
Finally, there were some instances where students simply did not accept the
truth of the assessment panel’s comments. In such cases, where there is a dispute in
evaluation, it is hard to envisage assessment feedback having any role in developing
self-perceptions. Rather, the student simply denies that the feedback has anything
important to say to them about their musicianship or competence.
Perceptions Relating to the Assessment Process
Students made a number of observations that related specifically to the
mechanism of assessment. As noted above the participant group generally agreed
that assessment feedback, as well as the grade awarded, could perform an important
role in shaping subsequent self-perception in the area of solo performance.
However, they suggested that feedback from the panel in relation to their
performance should be more extensive than had been the case with their previous
assessment. Some suggested that an opportunity for discussion with the panel might
be helpful both in clarifying the reasons for the grade awarded, and to elicit practical
advice on how future performances might be better. Even where this was
impossible, students believed that written feedback from the assessment should
cover both summative and formative aspects, being diagnostic in terms of future
development needs as well as reflective of the attended performance. Finally,
students stressed the need for feedback to be provided shortly after the assessment
itself, particularly for those who may have failed the examination. The role of
feedback in improving future performance was, they believed, particularly important
in this kind of situation.
Importantly, students’ reports of the influence of the assessment process on their self-
perception tended to be aspect-specific. On this basis the influence of the assessment process
on confidence, ability and effort beliefs is outlined in separate sections below.
In terms of confidence students reported that the manner of assessment for
solo performance had a significant influence on their perceived capacity. For
example, several participants described the influence of the manner of the
assessment panel (personable vs. cold) in determining the level of confidence with
which they began playing. Another aspect was the negative influence on confidence
of unclear expectations. In these responses, students suggested that their levels of

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 49

confidence were lessened because they were uncertain about various aspects of the
assessment, including expectations, grading and so on,
In terms of ability and competence, as outlined above, a number of students
questioned whether their assessment performance in solo performance was a ‘true’
reflection of their actual ability. In such cases, the process itself may be flawed in
that it does not truly measure what it intends to. The example was cited above of a
non-classical rock guitarist who is extremely gifted at what he does, but whose
playing does not fit the usual model of a solo performer. In such cases, the
examination process itself ensured that subsequent results or feedback had little
influence on self-perception; save to leave the student feeling a little bitter that their
true ability had not been recognised formally.
Third, the assessment process was believed to be a powerful influence on the
strategic importance of effort. Students reported that the knowledge of the
forthcoming assessment had been a strong motivator on their practice; this was
particularly true for those students who wished to do well in the exam. The exam
was seen to “give you a goal”, and as prompting students to “get on with it”. So the
process itself (in comparison to alternative forms of assessment) may function as a
significant influence on students’ beliefs about the importance of effort.
Perceptions Relating to Prior Assessment Experiences
While most assessment-related discussion during interview focussed on
degree-specific assessment experiences, analysis suggested that students also
identified a number of ways in which assessments further in the past were believed
to have influenced their perceptions about themselves as performers. These were
synthesised into two broad categories, concerning strategic and capacity beliefs
respectively.
In Perceived Control theory strategic beliefs are those perceptions that
individuals have about what it is important to do in order to successfully complete a
task. In the present context, students discussed how assessment influenced their
perceptions of what was required to do well in the solo performance exam. The
influence of assessment on strategic beliefs was evident in a number of interviews,
where participants described (for example) how low levels of confidence had
negatively influenced their performance. To them this had informed their belief in
the relative importance of the variable because poor performance was attributed to it.
Similarly, in the case of effort participants highlighted situations in which their poor
performance had been attributed (both by themselves and by others) to lack of hard
work; such cases tended to make the students believe more strongly in the
importance of effort in determining assessment outcomes.
Prior performance experiences were also held to have some influence on
existing perceptions with regard to capacity beliefs. Capacity beliefs are those
perceptions individuals have about how well they will be able to do certain things in
the future. In terms of confidence, for example, participants suggested that previous
successful experiences of assessment increased their own perceptions of their
abilities, and hence increased their confidence. Similarly, negative assessment
experiences were held responsible for subsequent decreases in confidence levels. In
terms of ability, the fact that previous assessments had to an extent validated the
individual’s perceived level of ability confirmed to them that they did indeed possess
high ability; this included, for example, a successful audition for undergraduate
study. As one student suggested, in the context of previous successes in Associated
Board exams:

Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004

© 2004 Callaway Centre
50
I just tell myself, well, I can’t be all that bad, if I’ve got all these things (certificates)…(Male classical
trumpet player)
While assessment was believed by many participants to play a highly
significant role in shaping students’ self-perceptions, additional factors were also
identified. This suggests that assessment processes and results are not the sole
influence on how students perceive themselves in terms of ability, effort and
confidence in the context of solo performance. In the following sections, two of these
additional factors (previous performing experiences and significant others) are
discussed. In a final section, I return to the issue of assessment from an
organisational perspective.
The Influence of Previous Performing Experiences
Analysis of interview data suggested that, in addition to assessment,
previous performing experiences (performances before the assessment) were
believed to play a significant role in shaping how they saw themselves in terms of
confidence, ability and effort in the immediate run-up to the examination. Common
to a number of contributions was the idea that the existence of a set of successful
performances in the student’s memory played a positive role in self-perception. This
is unsurprising, but less expected was the perceived importance of the situational
relevance of these prior experiences. In other words the extent to which feelings of
confidence or capability engendered by one situation could be transferred to another
(ostensibly similar) situation was considerably limited. For example, in describing
this relationship between previous performing experiences and subsequent feelings
about the solo performance assessment, several students noted that the two contexts
were so different that it was impossible for transference to take place. An obvious
example of this, referred to above, was of the rock rhythm guitarist who felt unable
to apply feelings of confidence and ability from their usual situation (the rock band
playing in clubs) to the assessment situation (a solo performance). This student
believed that the ambience, demands and expectations of the two contexts were
substantively different, to such an extent that success in one had no relevance to the
other.
For a number of participants the most helpful previous performing
experiences were those that had included repertoire which was to be included in the
assessment. The pianists, for example, had the opportunity to publicly perform their
recital material a few weeks before the examination. This was understood to
influence all three variables under consideration in this section, as successful
performance of identical repertoire prior to the examination suggested to the
students that they had not only exercised sufficient effort in preparation, but that
they had adequate ability and sufficient confidence to produce an effective
performance. This may indicate that the performer’s sense of competence as a
musician is constructed in part by individual items of repertoire, as much as it is by
more general considerations of competence or confidence on a particular instrument,
or indeed as a musician more generally.
Turning to specific variables, successful performances were believed to
develop an increased sense of self-confidence. Students suggested that in building
up a bank of such experiences they were moving towards a situation in which the
negative influence of nervousness or reticence in public performance would
gradually diminish. Confidence appeared to be conceptualised as something that
could be “worked on”, each performance being a “rung on the ladder of knowing I
can put nerves out of my mind”. One rock musician reflected that:

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 51

I suppose my confidence as a performer has come on a hell of a lot in the last year . . . we’ve done a lot of
gigs, and that’s helped.
Successful performances were also believed to influence self-perceptions of
ability. Using phrases such as “I always seem to have done well” or “I knew they’d
(the performances) gone alright”, students described how their perceptions of their
own (high) levels of ability had been informed by their previous performance
experience. For players in all genres the positive feedback of audiences had, as one
participant described “given a wee boost in terms of your own abilities and powers
as a performer”.
Third, successful performances influenced self-awareness of effort. Again,
students’ talk was primarily concerned with the positive influence of having
achieved a successful outcome in the past and comparing this to the amount of effort
expended to achieve that outcome. Adequate effort was conceptualised, for one
student, as being enough to “get me wherever I want to be”.
Previous performing experiences may therefore be powerful influences on
how students see themselves as performers, particularly in terms of how they
evaluate their existing levels of confidence, ability and effort. These performances
appear to provide benchmarks against which more recent evaluations can be
measured.
The Influence of Significant Others
Finally, the importance of other people (who are influential enough to
legitimately form part of the ‘significant others’ category) in informing self-
perception was noted extensively during interviews, confirming the importance of
other people on the musician’s emergent sense of self-identity noted elsewhere in the
literature (Davidson, 2002). To facilitate analysis, two sub-categories were developed
based on the role of the group relative to the participant, termed ‘peer group’ and
‘tutors’ in the following sections.
The Influence of the Peer Group
The peer group, defined as other musicians on the same degree course,
regardless of age or level, were believed to exert a significant influence on how
students saw themselves in terms of ability, effort and confidence. By making direct
comparisons between themselves and other music students, participants appeared to
create benchmarks against which their own perceived levels and achievements could
be evaluated. For example, in the context of confidence, the peer group were found
to influence beliefs in two ways. The first of these may be considered a negative
influence; by becoming aware of other musicians’ strengths, the student is made
aware of characteristics they themselves do not possess. For example, participants in
the study described viewing other students as being “really into their first study”, or
having “this love of playing in front of people”. These overt displays of confidence
told the observer that they were somehow deficient, and that their performances
would be less effective as a result. Students suggested that this in turn produced a
drop in confidence, and so the situation got worse. A second, more positive
influence on confidence came about through observing and hearing other students
who were less able and less confident than the observer. Realising that they were
actually more able than other students was described as a significant boost to
confidence.
Significantly, much of this development of comparative benchmarks was
informal; it took place in the absence of full information about other students’
behaviours. It was impressionistic in the sense that, as one student described, other

Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004

© 2004 Callaway Centre
52

students “put on an act that they’re confident” where in fact they may feel “really
intimidated”. Students may believe they lack confidence in comparison to other
students when, in fact, those other students are feeling just as nervous. Similarly,
self-reporting of ‘hours practiced’ may be wildly inaccurate, but signally important
in making other students feel lazy or unfocussed.
In the context of ability participants described the significance of positive
comments from respected peers on their perceptions of personal ability:
Coming to university and playing with other musicians who you knew were really good, and them
complimenting you. (Male classical trumpet player)
As was the case in the context of assessment the experience of beginning an
undergraduate music degree was considered the first ‘true test’ of an individual’s
ability. Receiving positive comments from respected players in the peer group took
on particular significance in that it provided what was considered an accurate
benchmark against which personal ability could be evaluated. As for confidence,
observing and working with students who were significantly more advanced could
have a detrimental effect, and indeed cause the student to question their own levels
of ability:
It’s quite a shock, quite intimidating. . . it always makes you wonder about your own ability.
Finally, the peer group were found to have a significant influence on how
effort and work rate was evaluated. Other student musicians were used to create
benchmarks against which personal effort in solo performance was measured:
We’ve got some people, like X, who works so hard. . . that did kind of scare me. (Female classical
pianist)
In a positive sense, however, this could also encourage students to increase
their own efforts:
I know I’m playing catch-up with them . . . looking at those guys, a lot of it is inspirational. (Male rock
drummer)
Alternatively, having a sense that one’s own level of effort is less than other
students was not necessarily a spur to greater effort or a cause for concern. Two
students brought out this theme in their discussion, one suggesting that effort was a
global variable and needed to be spread throughout the modules in their course,
rather than focussing on one thing:
… some folk went absolutely crazy on practise, threw everything else out of the window and
concentrated on one thing. (Female classical vocalist)
Another felt that although they practised less than other students (or at least
believed that they did) it would be inappropriate for them to adopt the more
rigorous regimes of other students; “that kind of approach just wouldn’t work for
me”. Interestingly, this came from one of the most able students (in terms of solo
performance) in the participant group.
As before, the issue of validity in the development of what are really
informal benchmarks of effort levels was raised. When asked how she knew that
other students were working much harder than her, one participant described how
she based her evaluation on:
…hearing them, seeing their names on practice sheets, it’s obvious that they put in the hours. (Female
classical pianist)

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 53

Clearly, this may not be the most rigorous way for students to develop a
sense of the work rate of their peers, and the implications of this are discussed in the
final section of this article.
The Influence of the Solo Performance Tutor
Alongside the peer group, solo performance tutors were described as
significant influences in determining how students perceived themselves as
performers. While perceptions of peer group influence were often based on
observational or conjectural data, the influence of the tutor was most often mediated
through direct verbal communication within the one-to-one lesson1. Given the status
of the tutor and the immediacy of the communication it is unsurprising that a great
deal of weight was given to such feedback.
In terms of the student’s confidence, for example, significant influence was
attributed both to positive comments about playing and to the student believing that
they had received high-quality guidance. Messages such as “you can play this, you
can totally do this” were, if received from a tutor who already had the student’s
respect, felt to increase confidence levels significantly. Similarly, in the context of
ability beliefs students suggested that receiving positive comments from their tutor
significantly influenced their own self-perceptions in this area. Participants
described the influence of positive comments such as “yeah, you’ve got the ability to
do this” or “my teacher just kept saying, ‘that’s really good’”. Less overt, but
perhaps of no lesser importance than these verbal cues, were instances where
alternative forms of tutor communication was described as influencing personal
ability beliefs. These included the tutor encouraging the student to develop a sense
of enjoyment about their playing, which was in turn felt to influencing ability, or the
tutor themselves embodying a model of excellence which the student felt had rubbed
off on them.
Finally, in terms of effort perceptions, tutor influence was believed to be a
major factor. As an example, in some cases effort was deliberately increased because
students wanted to impress their tutor with “the amount of effort I’ve put in between
lessons”. In this case, the motivation came from the student rather than the tutor,
although clearly the wise tutor may well exert a subtle influence in developing these
expectations. Tutors, for example, were described as requiring particular amounts of
effort from their students, either through direct instructions or through more subtle,
shared understandings:
We have a shared understanding of what I’m expected to do, how hard I’m expected to work, between
lessons. (Male classical pianist)

Discussion
In the preceding section some of the most significant themes that emerged
during the analysis of interview data were outlined. It was suggested that students
most readily identified three major sources of information about their own
capabilities in the area of solo performance; assessment, previous experience, and
significant others. To conclude I will explore three implications that arise from the
study that are salient for teaching and assessment practice in music within higher
education settings.

1 Students involved in this study received a weekly solo performance lesson on a one-to-one basis with a
specialist on their instrument.

Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004

© 2004 Callaway Centre
54

The Challenge to Assessment Practice

The implications of the above findings for assessment practice are, I believe,
both unambiguous and significant. They centre on the concepts of process validity,
informative feedback, and recognition of the individual. Process validity was
undoubtedly recognized as a potentially significant problem by participants in the
study. Where process validity was questioned most vigorously, students refused to
acknowledge that the specific assessment process achieved its intended outcome (or,
more likely, what they thought was its intended outcome). I have already noted that
if students do not recognise the validity of the process itself they are unlikely to
permit the outcomes (both grades and feedback) to have any real influence on
subsequent belief or attitudinal patterns. Therefore, if educators intend the
assessment process to have any long-term influence on these patterns of belief, it is
concomitant that the processes employed are tractable and possess sufficient validity
in the eyes of students. This may involve exploring with students their own
perceptions of current practice, and making adjustments where possible. In music
education, this may result in the utilisation of assessment processes that
acknowledge the range of contexts and styles in which students work; similar
situations apply in other arts areas, for example in art students working with
different kinds of materials. This will require care in the construction of appropriate
criteria and outcomes for learning, ensuring for example that non-musical factors
(such as style or genre) do not corrupt the process (Lehman, 1997)1. However,
Cannatella (2001) has noted the significant problems associated with attempting to
impose competency-based assessment approaches on learning in the arts, suggesting
that such approaches fail to produce accurate evaluations of student work.
The need for informative feedback was also identified in the analysis. While
a single grade or mark was a significant signal to students about their capabilities,
the accompanying written feedback was found to be perhaps a more influential
source of such information. It seems essential, therefore, to ensure that feedback is
produced with this longer-term result in mind. It may be too easy, in writing
comments on a particular piece of work, to remain at the ‘item-specific’ level,
commenting only on particular features of the assessed work. However, if
assessment is to play a useful role in developing greater self-awareness and
understanding of personal capability, feedback should be seen as an important tool
and constructed accordingly. This may, for example, involve providing more
general comments on the qualities of the item and, as noted in the interviews,
providing specific reasons for the assessor’s evaluation of the work.
Third, recognition of the individual appears essential if assessment is to play
a role in shaping self-perception. During interviews students identified a number of
areas of current practice that they felt threatened the potential influence of
assessment. For example, the process may favour certain types of individual over
others; in the musical context, assessment practice may favour the classical violinist
over the rock guitarist. This is only problematic when it disadvantages certain
groups, but it is essential that music educators give careful consideration to
alternative forms of assessment. Furthermore, students appeared to believe that the
most effective forms of assessment were those that took account of development, in
addition to (or instead of) actual levels of performance at a given time. This reflects
an important aspect of the theoretical literature on assessment (e. g. Kagan, 1990).
The recognition of the individual can be seen as an extension of the ‘process validity’

1 I define these as ‘non-musical’ factors in the sense that they should not influence the assessment process.

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 55

argument outlined above, and appears to be an essential component of any effective

assessment process which significantly influences how students see themselves.
As Cizek (2000) argues, changing assessment patterns and arrangements
often leads to staff resistance. The adaptation of existing assessment practices in
music education to more fully address issues of self-perception is one that requires
careful consideration, further research, and a strategic and sensitive approach by
management.
The Challenge for Teaching
While through careful assessment and feedback it may be possible to ensure
that the systemic elements of assessment are beneficial to student self-perception, it is
clear from the data reviewed previously that assessment is only one of a number of
sources of information used by students to formulate their beliefs about their
abilities. Music educators in higher education should therefore explore the
implications of the importance placed on significant others and previous experiences,
and how these perceptions can be incorporated into an overall learning and teaching
strategy.
In terms of the peer group it is apparent that much of the information
derived about oneself from this group is speculative and conjectural rather than
factual. For example, the student may believe they are not working as hard as others
simply through observation of secondary data, and as a result may perceive
themselves as lazy, lacking commitment, and suffer accordingly. Creating
opportunities for making peer comparisons, perhaps through the use of peer
assessment, is one way in which students can gain a ‘true’ idea of their own
competence and skill in relation to others. The complexity of social organisms is
such that teachers and managers will never truly be able to penetrate them. Perhaps
all we can hope is that students are educated to recognise the difficulties involved in
comparing themselves with other people. One potential solution to this issue is the
increased use of group work in music education at university level. Here, students
can be exposed to both the musical abilities of their peer group and to their working
habits, and perhaps gain a more valid perspective on each. Instead of having
students (particularly at the early stages of advanced work) working on an
individual basis on a composition, it may be advantageous to develop musical works
in small groups.
One further solution to this problem, which is in some ways an extension of
the use of group work, would be to include greater elements of peer assessment
within undergraduate programmes. As Searby and Ewers (1997) have argued, the
use of peer assessment both increases students’ sense of ownership (see also Wells,
1998) over the assessment process and serves to develop their own critical insights
into the activity which is being assessed. In this way it is possible that students’
awareness of their peers’ confidence, abilities, effort and so on would be more
realistically formed, enabling their own self-perception to be more valid.
For tutors, it is vital that they realise the significance of the verbal and non-
verbal signals they give to students. In the context of solo performance much lesson
content is concerned with specific technical or aesthetic development, perhaps
working on a problematic passage or an aspect of repertoire. However, if the tutor
fails to realise that a more fundamental message is being communicated to the
student about themselves, two outcomes are possible: a negative message is given,
which may be unhelpful, or no message at all is given, in which case a valuable
opportunity to bolster self-perception may be missed.

Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004

© 2004 Callaway Centre
56

It was noted earlier that the influence of previous experiences in the domain
can have quite profound implications for how the student perceived themselves,
especially where these experiences have reinforced particular aspects of their own
capability perceptions. Where experiences have been positive (for example in the
case of positive assessments), this tends to develop positive self-perception, in the
sense that the previous success is used as the basis for current evaluations of ability.
Where experiences have been negative, this may function similarly. There is a
significant need for music educators to be aware of this, both in terms of addressing
attributions that may be invalid (e.g., the context of previous failure may not apply
in the current context) and in cases where students continue to fail assessments.
Seligman (1975) refers to this danger as a ‘cycle of failure’, where failure experiences
tend to reinforce self-beliefs of low ability, which in turn produce continued failure,
and so on.
From the perspective of performance study within undergraduate music
education, Daniel (2001) has argued that students should engage in far greater levels
of self-assessment. Reporting an empirical study with a group of university music
students, Daniel suggests that self-assessment encourages students to engage in
much more structured evaluations of their own capabilities, a process that should
assist in the development of more grounded self-perceptions.
The Use of Theory
Finally, I would argue that the application of theory from the social
psychological literature (in this case Perceived Control theory) permits educators and
managers in all sectors to achieve a deeper understanding of the implications of the
processes students are required to undertake. In the study reported in this article, it
was evident that the assessment process can have a quite profound influence on the
construction of personal identity and self-perception as a musician. If educators
have the best interests of their students at heart, they will be concerned that this
potential is used in a positive rather than a destructive, manner. I would propose
that all involved in formal education in music should consider the effects of systemic
assessment practice on the learner, and where necessary to modify current practice to
achieve these ends.
There is a clear relationship between self-perception and academic
achievement generally (Multon, Brown & Lent, 1991), and growing evidence that this
relationship is also important in musical development and achievement. If educators
wish to improve the latter it is essential that they consider the development of the
former in ways that are helpful to student attainment. Assessment is one tool by
which students’ self-perception is both informed and developed. However, the
influences of significant others and pervious experiences are also important, and
these must also be addressed if students are to achieve helpful patterns of self-
perception which are based on accurate evaluations of themselves.

References
Cannatella, H. (2001). Art assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
26(4), 319-26.
Chapman, M., Skinner, E. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1990). Interpreting correlations between
children's perceived control and cognitive performance: Control, agency, or means-
ends beliefs? Developmental Psychology, 26, 246-253.

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre
 57

Cizek, G. J. (2000). Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(2), 16-23,33.
Clary, E. G., & Thieman, T. J. (2002). Coping with academic problems: An empirical
examination of Brickman et al.'s models of helping and coping. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32(1), 33-59.
Daniel, R. (2001). Self-assessment in performance. British Journal of Music Education,
18(3), 215-226.
Davidson, J. W. (2002). The solo performer's identity. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J.
Hargreaves & D. Miell (Eds.), Musical Identities . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dweck, C., & Reppucci, N. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in
children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-116.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41(10), 1040-1048.
Hammarberg, A., & Hagekull, B. (2000). Pre-school teachers' perceived control and intention
to act regarding child behaviour problems. Early Child Development and Care, 160,
155-166.
Hewitt, A. (2003). The development and influence of perceived control beliefs in
undergraduate music students' experience of solo performance assessment. Presented
at the Research in Music Education Conference, University of Exeter, April 2003 .
Jeanneret, M. (1993). The preparation of secondary music teachers in New South Wales: Is
it out of step? British Journal of Music Education, 10, 47-55.
Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419-469.
Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and
Personality, 29(7), 687-694.
Lehman, P. R. (1997). Assessment and grading. Teaching Music, 5(3), 58-59.
MacDonald, R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Meill, D. (2002). Musical identities. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Martens, R., & Dochy, F. (1997). Assessment and feedback as student support devices.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(3), 257-73.
McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance
examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31(1),
37-50.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 30-38.
O'Neill, S. A. (2002). The self-identity of young musicians. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D.
J. Hargreaves, & D. Meill (Eds.), Musical Identities (pp. 79-96). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rugutt, J. K., Ellett, C. D., & Culross, R. R. (1998). Discriminating Student Learning and
Efficacy Levels in Higher Education: Contributions of Classroom Environment and
Teaching and Learning Effectiveness.

Research Studies in Music Education Number 22, 2004

© 2004 Callaway Centre
58

Searby, M., & Ewers, T. (1997). An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher
education: A case study in the school of music, Kingston University. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 371-83.
Seligman, M. E. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San
Fransisco: W. H. Freeman.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school
and whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and children's
engagement achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 22-32.
Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences
and the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 63(2-3).
Stoever, S.A. (2002). Multiple predictors of college success: Investigation of an empirical
model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.
Wells, R. (1998). The student's role in the assessment process. Teaching Music, 6(2), 32-33.

About the author

Dr Allan Hewitt is Lecturer in Music in the Faculty of Education, University
of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. He has professional experience as a performer,
composer and educator. Current research interests are in the influences on the self-
identity of student performers, the training of non-specialist primary school teachers
in music, and in the sequential analysis of children’s compositional processes in
music.

Number 22, 2004 Research Studies in Music Education

© 2004 Callaway Centre