A COMPARISON OF BRAZILIAN AND UNITED STATES FIRST …

A COMPARISON OF BRAZILIAN AND UNITED STATES FIRST YEAR MUSIC MAJORS’

PRE-COLLEGE MUSICAL EXPERIENCES AND MUSICAL SELF-CONCEPT

BY

VADIM DA COSTA ARSKY FILHO

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2020

To my wife, Lourdes and my children, Bruno and Victoria that patiently and actively supported

me throughout this process.

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank everyone that contributed to the accomplishment of this mission, starting

by Dr. Russel Robinson, who believed in my abilities as a music educator and to my advisor Dr.

William Bauer, who guided me through this process. Also, I would like to recognize all my

committee members, Dr. Megan Sheridan, Dr. Zhihui Fang, and especially Dr. Welson Tremura,

who, besides his participation as a committee member, assisted me in all senses and became a

dear friend. Thank you for all your guidance and wisdom.

Another important salutation goes for all UF School of Music faculty and staff, here

represented by Dr. Kevin Orr, Dean of the School of Music, and Trent Weller, Facilities

Manager. Additionally, my sincere appreciation to all my colleagues of the Department of Music

of the University of Brasília for their support for the past four and a half years, and to the

Coordenação de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES, for the financial support

to accomplish this professional development.

One special thanks go to Professor Robert Gary Langford and all the members of the

Gainesville Community Band, Gainesville Pops Band and Santa Fe Brass Ensemble, and all the

other musicians that I had the opportunity to meet. You all became my family in Gainesville.

Finally, I would like to thank all my family, dad, mom, brothers and sister, Lourdes, my wife,

Bruno, my son, and Victoria, my daughter. Without support from my family, it would be

impossible to achieve success in this journey.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................9

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................13

Opportunity to Experience Music ...........................................................................................15 Comparative Research Studies ...............................................................................................17 Need for Study ........................................................................................................................19 Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................22 Reseach Questions ..................................................................................................................22 Limitations of the Study .........................................................................................................23 Definitions ..............................................................................................................................24

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................26

Self-Concept and Musical Self-Concept.................................................................................26 Self-Concept ....................................................................................................................26 Musical Self-Concept ......................................................................................................27 Previous Studies of Musical Self-Concept ......................................................................30

Students’ Opportunities to Participate in Musical Experiences In and Outside School

and Their Musical Self-Development .................................................................................34 Curriculum Development ................................................................................................35

Philosophy for music education ...............................................................................36 Music education standards .......................................................................................37 Creating ....................................................................................................................38 Performing ................................................................................................................40 Responding ...............................................................................................................42 Assessment ...............................................................................................................45

Staffing ............................................................................................................................46 Material and Equipment ..................................................................................................48 Facilities ..........................................................................................................................49

Comparative Studies in Music Education ...............................................................................50 Comparison of Music Education programs in the United States and Brazil ..........................52

Music Education Programs in the United States .............................................................52 Music Education Programs in Brazil ...............................................................................56

Orphean chant...........................................................................................................57 Band programs .........................................................................................................59 Conservatoires and public music schools .................................................................60

6

Private music schools ...............................................................................................61

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................63

Research Questions .................................................................................................................63 Participants .............................................................................................................................65 Independent and dependent variables .....................................................................................66 Measurement Instrument ........................................................................................................67 Reliability and Validity ...........................................................................................................69 Data collection ........................................................................................................................71 Data analysis ...........................................................................................................................71 Summary of Methodology ......................................................................................................72

4 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................73

Participants .............................................................................................................................75 Pre-College Musical Experiences of First-year Music Majors from the University of

Florida and the Universidade de Brasília ............................................................................76 Musical Self-Concept .............................................................................................................79 Correlation Between Pre-college Musical Experiences and Musical Self-Concept ...............82 Summary of Results ................................................................................................................83

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................85

Pre-college Musical Experiences ............................................................................................86 Opportunity to Learn Music in School ............................................................................86 Opportunity to Learn Music Outside School...................................................................89 Students’ Self-Effort in Learning Music .........................................................................91 Family and Friends’ Support for Participation in Musical Activities .............................92

Musical Self-Concept .............................................................................................................92 Correlation Between Pre-College Musical Experiences and Musical Self-Concept ..............98 Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................101 Future Research ....................................................................................................................102 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................103

APPENDIX

IRB PROTOCOL .........................................................................................................................105

QUESTIONNAIRE .....................................................................................................................108

TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................................................136

STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION E-MAIL..................................................................................139

CONSENT LETTER ...................................................................................................................140

LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................141

7

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................148

8

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Laws about Music Education in Brazil ..............................................................................56

2-2 Music Education Movements Through Time in Brazil .....................................................57

3-1 Summary of the Results of the Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) as Well as

the Quality Criteria (FR and AVE) of the Adjusted MUSCI Subscales (Altogether 28

Items) .................................................................................................................................69

3-2 Correlations (Pearson) Between the Adjusted MUSCI Subscales with the Music-

Specific Background ..........................................................................................................69

3-3 Reliability Cronbach’s alpha Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-

Concept of Musicians ........................................................................................................70

4-1 Primary Instruments and Their Distribution Between the Universities (N = 69) ..............76

4-2 MANOVA Pre-College Musical Experiences (N = 69) ....................................................77

4-3 Descriptive Statistics for Pre-College Musical Experiences Questionnaire Items (N =

69) ......................................................................................................................................78

4-4 Descriptive Statistics for Musical Self-Concept Questionnaire Items (N = 69) ................80

4-5 MANOVA Musical Self-Concept (N = 69) .......................................................................81

4-6 Correlation Matrix Between Pre-College Music Experiences and Self-Concept

Dimensions ........................................................................................................................83

9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA Ability and Ambition

AMS Adaptive Music Self

CM Comprehensive Musicianship

CMM Communication

CMP Contemporary Music Project

CMT Community

CNBF Confederação Nacional de Bandas e Fanfarras

EMO Emotion

FFE Family and Friends Support

IIM Identities in Music

IMS Ideal Music Self

MA Musical Ability

MD Movement and Dance

MII Music Identities

MM Mood Management

MMCP Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program

MUSCI Music Self-Concept Inquiry

NAfME National Association for Music Education

OLMO Opportunity to Learn Music Outside School

OTLS Opportunity to Learn Standards

SCC Self-Concept Clarity

SCD Self-Concept Differentiation

SPI Spirituality

SSE Student Self-Effort to Learn Music

10

TPACK Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

UF University of Florida

UnB Universidade de Brasília

11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A COMPARISON OF BRAZILIAN AND UNITED STATES FIRST YEAR MUSIC

MAJORS’ PRE-COLLEGE MUSICAL EXPERIENCES AND MUSICAL SELF-CONCEPT

By

Vadim da Costa Arsky Filho

May 2020

Chair: William I. Bauer

Major: Music Education

The purpose of this study was to compare pre-college music experiences and ten

dimensions of musical self-concept of first-year collegiate music majors from a university in the

United States and a university in Brazil. A secondary purpose was to determine if there was a

correlation between pre-college music experiences and musical self-concept dimensions.

Participants (N = 69) from a university in the United States (n = 35) and a university from Brazil

(n = 34) completed a questionnaire to gather data regarding their pre-college musical experiences

and their musical self-concept. The pre-college musical experiences portion of the questionnaire

had four groups of items: (a) opportunity to learn music in school, (b) opportunity to learn music

outside school, (c) students’ self-effort to learn music, and (d) family and friends support. This

portion of the questionnaire was designed by the researcher and was based on a review of the

literature. The musical self-concept items were comprised of two existing questionnaires. The

Adjusted Musical Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth) (Fiedler and Spychiger, 2014) is

comprised of six dimensions of musical self-concept: (a) mood management, (b) community, (c)

musical ability, (d) movement and dance, (e) ideal music self, and (f) adaptive music self, while

the Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians (Spychiger, 2010)

12

includes four dimensions that include (a) communication, (b) ability & ambition, (c) emotion,

and (d) spirituality.

Significant differences were found between the Brazilian and United States participants

in pre-college opportunities to engage in musical experiences. U. S. students rated their

Opportunity to Learn Music in School significantly higher than did participants from Brazil. In

addition, U. S. participants rated their Family and Friends Support significantly higher than did

Brazilian participants. Significant differences between participants of the two universities were

also found in musical self-concept. Participants from the U. S. rated their Musical Ability

significantly higher than did participants from Brazil. Likewise, participants from the U. S. also

rated their Ability & Ambition significantly higher than did participants from Brazil. Finally,

seven significant, weak to medium strength, correlations were found between selected pre-

college musical experiences and musical self-concept dimensions.

13

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Self-concept is defined by Purkey (1988) as “the totality of a complex, organized, and

dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about

his or her personal existence” (p. 2). Canfield and Wells (1994) confirmed this definition by

describing self-concept as a structure that contains all the beliefs and attitudes of a person about

themselves, which determines “…what you think you are, what you do, and what you can

become” (p. 1). Additionally, Marsh, Smith, Barnes, and Butler (1983) affirmed that self-concept

“…is formed through experience with the environment, interactions with significant others, and

attributions of one's own behavior” (p. 773). However, Spychiger (2017) explained that the term

self-concept, used mainly by academic psychologists, is also sometimes referred to as identity in

other fields.

Elliott (1984) described self-concept as being multidimensional, potentially affected by

self-esteem, and vulnerable to criticism. Marsh et al. (1983) also viewed self-concept as

complex, stating, “The organization of self-concept is multifaceted and hierarchical, with

perceptions moving from inferences about self in subareas (e.g., self-concepts in academic

areas), to broader areas (e.g., academic and nonacademic self-concept), and finally to general

self-concept” (p. 773). Diehl and Hay (2011) divided self-concept into two different aspects,

self-concept differentiation (SCD) and self-concept clarity (SCC). The authors described SCD as

the variational degree of a person’s self-representation through determined circumstances, and

SCC as the period that a person can maintain his or her self-concept with a clear delineation,

dependable, and momentarily constant.

Musical self-concept has also been studied, referred to as both musical self-concept and

musical identity (Spychiger, 2017). Schnare, MacIntyre, and Doucette (2011) stated that the

14

“…musical self is an aspect of the self-concept that integrates perceptions, beliefs, and schemata

about a person’s musical abilities and possibilities” (p. 95). Musical self-concept may be

associated with participation in music-related activities. Moreover, Spychiger’s (2017) model of

musical self-concept provides a structure to examine the way people understand their musical

reactions and abilities in six areas: (a) mood management, (b) sense of community, (c) emotions,

(d) spirituality, (e) self-awareness of musical ability, (f) communication through music, and (g)

movement to music. According to Spychiger, the relative importance of these factors results in

the construction of one’s adaptive musical self from their ideal music self. In very successful

cases, the particular configuration of the factors may enable achievement of the ideal musical

self.

Fiedler and Spychiger (2017) claimed that the unique experiences of each person will

define their musical self-concept. They emphasized that a person’s musical self-concept develops

through stages of his or her life, which generally coincide with the natural development of the

human being. It begins with perception, then proceeds to analysis and reproduction. Moreover,

Fiedler and Spychiger explained that the information musicians receive during these stages is

filtered, helping an individual to construct their self-concept of the meaning of music, their view

of themselves as musicians, and how to share compositions and performances with other people.

Additionally, Spychiger (2017) claimed that students develop their musical self-concept through

the combination of structured learning and their own experiences, which will delineate each

musician’s unique approach to playing, improvising, or composing.

Since a person’s musical self-concept seems to develop as a result of his or her

experiences, the question of how music self-concept varies due to various sociocultural factors,

including formal and informal educational opportunities, is one that deserves consideration.

15

Sociocultural differences can strongly influence music education programs, their structure,

content, or even very existence (Ho, 2016; Kertz-Welzel, 2008; Mota and Figueiredo, 2012). The

type of musical experiences available in any community impact the opportunities students have

for a musical education. In turn, these opportunities might influence those students’ musical

self-concept.

Opportunity to Experience Music

Not everyone has the same opportunities in life. The opportunity to learn music can vary

significantly among individuals, communities, states, and even countries. The National

Association for Music Education (NAfME) has published requirements that they believe are

essential if schools are to provide a musical education for students that meets NAfME’s national

Core Music Standards (NafME, 2019a). These Opportunity-to-Learn Standards (OTLS)

describe what is necessary to adequately address the Core Music Standards, which focus on

creating, performing, and responding to music. The OTLS include specifications related to (a)

curriculum and scheduling, (b) staffing, (c) materials and equipment, and (d) facilities (NAfME,

2019b). According to NAfME, without these items, achieving high-level learning outcomes

related to creating, performing, and responding to music will be very difficult.

The four areas of the NAfME Opportunity-to-Learn standards provide an excellent

framework for examining factors that may contribute to a high-quality education in music. First,

the two pillars of philosophy and curriculum provide the foundation to create a well-structured

learning sequence of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Philosophy provides a basis for the

what, why, and how of teaching music, while curriculum presents a path to be followed to

address designated learning outcomes (Elliott, 1995). Conway (2015) believed that music

curriculums should include the following:

• Overall music program philosophy

16

• Specific program goals and beliefs

• A list of developmental skills or benchmarks

• Required resources (teaching spaces, staffing needs, equipment, storage, and budget)

• Sample teaching strategies/lesson plans

• Sample assessment strategies

• Suggested curricular sources (series books, method books, and ensemble literature) (p.6)

The scheduling of classes in a music program also matters. The OTLS elucidate that

students need sufficient time during class in order to fully achieve the Core Music Standards.

Gillespie, Russell, and Hamann (2014) explained that difficulty in scheduling elevates the level

of frustration of the students, resulting in fewer opportunities to be involved with music. In turn,

this may impact the quality and quantity of learning. Similarly, Baker (2009) claimed that the use

of block scheduling causes difficulties in scheduling ensembles in schools, especially when

music students also want to take Advanced Placement courses or participate in International

Baccalaureate programs. These scheduling issues may result in fewer students participating in

ensemble programs and insufficient time to fulfill educational and artistic outcomes of the

program.

The OTLS also describe the importance of sufficient, qualified music educators. Staffing

should include highly qualified/certified music teachers. Mark and Madura (2014) emphasized

the importance of teachers’ certification, stating “Professional certification is a vehicle for

identifying outstanding teachers” (p. 187). These teachers must also be able to regularly engage

in professional development experiences.

Another essential factor that may affect the opportunity to learn music is the availability

of necessary materials and equipment, the physical items needed to provide a high-quality music

education for students. These may include sheet music, musical instruments, chairs, music

stands, risers, sound reinforcement and recording equipment, and other items. Elliott (1995) and

Shouldice (2015) agreed that insufficient equipment and materials can make teaching music to a

17

classroom of children quite challenging. Mixon (2005) believed the lack of materials and

equipment for music education may reduce the opportunity for new students to participate,

suggesting that if not enough instruments are available older students should be given the first

opportunity.

The last area referred to in the OTLS is music education facilities. The standards establish

the requirements for various types of programs, referencing size of rooms, equipment needed to

furnish those rooms, and acoustical considerations. Koskinen, Toppila, and Olkinura (2010)

agreed on the importance of the adequacy of room size and acoustics for classes and ensembles.

The lack of proper insulation and absorption of sound in a music room may cause problems with

the perception of sound, let alone have implications for the physical well-being of students’ and

teachers’ hearing.

The OTLS provide one conceptual framework for the conditions needed for teaching and

learning in music education programs. Lack of one or more of these essentials may impact the

specific opportunities a student will have. The locale and type of music learning opportunities

students have available may be related to their attitudes, abilities, and self-concept in music. In

the global society in which we live, opportunities for experiencing music differ from community

to community, and on a larger scale, among countries through the world.

Comparative Research Studies

Comparative research seeks to compare and contrast nations, cultures, societies, and

institutions (Sasaki, 2004). The use of comparative studies helps us understand the diversity

among people’s customs and behaviors between continents, countries, states, counties, cities and

even neighborhoods. By understanding similarities and differences, researchers can learn about

the unique and common attributes of the studied phenomenon. At times, it may also be possible

to identify the factors that contribute to these similarities and differences within each setting

18

(Burnard, Dillon, Rusinek, and Saether, 2008; Mertler, 2016; Mota and Figueiredo, 2012;

Nóvoa, and Yariv-Mashal, 2003).

Thomas (1990) and Getao (1996) stated that comparative studies in education are

generally related to the examination of two or more educational systems. Furthermore, Getao

classified comparative education as an intellectual activity “in which one is engaged in the study

of various educational systems because he/she wants to know about others for the purpose of

being enlightened” (p.2). Additionally, Mota and Figueiredo (2012) and Rust, Soumaré,

Pescador, and Shibuia (1999) affirmed that there are a wide range of variables such as language,

instructional methods, philosophy, religious customs, culture, geopolitical situations, and

financial resources, among others, that may influence education.

Mota and Figueiredo (2012) stated that by analyzing those variables, researchers might

be able to discover the reasons why a particular region chose to adopt specific educational goals

and procedures. According to Sobe (2018), the establishment of educational goals and

procedures determine the educational outcomes, which could be successful or not. In

comparative education studies, researchers examine established goals, procedures, and outcomes

from different schools or systems looking for similarities and differences. The results may

suggest changes in one or both of the schools or systems.

Ho (2016) affirmed that a comparison of music education programs from distant

geographic points may reveal considerable variation in attributes such as these. Debellis (2009)

suggested that comparative research in music education should consider the dualistic nature of

music, which is objective and subjective at the same time as it requires precision on several

aspects as rhythm and melody execution, as well as intonation, and also requires interpretation to

establish meaning. The author claimed that musical activities often demand technical precision

19

from composers and interpreters to ensure that the sequences of sounds are well-arranged in

composition, or well-played in a performance. On the other hand, Spychiger (2017) defined

music as an art, demanding a personal, at times subjective, interpretation. Instrumentalists and

singers often attempt to perform expressively. The author claimed that achieving a satisfactory

level of technical and interpretational control required a sequence of learning experiences that

include the acquisition of instrumental, vocal, and compositional techniques, along with the

development of an individual’s musical self-concept, which may include beliefs about what

music represents to them and their connection to it.

Finally, Burnard, Dillon, Rusinek, and Saether (2008) employed causal-comparative

research study to examine the pedagogical practices of teachers from four different countries -

Sweden, Spain, Australia, and England. The authors believed cultural values and socio-economic

factors might impact students’ musical participation and the results achieved in music education

classes. Burnard et al. found out that there were many common attitudes among teachers from all

four countries. While they also noted some social-cultural differences related to procedures,

those did not influence students’ learning. Kertz-Welzel (2008) claimed that comparative studies

in music education may be able to help teachers realize that teaching and learning approaches

used in a specific context, or even in another country, might have applicability to their local

music education program. Ho (2016) used nationalism and culture as a way to understand and

compare different approaches in music education. Examining music teaching and learning across

cultures seems to have merit.

Need for Study

Music education systems and practices vary around the world (Campbell, 2004; Kertz-

Welzel, 2008), just as countries do themselves. Two nations that have a number of similarities,

but also significant differences, are Brazil and the United States. The similarities between the

20

countries rest on their size, population, and geopolitical distribution. Brazil has an area of

3,288,046 square miles; a population of 209.3 million inhabitants; a federative regime with a

central government; 27 autonomous unities, or states; and a Federal District (D. F.), where the

capital, Brasília, is located (Uniepro-Diret-CNI, 2018). The United States has 3,796,929 square

miles of area (without Alaska the area is around 3,031,674 miles); a population of 328.3 million

inhabitants; a federative regime with a central government; 50 autonomous units, or states; and a

federal district (D. C.), where its capital, Washington D. C. is located (Census, 2019). The

differences between the two countries are many and include language, geographic position,

weather, food, religion, economy, political organization, educational systems, and societal

values, among others.

An examination of the educational practices related to music teaching and learning in

these two countries provides a closer look at a subset of these similarities and differences. In the

U. S., school music education programs for middle and high school students focus predominantly

on large ensembles like band, orchestra, and choir (Gruhn, 2006). Many high school students

have the opportunity to learn music through well-organized music programs in a significant

majority of public schools – 94% according to Elpus and Abril (2018). However, in Brazil,

music programs in high school are inconsistent, and most students learn music outside school

through instrumental or vocal private lessons, with very little opportunity to perform in large

ensembles (Del-Bem, 2009). Students in both countries are usually expected to develop proper

instrumental technique, engage in the process of group performance, and develop music

expressivity (Elliott and Silverman, 2017; Del-Bem, 2009). However, the relative emphasis and

opportunity for engaging in these practices, and the effect of them on the development of musical

self-concept, may vary.

21

The situation for music education in Brazil has vacillated over the last ten years or so. In

2008, the Brazilian government passed a law that made music education mandatory in every

school nationwide. The law was inadequately and inconsistently followed. Then, in 2016, a new

educational bill ultimately revoked the 2008 mandate. The main characteristics of contemporary

music education in Brazil include:

1. A common agreement about what is essential to learn in music education, but not a

unified philosophy of music education for the whole country. Therefore, standards or

benchmarks for music education are few, or even nonexistent (Coelho, 2015; Morila,

2016).

2. Most programs seem to lack appropriate facilities, instruments, and equipment

compatible with good practice (Higino, 2006; Nobrega, 2015).

3. There is little access to musical instruments, method books, or printed music for students

and teachers (Silva, 2015; Souza, 2014).

4. There is a lack of music teachers in public and private school. Teacher education

programs in Brazil do not provide a focus on pedagogical practices for large ensemble

performances, with little emphasis on instrumental or vocal study, and low participation

in large ensembles (Del-bem, 2009; Martinoff, 2017).

5. There are few graduate courses in music education, and only a small number of

professional conferences promoted by a handful of societies affiliated with music

education and research. This lack of availability limits professional development

opportunities and the possibility of sharing teaching practices and research (Benedetti and

Kerr, 2010; Silva, 2015).

Musical self-concept is an important aspect of the make-up of any musician, impacting

the way they see themselves as a musician, and even their view of the role of music in society.

One’s musical self-concept may affect the way they think about and interact with music

throughout their life. At the same time, sociocultural, socioeconomic, and other factors vary for

all people, and these factors may result in affordances and constraints relevant to educational

opportunities. There is a need to better understand the relationship between educational

opportunity and musical self-concept. Empirical study of such relationships could result in

ramifications regarding approaches to teaching and learning music.

22

Purpose of the Study





Reseach Questions

1. Is there a difference in the pre-college musical experiences of first-year music majors from

the University of Florida and the Universidade de Brasília?

a. What opportunities to learn music did they have in school?

b. What were the music education experiences in which they participated in school?

c. What were the outside-of-school musical activities in which they participated?

d. What is the role of the development of technical skills, music reading skills,

expressive performance, and use of technology in students’ preparation?

e. Did family and friends support the students’ participation in music?

2. Is there a difference in the musical self-concept between first-year music majors from the

University of Florida and the Universidade de Brasília?

a. Does the Mood Management dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-

year music majors from the University of Florida and from the Universidade de

Brasília?

b. Does the Community dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year

music majors from the University of Florida and from the Universidade de Brasília?

c. Does the Musical Ability dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year


23

d. Does the Movement & Dance dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-


Brasília?

e. Does the Ideal Music Self dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year


f. Does the Adaptive Music Self dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-


Brasília?

g. Does the Communication dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year


h. Does the Ability & Ambition dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-


Brasília?

i. Does the Emotion dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year music

majors from the University of Florida and from the Universidade de Brasília?

j. Does the Spirituality dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year


3. Is there a correlation between participants’ pre-college musical experiences and musical self-

concept dimensions?

Limitations of the Study

One significant limitation of this study is the fact that the comparison was made only

through two higher education institutions’ students, one from the U.S. and one from Brazil.

Furthermore, there were only first-year students involved in the study, which limited the number

of participants. Additionally, the U.S. and Brazil are large countries with many regional

24

differences from different regions and states. Consequently, this study cannot be generalized

throughout the whole population of first-year music majors and minor students from both

countries. Finally, gaining access to participants and motivating them to take part in the study

was another limitation. Connecting with students who live at a great distance from me was

challenging. The lack of personal contact, use of an electronic survey instrument, and the length

of that instrument might have affected the willingness of students to participate in the study

Definitions

Comparative educational studies: A field that analyzes and compares different

educational systems from different nations. Rust, Soumaré, Pescador, and Shibuia (1999)

describe comparative studies in education “as an academic field of study and gave the field a

‘measure of methodological unity’ through their manner of collecting data and explaining

national systems of education” (p. 86).

Opportunity-to-learn music: Refers to the conditions, educational and physical, which

would permit students to access music education properly (NAfME, 2019b).

Philosophy of music education: A declaration that establishes the value of music and

music education. According to Reimer (1970) “A philosophy of music education should be a

systematic statement of music education’s nature and value” (p. 1)

Curriculum: A document that organizes the content, procedures of learning and

assessment, and in the music education case, for a music program. NAfME (2019b) says, “The

curriculum, like all good curricula, must not only be a coherent written document, it must reflect

a vision for helping students achieve the desired learning goals” (p.1).

Staffing: Signifies a continuous process related to employees since the hiring process

through professional development over time. Feiman-Nemser (2012) refers to the development

25

of music teachers with term staff development, which reflects “…a new appreciation for learning

needs of practicing teachers in the context of school development” (p. 17).

Materials and equipment: Anything physical items such as music, instruments, and

other equipment that is necessary for the development of music education programs.

Facilities: Facilities for music education are the physical space or rooms available for

music education programs. The importance of this topic is related to the fact that music is about

sound; for students to have a proper understanding of the sound music rooms need to have good

acoustics (Koskinen, Toppila, and Olkinura, 2010).

Musical self-concept: Musical self-concept is an aspect of a person’s main self-concept,

which combines perception, beliefs, and perceptions of musical ability. It may be associated with

participation in music-related activities (Schnare, MacIntyre, and Doucette, 2011).

26

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Self-Concept and Musical Self-Concept

Self-Concept

The idea of self-concept is attached to a person’s acquired relationship to things around

him or her. Marsh, Smith, Barnes, and Butler (1983) resorted to Shavelson and Boulus (1982) to

define self-concept as an individual’s perception of self, which is constructed across

environmental experiences, interactions with other people, and behavioral characteristics.

According to Canfield and Wells (1994, p.1), “your self-concept is composed of all the beliefs

and attitudes you have about yourself. They actually determine who you are!” People are always

exploring the outside world, and during those adventures, they are constructing their inside

world. Hallam (2017, p. 475) has this understanding of self-concept:

The concept of identity is relatively new. Historically, the term self-concept was

used to refer to how individuals perceive and evaluate themselves in different

areas of their live. The self-system is made up of a number of self-images

including those relating to self-steam, self-efficacy, ideal selves, and possible

selves, which are often context or situation specific, and, which develop in

interaction with our environment.

Morin, Scalas, and Vispoel (2017) said multiple self-concepts work to give some identity

to a person. Moreover, the authors explain: “These self-conceptions are cognitive generalizations

that include content, attitudes, and evaluative judgments which are used to make sense of the

world, have affective and behavioral consequences, and play a crucial role in self-regulation

processes pertaining to emotions and behaviors” (p. 531). Schnare, MacIntyre, and Doucette

(2011) said that self-concept develops mostly during childhood. However, the concept of self has

changed during the 20th century (Markus and Wurf, 1987): “[w]hat began as an apparent

singular, static, lump-like entity has become a multi-dimensional, multifaced, dynamic structure

that is systematically implicated in all aspects of social information processing (p. 301).”

27

Moreover, Schnare, MacIntyre, and Doucette said the self-concept for a person’s experience is

rooted in a system of cognitive and affective structures.

Fidler and Spychiger (2017) connect self-concept to the motivational system, attached to

perception and action, and learning and development. Spychiger, Gruber, and Olbertz (2009)

said that during early 20th century, self-concept was seen as a combination of several other self-

factors, “Self-concepts are the result of a person’s self-perceptions, self-appraisals, self-

representation, and self-description” (p. 503). Given this understanding, studies on self-concept

could explore different subjects, like musical self-concept.

Musical Self-Concept

Some authors use the term musical identity instead of musical self-concept. Spychiger

(2017) said that self-concept is a noticeable theory in psychology’s academic world, while

identity is a more familiar frame used outside that circle. Evans and McPherson (2017)

emphasized the importance of music in the process of identity formation, mainly in adolescents.

However, there is doubt about how music and music-learning influence adolescent identities.

Leaving formal instruction and being involved as a musician does not represent an essential point

in defining adolescent identity. However, when becoming adults, people may think that these

factors affected the construction of their musical self-concept.

Moreover, Schnare, MacIntyre, and Doucette, (2011) present musical self-concept as a

musical self, a feature of a person’s main self-concept, which combines perception, beliefs, and

outlines of musical abilities and possibly associated with the participation of music-related

activities. The authors also said that literature shows a significantly higher rate of musical self-

concept among children’s motivation for music than for adults’ motivation for music. However,

Schnare, MacIntyre, and Doucette claim the lack of experiment for musical self-concept and

motivation for adult musicians.

28

From another perspective, Elliott and Silverman (2017) argued that many authors say

making music is not restricted to the act of playing an instrument or singing. The authors affirm

that “in and through a musical ‘particip-actions,’ people make meaning and construct identities

according to how and why they experienced different forms of music-making, listening, and

musical contexts as ‘good for’ various purposes in various contexts.” (p. 36). Elliott and

Silverman (p.41) said musical identity is shaped from several topics:

• The origins of musical identities in infancy

• Student’s perception of themselves as musical or non-musical

• Differences between adolescents’ perception of their in-school and out-of-school musical

identities

• Music identity construction associated with singing, playing specific instruments,

composing, and/or new music technologies

• The role of musical preference in the formation of non-musical identities (e.g., gender

identity)

• Differences among local, regional, national, and global music and musical identities

Furthermore, Hallam (2017) said a person’s identity and behavior connect to music in

some ways. That connection helps to construct social identity through a person’s musical

preference, moods, and emotions as well as behaviors show when in contact with music in public

or private places. Hallam also emphasized the increased access to music due to the advent of

technology, which intensifies the development of musical identities. Another point brought up by

the author is the music learning role in forming music identity. Hallam divides music learning

into three groups: formal (which has formal training with lessons and examinations); informal

(which is related to the practice of all kinds, listening, and participation in small groups without

supervision); and non-formal (which are workshops and participation on large groups with

guidance).

Hallam’s concept of music identity brought seems to be analogous to the musical self-

concept of other authors. Spychiger (2017) said: “…musical identity has been subdivided by

29

Heargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald (2002) in the distinguish between ‘music identities’ (‘MII’)

and ‘identities in music’ (‘IIM’). From the formal point of view, musical self-concept may

represent ‘IIM,’ as well as ‘MII.’ The two overlap and relate identity in a non-hierarchical way”

(p.270). Furthermore, Spychiger describes musical self-concept as a multi-dimensional, non-

hierarchical model, which fits better to adjust the several dimensions of music’s effects on

people’s lives. The dimensions are: (a) Technique and information, related to appreciation of

technical quality of music; (b) Social dimension, related to community and personal relations;

(c) Musical ability, related to the abilities of making music; (d) Emotional and physical, related

to the feelings music brings; (e) Further dimensions, spiritual, ideal and adaptive musical self-

concept, related to spirituality, and the goals and tangible perspectives of musical self-concept.

However different groups (pp. 278-279) offer distinct approaches to musical self-concept:

• Group1: professional and employed (or retired) musicians, holding degrees from

educational institutions.

• Group 2: amateur musicians, having a professional identity, and being perceived as

musicians, but not holding degrees from state institutions. Earning their living entirely, or

partly, from music.

• Group 3: leisure time musicians (i.e., individuals who make music as a hobby or casual

activity, but who do not declare themselves musicians).

• Group 4: music workers (i.e., individuals who are professionally occupied with music,

not as performers, but in providing, listening to or playing music (i.e., audio engineer,

piano tuner, concert manager, and others).

• Group 5: music listeners (i.e., individuals who engage with music more or less

exclusively by listening to it, and do not produce it).

Spychiger also questions another group difference between voice and musical instruments,

emphasizing that “singing is highly represented in most people’s musical self-concept.

Individuals are conscious of whether they do or do not love to sing.” (p. 280).

Correspondingly, Müllensiefen, Gingas, Musil, and Stewart (2014) constructed a self-

reference instrument to measure Music Sophistication of the general population, which has

similarities with musical self-concept as the five factors of the instrument. They are (a) Active

30

Engagement, about listening, reading or attending events related to music; (b) Perceptual

Abilities, about recognizing music and judging musical performances; (c) Musical Training,

about musical learning and practicing; (d) Singing Abilities; and (e) Emotions, about the

emotions music can cause. These factors resemble the dimensions presented by Spychiger

(2010). The authors define music Sophistication as “... a psychometric construct that can refer to

musical skills, expertise, achievements, and relate behaviors across a range of facets measured on

different subscales.” (p. 2). This instrument was tested for validity and reliability through the

BBC Broadcast Network as part of an online test battery answered by 148,037 participants called

“How Musical Are You?”

Spychiger (2010) developed an instrument to measure musical self-concept for musicians

and non-musicians from all ages, the Music Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI), giving to each

dimension a certain number of items, and through three phases processed reliability and validity

of 65 items. The author also generated a complementary instrument, the Musical Self-Concept

Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians, which has 21 items divided into four

dimensions: (a) Communication; (b) Ability and Ambition; (c) Emotion; and (d) Spirituality that

should apply to Group 1 and Group 2 described earlier. Fielder and Spychiger (2017) adapted

the MUSCI to measure students of secondary education level, which may or may not be involved

in music education programs. The authors called the new instrument the Adjusted Musical Self-

Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth), which should be used with the Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to

Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians for students of secondary education involved in a

music education program.

Previous Studies of Musical Self-Concept

Several studies involving Musical Self-Concept, some within a population and others

among different populations, point out different objectives: motivation, musical ability, musical

31

intelligence, cultural settings, and creativity. Schnare, MacIntyre, & Doucette (2011) developed a

study connecting musical self-concept development at a young age as a motivational factor for

developing musical skills. According to the authors, some studies related musical self-concept to

participation in music-related activities. Schnare, MacIntyre, and Doucette approached the

participants with three open-ended questions to understand three aspects of their musical self-

concept: (a) their hope; (b) their expectation; and (c) their fear. Data analysis (p.108) offered

many results, and the main conclusion was as follow:

In summary, the musical self-emerging from our data can be described as being

composed of a set of positive hopes counterbalanced by negative fears. They

hoped for selves reflect goal setting for the future musical self and construction of

pathways to achieve these goals. The feared selves represent imagined

impediments to the accomplishment of these goals. The expected musical self

strongly resembles the hoped-for self but phrased in more realistic terms and bal-

anced with a proportion of negative expectations.

The relationship between musical ability and musical self-concept was studied by

Demorest, Kelley, and Pfordresher (2017), and Hallam, and Prince, (2003). Demorest, Kelley,

and Pfordresher developed a quantitative study relating singing ability and musical self-concept

to people’s participation in future musical activities. They said that people with poor singing

ability rate themselves with a poor musical self-concept and consequently avoid participating in

musical activities. To measure this relationship, they gave 319 students a 24-item questionnaire

(pp.6,11) divided into four different constructs: “Musical Self-Concept (6 items), Attitudes

About Music and Singing (6 items), Peer Influence (6 items), and Cost of Participation (6

items).”

Musical self-concept, peer influence, and family musical engagement were found

to be unique predictors of music participation. The importance of musical self-

concept as a predictor echoes an earlier finding that students’ view of themselves

as musicians was a stronger predictor than the teacher’s assessment of a student’s

vocal or musical ability.

32

Hallam and Prince developed a qualitative study that aimed to conceptualize musical

abilities among professional and amateur musicians, as well as in advanced music students. They

used a questionnaire of open items, divided into six categories: Aural Skills, Receptive

Responses, Generative Skills, Integration of Skills, Personal Qualities, and The Origin of Music

Abilities, which had divisions into sub-categories. The authors asked the participants to define

their abilities in those categories with open-ended questions, which could lead to very different

answers and concepts. After analyzing the data through several qualitative techniques, Hallam

and Prince (p. 18) could conclude that “there were substantial differences in conceptions of

musical ability between the respondents from the various participating groups.”

Mawang, Kigen, and Mutweleli (2019) researched musical self-concept’s relationship to

creativity, which besides establishing a relationship between musical self-concept and creativity,

proposed to predict a significant model of musical creativity from eight musical self-concept

dimensions. Their musical self-concept dimensions were singing, instrument playing, reading

music, music composition, listening skills, dancing, sense of rhythm, and perceptions of global

musical self-concept. Participants were senior high-school students from Kenya, and the

instruments used were Vispoel’s (2017) Music Self-Perception Inventory-Version 2 (MUSPI), to

measure musical self-concept and the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT; Amabile, 1996;

Auh, 1997) to measure musical creativity “The findings revealed a significant positive

correlation between musical self-concept and musical creativity. All the dimensions of musical

self-concept, except singing, had significant relations with musical creativity” (pp 86-87).

Furthermore, Randles (2010) developed a study to examine relationships among a group

of factors for high-school students involved with music, including composition, and musical self-

concept. The factors were grade, gender, private lessons, school music activity, home music

33

activity, number of parents with a history of involvement in school music, level of satisfaction

with school music experience, and feelings of personal contribution to music learning within the

school music environment. The instrument used for the study was the Self Esteem of Musical

Ability (SEMA), which divides into three subscales: Self-Perception of Music Ability, Support

and Recognition from Others, and Personal Interest and Desire with an additional questionnaire

about the student’s musical involvement background developed by the author. Students also had

the opportunity to compose musical pieces for 12 weeks using the Garage Band program.

Students were divided into three groups, with different types of program training and amounts of

time dedicated to composing. Rendles’ study showed a lack of correlation between SEMA score

and composition skills for all groups, separately and together.

Finally, Petersen and Camp (2016, p. 2) first applied the MUSCI questionnaire in an

Asian context to “(1) Examine the musical self-concept in a Chinese setting (2) Characterize

musical self-concept types among Chinese university music students.” Participants were

undergraduate music education students from a university in Beijing, China. Although

maintaining the original items, the author dissolved the six original MUSCI factors and

reorganized the items into eight new factors and performed a reliability analysis through

Cronbach’s Alpha analysis, which was successful. According to results, the participants were

organized into three different clusters: Motivated Achievers, Nay-Sayers, and Young Dreamers.

In conclusion, Petersen and Camp (p. 11) said

Collectivist traditions and Confucianism cannot be seen as sole and indisputable

influences on Chinese learners (Wang, 2013) and their musical self-concept.

Changes are occurring in China, and Western values are gaining importance,

especially for younger generations (e.g., Zhang and Shavitt, 2003). For example,

there are indicators that learning style, motivation, or student- teacher

relationships are, to a certain extent, similar between Western and Chinese

(music) students (Littlewood, 2000; Brand, 2001). There are, nevertheless,

34

differences between the musical self-concepts in the different environments, as

the present study indicates.

By analyzing these previous studies, there is enough information that implies that

opportunity-to-learn-music might be a factor that would influence musical self-concept of

individuals, particularly during adolescence or secondary education. Additionally, the

instrument MUSCI_youth, together with the Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical

Self-Concept of Musicians, seems to be the best instrument for this study with excellent

reliability and validity for this study.

Students’ Opportunities to Participate in Musical Experiences In and Outside School and

Their Musical Self-Development

Music students can develop their musical skills in several ways through participation in

musical experiences inside and outside schools. Moreover, according to Hallam (2017), musical

education can be developed formally, with a structured program in music education; informally,

through participation in musical practices without guidance or listening to music; and non-

formally, when participating in seasonal classes like workshops and masterclasses. Music

education programs in schools tend to be based on formal music education. A proper philosophy

for music education generates the curriculum, an appropriate schedule for classes, a music

teacher with formal training, and proper equipment and facilities (Kertz-Welzel, 2008).

However, Requião’s (2001) study showed that outside-school music combines formal,

informal, and non-formal music education programs. Music students participate in private

lessons and structured ensembles with guidance, participate in small groups without guidance,

and listen to live or recorded music. Furthermore, Del Bem (2009) observed that music students

participate in workshops and masterclasses attached to their instrument, or to any other subject

related to music, which is sporadic music education. Therefore, music education outside school

usually complements the formal music education received in school.

35

Jørgensen (2008) concentrated his study on a third important component of music

learning: students’ self-effort to learn music, which is the time spent practicing a musical

instrument, studying music theory and music history, and composing. According to Jørgensen,

during these events, students develop their learning by acquiring some instrument technique and

increasing musical understanding, leading to better performance concerning technical and

interpretative skills.

Establishing a formal music education program requires, like any other subject, learning

and teaching structures and tools. NAfME (2019b) shaped in 1994 the Opportunity-to-Learn

Standards for Music Instructions motivated by the program Goals 2000: Educate America Act,

aiming to “specify the physical and educational conditions necessary in the schools to enable

every student, with sufficient effort, to meet the voluntary national content and achievement

standards in music.” The standards are divided into four topics: Curriculum and Scheduling,

Staffing, Materials and Equipment, and Facilities. Their standards are historically based on

Leonhard and House’s (1972) five essential factors to develop an educational program: (a)

curriculum, (b) instruction, (c) administration, (d) supervision, and (e) evaluation.

Curriculum Development

The Curriculum and Scheduling standard, NAfME says “The curriculum, like all good

curricula, must not only be a coherent written document, it must reflect a vision for helping

students achieve the desired learning goals.” The curriculum's vision is the philosophy support

and the achievement of the learning goals, which is done by its assessment. Conway (2015)

assembled more than 20 articles highlighting the importance of philosophy, curriculum, and

assessment throughout the process of music education, from teachers’ development to classroom

practices. A philosophy, a curriculum, and assessment are the basis for constructing a reliable

36

music education program. By developing those areas according to the objective, music educators

can construct an appropriate and effective music education program.

Philosophy for music education

According to Reimer (1970, p.1) “A philosophy of music education should be a

systematic statement of music education’s nature and value.” It is important to establish a

philosophy, when developing a music education program, which would set the purpose of

studying music. Mark & Madura (2014) argued about philosophical approaches to music

education: utilitarian, aesthetic, and praxial.

Mark and Madura (2014) said the utilitarian philosophy of music education arose from

ancient Greece when Aristotle said that music would help human beings to develop themselves

in other areas and better understand the world around them. Benedetti and Kerr (2010) agreed,

citing Paulo Freire and his Critical Thinking philosophy, stating that music would help

socialization and self-expression. Reimer (1970) defended aesthetic philosophy, originally from

Plato, one of Aristotle’s students. Plato’s doctrine of beauty was revived in the late 19th and

early 20th century when arts’ aesthetic gained awareness. The same aesthetic current was

defended by Amato (2008) who saw development of music appreciation in music education

programs in schools as a way to develop art awareness.

Elliott (1995) led the praxial philosophy in current music education, focusing on

students’ complete experience of music as listening, understanding, and performing. According

to Elliott, the performance experience would add knowledge to the student, followed by a

development of sensitivity and empowerment, making it a complete experience. Elliott believed

that technical development in instrument or voice skills should be accompanied by growth in

aural, theory, and music-history skills to achieve the practical goals of a music education

program. Del-Ben (2005) studied the development of bands and fanfares in public and private

37

schools in Brazil as praxial programs focusing on students learning to play instruments, listen to

intonation, feel the beat and rhythm, and play together with interpretation without learning how

to read music.

However, some authors do not concentrate on just one current when elaborating on their

philosophy of music education. Meyer (1956) emphasized the importance of establishing

significance while doing music, and, emphasized emotion’s influence on the meaning of musical

creation. Developing the auditory system was the activity explored by Gordon (1990), who

ranked audiation as the most crucial aspect of musical development, on which music education

programs should be based.

Music education standards

Assembling all these thoughts and theories, NAfME (2019) revised their National

Standards for Music Education published in 1994, which had nine specific topics:

1. Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music

2. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music

3. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments

4. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines

5. Reading and notating music

6. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music

7. Evaluating music and music performances

8. Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts

9. Understanding music in relation to history and culture

In 2014, NAfME revised the music standards, organizing them around the three artistic

processes of creating, performing, and responding. According to Shuler, Norgaard, and

Blakeslee (2014, p. 41), the new standards came to “provide standards and supplemental

38

materials that will be of maximum help to arts/music educators, both in shaping their

instructional programs and in advocating for those programs.” Those standards are divided into

more specific goals and actions according to type of program and year students are involved.

Those three standards came after centuries of development of music education, and they can

synthesize most activities related to music education described by music educators from all over

and at all times. Consequently, they seem suitable parameters for constructing as curriculum.

Creating

When approaching creativity in music, NAfME (2019) refers to several activities as

creative expressions: composing, improvising, arranging, or even modifying an existing

composition or melody. These creative actions are not viewed merely as the natural geniality of

an individual. They should be constructed through time, as referenced by several research

projects of respected musicians and researchers. NAfME synthesizes the process of music

education creativity by dividing it into four different benchmarks:

• Imagine, when creating ideas and concepts happens

• Plan and make, when its development is attached to knowledge of the musician.

• Evaluate and refine the phase when the creator revises the idea and development

according to the appropriate route of creation

• Present, musicians communicate their final creation to the public.

Several authors explored creating in music education, which helped NAfME to

elaborate benchmarks for the standard, and pointed out directions to build a curriculum

according to the age and level of the students. Palmer and Hibbard (2015), linked creativity to

the act of composing, improvising, and performance interpretation. The authors distinguished

composition from improvisation: composition is the result of creative effort through time, and

improvisation is a simultaneous act of performing and improvising. The main difference (p. 216)

is “the amount of time spent creating original musical ideas and the ability to edit those ideas.”

39

They defined performance interpretation (p. 216) “as the execution of previously determined

musical content, whether notated or taught by heart.” Performance interpretation can be valuable

when comparing different performers executing the same piece of music, as there will be

differences between them.

Reimer (1970, p. 46) emphasized the “aesthetic creation” as a process developed through

time, as a music student will gather aesthetic information to develop creativity: “The growth

process, which is an essential characteristic of aesthetic creation is a process of exploration.”

Reimer uses texts of Bearsley, Copland, Rogers, and Dewey to describe the creative process in

music as a spark of an idea from the musicians’ minds, followed by mechanical hard work to

achieve greatness. Additionally, Reimer believed that the aesthetic creativity of an individual and

his/her work of art establish a symbiosis between them that allows constant feedback that will

culminate in a masterpiece.

Elliott (1995) dedicates a whole chapter to creativity. He set two goals: (1) “explain what

creativity is” and (2) “develop guidelines for teaching students how to achieve creative musical

results” (p. 215).“Creative is a congratulatory term that singles out a concrete accomplishment

that knowledgeable people judge to be specifically important concerning a specific context of

doing and making.” (p. 216) Elliott’s pragmatism in creativity had an essential role in showing

ways to develop creative methodologies to help students with that factor.

When talking about creativity in music, Lehman, Sloboda, and Woody (2007) reduced

music creation to the activities of composing and improvising with emphasizes on psychological

states for creativity. They addressed creativity as a learning process, citing several psychological

studies to justify this statement. Creativity can increase if an individual has any chemical

interference with brain function (drugs, alcohol, or even suffers from a specific pathology). More

40

specifically, creativity in music can be learned or improved, based on potential creativity and the

knowledge acquired by an individual.

Vieira (2014) said creativity in music is often related to composition and improvisation

and extended the meaning of creativity to “other modalities of music making” (p. 403). After

analyzing 31 research projects about music creativity, Vieira concluded that most of the

creativity in contemporary music is related to the aesthetic. Besides affirming that most music

creativity is related to composition and improvisation; Vieira also emphasizes that music

interpretation is a relevant aspect of creativity.

Odena and Welch (2007) said composition and improvisation are both aspects of

creativity. Another aspect of creativity (p. 71) is personal “thinking style”. Music teachers

commonly identify creativity in their students but seldom examine it. Odena and Welch

connected the importance of college-level music students’ backgrounds with their perceptions of

musical creativity.

There is a tendency to consider musical creativity as a constructed ability, which can be

acquired by any individual through time with proper stimulation. Composers and improvisers

understand and assimilate musical language to develop their abilities. However, there is another

understanding: impetus for creation comes from composers or interpreters' minds. Creativity

development is attached to the students’ routes of musical endeavor. Furthermore, by hearing

instrument players' interpretations and improvisation, one can perceive the uniqueness of each.

Each performance is unique because their personal experiences could be related to their music

education experience, or to any other experience that might influence their expressiveness.

Performing

According to NAfME (2019), the performing process in music education goes through

five different phases.

41

• Select, when music students choose the pieces according to their interest and knowledge

• Analyze, verifying the context the composer wrote the piece for

• Interpret, when the performers express their view of the piece to be performed

• Rehearse, Evaluate, and Refine, when the performer constructs the performance based on

the composers’ view and their own through practice

• Present, the final phase when the student performs the chosen and rehearsed piece of

music

Music performance is an essential outcome of music education programs. The ability to

play an instrument with technical precision, musical meaning, and being creative was highlighted

by Conway (2015). According to Birge (1966), performing activities are fundamental to

development of music education programs. Birge (p. 38) detailed the principles of the music

education Manual of Instruction by Lowell Mason, based on Pestalozzian’s values of music

education. “To teach sound before signs–to make the child sing before he learns the written notes

or their names.” Mason said performance is a key part of music education.

Elliott (1995, p. 49) also emphasized the importance of performance in music education:

“Musical works are not only a matter of sounds, but they are also a matter of actions.” Elliott

(Chapter 3) furiously advocated performance to establish an adequate music education program.

Later, Elliott invoked the psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi’s map of consciousness,

divided into three subsystems: attention, awareness, and memory. Awareness has three

capacities: cognition, emotion, and intention. This information supports multidimensional view

of thinking and knowing (p.53) “in which thinking and knowing (and intelligence) are not

restricted to words or other symbols but are also manifested in actions.”

Regelski (2005) said performance should be the ultimate tool used for teaching and

learning in music education. "performance in class is regarded as an active and thus more

attractive way of instantiating abstract concepts—rather than as promoting skills that could be

used in life!" (p. 15). In other words, music should be made to help us better understand music,

42

not just to help students be better human beings. Referring to music as a practice, Regelski said

(p. 17), "when music is considered as praxis, the 'goodness' or 'rightness' of musical experiences

vary according to the individuals or groups in question." Aristotle’s knowledge theory had three

types of knowing: Theoria, Techne, and Praxis. Praxis is related to good or right results judged

according to the people involved.

Responding

Responding, third standard from the NAfME (2019), refers to factors that influence

students’ music preference: their interests, experiences, understanding, and purpose. Students,

like many people, identify themselves with whatever connects them to some personal feelings or

thoughts. The idea of creating a personal identity in music will be attached to these connections.

NAfME identified Responding in four different phases:

• Select, the deliberate act of students selecting their preferred music

• Analyze, when students will understand the music by analyzing it, not musically, but

contextually, and how this music affects them

• Interpreting, by understanding the context, students develop their interpretation by

modifying the structure and/or elements

• Evaluate when students give their own opinion after understanding

Bauer explored responding to music (Chapter 5), first by giving a list of outcomes that students

should perform, related to responding to music; followed by a section called Humans Response

to Music. In this section, Bauer (p. 105) explored different types of reactions people have when

exposed to music.

Hallam (2008) suggests that people respond to music in ways that are (a)

physiological ( e.g., heart rate and respiration); (b) motor (e.g., dancing); (c)

intellectual (e.g., marveling at the craftmanship of a particular composer); (d)

aesthetic (e.g., experiencing a deep, personal reaction to the beauty of a musical

performance); (e) emotional (e.g., being moved by the playing of the national

anthem); and (f) mood base (e.g., playing music that makes one feel happy during

times of melancholy).

43

Bauer subdivided the factors listening into five sections. How People Listen to Music,

Teaching Music Listening, and Technology and Musical Listening, are three of those sections. In

how people listen to music, the ability to understand the music is related to being exposed to it

previously. There are two different ways of listening to music: intuitive and formalized. In

teaching music listening, Bauer explores the importance of sound recognition and its process,

ending with eight approaches that music teachers should consider when developing students’

listening. In Technology and Musical Listening, Bauer exposes the importance of technological

development to develop listening skills, as today's music becomes more accessible through

digital audio technology.

Discussions on musical response have a long history. Leonhard and House (1972, p.100)

said “The primary objective of music education must be to develop the innate musical

responsiveness of every individual to the highest level and to nurture and expand his potential for

aesthetic experience.” Music could occur in two different categories: unmusical responses, which

associate music with images, feelings, memories, stories, and other things; and musical responses

made by musical reproduction or interaction with the stimulus. Leonhard and House said every

person can respond to musical stimuli, although in different degrees of intensity.

On the same path, Reimer (1970) dedicates a whole chapter to aesthetic experience the

importance of experiences and interactions in the process of learning: more specifically, learning

music. Reimer (p.73) said “Every living thing exhibits the same basic condition: an interaction

between the thing and its environment. This interaction is a constant process of accommodation;

of impulses received and given; of movement and counter-movement.” In an extended analogy

of everyday life events to music-making, Reimer (p. 87) emphasized the importance of aesthetic

experiences in the development of a musician: “A constant interaction between conception about

44

expressive qualities of music, and perception of those qualities, should pervade every aspect of

music study.”

Additionally, Elliott (1995, p. 161) explored responding to music in three chapters:

Musicing in Context, Music Listening in Context, and Musical Creativity in Context: “musical

works are multidimensional artistic-social constructions.” Interactions between composers or

performers, and the world around them, helps to construct their work. Elliott also mentions the

importance of understanding all relevant dimensions of a composition to deliver real

interpretative performance. However, Elliott established limits for interpretation based on ethics

and musical obligation an artwork, once created. Furthermore, Elliott discussed music listening

and its influence on music education, culture, or even ideology. When arguing about creativity

and contextualization, Elliott touched on sensitive themes like the concept of creation concerning

originality, spontaneity, personality, and imagination. These concepts are created through time,

as composers and performers interact with their surroundings.

Gordon (1990) said that appreciation and understanding of music are essential to music

education programs. Gordon (p.2) addressed the relevance of responding to music: “The question

of what constitutes an understanding of music must be considered. In order to understand music,

one must be aware of both descriptively and interpretively of its basic aural elements.” Using

these principles, Gordon constructed a narrative on the importance of the perception of sounds

and how music learning is attached to perception, as music is the construction of sounds and

musicians should be aware of them to develop their aptitudes when creating or performing.

Responding to music is the ability to listen, describe, evaluate, understand, and appreciate

music. By developing these abilities, students will be able to modify and perform music with

different characteristics and from a different background. Students who cannot develop these

45

abilities or do not use them during a performance are destined to become mechanical players

without any emotion or meaning.

Assessment

Conway (2015) examines the importance of curriculum development, including

assessment, for music education programs. To develop curriculum, we must define school grade

and type of music education programs. Musical curricula should also differ according to several

factors: philosophy; goals; skills to be developed; physical, technical and methodological

resources; teaching strategies; and assessment strategies. According to Conway (p. 4), “there is

no correct way to write a curriculum, and decisions about design depend on the teaching and

learning context.”.

Conway (p. 15) also said assessment is critical for curriculum construction, as measuring

music-learning is not easy because of objective and subjective factors. That said, music

education assessment should measure several facts of music, including music aptitude and music

achievement. Conway (p. 15) said, “I encourage teachers for music classes to recognize that

musicianship and musical behaviors can, and should, be assessed.” Conway said the

measurement of musical development must follow students’ evolution mainly in rhythm,

singing, and tonal audiation, creative music-making, instrumental/vocal technique, expression

and sensitivity, and literacy in music-reading and writing.

Additionally, Boyle and Radocy’s (1987) taxonomy to assess musical behaviors was

divided into four major activities: performance; reading and writing; and listening and other

cognitive behaviors, including musical structure and music history knowledge. Those items have

subdivisions that help identify students’ behaviors and assess them. Boyle and Radocy (p. 171)

said “the measurement of musical performance is inherent subjective. Some subjective decisions

46

related to technical issues. Playing the right notes depends on correct tempi, phrasing nuances,

execution of ornamentation, and tone quality.

All the authors above concluded that music education curriculums should help students

be creative, perform on an instrument or voice, and develop some aesthetic knowledge and

awareness allowing them to respond to music stimulus, which helps students to develop

performance and creativity. Development of those attitudes through the years will depend on the

students’ music education program and its approach to those issues. In other words, several

factors influence the construction of students’ attitudes toward creation, performance, and

response to music.

Staffing

The Opportunity-to-Learn Standards from NAfME (2019b) said about staffing, “The

standards will not be achieved by students unless the system for delivering instruction is based

on teachers with the requisite qualifications, augmented in a structured, appropriate way by

community resources.” Researchers have been continually examining teachers' education.

Feiman-Nemser (2012) said researchers have historically treated teachers’ education as a

“problem.” First, from the 1920s to the 1950s, teacher education had curricular problems, so

their training concentrated on developing knowledge and preparedness. Second, from the 1950s

to 1970s, it became a training problem and training focused on correlating their behavior to

students’ learning. Third, in the 1980s, the focus changed to teachers’ perspective and their

learning, which would affect their students’ learning. Fourth, after the 1990s, teachers’ learning

became a policy problem related to specific issues of teachers’ careers, including certification

requirements, academic majors, testing, and different ways of teaching.

Therefore, Mark and Madura (2014) emphasized the importance of Competency-Based

Teacher Education for music teachers. Students must show teaching proficiency before leaving a

47

music education course in a higher-education institution. Mark and Madura also proposed some

acclaimed competencies published by the MENC Commission on Music Education, as the

foundation for teachers to be certified. The main subjects are Personal Quality, Musical

Competencies, and Professional Qualities. Each of these items has several sub-items related to

it.

Feiman-Nemser (2012) discussed the construction of teachers’ learning courses,

highlighting the traditions for teacher preparation according to the type of institution and

clientele. Feiman-Nemser said the main characteristics of an elementary teacher should be

institutional autonomy, professional esprit de corps, professional treatment of the subject matter,

and art and sciences teaching. The main characteristic of a secondary teachers should beliberal

arts as a preparational teacher, education as liberal arts, intellectual values, and knowledge skills,

and common learning.

Bauer (2014) said teachers’ education should be a complex combination of Content

Knowledge (CK), comprehension and experience of content of the course to be taught;

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), the pedagogical skills to teach; and Technological Knowledge

(TK), awareness of the technology available for teaching. Through an intersectional diagram,

Bauer showed that teachers could have combined skills like Pedagogical Content Knowledge

(PCK), an understanding of the content of the field and an ability to teach; or Technological

Content Knowledge (TCK), a grasp of the content of the field and the use of technology; or even

Technological Pedagogic Knowledge (TPK), a capability to teach using the available

technology. The combination of all the skills is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

(TPACK), described by Bauer (p. 15) as “more than just an overlap; they are dynamic, with

changes in one affecting the others.” In music, achievement of TPACK involves multiple factors.

48

Students’ comprehension of the content comes from their development using an applied

instrument, development of general music and history of music knowledge, and ensemble

practice. Pedagogical development comes from understanding theories of how people develop

and learn. Technological development comes from awareness of the use of a computer and

software for general educational and music education purposes.

Feiman-Nemser (2014, p. 105) also introduced the idea of transition from preparation to

practice, and continuous development after graduation, “what and how teachers teach depends on

the knowledge, skills, and the commitments they bring to their teaching and the opportunities

they have to continue learning in and from their practice.” The most critical steps of teachers’

preparation are the final stage, the student teaching stage, and induction. Feinman-Nemser

stressed the importance of guidance during these periods, and even after, through mentoring.

Continuous professional development throughout the teachers’ career is another essential

element of the development of a teacher. Research brings new information, practices, and

technologies teachers should be aware of and use.

Material and Equipment

Concerning materials and equipment NAfME (2019b, p. 1) said “Music education cannot

exist without making music, and making music in most traditions requires instruments,

accessories, texts and other content, and increasingly access to and use of various technologies.”

Elliott (1995) emphasized the importance of making music to learn; consequently, musical

instruments are essential tools for music learning. Furthermore, NAfME said schools should

provide minimal material for the development of music education programs. Different programs

need different instruments and accessories. According to NAfME, schools should provide

musical instruments and materials to students who are not able to rent or buy them. Schools

should also provide expensive and large instruments that are difficult to move, like a piano, a

49

marimba, or a drum set. Other necessary materials for development of music education classes

should also be provided by the school chairs, stands, computers and software, folders, tuning

devices, and printed material–music, books, and method book.

Shouldice (2015) stressed the importance of materials in the development of students’

ability to read and write music. Shouldice (p. 266) adapted a citation from the United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2004): “[Music] literacy is the ability to

identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute [musically], using printed and

written [music notation] materials associated with varying [musical] contexts.”

Bauer (2014) suggested the use of technology in music learning as a way for students to

have more control of their learning, and not be so dependent on teachers as a font of knowledge.

According to Bauer, technology may facilitate collaborative learning. The advent of the internet

shortened distances for communication. By sharing data, students from schools all over the

world can develop musical projects together. We need to develop tools that help students create,

perform, and respond to music, besides having access to literature from all over the world.

Facilities

According to NAfME (2019b, p. 1), “Making and learning music requires the dedication

of appropriate space for day-to-day instruction. Correct design and maintenance of this space are

essential to the success of the program and of the students. Much music instruction requires, in

addition, periodic access to venues for performances.” Sounds, mechanical propelled through air

have three properties: reflection, refraction, and absorption. Levitin (2006) said reflection is the

property of the wave changing direction when confronting an apparatus, according to the angle

of approach and the shape of the apparatus. Refraction is the property of the wave splitting its

components harmonics, when passing through or by an apparatus. Absorption is the property of

the wave not reflecting or refracting when confronting an apparatus. Those properties influence

50

the construction or remodeling of a facility dedicated to music education, to make sure there is

no harm to students’ performances due to the facility. Another component in designing a music

education facility is the size and type of program, or programs, that take place in the room

(Koskinen, Toppila, and Olkinura, 2010, p. 86).

Requirements for good rehearsal facilities are as follows:

• Good sound insulation (should be ensured when built, as it is difficult to improve later

without extensive repairs) and proper background noise levels

• A sufficient amount of absorption

• Special requirements for the instruments need to be met (floor, reflecting wall, etc.)

• Other environmental controls were needed (ventilation, lighting, temperature)

Koskinen, Toppila, and Olkinuora developed a study in which they renovated several

different sizes' classrooms of music education that did not have proper acoustical treatment, by

using proper materials for sound insulation and absorption. By analyzing their data concerning

reverberation time before and after the remodeling, they decreased reverberation time by 20% to

70%. Through a questionnaire, students reported more audio comfort after the renovation, and

several students using ear protection devices stopped using them.

Comparative Studies in Music Education

My literature search found no comparative studies of music education between the United

States of America and Brazil, whether quantitative or qualitative. However, several other

comparative studies of music education between different countries indicate directions for my

study. Considering that this is a comparative study in music education between two different

countries, international studies seem suitable for review.

Burnard, Dillon, Rusinek, and Saether (2008) used a causal-comparison research frame to

compare teachers’ stance and strategies in four different countries: Sweden, Spain, Australia, and

England, and how those stances and strategies affect students’ engagement and achievement in

51

music education classes. The authors believed that other factors than music education programs

offered by universities, such as different cultural values and socio-economic factors, might

interfere with students’ enrollment and performance. Burnet et al. found many common attitudes

among teachers from all the four countries and some social-cultural differences in procedures,

which did not influence students’ learning.

Kertz-Welzel (2008) performed a comparative study of music education between the

United States and Germany to investigate the areas of general, performing-based, and

multicultural music education. Kertz-Welzel found similarities and differences in American and

German cultures that could influence the way programs are constructed and executed. Kertz-

Welzel concluded that comparative studies in music education help teachers see that solutions

used in a different system, or country might help them to find a solution for their problems.

Ho (2016) studied music education in China versus the United States, addressing

nationalism and multiculturalism. Ho used nationalism and culture as a way to understand and

compare different approaches in music education. Furthermore, Ho identified social-cultural

factors that influence the construction of a curriculum, and that affect how music is taught and

learned. Ho (p. 45) stressed the importance of multiculturalism in education:

Despite differences in mainland China’s and the US’ ethnic organization,

historical backgrounds, and political ideologies, multicultural education in both

countries is a teaching and learning process that generally helps students to be

sensitive to people of different cultural backgrounds and provides equal

opportunities to students so that they may reach their fullest educational potential.

Bonastre and Timmers (2019) studied teaching and learning of expression in music

performance between Spanish and English higher education music students. There are doubts on how

expressivity works, “Evidence indicates, for example, that the belief is common that emotional

expressivity cannot be directly trained, despite empirical evidence against that idea” (p. 2). Bonastre

and Timmer established four models of teaching and learning expressivity. They ranked them from

52

most appropriate (1) to less appropriate (4): 1. Technique; 2. Metaphors; 3. Emotions; and 4.

modeling.

Mota and Figueiredo (2012) compared music education teachers’ learning in Portugal

versus Brazil using the following factors:

• Educational context in Portugal and Brazil

• Higher education music students’ musical education before entering a university level,

and criterion used for the university entrance examination

• Universities’ music education curriculum

• Supervised teaching and career perspective.

Although both countries share a mutual past and the same language, some social-cultural

differences affect music teachers’ learning.

The lack of music education studies about the United States and Brazil requires some

parameters to proceed with the comparison (Ho, 2016). As this causal-comparison studies

opportunity-to-learn music, it makes sense to analyze music education in programs in both

countries. The development and maintenance of dependable programs for music education will

determine possible differences in the US and Brazil (Zakharov, Tsheko, and Carnoy, 2016).

Comparison of Music Education programs in the United States and Brazil

Music Education Programs in the United States

The organization of music programs in schools has been a topic of discussion. Henry

(1958) gathered several texts from prominent specialists at that time. They were already

discussing the role of music in general education and how to construct a curriculum for music

education. Henry chose listening as the most important factor for developing other skills like

singing, rhythm, music reading, and theory.

Leonhard and House (1972) presented music content according to student age and

placement in education. For music education programs in secondary schools should be

attached to various activities: a) General Music, for “students who have developed no

53

particular concern of any phase of music.” (p. 258); b) Vocal music, “Choral organizations–

the choir, the glee clubs, and the various small ensembles–offer an unusual opportunity for

effective musical development.” (p. 259); c) Instrumental music–band, orchestra, and small

instrumental ensembles; d) Private instruction, “Private study is a necessary preliminary to

the musical profession.” (p. 267); and e) Music Theory and literature, “with theoretical

content introduced wisely in connection with the music literature being studied, and there

would be no justification for a special course in music theory” (p. 276). Leonard and House

said the music education programs in most schools in the United States should serve as

model music education programs.

The work of Emile Jacques-Dalcroze, Carl Orff, and Zoltan Kodály significantly

influenced the construction of methodologies for teaching and learning music. Their

approaches were created mostly to introduce music to children through experimentation and

involvement. The Dalcroze method, or eurhythmics, concentrates on how the body reacts to

music: more precisely, the relationship between the rhythm of the music and the natural

rhythm of the body. Dalcroze’s eurhythmics inspired Orff methodology for music education

or Orff-Schulwerk, although it extended to the use of pitched percussion instruments, besides

the body and voice. Kodàly’s method was more committed using the voice to express

patriotism and music literacy development (Mark and Madura, 2014).

After decades influenced by those methodologies and other foreign approaches,

American educators began developing their own methods for music teaching and learning.

The first (Mark and Madura, 2014) was the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program

(MMCP), “developed to enhance students’ creative and expressive powers and to engage

them in the process of musical discovery” (p.111). According to Moon and Humphreys

54

(2010), the MMCP represents a critical curriculum development during a period of curricular

innovation and experimentation. Moon and Humphreys described MMCP as the following:

MMCP identified five basic elements of music: dynamics, timbre, form, rhythm,

and pitch. Teaching students to understand these concepts was the primary goal of

the new curriculum. These elements were organized into sixteen cycles of

concepts to enable students to repeatedly revisit them, each time at increasingly

sophisticated levels, so they could “think, create and explore music in the manner

of a musician.”18 Indeed, one of the most innovative features of the project was

the “spiral” curriculum, which was based on Bruner’s theories (p. 80).

Moon and Humphreys said through the MMCP method, students could use music already

written to perform creative assignments, as the program recommended a plurality of music

resources, exposing students to different approaches and techniques in composition, on which

they could develop their style.

Willoughby (1990, p. 39) said that at the same period of MMCP, there was the

development of another methodology by the Contemporary Music Project (CMP) called

Comprehensive Musicianship (CM). According to Willoughby CM addressed four concepts in

all levels of education:

1. The development of competencies in creating music, performing music, and

critical listening and analysis; 2. Experience with the totality of musical

styles…brought into a common frame of reference by the common elements

approach to terms and principles in all music; 3. The integration of content and

musical experiences; 4. The students’ active involvement in the application of

concepts with emphasis on music making and discovery, rather than on routine

memorization and a passive learning environment.

Moreover, the CMP was effectively applied during the 70s with an interdisciplinary

approach, unifying music theory and history to performance, causing a significant effect in music

programs of elementary and secondary schools in general music and performance-ensembles

classes (Mark & Madura, 2014, p. 121). Mark and Madura emphasized the importance and the

use of such pedagogy as the CMP:

55

Directors of bands, orchestras, and choruses adopted comprehensive musicianship

practices because traditional performance-oriented music programs, excellent

though they might have been, did little to enhance the overall musical

understanding of individual students.

With the advent of CMP, comprehensive methods started to contain more than just

technical exercises for the instrument or voice, draws on information about music theory and

history. Additionally, Edwin Gordon (1990) developed the Music Learn Theory, a pedagogy for

teaching and learning music based on the auditory sense. For Gordon, the auditory system is the

key to music education. He said: “the development of audiation skill must come long before the

use not only if irrelevant pictorial and referential words but also the definition of music symbols

and structures” (p. 3). To develop his theory, Gordon spent time researching sound and the

human auditory system, to human brain activities and reactions to sounds, and to developing

melodic and rhythmic exercises based on cognitive brain constructions. Creativity is also

essential to Gordon’s Music Learning Theory. About developing creativity through music

learning theory, Mark and Madura (2014, p. 127) said:

Gordon asserts that creativity can only be taught indirectly. He advises that

teacher to guide creative process by ensuring that students have a solid grasp on

the skill and knowledge emphasized in the previous discrimination levels.

Music learning theory is a well-structured pedagogy that should help students to develop

multiple aspects of musical language for listening, reading, writing, recalling from memory, and

creating/improvising in two different ways: discrimination and inference.

According to NAfME (2019), music education programs offered in public schools in the

United States are a) PK-8 general music, b) composition/theory, c) music technology, d) guitar,

keyboard, harmonizing instruments, and e) ensemble. All those programs should cover the

standards creating, performing, and responding. They should differ according to the student age

and the program's specificity described in all the standards charts elaborated for each program.

56

The ensemble program is the most common program at the high-school level, and they are choir

program, band program, or orchestra program. Likewise, a few alternative programs like guitar

or ukulele ensembles have been disseminated throughout public high schools all over the United

States, offering alternatives for performance. It is common for high schools to offer general

music programs separate from performance programs offering a more aesthetic approach to

music learning.

Music Education Programs in Brazil

Music education programs and organizations in Brazil, unlike these in the US, did not

develop through time in an organized way. According to Harte (2014), the first music education

program in a school was a vocal music class at the Colégio Pedro II, in 1838. The course had a

method book called Compendio de Musica Para o Uso dos Alumnos do Imperial Colégio Pedro

II, to teach beginning students basic music theory, rhythm, and solfege as well as a collection of

songs. Morila (2016) said that in 1875, there was an unsuccessful effort to elaborate a music

education method to unify teaching and learning music in São Paulo state, as well as an

unsuccessful attempt to create the São Paulo music education association. Therefore, the ABEM,

Brazilian Association for Music Education, was created in 1991 (ABEM, 2019).

Martinoff (2017) showed (Table 2-1) the associating laws, characteristics, music

education systems, and role of music education through time that explain the development of

music education in Brazil.

Table 2-1. Laws about Music Education in Brazil

Law Date Characteristics Role

Decree 1.331 A 02/17/1854 Notions of music and

singing exercises

Social Control

Law 81, art. 71 04/06/1887 Choir practice Help on learning

Bill nº 300 05/07/1946 Orfeonic Chant Discipline, civism,

convivence

LDB 4.024 12/20/1961 Artistic initiation Extra-curricular activity

57

Table 2-1. Continued

Law Date Characteristics Role

Law 5.692

08/11/1971 Artistic Education

Polyvalent learning

sensibility

Opinion 540 02/10/1977 Artistic Education

Polyvalent learning

Appreciation,

imagination, and leasure

LDB 9.394 12/20/1996 Arts teaching and learning Cultural Development

Law 11.769 from 08/18/2008 Mandatory inclusion of arts

in the curriculum

Cultural Development

Translated from the original by the author

Table 2-2. Music Education Movements Through Time in Brazil

Movement Period Role

Orpheonic Chant 1931 -1967

Length: 36 years

Development of Good Taste

- Character education

o Civism

o Discipline

Music Education 1937 – 1971

Length: 34 years

Music Learning

Artistic Education 1971 – 1996

Length: 25 years

Sensitivity Development

- Music Appreciation

- Imagination development

- Leisure

Arts Learning 1996 to today

Length: 21 years

Cultural Development

Translated from the original by the author

Martinoff argued that Music Education was part of schools’ curriculums at the same

period as Orpheonic Chant, and they were complementary. The Orpheonic Chant program was

voice performance and aesthetics, while the Music Education program was about instrumental

performance and learning music theory.

Orphean chant

According to Monti (2008), Orpheonic Chant was a program to develop large-size choirs

to sing rhythmically to transmit moral values and behavior patterns. It was started in France in

1833 by Bouquillon-Wilhelm, a Paris voice teacher. Monti said: “The name is a reference to

58

Orpheus, musician god from the Greek mythology, associated to the mystical origin of the music

and its capacity to generate emotions to the ones who listen to it” (p. 79). Monti said that in São

Paulo, between 1910 and 1920, there were traces of the use of Orpheonic Chant. Amato (2008)

said that Orpheonic Chant came back in 1946, because of Brazil’s new deal of education, called

Escola Nova, based on Plato’s and Dewey’s aesthetic theories. According Amato, it was the

perfect time to use music to express nationalism and values while a new democratic nationalist

government was taking place. Amato compared Villa-Lobos Orpheonic Chant to Kodàli’s

methodology, indicating six common conceptions:

1) music is everyone’s right; 2) music education is necessary for the full

development of the human being; 3) the singing voice is the best instrument to

learn music as it is accessible by everyone; 4) high-quality folkloric music should

be used in music education; 5) the music learning has more meaning when done

in an experimental context’ 6) music teachers should be well prepared for the

challenging endeavor of music education. (p.7)

Moreover, Amato claimed that Villa-Lobos met Kodàli in Europe earlier and became

impressed with his work. Villa-Lobos later developed the Orpheonic Chant with three

complementary activities: a) organized schools’ practices, including teacher’s training; b)

construction and presentation of large Orpheonic formations; and c) composition, arrangement,

and compilation of songs appropriate to teaching and learning the course. Campos (2012) said

the Villa-Lobos music education project went beyond Orpheonic Chant. According to Campos,

the Educação Musical (Music Education) program in 1937 was also developed by Villa-Lobos to

spread band programs throughout schools. Campos said that Villa-Lobos saw in the band

program a perfect match to accompany a large-size choir singing epic music. To develop the

band program, Villa-Lobos called military musicians to teach students how to play the

instruments. However, there is no trace of any method book or methodology used to develop the

Educação Musical program.

59

Band programs

Nóbrega (2015) confirmed that band programs were an important pillar of music

education in Brazil since the Portuguese colonization. Musical bands were popular in Portugal

and went to Brazil during the first decade of colonization. As the territory became occupied, the

creation of municipalities brought the need for a musical group to entertain the population.

Therefore, for almost every new city, a band was created to entertain its citizens. Nóbrega said

that most of the instrumental musicians in Brazil’s history started playing in a musical band.

Higino (2006) said that the Colégio Salesiano Santa Rosa (Niteroi, RJ) hosted the first

school band program in Brazil with its first concert on December 8, 1888. Higino listed a

significant number of former students of this band from the late 19th and early 20th centuries

who held essential positions in music education scene (p. 60).

Band program offers numerous benefits to the student: learning music, which

could lead to a professional career as musician; music makes people more

sociable, happy, as participating on a group activity help to develop the spirit of

cooperation and humility; strengthen civility; develop a sense of responsibility,

punctuality and obedience, as well as a notion of duty and fraternal

companionship; prepare to continue their music studies in specialized

establishments; give the opportunity to be part of smaller instrumental ensembles

with their teammates. In addition, develop artistic sensitivity and taste.

Music programs were an important philosophy behind band programs at that time. However,

Higino did not mention any curriculum or methodology used or developed. Instead he focused

on the repertoire presented through time, and competitions won by the group.

Harte (2014) said that bands intensified in schools with the advent of the military regime

in Brazil. The band was recognized as a military activity, playing a basic repertoire composed of

marches. Nevertheless, there was no connection between bands and music education programs.

According to Harte, bands were used to entertain the public during school activities and

60

festivities. Nobrega (2015) agreed, saying that band participants could not recognize pitches,

read music, or sight-sing, which contributed to the low music quality of the groups.

During the military regime period, band competitions were encouraged.Schools (mostly

private and run by Catholic institutions) organized themselves to host those competitions, calling

their sister-schools throughout the country to participate (Higino, 2006). Later municipal and

state agencies began promoting these competitions, leading to the creation of municipal and state

band associations. They gathered together and founded the Confederação Nacional de Bandas e

Fanfarras (CNBF), a national association of bands and fanfares, in 1995 (CNBF, 2019). Since

then, CNBF has been officially in charge of all the national competitions and helped state

associations to promote their regional competitions.

Conservatoires and public music schools

Requião (2001) said that vigorous growth in music education during the military regime

also involved the public schools of music, conservatories, and private schools of music. Because

of the lack of music education in regular schools, those institutions became the primary source

for students who wanted to learn music. However, Requião said the small number of public

schools of music and conservatories was insufficient to serve the population interested in

learning music. Indeed, limited space for students of these music schools led to rigorous

candidate selection. Therefore, from1970 to 2000, private schools of music expanded to serve the

population interested in learning music.

According to Esperidião (2002), public schools of music based their curriculum on the

19th-century European music conservatory system: more specifically, to the French model.

Esperidião said this curriculum remains the same now, based on instrumental performance, and

gives no incentive for creativity. “Students are expected to acquire the necessary skills for

instrumental execution on the detriment of a musical education that contemplates the individual

61

as an active, reflective, sensitive and creative being” (p. 70). The curricula of most public music

schools follow the pattern of instrument/voice private lessons, group theory classes–including

rhythm and solfege–history of music classes and ensemble practice: choir, band, or orchestra.

Brazilian school hours are divided in two: morning and afternoon. Students attend only one in

regular schools. Music schools developed schedules so that students could attend classes at least

twice a week for an extended period, for three to five hours, and participate in all the activities

offered.

Private music schools

Requião (2001) said that private music schools have more freedom in their teaching

methodology. Most students seek their instrument private lessons and some notion of music

theory to help them to perform. Requião qualifies those music schools as music business centers

more than music education centers. They are willing to attract “clients.” Private music schools

keep open curricula and invest in propaganda. About the students' acceptance and their

development in music, Requião said: “There is a wide range of classes offered to the students

without any previous knowledge required. The individualization of the courses is also

highlighted “(p. 100). Those schools, contrary to the public schools of music, have modern

equipment and offer high technology courses, although they do not carry a philosophy or

curriculum attached to music education. Private schools of music are the predominant music-

learning centers in Brazil.

Souza (2014) said there is a lack of consensus to establish a unified music education

program in Brazil. According to references, there is no sign of national or regional standards,

benchmarks, and philosophies. As music programs are not standardized, there are no unified

objectives and considerable pedagogical difference exist among music programs offered

throughout Brazil. Likewise, few students are enrolled in music education programs in Brazil,

62

compared to its population. There is no investment from the government or private enterprise in

quantity and quality of equipment, facilities, and teacher training in music education.

Ultimately, in Brazil’ education in general has been criticized as inefficient and

traumatic, mainly caused by adopting the theory of the oppressed by Paulo Freire. Many

universities’ education schools allow freedom and differentiation for students’ ways of learning

without pre-established concepts of evaluation (Benedetti & Kerr, 2010). This criticism is even

more prominent in music education. The motto is that learning should not be attached to the

strict development of capacities but should be a more creative subject than objectively

measurable (Esperidião, 2002). Benedetti and Kerr (2010) said music assessment in Brazil is still

very subjective. The rigor of some essential music components (intonation, tempo, rhythm, and

tones) is given low priority while creativity is given high priority. That said, in Brazil, music

education assessment is done with less rigor than in the US. Weak objectives and weak

assessment make it difficult to construct paved roads for learning, as the parameters are not well

established.

Moreover, music education programs in Brazil are volatile. Many times, there are no

lesson and unit plans, making teaching and learning float according to the dynamic of each class.

Some contemporary philosophies about music education in Brazil emphasize that teaching and

learning music should be an interactive and unplanned endeavor, leading music education to an

endless musical adventure. There are some exciting music education curriculums in Brazil.

However, these conditions and the diversity of approaches to objectives, assessment, and

planning, making difficult to establish a uniform music education curriculum (Del-Bem, 2009).

63

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY





Research Questions

1. Is there a difference in the pre-college musical experiences of first-year music majors

from the University of Florida and the Universidade de Brasília?







2. Is there a difference in the musical self-concept between first-year music majors from


a. Does the Mood Management dimension of musical self-concept differ

between first-year music majors from the University of Florida and from the

Universidade de Brasília?

b. Does the Community dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-

year music majors from the University of Florida and from the Universidade

de Brasília?

64

c. Does the Musical Ability dimension of musical self-concept differ between

first-year music majors from the University of Florida and from the


d. Does the Movement & Dance dimension of musical self-concept differ



e. Does the Ideal Music Self dimension of musical self-concept differ between



f. Does the Adaptive Music Self dimension of musical self-concept differ



g. Does the Communication dimension of musical self-concept differ between



h. Does the Ability & Ambition dimension of musical self-concept differ between



i. Does the Emotion dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year

music majors from the University of Florida and from the Universidade de

Brasília?

65

j. Does the Spirituality dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-

year music majors from the University of Florida and from the Universidade

de Brasília?

3. Is there a correlation between participants’ pre-college musical experiences and

musical self-concept dimensions?

Participants

The sample for this study was selected from first-year music major students from one

Brazilian (Universidade de Brasília) and one United States (University of Florida) university.

Those institutions have similarities that help support a comparison of their students. The

University of Florida is one of the most important public universities in the United States, ranked

7th among 629 four-year public American universities and 156th in the world, with 52, 669

undergraduate and graduate students (Times Higher Education, 2019). The UF School of Music,

created in 1948, offers undergraduate and graduate programs in performance, musicology,

theory/composition, conducting, and music education on campus and online. In 2018 the UF

School of Music had 448 students enrolled on campus and online, from which 155 are Master of

Music students, the highest number within the College of Arts. Among the full-time students, 70

are graduate students and 233 undergraduate students. Moreover, 96% of the undergraduate UF

School of Music students are from the state of Florida (UF, 2019).

The Universidade de Brasília is one of the most prestigious public universities in Brazil,

ranked as number 16 in Latin America and is number 801/1000 in the World University Rank

with 52,039 undergraduate and graduate students (Times Higher Education, 2019b). The UnB

Department of Music, created in 1960, offers undergraduate and graduate programs in

performance, musicology, and music education on campus and online and have about 260 full

66

time undergraduate on-campus students enrolled as music majors. Likewise, the great majority of

the students of the department of music of Universidade de Brasília are from the Federal District

All freshmen music majors at each university were asked to participate in the study –

approximately 130 students from University of Florida and 125 students from Universidade de

Brasília. Potential participants were contacted through their e-mail addresses – UF music majors

through a listserv distributed by the undergraduate coordinators and UnB music via a direct

email sent from the UF Qualtrics program. Thirty-four individuals responded from Universidade

de Brasília and 35 students from the University of Florida, yielding a total sample of 69

participants.

Independent and dependent variables

The independent variable in this study was institution - the University of Florida or the

Universidade de Brasília. Dependent variables were questionnaire responses related to:

1. The opportunity to experience music, including access to

a. Opportunity to learn music in School

b. Opportunity to learn music outside school

c. Students’ self-effort in learning music

d. Support from family and friends towards music learning and performing.

2. Musical self-concept in the following areas:

a. Mood Management

b. Community

c. Musical Ability

d. Movement and Dance

e. Ideal Music Self

f. Adaptive Music Self

67

g. Communication

h. Ability & Ambition

i. Emotion

j. Spirituality

Measurement Instrument

A researcher-developed questionnaire (see Appendix B) was used to collect data in this

study. The questionnaire has six parts, and includes Likert-type, fixed-response, and open-ended

items. The first part (items 5-10), references participants’ opportunity to learn music in school,

and was influenced by the Opportunity-to-Learn Standards that have been developed by the

National Association for Music Education (NAfME, 2019). The Opportunity-to-Learn

Standards, and this section of the questionnaire, focus attention on five areas: (a) curriculum and

scheduling, (b) staffing, (c) materials & equipment, (d) facilities, and (f) music education

teachers’ formal training in the area. (NAfME, 2019). The second group of questionnaire items

(12, 13, 19, 20, 21, and 22) examine students’ high school: (a) musical activities outside school,

(b) musical influences, and (c) support to study music. The third group of questionnaire items

(14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) assessed students’ self-effort in learning music and examined students

musical practice habits during high school period. The fourth part is a single questionnaire item

(23) that examined the support of family and friends to participate in musical activities. The fifth

section of the questionnaire is comprised of 28 items (24-51) from the Adjusted Musical Self-

Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth), with the final section including 20 items (52-71) from the

Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians instrument (Fiedler

and Spychiger, 2017). A table of specification (see Appendix C) is provided to illustrate the

alignment of the questionnaire items to the research questions.

68

The Adjusted Musical Self-Concept Inquiry was constructed from the original Musical

Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI), a broad instrument that measures a multidimensional

conceptualization of musical self-concept within a general population, which may involve

participating in music activities or not (Fiedler and Spychiger, 2017). The Adjusted Musical Self-

Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth) was created to make the instrument more suitable for young

students, who may be involved in music education programs or not. When creating MUSCI

Spychiger (2010) divided the target population into five categories: group 1 - professional and

employed musicians; group 2 - amateur musicians; group 3 - leisure time musicians; group 4 -

music workers; and group 5 - music listeners. Concomitantly, Spychiger created a second

instrument called the Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians

containing specific items for individuals involved more deeply with music. The author

recommended using this second instrument with participants from groups 1 and 2. The

participants of this study fit these two categories.

The 28 items of the Adjusted Musical Self-Concept Inquiry are divided into six areas: (a)

mood management - 6 items, (b) community - 4 items, (c) musical ability - 5 items, (d) movement

and dance - 4 items, (e) ideal musical self - 5 items, and (f) adaptive musical self - 4 items. The

20 items of Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians is divided

into four areas: (a) communication - 6 items; (b) ability and ambition - 6 items; (c) emotion - 5

items; and (d) spirituality - 3 items. All the items from both instruments are responded to using a

four-point Likert-type scale where 1 = “fully disagree,” to 2 = “rather disagree,” 3 = “rather

agree,” and 4 = “fully agree” (Fiedler, and Spychiger, 2017).

69

Reliability and Validity

As the first two sets of items (#5-23) have different scales, reliability couldn’t be

determined by internal consistency and it should be determined by test-retest. Unfortunately, it

was impossible to perform any of these tests due to some delay of the process.

The content validity of these sections of the questionnaire was established by having

three music education faculty members examine them. Fiedler and Spychiger (2017) established

the internal consistency reliability of the Adjusted Musical Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth)

instrument, which comprises the third section of the questionnaire to be used in this study (items

# 21-48), by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha for each factor (see Table 3-2).

Table 3-1. Summary of the Results of the Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) as Well

as the Quality Criteria (FR and AVE) of the Adjusted MUSCI Subscales

(Altogether 28 Items)

Scale

Number of

items

n

M(SD)

Minimum

Maximum

Cronbach’s

alpha

(standardized)

FR

AVE

Mood Management (S1new) 6 515 3.08 (.61) 1.17 4.00 .798 (.800) .795 .397

Community (S2new) 4 515 2.25 (.63) 1.00 4.00 .635 (.635) .638 .307

Musical Ability (S3new) 5 515 2.70 (.63) 1.00 4.00 .767 (.770) .775 .413

Movement & Dance (S4new) 4 515 2.42 (.89) 1.00 4.00 .828 (.828) .833 .561

Ideal Music Self (S5new) 5 515 2.56 (.69) 1.00 4.00 .799 (.801) .799 .447

Adaptive Musical Self (S6new) 4 513 2.62 (.69) 1.00 4.00 .740 (.740) .736 .412 Note. Measurements of the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and the quality criteria of the second-generation factor reliability (FR) and

average variance extracted (AVE). Retrieved from Fiedler and Spychiger, 2017, p. 171

The concurrent validity was also determined for these items (see Table 3-3).

Table 3-2. Correlations (Pearson) Between the Adjusted MUSCI Subscales with the Music-

Specific Background

Scale

M1 (interest

music)

in the school

subject

M2 (nearness-to-

self of the school

subject tmusic)

M3 (self-attribution

With regards to

grades in the school

subject music)

M4 (z-standardized

total score of the

variables M1, M2,

and M3)

S1new (Mood Management) .452** .225** — .292**

S2new (Community) .479** .276 ** .126** .391**

S3new (Musical Ability) .481** .417 ** .369 ** .557**

S4new (Movement & Dance) .251** .098** — .187**

S5new (Ideal Musical Self) . 468** .365** .112** .414**

S6new (Adaptive Musical

Self)

.293 ** .152** — .236**

*_ p _ .05. __ p _ .01 (2-tailed). Retrieved from Fiedler, and Spychinger, 2017, p. 176

70

Likewise, the reliability of the 20 items of the Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical

Self-Concept of Musicians instrument was also determined using Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 3-

4).

Table 3-3. Reliability Cronbach’s alpha Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-

Concept of Musicians

(9) Musical communication

6 items; Cronbach’s = .84 explained variance 16.6%

Factor landing

if item deleted

I usually play music for my self-satisfaction. (-) .77 .82

I sense that the music I perform connects people .70 .82

I play music in order to communicate with other people. .69 .83

I love the applause. .67 .81

I easily become part of a musical ensemble .65 .81

To perform on stage is easy for me. .62 .82

(10) Ambition and ability


I strive toward high musical achievement .82 .79

I am musically ambitious .73 .82

I take advantage of any opportunity in order to advance

my musical ability.

.72 .83

I am capable of achieving the musical goals that I have. .69 .82

I am proud of my musical aptitude. .64 .82

I consider myself proficient in my instrument/my voice. .82 .79

(11) Emotions


The music in which I am involved impacts on my

emotions

.80 .72

When making music I have to be able to forget time and

place.

.73 .74

I make music for the sake of expressing my emotions. .71 .74

Musical activity can alter my mood. .68 .77

I enjoy experiencing strong emotions in making music. .66 .76

(12) Spirituality


For me, music making is a special kind of prayer. .87 .72

I make music in order to feel the divine. .82 .73

I like to make music which promotes spiritual experience .79 .72

With my music I can elicit change in people .74 .71 Retrieved from Spychiger, 2010, p. 25

71

Data collection

Following IRB approval from both universities, an invitation (Appendix D) was sent to

all potential participants, with a link to the questionnaire. UF students received the invitation via

a listserv administered by the undergraduate advisors. UnB students e-mail addresses were

collected from the undergraduate office of the Music Department from Universidade de Brasília.

Then, the invitation was sent to them directly from Qualtrics, an electronic survey platform.

When participants accessed the questionnaire, they were asked to provide their consent to

participate (Appendix E). Then, participants completed the questionnaire, which took them

approximately 13 minutes. Non-responders received a weekly follow-up e-mail over the next

month that reminded them to complete the survey.

Data analysis

Data was analyzed using SPSS. Initially, descriptive statistics were calculated, and the

data was examined to determine its suitability for further analysis. Since the data met the

necessary assumptions, additional analyses were calculated to examine each research question.

1. Is there a difference in the pre-college musical experiences of first-year music majors


a. MANOVA: Independent variable was the institution (University of Florida or

Universidade de Brasília) and the dependent variables were the pre-college

musical experiences of the participants: (a) Opportunity to Learn Music in School

(OLMS), (b) Opportunity to Learn Music Out of School (OLMO), (c) Student’s

Self-Effort in Learning Music (SSE), and (d) Family and Friends Support (FFS).

b. Follow-up univariate tests calculated to determine which opportunity-to-learn

variables contributed to the significant multivariate finding.

72

2. Is there a difference in the musical self-concept between first-year music majors from the


a. MANOVA: Independent variable was the institution (University of Florida or

Universidade de Brasília) and the dependent variables were the ten dependent

variables, conceived as dimensions of musical self-concept.

b. Follow-up univariate tests calculated to determine which dimensions of musical

self-concept variables contributed to the significant multivariate finding.

3. Is there a correlation between participants’ pre-college musical experiences and musical

self-concept dimensions?

a. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation: All (a) pre-college musical experience, and

(b) dimensions of musical self-concept variables were examined for significant

relationships.

Summary of Methodology

In this study, the differences of pre-college musical experiences factors and musical self-

concept dimensions between first-year music majors from two different universities were

examined through a non-experimental single intervention followed by between subjects was

adopted, as well as a correlation between pre-college musical experiences and musical self-

concept dimensions was examined. Participants were first-year music majors from two

universities, one from the United States and one from Brazil, who were submitted to an

electronic questionnaire containing questions regarding their high-school musical experiences

and their musical self-concept. Data analysis was made through a multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) with two independent variables and fourteen dependent variables gathered

in two groups. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to verify correlations between

pre-college musical experiences factors and musical self-concept dimensions.

73

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to compare the musical self-concept of first-year collegiate

music majors and minors in the United States and Brazil, according to their opportunity-to-learn

music. A secondary purpose was to determine if there was a correlation between pre-college

music experiences and musical self-concept dimensions. This chapter includes the data analysis

results for the three stated research questions and sub-questions of the study. Descriptive statistics,

MANOVA tests, and Pearson Product-Moment correlations were calculated to answer these

questions:

1- Is there a difference in the pre-college musical experiences of first-year music majors








2- Is there a difference in the musical self-concept between first-year music majors from the


a. Does the Mood Management dimension of musical self-concept differ between

first-year music majors from the University of Florida and from the Universidade

de Brasília?

74

b. Does the Community dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year


Brasília?

c. Does the Musical Ability dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-


Brasília?

d. Does the Movement & Dance dimension of musical self-concept differ between


de Brasília?

e. Does the Ideal Music Self dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-


Brasília?

f. Does the Adaptive Music Self dimension of musical self-concept differ between


de Brasília?

g. Does the Communication dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-


Brasília?

h. Does the Ability & Ambition dimension of musical self-concept differ between


de Brasília?

75

i. Does the Emotion dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year


Brasília?

j. Does the Spirituality dimension of musical self-concept differ between first-year


Brasília?

3- Is there a correlation between participants’ pre-college musical experiences and musical

self-concept dimensions?

Participants

Seventy-four (N = 74) first-year music majors from the University of Florida (UF) (n =

40) and the Universidade de Brasília (UnB) (n = 34) responded to a questionnaire designed to

examine their pre-college musical experiences during high school and their musical self-concept.

Of the 74 respondents, five individuals from UF did not fully complete the questionnaire and

were excluded from further analysis. Therefore, 69 students (UF: n = 35, 51%; UnB: n = 34,

49%) participated in the study. Forty-two of these participants (60.9%) were male, 26 (37.7%)

responded as female, and 1 (1.4%) reported their gender as other. At UF, 18 students (51.4%)

identified themselves as males and 17 (48.6%) as females. At UnB, 24 students (70.6%)

identified themselves as males, 9 (26.5%) as females, and 1 (2.9%) as other.

Participants played 18 different primary instruments or voice. They were piano, guitar,

electric guitar, violin, voice, clarinet, percussion, cello, trumpet, flute, oboe, saxophone, viola,

French horn, double-bass, euphonium, cavaquinho, and bassoon (see Table 4-1). Eleven of the

instruments were common to both universities, while the flute, French horn, euphonium, and

bassoon were only found at the University of Florida and the guitar, electric guitar, and

cavaquinho were only played at the Universidade de Brasília.

76

Table 4-1. Primary Instruments and Their Distribution Between the Universities (N =

69)

Instrument University of Florida University of Brasília Total

Piano 6 5 11

Guitar 0 6 6

Electric Guitar 0 6 6

Voice 4 2 6

Violin 4 2 6

Clarinet 3 1 4

Percussion 3 2 5

Trumpet 3 1 4

Cello 1 3 4

Flute 1 0 1

Oboe 2 1 3

Saxophone 2 1 3

Viola 1 2 3

Double Bass 1 1 2

French Horn 2 0 2

Euphonium 1 0 1

Bassoon 1 0 1

Cavaquinho 0 1 1

Total 35 34 69

Pre-College Musical Experiences of First-year Music Majors from the University of

Florida and the Universidade de Brasília

Participants responded to 18 questionnaire items designed to assess their musical

opportunities while they were high school students. These 18 items were grouped into four

dependent variables: (a) Opportunity to Learn Music in School (OLMS), (b) Opportunity to

Learn Music Out of School (OLMO), (c) Student’s Self-Effort in Learning Music (SSE), and (d)

Family and Friends Support (FFS). These dependent variables were created by summing the

questionnaire items related to each of the factors (see Appendix A). Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10

were summed to construct the OLMS score; items 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, and 22 were summed to

create the OLMO score; and items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 were summed to construct the SSE

score. Family and friends support was measured by a single item, number 23.

77

To address research question #1, “Is there a difference in the pre-college musical

experiences of first-year music majors from the University of Florida and the Universidade de

Brasília?,” a MANOVA was calculated. The independent variable was the institution (University

of Florida or Universidade de Brasília) and the dependent variables were (a) Opportunity to

Learn Music in School (OLMS), (b) Opportunity to Learn Music Out of School (OLMO), (c)

Student’s Self-Effort in Learning Music (SSE), and (d) Family and Friends Support (FFS). The

MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for university (see Table 4-2).

Table 4-2. MANOVA Pre-College Musical Experiences (N = 69)

Cases df Approx. F Wilks' Λ Num df Den df p

Pre-College Musical Experiences 1 49.63 0.30 3 65.00 < .001

Follow-up univariate tests were calculated to determine which of the variables

representing the participants’ musical opportunities while in high school contributed to the

significant multivariate outcome. A significant difference was found for the OLMS variable: F =

149.84, df = 1, p < .001, d = 2.95. Participants from UF (M = 20.14) rated their Opportunity to

Learn Music in School significantly higher than did participants from the Universidade de

Brasília (UnB M = 5.82). According to the Cohen’s d value, the magnitude of the difference was

large. Likewise, a significant difference was found for the FFS variable: F = 11.94, df = 1, p <

.001, d = .83. Participants from UF (M = 4.49) rated their Family and Friends Support

significantly higher than did participants from the Universidade de Brasília (UnB M = 3.56).

According to the Cohen’s d value, the magnitude of the difference was large. No significant

differences were found for the OLMO or SSE variables. Table 4-3 provides the means and

standard deviations of each opportunity-to-learn questionnaire item, disaggregated by institution.

78

Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics for Pre-College Musical Experiences Questionnaire Items

(N = 69)

Dependent

variable

Item

description

University of

Florida

Universidade de

Brasília

M SD M SD

Opportunity to learn music in school – OLMS score 20.14 5.12 5.82 4.58

5 Please indicate the music classes and ensembles

offered in your high school. Check all that apply.

4.20 1.30 .68 .73

6 Please indicate the music classes and ensembles that

you participated in during your high school years.

Check all that apply.

2.03 1.17 .53 .75

7 How often and for how long did the high school

ensemble in which you played/sung your primary

instrument meet?

5.57 3.03 .50 1.02

8 Rate the overall quality of the rehearsal rooms and

classrooms (space, acoustics, chairs, music stands) at

your high school. *

3.57 .92 1.53 1.31

9 Rate the access to printed music, quality of the

classroom instruments, and other music equipment

and materials while you were in high school. *

3.74 .87 1.53 1.46

10 Were your high school music class taught by teachers that had formal music education training in college?**

.97 .17 .38 .49

Opportunity to Learn Music Outside School – OLMO score 26.20 10.31 23.97 13.13

11 Did you participate in any music activities (classes,

ensembles, private lessons, etc.) outside your school

during your high school years?

.89 .32 .82 .39

12 If you answer yes on question 11, please indicate the

classes/activities in which you participated. Check all

that apply.***

2.29 1.38 2.06 1.45

19 How many musical ensembles or groups did you

participated in outside school during high school

years?

2.77 1.85 2.06 2.04

20 How many solo, group, or ensemble performances did

you participated in while outside school in your senior

year of high school?

8.66 7.37 8.06 9.05

Student’s Self-Effort on Learning Music – SSE score 31.74 6.63 31.29 9.45

21 How often did you listen to music outside your

musical activities during your high school years?

4.43 .70 4.79 .48

22 On average, how often did you attend music concerts

of live music as an audience member during your high

school years?

1.00 .42 1.09 .83

13 How many years of private study do you have on your

instrument?

6.17 3.59 5.09 3.83

14 How many instruments do you play? 2,34 1.26 2.79 1.49

15 On average, how many days per week did you

practice your primary instrument during your high

school years?

4,43 1.65 4.76 1.87

16 On the days you did practice, what was the average

amount of time you spent practicing during your high

school years?

1.46 .98 2.09 1.11

17 During high school years, how often did you practice

each of those items? Warm-up exercises; Scales;

Technique exercises; Interpretative exercises;

Ensemble music; and Solo pieces.****

19.08 3.77 17.00 6.69

18 How often did you use the following technological

devices when practicing during the high school years?

Metronome; Tuner; Play along audios; audio recorder

to record myself; Smartmusic; Other.****

6.77 3.33 7.32 3.35

79

Table 4-3 Continued

Dependent

variable

Item

description

University of

Florida

Universidade de

Brasília

M SD M SD

Family and

friends

support -

FFS

23 Did your family and friends supported your musical

studies during high school years? (encouraged

practice, praised your performance, attended

concerts, etc.)

4.49 .82 3.56 1.35

* The scores of items 8 and 9 varies from 1 to 5. When not answered due to lack of music classes the score became 0.

**There were 3 categories yes, no, and not sure. The yes was scored 1 point, the no 0 points, and the only not sure also

received 0 points.

***When item was skipped, the score was 0.

**** The score of each sub-item of items 17 and 18 were entered separately at the SPSS


Participants responded to 58 questionnaire items taken from two instruments, Adjusted

Musical Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth) (Fiedler & Spychiger, 2014) and Musical Self-

Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians (Spychiger, 2010), to determine

their musical self-concept as first-year music majors. These 58 items were grouped into ten

dependent variables, conceived as dimensions of musical self-concept: (a) Mood Management

(MM), (b) Community (CMT), (c) Musical Ability (MA), and (d) Movement & Dance (MD),

Ideal Music Self (IMS). Adaptive Music Self (AMS), Communication (COM), Ability and

Ambition (AA), Emotion (EMO), and Spirituality (SPI). These dependent variables were created

by summing the questionnaire items related to each of these factors. Items 24, 25, 36, 40, 42, and

45 were summed to construct the MM score; items 38, 46, and 48 were summed to create the

CMT score; items 26, 28, 30, 37, and 39 were summed to construct the MA score; items 31, 35,

44, and 49 were summed to construct the MD score; items 24, 39, 41, 43, and 50 were summed

to construct the IMS score; items 27, 32, 43, and 47 were summed to construct the AMS score;

items 51, 53, 55, 61, 62, and 68 were summed to construct the COM score, items 52, 54, 57, 60,

63, and 66 were summed to construct the AA score, items 56. 58. 64, 67, and 70 were summed to

construct the EMO score, and items 59, 55, 69, and 71 were summed to construct the SPI score.

80

Table 4-4 provides the means and standard deviations of each musical self-concept questionnaire

item, disaggregated by institution.

Table 4-4. Descriptive Statistics for Musical Self-Concept Questionnaire Items (N = 69)

Dependent

variable

Item

description

University of

Florida

Universidade de

Brasília

M SD M SD

Mood Management – MM score 19.86 3.84 19.76 3.05

24 Music relieves me from daily routine. 3.14 .80 3.47 .066

25 For me, music is a specific source of mood management. 3.37 .84 3.16 .71

36 With music I can forget my sorrows. 3.11 .90 2.76 1.04

40 Music helps me to diminish anger. 3.00 .94 3.24 .99

42 I can relax with music. 3.60 .60 3.50 .61

45 Music helps me to cope with stress. 3.43 .78 3.53 .61

Community – CMT score 9.17 2.12 9.15 1.62

38 I easily socialize by the means of music. 3.46 .70 3.38 .78

46 I got to music happenings in order to meet people. 2.66 1.00 2.20 .91

48 To me, music is an expression of community more than

it is to others.

3.06 .91 3.56 .56

Musical Ability – MA score 16.71 1.87 14.35 2.37

26 I can sing well. 2.74 .95 2.65 .95

28 My musical ability is above average. 3.26 .61 2.59 .86

30 I have the ability to teach other people about music. 3.43 .64 3.30 .76

37 I have no musical talent. (-) 3.83 .45 3.56 .70

39 Learning to play an instrument is too laborious to me. (-) 3.54 .56 2.26 .93

Movement & Dance – MD score 9.20 3.07 9.88 2.69

31 I passionately love to dance. 1.94 .94 2.35 1.01

35 Dancing satisfies my need for physical movement 2.11 .90 2.15 .96

44 I avoid dancing since I don’t dance well. (-) 2.14 1.92 2.06 1.04

49 I easily move to the rhythm of music. 3.00 .94 3.24 .84

Ideal Music Self - IMS score 17.17 2.18 17.11 2.29

29 I would like to have higher musicianship. 3.88 .32 3.59 .70

34 I would like to have a broader understanding of music. 3.77 .43 3.73 .57

41 I regret that I am not more musically creative. 2.51 1.04 2,35 1.07

43 I would like to know more about the characteristics of

the different musical styles.

3.51

.61

3.65

.69

50 I would like to have more knowledge of the technical

features and options in music.

3.49

.61

3.79

.48

Adaptive Musical Self – AMS score 13.40 2.09 14.47 1.67

27 My physical reaction to music is different from what it

was formerly.

3.29

.75

3.65

.65

32 With regards to spirituality in music, my current

susceptibility is different from earlier in my life.

2.86

1.00

3.32

.84

33 Today my emotional perception of music is different

from earlier in my life.

3.54

.61

3.68

.53

47 My intellectual understanding of music has changed over

the years

3.71 .62 3.82 .39

Communication – COM score 17.26 2.56 16.20 2.59

51 I play music in order to communicate with other people. 3.02 .89 2.68 .94

53 I easily become part of a musical ensemble. 3.49 .74 2.79 .98

55 I love the applause. 3.29 .75 3.23 .65

61 I sense that the music I perform connects people 3.14 .81 2.97 .87

62 I usually play music for my self-satisfaction. (-) 1.87 .81 1.91 .71

68 To perform on stage is easy for me. 2.46 1.09 2.62 .92

81

Table 4-4. Continued

Dependent

variable

Item

description

University of

Florida

Universidade de

Brasília

M SD M SD

Ability & Ambition – AA score 18.44 2.75 16.03 3.10

52 I am capable of achieving the musical goals that I have. 3.46 .56 3.15 .74

54 I am musically ambitious. 3.57 .74 3.21 .98

57 I take advantage of any opportunity in order to advance

my musical ability.

3.43 .64 3.03 .72

60 I strive toward high musical achievement 3.74 .44 3.18 .90

63 I consider myself proficient in my instrument/my voice. 3.34 .68 2.91 .67

66 I am proud of my musical aptitude 3.37 .55 2.94 .74

Emotion – EMO score 16.03 3.10 17.15 2.13

56 Musical activity can alter my mood. 3.57 .65 3.79 .48

58 When making music I have to be able to forget time and

place.

2.69 .96 2.68 .94

64 The music in which I am involved impacts on my

emotions.

3.37 .77 3.76 .43

67 I make music for the sake of expressing my emotions. 3.03 .86 3.38 .70

70 I enjoy experiencing strong emotions in making music. 3.37 .77 3.59 .61

Spirituality SPI score 9.68 3.19 11.58 3.14

59 For me, music making is a special kind of prayer. 2.23 1.06 3.06 .98

65 I make music in order to feel the divine 2.03 .98 2.71 1.03

69 I like to make music which promotes spiritual

experience.

2,37 1.09 2.68 1.04

71 With my music I can elicit change in people. 3.06 .84 3.06 1.04

Note. Items were responded to using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = fully disagree

to 4 = fully agree.

To address research question #2, “Is there a difference in the musical self-concept

between first-year music majors from the University of Florida and the Universidade de

Brasília?” a MANOVA was calculated. The independent variable was the institution (University

of Florida or Universidade de Brasília) and the dependent variables were (a) Mood Management

(MM), (b) Community (CMT), (c) Musical Ability (MA), and (d) Movement & Dance (MD),

Ideal Music Self (IMS). Adaptive Music Self (AMS), Communication (COM), Ability and

Ambition (AA), Emotion (EMO), and Spirituality (SPI). The MANOVA revealed a significant

main effect for university (See Table 4-5).

Table 4-5. MANOVA Musical Self-Concept (N = 69)

Cases df Approx. F Wilks' Λ Num df Den df p

Musical Self-Concept 1 5.42 0.52 10 58.00 < .001

82

Follow-up univariate tests determined which musical self-concept dimensions contributed

to the significant multivariate outcome. A significant difference was found for the MA

dimension: F = 21.13, df = 1, p < .001, d = 1.11. Participants from UF (M = 16.71) rated their

Musical Ability significantly higher than did participants from the UnB (M = 14.35). According

to the Cohen’s d value, the magnitude of the difference was large. Likewise, a significant

difference was found for the AA dimension: F = 15.88, df = 1, p < .001, d = .96. Participants

from UF (M = 20.86) rated their Ability & Ambition significantly higher than did participants

from UnB (M = 18.44). According to the Cohen’s d value, the magnitude of the difference was

large. No significant differences were found for the MM, CMT, MD, IMS, AMS, COM, EMO,

or SPI dimensions.

Correlation Between Pre-college Musical Experiences and Musical Self-Concept

To address research question #3, “Is there a correlation between participants’ pre-college

musical experiences and musical self-concept dimensions?” a Pearson Product-Moment

Correlation was calculated. All (a) pre-college musical experience, and (b) dimensions of

musical self-concept variables were examined for significant relationships. The analysis revealed

that MA had a moderate, positive (r = .50), significant (p < .001) correlation with OLMS. In

addition, AMS had a weak, negative (r = -.29), significant (p = .01) correlation with OLMS; a

weak, positive (r = .24), significant (p = .04) correlation with SSE; and a weak, negative (r = -

.29), significant (p =.01) correlation with FFS. Similarly, AA had a moderate, positive (r = .41),

significant (p < .001) correlation with OLMS; a weak, positive (r = .25), significant (p = .04)

correlation with OLMO; and a weak, positive (r = .30), significant (p = .01) correlation with

SSE. No other significant correlations were found (Table 4-6)

83

Table 4-6. Correlation Matrix Between Pre-College Music Experiences and Self-Concept

Dimensions Pearson Correlations

OLMS

score

OLMO

score

SSE

score FFS

MM

score

CMT

score

MA

score

MD

score

IMS

score

AMS

score

COM

score

AA

score

EMO

score

SPI

score

OLMS score

Pearson's r —

p-value —

OLMO

score

Pearson's r 0.17 —

p-value 0.16 —

SSE

score

Pearson's r -0.01 0.25 —

p-value 0.91 0.04 —

FFS Pearson's r 0.38 -0.01 0.09 —

p-value 0.00 0.92 0.45 —

MM

score

Pearson's r -0.02 0.16 0.12 -0.08 —

p-value 0.88 0.19 0.31 0.51 —

CMT score

Pearson's r 0.13 0.10 0.10 -0.11 0.29 —

p-value 0.27 0.43 0.43 0.35 0.02 —

MA

score

Pearson's r 0.50 0.14 0.05 0.10 -0.05 0.25 —

p-value < .001 0.23 0.69 0.41 0.69 0.04 —

MD

score

Pearson's r -0.01 -0.10 0.15 0.03 0.31 0.21 0.03 —

p-value 0.94 0.40 0.22 0.84 0.01 0.09 0.78 —

IMS

score

Pearson's r 0.01 0.19 0.11 -0.07 0.37 0.34 0.12 0.23 —

p-value 0.92 0.12 0.37 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.05 —

AMS

score

Pearson's r -0.29 -0.14 0.24 -0.29 0.19 0.08 -0.12 0.39 0.17 —

p-value 0.01 0.26 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.52 0.32 0.00 0.18 —

COM score

Pearson's r 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.11 0.32 0.53 0.31 0.40 0.24 -0.01 —

p-value 0.07 0.07 0.17 0.39 0.01 < .001 0.01 < .001 0.05 0.92 —

AA

score

Pearson's r 0.41 0.25 0.30 0.15 0.07 0.32 0.57 0.21 0.35 0.11 0.41 —

p-value < .001 0.04 0.01 0.22 0.56 0.01 < .001 0.08 0.00 0.38 < .001 —

EMO

score

Pearson's r -0.18 0.08 0.18 -0.18 0.58 0.42 -0.11 0.43 0.25 0.45 0.34 0.10 —

p-value 0.14 0.51 0.14 0.14 < .001 < .001 0.38 < .001 0.04 < .001 0.00 0.42 —

SPI

score

Pearson's r -0.20 0.20 0.14 -0.03 0.44 0.46 -0.01 0.42 0.22 0.32 0.46 0.17 0.57 —

p-value 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.78 < .001 < .001 0.92 < .001 0.08 0.01 < .001 0.17 < .001 —

Summary of Results

Sixty-nine first year music majors (UF: n = 35, 51%; UnB: n = 34, 49%) participated in

the study. Three research questions were examined through the questionnaire data provided by

the participants. In regard to the first research question, significant differences in pre-college

opportunities to engage in musical experiences were found between first-year music majors from

the University of Florida and the Universidade de Brasília. Specifically, participants from UF (M

= 20.14) rated their Opportunity to Learn Music in School significantly higher than did

participants from the Universidade de Brasília (M = 5.82). In addition, UF participants (M =

4.49) rated their Family and Friends Support significantly higher than did Universidade de

84

Brasília participants (M = 3.56). No significant differences were found for the OLMO or SSE

variables.

Significant differences were also found in the musical self-concept between the

participants of the two universities, the focus of research question number 2. Analysis revealed

that participants from UF (M = 16.71) rated their Musical Ability significantly higher than did

participants from the UnB (M = 14.35). Likewise, participants from UF (M = 20.86) also rated

their Ability & Ambition significantly higher than did participants from UnB (M = 18.44). No

significant differences were found for the MM, CMT, MD, IMS, AMS, COM, EMO, or SPI

dimensions.

Finally, as queried in research question number 3, significant correlations were also

found between participants’ pre-college musical experiences and musical self-concept

dimensions. The analysis revealed that Musical Ability (MA) had a moderate, positive (r = .50),

significant (p < .001) correlation with Opportunity to Learn Music in School (OLMS). In

addition, Adaptive Musical Self (AMS) had a weak, negative (r = -.29), significant (p = .01)

correlation with Opportunity to Learn Music in School (OLMS) a weak, positive (r = .24),

significant (p = .04) correlation with Student Self Effort in Learning Music (SSE); and a weak,

negative (r = -.29), significant (p =.01) correlation with Family and Friends Support (FFS).

Similarly, AA had a moderate, positive (r = .41), significant (p < .001) correlation with

Opportunity to Learn Music in School (OLMS); a weak, positive (r = .25), significant (p = .04)

correlation with Opportunity to Learn Music Outside of School (OLMO); and a weak, positive (r

= .30), significant (p = .01) correlation with Student Self Effort in Learning Music (SSE). No

other significant correlations were found.

85

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In general, comparative research in music education compares environment, methods,

performances, and teaching and learning between different institutions or communities through

non-experimental and experimental studies. Additionally, musical self-concept research is mostly

interested in learning people’s relationship with music, namely, how do they understand and

react to music. There is no record of studies that have compared groups of collegiate music

majors from different countries, examining their high school experiences with music prior to

college and possible relationships between those experiences and their musical self-concept.

The present study documents differences between pre-college musical experiences of

first-year music majors at the University of Florida (UF) and the Universidade de Brasília (UnB).

The measurement of musical experiences that students had in high school was inspired by the

Opportunity to Learn Music Standards for Music Education (NAfME, 2019b). Pre-college

musical experiences were assessed by four dependent variables: (a) opportunities to learn music

in school, (b) opportunities to learn music outside of school, (c) personal effort to learn music,

and (d) family and friends’ support. To understand the differences in school-based musical

experiences during high school, the participants responded to questionnaire items related to

classes offered, class time, music teachers’ qualifications, and room and equipment quality. In

order to investigate differences in musical experiences outside of school, data was collected

about private lessons, participation in ensembles, music listening habits, and attendance at live

music events. A personal effort to learn music was defined as time spent practicing an instrument

and any related activities. Finally, information was collected about the degree of support of

participants’ family and friends.

86

In addition to pre-college musical education and experiences, the study also compared the

musical self-concept of students at the selected universities. Musical self-concept, a multi-

dimensional human characteristic, was measured by combining two instruments: (a) Adjusted

Musical Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth) (Fiedler and Spychiger, 2014) and (b) Musical

Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians (Spychiger, 2010). These

instruments were combined to examine potential differences in ten dimensions: mood

management, community, musical ability, movement and dance, ideal music self, adaptive music

self, communication, ability and ambition, emotion, and spirituality. Participants responded to

questionnaire items related to these dimensions using 4-point Likert-type scales – fully disagree,

rather disagree, rather agree, or fully agree. The first six dimensions belong to the Adjusted

Musical Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI_youth) instrument that measures the musical self-concept

of the general youth population. The other four dimensions belong to Musical Self-Concept

Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept of Musicians that was constructed for professional and

amateur musicians, as well as college music students.

Pre-college Musical Experiences

The first research question asked if there was a significant difference in pre-college music

experiences between music majors at the University of Florida and the Universidade de Brasília.

The result from MANOVA indicated a significant difference between groups (^ = .30, p < .001),

indicating that the pre-college music experiences were different between the two groups. A series

of post hoc univariate analyses were performed on each dependent variable to determine the

nature of this difference.

Opportunity to Learn Music in School

The post hoc univariate analysis of opportunity to learn music in school indicated a

significant difference between music majors at the University of Florida (M = 20.14) and music

87

majors at the Universidade de Brasília (M = 5.82) (F = 149.84, df = 1, p < .001, d = 2.95).

Cohen’s d value confirmed that the magnitude of the difference was substantial. Music majors at

the University of Florida had almost 3.46 times more opportunity to learn music in high school

than music majors at the Universidade de Brasília. A reasonable explanation of this result is the

structured development of music education in the United States over the past 200 years (Elliott,

1995; Gordon, 1990; Mark and Madura, 2014; NAfME, 2019; Reimer, 1970), and the lack of

consistency in music education programs in Brazil over the same period (Del Bem, 2009; Harte,

2014; Martinoff, 2017; Morila, 2016).

As discussed, music majors at the University of Florida had much higher scores for all

items related to opportunity to learn music in school than Universidade de Brasília music

students. In regards to music education classes offered in high school (item 5), all the high

schools attended by first-year music students at the University of Florida offered at least one

music education class (M = 4.20), with a total of 147 classes offered across the 35 high schools.

These numbers are in alignment with an investigation conducted by Elpus and Abril (2018), who

affirmed that 94% of American high schools offered at least one music education course.

Conversely, of the 34 high schools attended by first-year music majors at the Universidade de

Brasília, 16 schools did not offer any music education classes (M= .68). The other 18 high

schools offered a total of 23 music education classes among them. This situation is similar to the

one described by Del Bem (2009), when researching music education classes in and outside of

school throughout Brazil. Based on the total number of music education classes offered to both

groups, first-year music students at the University of Florida had approximately 6.39 times more

music education classes offered in high school than the first-year music students at the

Universidade de Brasília.

88

Consequently, the absence of music education curricular classes offered in high schools

to music majors at the Universidade de Brasília is probably connected to item 6, classes taken by

students (UF M = 2.03; UnB M = .53), and item 7, ensemble meeting time (UF M = 5.57; UnB M

= .50). Undoubtedly, students cannot take classes or have ensemble meetings if they are not

offered to them. Similarly, facility quality (UF: M = 3.55, UnB: M = 1.53) (item 8) and

equipment quality (UF: M=3.75, UnB: M = 1.53) (item 9) exposed a considerable difference

between the two groups, which also might be associated to the same lack of classes offered to

UnB music majors. Kertz-Welzel (2008) emphasizes the importance of music education

curricular classes with structural learning to students’ continuous development.

Finally, the last aspect of the opportunity to learn music in school was the music teachers’

formal training in music education (item 10). Of the 35 first-year music majors from the

University of Florida who participated in the study, 34 reported that their high school music

teacher had formal training in music education. Moreover, 13 out of 34 music majors from the

Universidade de Brasília confirmed formal training for music education teachers. However, these

results should be treated with caution as there is a doubt about high students’ knowledge of

teachers’ formal training. Based on the data collected, UF music majors had over four times

more music teachers with formal training than the UnB students did. However, the difference in

the number of music courses offered in high school between the two groups may have also

affected this result. Mota and Figueiredo (2012) said proper training is an important factor to

music teachers’ performance, consequently to music education programs success.

In this study, the structured music education system of the United States may have been a

factor contributing to the higher Opportunity to Learn scores of the UF students. As mentioned

before, the United States has been developing music education philosophy, curriculum, method

89

books, musical instruments, facilities and music teacher training for the past two centuries by

organizing congresses and symposiums, constructing musical associations, developing teaching

and learning methodologies, advocating for music education by attempting to convince

politicians of music education’s importance among other actions throughout the whole country.

In Brazil, during the same period, music education development did not have continuity through

time, which resulted in inconsistently structured music education programs, wherever exist, a

lack of musical programs in school as well as musical associations, coherent methodologies, and

music education teachers’ training courses.( Elliott, 1995; Harte, 2014; Mark and Madura, 2014;

Martinoff, 2017; Morila, 2016).

Opportunity to Learn Music Outside School

Even though there was no statistically significant difference between first-year music

students at the University of Florida and the Universidade de Brasília in the opportunity to learn

music outside school, there were some critical findings regarding the items that comprise this

variable. Thirty-one of 35 (89%) first-year music majors at the University of Florida participated

in musical activities outside school (items 11,12, and 19) while in high school. Similarly, 29 of

34 (85%) music majors at Universidade de Brasília participated in outside of school musical

activities. High participation in external musical activities by students at both universities

emphasizes the potential importance of these activities for overall musical development. The

most common outside activity for both groups was private lessons, followed by community

ensembles, theory/composition classes, church ensembles, and rock/jazz/pop groups. Thirty-four

of 35 (97%) music majors at UF and 30 of 34 (88%) music majors at UnB reported receiving

private instrumental or vocal lessons during high school. Ninety-five percent of music majors

from both institutions participated in at least one type of ensemble/musical group outside school.

Furthermore, concerning performances outside school (item 20), 33 of 35 (94%) first-year music

90

majors at UF, and 25 of 34 students (70%) at UnB participated in performances outside of school

during their last year of high school. This result may be influenced by the richness of community

and church music ensembles throughout the United States and the lack of these groups in Brazil.

Del Bem (2009) explains that music activities outside schools are fundamental for music

students' development in Brazil since most of the regular schools do not have a music education

program or ensemble. Furthermore, private lesson is highlighted by Randles (2010) as an

essential factor for students’ development in musical activities during high school, which is

reinforced by Leonhard and House (1972, p. 267) “a necessary preliminary to the musical

profession." Additionally, the International Society for Music Education, (2010) in their vision

about community music activities states: “…community music activities do more than involve

participants in music-making; they provide opportunities to construct personal and communal

expressions of artistic, social, political, and cultural concerns…”(p.1).

The results for music listening habits (item 21) exhibited the smallest non-significant

differences between students from the Universidade de Brasília (M = 4.79) and from University

of Florida (M = 4.34). Concerning attendance at live music events (item 22), the average

attendance of both groups of students was very close with a mean of 1.09 music events’

attendance per week for students at UnB and 1.04 for students at UF. Participants at UnB

listened to music 9% more and attended 5% more live music events than participants at UF.

Müllensiefen, Gingas, Musil, and Stewart (2014) emphasized the importance of listening to

music and attending musical events as factors for the development of an individual’s musical

self-concept. To better understand the relationship between these items, further research should

be performed concerning students’ motivation, availability, and mobility to listen to music and

attend live concerts.

91

Students’ Self-Effort in Learning Music

The statistical results for the participants’ self-effort in learning music did not present any

significant difference between groups. However, discussion of these results might help to

elucidate critical differences in pre-college musical experiences between first-year music

students at UF and UnB. Students from both groups, predominately declared playing more than

one instrument (item 14). The mean for each group represents the mean number of instruments

that music majors reported playing when entering university. The mean number of instruments

played by first-year students at UnB was 2.79, and for students at UF, the mean was 2.34.

Additionally, learning to play an instrument requires extra effort and practice, which is

the topic of items 15, 16, 17, and 18. Music majors from the University of Brasília reported that

they used to practice their instruments an average of 10.82 hours/week, while students at UF

indicated they practiced an average of 7.26 hours/week while they were in high school. The

result could express a compensation for the lack of music education classes offered in high

schools. Additionally, Jørgensen (2008) disclosed the importance of practicing on students’

musical development by stating, “Practicing may be addressed from a psychological viewpoint

as an act of learning, where theories of psychomotor learning and motor programs are relevant to

understand part of the activity” (p. 11). Furthermore, all music majors tended to concentrate on

practicing solo pieces while in high school. That said, if comparing the means of all types of

practice proposed in this study, UnB music majors presented a more balanced spread among all

categories of practice while UF music students concentrated mostly on practicing solo pieces.

In addition, participants indicated that a metronome and tuner were the most preferred

technologies used during practice. This was followed by self-recording their practice and the use

of play-along audios. These are common tools used by all musicians to work on tempo and

92

rhythm issues, refine pitch, and self-assess one’s playing. It appears that these tools and

approaches were used equally by UF and UnB students.

Family and Friends’ Support for Participation in Musical Activities

Measures of the support exhibited by family and friends presented a significant difference

between first-year students at UF (M = 4.49) and UnB (M = 3.56). Music majors at UF had

significantly more support from their family members and friends than the students at UnB. The

consistency of high school music education programs offered in the US may, over time, create a

higher probability that family and friends have participated in school-based music education

experiences themselves. Family and friends of students in the U. S. also likely have the

opportunity to attend concerts of school-based ensembles. Ryan, Bouton, O'Neill, and Sloboda

(2000) examined the influence of social support on children's participation in musical activities.

As part of their findings, they confirmed "… the importance of perceived social support on

children's level of involvement in playing instruments" (p. 15). Furthermore, Sichivitsa (2007),

in her study on parents and friends influence on motivation to study music, reveals that there is

that the correlation "…between the parental support of music and previous musical experience

variables in the model suggested that parents and children could influence each other's attitudes

toward music" (p. 62). Additionally, Demorest, Kelley, and Pfordresher (2017) point out that

family musical engagement is one of the reasons for students to participate in musical activities.


The second research question of this study focused on exploring possible differences in

the musical self-concept of first-year music students at the University of Florida and the

Universidade de Brasília. The result from calculation of a MANOVA indicated a significant

difference of musical self-concept between the two groups of students included in this study (^ =

.52, p < .001), confirming that music majors at the University of Florida have a different

93

understanding of their relationship to music than do music majors at the Universidade de

Brasília. A univariate analysis was performed on all ten dimensions of musical self-concept to

understand where the difference was.

The two dimensions that presented significant mean differences between first-year

students at UF and UnB are musical ability and ability and ambition. Musical ability is described

by Fiedler and Spychiger (2017) as a perception of musical abilities not directly related to any

specific vocal or instrumental ability, which any person can acquire without much training. The

perception of musical ability presented a significant difference between groups and among the

highest mean scores for both groups of any of the musical self-concept dimensions (UF M =

16.71 and UnB M = 14.35 out of 20 possible points). UF music majors perceive themselves to

have more musical abilities than UnB music majors. This perception might be connected to the

fact that UF music majors had a significantly higher opportunity to learn music in school as both

groups achieved the highest score when asked about having musical talent (item 37) (see

correlation discussion, below). UnB music majors reported their lowest score when asked about

having difficulties learning how to play an instrument (item 39). Hallam and Prince (2003)

showed that different groups have a different perception of their musical ability based on their

musical background and learning.

Similar to musical ability, the ability & ambition dimension is described by Spychiger

(2010) as specific musical abilities acquired by professional musicians, amateur musicians, and

advanced level music students and their future career goals. Data analysis revealed a significant

difference in means between music majors at UF (M = 18.44) and UnB (M = 16.03). In addition

to confirming that UF music majors are more confident in their musical abilities than music

majors at UnB, this dimension shows that this confidence extends to the ambition they have for

94

their future career goals. However, even though UnB music majors’ score was significantly less

than UF music majors, their score should not be considered a low one, as it reached 80% of the

total possible score. Participants from both groups have confidence in their musical abilities in

relation to their future career goals. Furthermore, Demorest, Kelley, and Pfordresher (2017)

determined that students’ perception of their abilities is a more important predictor of their

progress than teacher’s evaluations.

Spychiger (2010) refers to spirituality as the reactions of human beings that are not

physical, nor mental, or even instinctive, just some awareness of a connection that goes beyond

us. This dimension did not exhibit a significant difference between music majors –UnB (M =

11.58), UF (M = 9.68) as significance achieved p = .020, and this difference cannot be

considered significant because the ten degrees of freedom of musical self-concept reduced the

needed level of significance to a = .005. Additionally, neither group reported feeling a strong

connection between music and spirituality, which might be because the terms used in the items,

such as prayer and divine, seem to relate spirituality to religion. It is indeed difficult, but

possible, to explain spirituality without referring to religion. This dimension also came from the

Musical Self-Concept Inquiry to Assess Musical Self-Concept in Musicians, which is not

explicitly geared at youth, meaning a higher level of reflection about spirituality is difficult to

expect from students that have just entered university. Indeed, music educators should explore

students’ spirituality in relationship to music-making by finding a way to discuss and incentivize

this matter without entering the religious territory, which could cause conflict due to different

beliefs.

According to Fiedler and Spychiger (2017), adaptive music self is the ability that a person

has to understand changes in their musical perception through time. The results disclosed no

95

significant score difference between first-year music majors from both institutions (UnB M =

14.47 and UF M = 13.40, p = .021). Again, the lack of significance happened since its level was

reduced to a = .005, as there were ten degrees of freedom related to musical self-concept.

Spychiger (2010) explains that people would better perceive their changes in two different

situations: either by reflecting on their learning after a long period of time following when the

learning took place or by having to assimilate a large quantity of knowledge at once.

Furthermore, the U. S. students, who likely had a continuous music learning experience during

school that extended over a significant period of time may be able to better identify changes in

their musical perception, that the Brazilian students who, on the whole, had sporadic music

education classes. Understanding what has been acquired is an essential part of the learning

process (Hallam, 2017; Requião, 2001; and Spychiger 2017). Music teachers should ask students

to reflect on their learning, which may give them more awareness and improve their awareness

on theirmusic skills and abilities.

The results for communication revealed that the difference in mean scores for UF (M =

17.26) and UnB (M = 16.20) is not significant. Of the dimensions discussed so far,

communication is the first one that comes from the Musical Self Concept Inquiry to Assess

Musical Self-Concept of Musicians, and Spychiger (2010) defines this dimension as the

awareness musicians have that their music is somehow affecting their audience. By analyzing the

magnitude of the scores, we can say that both scores were high enough to affirm that music

majors from both groups have the perception that their music is touching their audience.

However, the author could not find any study to compare the findings on this dimension.

The emotion dimension did not show a significant mean difference between music majors

at UnB (M =17.15) and UF (M = 16.03). According to Spychiger (2010), this dimension

96

measures a person’s emotional reaction to music as they are participants in music-making.

Moreover, both groups achieved a mean score higher than 80% of the maximum possible score

for the dimension. This result can be understood that participants from both groups believe

somehow that making music does modify their emotions, which is especially evident in the

highest scored item by both groups; musical activity can alter my mood (item 56).

Additionally, there was no significant difference between groups in the dimension mood

management, with UF (M = 19.86) and UnB (M = 19.76) scores differing by only 0.1. According

to Fiedler and Spychiger (2017), the mood management dimension differs from the emotion

dimension due to its broad-spectrum, which can be related to music listening in addition to

music-making. The highest possible score for this dimension was 24 points. The means from

both groups were above 80%, suggesting participants believe that music might influence a

person's mood. This idea is further reinforced by items 42, I can relax with music, and 45, music

helps me to cope with stress, where both groups achieved the highest scores for the dimension.

Sloboda and O'Neill (2001, p. 18) said "Emotional responses to music are a complex

outcome of the contribution of a person's reaction to the content (i.e., the musical materials

themselves and their associations) and their reactions to the ongoing context in which the music

is embedded.” Additionally, Sloboda and O'Neill said there was a common perception among

participants that emotions and humor are influenced by music. Therefore, music educators

should explore this association between music-making and mood to develop students' musical

interpretation by bringing their feelings to music performance. Emotion in music is a subject that

needs to be addressed in music education in order to construct emotional expressiveness in

collective and individual performances

97

The results for movement and dance are unique because they are lower overall while

simultaneously not presenting a significant difference between groups. UnB students had a mean

of 9.88, and UF students had a mean of 9.20. Even though most participants from both groups

agreed that they could “easily move to the rhythm of music” (item 49), most of them appear to

dislike the idea of dancing, which is the subject of three of four items of the dimension. This

aversion to dancing might be related to the shyness and introspection of adolescents and young

adults in general (Diehl & Hay, 2011). Mark and Madura (2014) described the use of Dalcroze

eurhythmics, which explores body movement though music, during classes by elementary level

music teachers. However, there is a tendency to forget this connection in later stages of music

education due to several factors such as stage deportment, for example, that create expectations

of rigor and uniformity assuring a formal musical performance event (Howard, 2012). Indeed,

this is a topic that should be explored further by music researchers in educational programs

across all levels, and music educators at all levels should always encourage students to connect

movement to music. This dimension is attached to the U. S. National Music

Standard responding, which should be explored in the classroom for all levels of music

education courses.

The second most similar dimension between the two groups was the ideal music

self. Fiedler and Spychiger (2017) describe this dimension as a person’s perception of their needs

for musical development. The mean scores for ideal music self were very similar between UF (M

= 17.17) and UnB (M = 17.11), with no statistically significant difference found between the

groups regarding their perception of needing to improve musically. Interestingly, UF music

majors perceived that they should have more musical aptitude by achieving a high score on item

37 (I have no musical talent), which might involve some subjective items like musical

98

interpretation, and connections to musical experiences. Contrarily, UnB students perceived their

need to develop more technical features by achieving a high score on item 50 (I would like to

have more knowledge of the technical features in music), which might be related to objective

items as instrument technique, rhythm, and intonation. This result might be attached to the fact

that music education in the U. S. is very structured, nationally and statewide, with defined

philosophies, curriculums, music education standards, and comprehensive method books

(NAfME, 2019). In Brazil, music education has a more humanistic approach based more on

mindsets, which are unstructured and empirical attitudes and beliefs Brazilians use to understand

and perform music (Monti, 2008). Nevertheless, both groups agree that they wanted to be more

creative (item 41). This result shows an awareness from both groups on what they need to

become better musicians.

Finally, the community dimension exhibits the smallest mean difference among all

dimensions with only .02 points of difference (UF, M = 9.17 and UnB, M = 9.15). Fiedler and

Spychiger (2017) explain that this dimension should measure how people use music to establish

a relationship with others or to have a sensation of belonging to a group. However, these scores

are both fairly strong since the highest possible score for this dimension was 12 points. This

indicates that these music majors believe that participating in musical events creates a sense of

community. Moreover, Spychiger (2017) explained that this sense of community tends to be

more definite when joining collective musical experiences that give the participant the idea of

contributing to the group. Music educators should always try to create a community in their

classrooms, as music has the power to connect people.

Correlation Between Pre-College Musical Experiences and Musical Self-Concept

The third research question was to examine if there was any correlation between pre-

college musical experiences and musical self-concept dimensions. As there are four different

99

types of experiences and ten dimensions of musical self-concept, the application of the Pearson

Product-Moment Correlation test revealed 40 possible correlations between the factors. The

results showed that there were seven significant correlations between pre-college musical

experiences and musical self-concept dimensions. This was previously found by Demorest,

Kelley, and Pfordresher (2017), and Hallam, and Prince, (2003) on their studies.

A moderate, positive, significant correlation was found between the opportunity to learn

music in school and musical ability (r = .500, p < .001), and the opportunity to learn music in

school and ability and ambition (r = 410, p < .001). These results insinuate that the more musical

experiences the participants had inside school, the higher was their perception of their musical

abilities and ambitions. It appears reasonable that students who have more guided opportunities

to develop their musical abilities would develop more awareness about it. Moreover, the study

revealed that a significant difference was found in OLMS between UF and UnB participants,

with UF music majors presenting higher OLMS scores than UnB ones. However, it is possible

that other factors could have influenced both the OLMS and musical ability dimensions. For

instance, there is a possibility that the socio-economic status of the UF participants was higher

than the UnB participants. Mota and Figueiredo (2012) described how socio-economic status

may impact the community where one lives, with better schools and music programs present in

higher socio-economic communities. Spychiger (2017) declared that the combination of

structured learning and personal experiences is the way that students develop their musical self-

concept.

In addition, there was a weak, positive significant correlation between ability and

ambition and the opportunity to learn music outside school (r = .25, p = .04), and students’ self-

effort in learn music (r = .30 p = .01). This result corroborates with previous correlation,

100

reinforcing that the more activities students participate, the better the perception of their abilities

and vice-versa. This principle of developing musical awareness through being active in music-

making is the main idea of Elliott’s (1995) philosophy of music education. Moreover, Elliott and

Silverman (2007, p.41) developed a music shaping theory in which they believe in “music

identity construction associated with singing, playing specific instruments, composing, and/or

new music technologies.”

Finally, there were three significant correlations associated to adaptive music self, a

weak, negative correlation to opportunity to learn music in school (r = -.294, p = .01), a weak,

negative correlation to family and friends support for learning music (r = -290, p = .01), and a

weak, positive correlation to student’s self-effort on learning music (r = .243, p = .04). Adaptive

music self measures the musicians’ understanding of their development through time. These

results explain the possibility of awareness of learning is higher when music students have less

structured learning in school as well as less family and friends support to engage in musical

activities. However, the more students practice their instrument, the more awareness of learning

they have.

These negative correlations seem to suggest that structural learning and support from

family and friends are related to students’ perception of accomplishment and could be explained

by the fact that students involved in music education programs in school are in constant

evolution, so they may not perceive their musical changes, since they are continually happening

and in small increments. On the other hand, music students that have sporadic music education

experiences may actively recognize their musical transformations because a single music

education experience can make several changes to their musical understanding. Additionally,

101

family and friends’ support may give a sense of success to students, which would not allow them

to understand their evolution over time.

However, the positive correlation indicates that individual instrumental practice and

other individual efforts students make to improve musical learning contribute to their awareness

of musical accomplishment. This correlation is understandable as the hours spent practicing and

studying allow students to understand their evolution over time.

Limitations of the Study

The use of two particular groups in this study, first-year music students from the

University of Florida and the Universidade de Brasília, imposes limitations. The United States

and Brazil are large countries, with several states, counties, and cities, which have many

universities that offer music degrees. So, the differences and similarities found between the

groups in this study should not be the same as all American and Brazilian first-year music

students. Additionally, to truly understand differences in music education between both

countries, this research should explore a large-spectrum population that extends beyond just

music major students.

The lack of questions about the cultural background of the participants is another

limitation. Considering that music is a cultural expression, the organization of music education

programs and the construction of the musical self-concept of an individual might have a direct

relationship to cultural background and practices. This relationship means that data attached to

cultural traditions and habits could reveal some vital information about the participants’

background, which could better explain some of the differences and similarities found between

both groups.

A third limitation of this study is the construction and length of the questionnaire. The

first part of the questionnaire related to pre-college music experiences was constructed based on

102

U. S. music education methodology practices that might not be suitable for all Brazilian music

students. Different music education methodologies are applied in Brazil, which is attached to

specific musical genres and instruments that were ignored by the questionnaire. Therefore,

Brazilian music students probably could not share some of their music experiences because of

the construction of the questionnaire. Finally, about 7% of the students that started to answer the

questionnaire did not finish it, leaving one or two sections blank. This may be due to the large

number of questions included in the instrument.

Future Research

This study analyzed the pre-college music experiences of first-year music students and

their musical self-concept at two specific universities in the US and Brazil. Generalization would

only be possible with the expansion of the study’s scope by adding more music students from

other universities from both countries. Additional studies could determine the presence or

absence of a pattern between pre-college music experiences and music self-concept in both

countries.

It is essential to develop a study using a more significant population, like first-year

university students from all academic areas. Understanding the opportunity to learn music of a

general population would delineate a better picture of the establishment of music education

programs in both countries. Kertz-Welzel (2008) explained that comparative studies in music

education should help teachers understand that teaching and learning methodologies used in

another country, might have applicability to their local music education program. Furthermore,

the study of the musical self-concept of the larger population would also expose differences and

similarities between both countries. Professional and amateur musicians as well as high

education music students from different groups might reveal similarities, given the main

ambition they would share.

103

Another critical study should add cultural components to the instruments used to collect

data. Habits and traditions from both countries could help to explain pre-college music

experiences as well as musical self-concept of music students by explaining certain behaviors

and beliefs. This approach would allow the identification of similarities and differences between

cultures, shedding light on the influence culture has on pre-college music experiences.

Another interesting future study would be a comparison of pre-college music experiences

and musical self-concept between more countries from across all the continents to establish

similarities and differences in pre-college music education and musical self-concept all over the

world. This research might uncover new material that would lead to a better understanding of

music in multicultural settings, which would help to develop better ways to study and perform

music from different cultures.

Conclusions

The results from this study revealed that there is a significant difference in

the opportunity to learn music in school between music majors from the University of Florida

and the Universidade de Brasília during their high school period. Data analysis indicated that UF

students had more courses offered; took more courses; and perceived that they had better

instruments, materials, and facilities. They also believed that their teachers also had more formal

training than did the students from UnB. Furthermore, UF students felt that they had more

support from their family and friends than UnB students to participate in musical activities.

Additionally, results disclosed a significant difference between groups’ (a) musical

ability and (b) ability and ambition dimensions of musical self-concept. Analogous to the

previous result, UF students had a better perception of their musical abilities and their ambitions

in the music field than UnB students. Finally, the outcomes related to the seven different

correlations with distinct levels and directions between pre-college musical experiences factors

104

and musical self-concept dimensions indicated connections between (a) opportunity to learn

music in school and musical ability, ability and ambition, and adaptive music self;

(b) opportunity to learn music outside school and ability and ambition; (c) students’ self -effort

in learning music and ability and ambition and adaptive music self; and (d) between family and

friends support and adaptive music self. . In addition to the significant differences found in this

study, there were several similarities in pre-college musical experiences and musical self-concept

dimensions between the university music majors of the two universities.

105

APPENDIX A

IRB PROTOCOL

UFIRB 02 – Social & Behavioral Research Protocol Submission Form

THIS FORM MUST BE TYPED. DO NOT STAPLE. Send this form and the supporting documents to IRB02, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611. Should you have questions about completing this form, call 352-392-0433.

Title of Protocol: A COMPARISON OF BRAZILIAN AND U.S. FIRST YEAR COLLEGE

STUDENTS’ MUSICAL SELF-CONCEPT

Principal Investigator: Arsky Filho Vadim UFID #: 9479-8391

(Last Name) (First Name)

Degree / Title:

MM Mailing Address: PO

Box 117900 Music Buliding

435 Newell Dr.

Gainesville, Fl

32611

Email: [email protected]

Department: Music Education Telephone #: (407) 360-7457

Co-Investigator(s): Coordinator: Research Asst.:

UFID#:


Degree/Title Mailing Address: (If on

campus provide PO Box

address):

Email:

Department: Telephone #:

Supervisor (If PI is student):

Bauer William UFID#: 9106-2379


Degree / Title:

PHD

professor and area head of Music

Education

Mailing Address: PO

Box 117900 Music Building

435 Newell Dr.

Gainesville, Fl

32611

Email : [email protected]

Department:

Music Education Telephone #: (352) 273-

3182

Dates of Proposed Research:

March 10, 2016 – April 20,2016

Source of Funding (A copy of the grant proposal must be submitted with this protocol if funding is involved): NOTE: If your study has current or

No Funding

106

pending funding, AND your research involves comparison of different kinds of treatment or interventions for behavior, cognition or mental health, you must submit the Clinical Trial Assessment Form.

Describe the Scientific Purpose of the Study:

The purpose of this study is to compare the musical self-concept of first-year collegiate music

majors and minors in the United States and Brazil based on their instruction and experiences during

high school period.

Research questions are:

1. What are the pre-college musical experiences of freshman music majors and minors in the United

States and Brazil?

2. Is there a difference in the musical self-concept between first-year music majors and minors from


Describe the Research Methodology in Non-Technical Language: (Explain what will be done with or to the research participant.)

This is a non-experimental quantitative research, causal-comparative study. The sample for this study

will be selected from first-year music major students from one Brazilian (Universidade de Brasília) and

one American (University of Florida) university. The data collection will be done by an on-line survey

with multiple choice, single and multiple answers. matrix table, and open-ended items to be answer

concerning opportunity to learn music, musical experiences and musical self-concept. Data will be

analyzed using SPSS. Initially, descriptive statistics will be calculated, and the data will be examined to

determine its suitability for further analysis. Assuming it meets the necessary assumptions, it will be to

conducted a one-way MANOVA, using institution as the independent variable and the questionnaire

scores gathered for each factor and the subfactors of self-concept as the dependent variables.

Describe the Data You Will Collect: (what are you collecting, where will it be stored, how will it be stored) Data concerning opportunity-to-learn music, musical

experiences and musical self-concept of the participants

will be collected by a 72 items questionnaire constructed at

the Qualtrics program and will be distributes to music

majors first-years undergraduate students of University of

Florida and Universidade de Brasília through their listserv.

Data will be first storage at Qualtrics and then transferred to

my personal computer, where it will be stored.

Please List all Locations Where the Research Will Take Place: (if doing an on-line survey then just state “on-line survey”)

On-line survey.

Describe Potential Benefits: There is no guarantee of benefits of the participant.

Describe Potential Risks: (If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the steps taken to protect participant.)

There is no more than minimum risk.

107

Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited: (flyers, email solicitation, social media websites, etc.)

Participant will be recruited through undergraduate listserv of University of Florida School of Music and Universidade de

Brasília Music Department.

Maximum Number of Participants (to be approached with consent)

130 Age Range of Participants:

17-35 Amount of Compensation/ course credit:

none

Describe the Informed Consent Process. (How will informed consent be obtained? Attach a copy of the Informed Consent Document)

The Inform Consent will be the first scream of the survey and participants will have to agree or not

agree with the terms. By agreeing, the survey will start. By not agreeing, the survey will not take place

and the participant will receive a message of thank you and informing that he will not be participating of

the survey. The maximum numbers of consent will not exceed N=130.

The informed consent document is attached.

(SIGNATURE SECTION)

Principal Investigator(s) Signature:

Date:

Co-Investigator(s) Signature(s): Date:

Supervisor’s Signature: Date:

Department Chair Signature: Date:

108

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

Please mark the appropriate answer about your age.

o I am 18 years old or older (1)

o I am 17 years old or younger (2)

Mr. Vadim Arsky UF School of Music PO Box 117900 University of Florida Gainesville,

FL 32611 Dear Music Student: Greetings! My name is Vadim Arsky and I am a Ph.D.

candidate at the University of Florida. As part of my dissertation research I am conducting a

study to learn about factors that may affect the musical self-concept of music students. You are

being contacted to participate in this study because you have been identified as having just

completed your first-year as a music major student at University of Florida or University of

Brasília. Would you assist me with this research by completing a brief online questionnaire? It

will take you no longer than 15 minutes. You do not have to respond to any item you do not wish

to answer. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law, and your identity

will not be revealed in the final manuscript. Only group results will be reported. There are no

known risks to participating in this study. Each fifth participant, upon completion of the survey,

will be eligible for a $ 5.00 gift card for Starbucks. You are free to withdraw your consent to

participate and may discontinue your participation in the study at any time without

consequence. If you have any questions about this research study, please contact me at

[email protected]. You may also contact my faculty supervisor, Dr. William Bauer, at

[email protected]. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be

directed to the IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; (352)

392-0433. Please provide your consent to participate by clicking on the “I consent” box. By

providing your consent, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously as part of

the group results in the final dissertation document, which will be submitted to my supervisory

committee. I have read the procedure described above for participating in the musical self-

concept study. Please click the appropriate box below.

o I consent (7)

o I do not consent (8)

109

1- Please identify your sex.

o Male (1)

o Female (3)

o other (specify) (4) ________________________________________________

2- What is your primary instrument?

________________________________________________________________

3 – Has your primary instrument changed since you finished high school? If it did change, please

indicate your high school main instrument.

o No, my primary instrument is the same as it was in high school (1)

o Yes, my primary instrument has changed from what it was in high school (2)

________________________________________________

4- I have completed my first-year as a music major student at:

o University of Florida (1)

o Universidade de Brasília (2)

o I’m not a music major at either of these universities (3)

110

5- Please indicate the music classes and ensembles offered by your high school. Check all that

apply.

▢ Theory (1)

▢ Band (2)

▢ Choir (3)

▢ Orchestra (4)

▢ Guitar (5)

▢ Keyboard/piano (6)

▢ Music Technology (7)

▢ other classes (please specify) (8)

________________________________________________

▢ There were no music classes offered (9)

111

6- Please indicate the school music classes and ensembles that you participated in during high

school years. Check all that apply.

▢ Theory (1)

▢ Band (2)

▢ Choir (3)

▢ Orchestra (4)

▢ Guitar (5)

▢ Keyboard/piano (6)

▢ Music Technology (7)

▢ Other classes (please specify) (8)

________________________________________________

▢ There was no music class offered in my high school (9)

▢ I did not participate in any music classes offered at my high school (10)

112

7- How often and for how long did the high school ensemble in which you played/sung your

primary instrument meet?

no time (1) one hours

(2)

two hours

(3)

three hours

(4)

Four hours

(5)

Five hours

(6)

One day a

week (1) o o o o o o Two days a

week (2) o o o o o o Three days

a week (3) o o o o o o Four days a

week (4) o o o o o o Five days a

week (5) o o o o o o There was

no

ensemble

practice (6) o o o o o o

8- Rate the overall quality of the rehearsal rooms and classrooms (space, acoustics, chairs, music

stands) at your high school.

o Very poor (1)

o Poor (2)

o Acceptable (3)

o Good (4)

o Very good (5)

113

9- Rate your access to printed music, quality of the classroom instruments, and other music

equipment and materials while you were in high school.

o Very poor (1)

o Poor (2)

o Acceptable (3)

o Good (4)

o Very Good (5)

10- Were your high school music classes taught by teachers who had formal music education

training in college?

o Yes (1)

o No (2)

o Unsure (3)

11- Did you participate in any musical activities (classes, ensembles, private lessons, etc.)

outside your school during your high school years?

o Yes (1)

o No (2)

114

12- If you answer yes on question 11, please indicate the classes/activities in which you

participated. Check all that apply.

▢ Private instrument lessons (1)

▢ Music theory/composition classes (2)

▢ Community ensembles (3)

▢ Rock/jazz/pop groups with colleagues (4)

▢ Church ensembles (5)

▢ Others (please specify) (6) ________________________________________________

13- How many years of private study do you have on your main instrument?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Years of private study in the main instrument

()

14- How many instruments do you play?

o one (1)

o two (2)

o three (3)

o four (4)

o five or more (5)

115

15- On average, how many days per week did you practice your primary instrument during your

high school years?

o 1 day a week (1)

o 2 days a week (2)

o 3 days a week (3)

o 4 days a week (4)

o 5 days a week (5)

o 6 days a week (6)

o 7 days a week (7)

16- On the days you did practice, what was the average amount of time you spent practicing


o less than 1 hour (1)

o 1 hour (2)

o 2 hours (3)

o 3 hours (4)

o 4 hours (8)

o 5 hours (9)

o 6 hours (10)

17- During high school years, how often did you practice each of these items?

Never Very

Rarely

Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very

Frequently

0 1 2 3 4 5

116

Warm up exercises ()

Scales ()

Technique exercises ()

Interpretative exercises ()

Ensemble music ()

Solo pieces ()

18- How often did you use the following technological devices when practicing during high

school years?

Never (1) Sometimes

(2)

About half

the time (3)

Most of the

time (4) Always (5)

Metronome

(1) o o o o o Tunner (2) o o o o o Play along

audio (3) o o o o o Audio

recorder to

record myself

(4) o o o o o

Smartmusic

(5) o o o o o Other (6) o o o o o

117

19- How many musical ensembles or groups did you participated in outside of school during

high school years?

o 0 (1)

o 1 (2)

o 2 (3)

o 3 (4)

o 4 (5)

o 5 (6)

o 6 (7)

o 7 (8)

o 8 (9)

20- How many solos, group, or ensemble performances did you participated in while outside

school in your senior year of high school?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Performances ()

118

21- How often did you listen to music outside your musical activities during your high school

years?

o Never (1)

o Rarely (2)

o Sometimes (3)

o Frequently (4)

o Always (5)

22- On average, how often did you attend music concerts of live music as an audience member


o never (1)

o 1-3 times a month (2)



o more than 10 times a month (5)

119

23- How supportive were your family and friends of your musical studies and activities during

your high school years? (e.g., encouraged your practice, praised your performance, attended

your concerts, etc.)

o Usually unsupportive (1)

o Sometimes unsupportive (2)

o Sometimes supportive (3)

o Usually supportive (4)

o Always supportive (5)

24- Music relieves me from daily routine.

o Fully disagree (1)

o Rather disagree (2)

o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

25- For me, music is a specific source of mood management.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

120

26- I can sing well.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

27- My physical reaction to music is different from what it was formerly.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

28- My musical ability is above average.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

121

29- I would like to have higher musicianship.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

30- I have the ability to teach other people about music.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

31- I passionately love to dance.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

122

32- With regards to spirituality in music, my current susceptibility is different from early in my

life.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

33- Today my emotional perception of music is different from earlier in my life.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

34- I would like to have a broader understanding of music.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

123

35- Dancing satisfies my need for physical movement.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

36- With music I can forget my sorrows.

o Fully disagre (1)


o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

37- I have no musical talent.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

124

38- I easily socialize by the means of music.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

39- Learning to play an instrument is too laborious to me.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

40- Music helps me to diminish anger.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

125

41- I regret that I am not more musically creative.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

42- I can relax with music.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

43- I would like to know more about the characteristics of the different musical styles.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

126

44- I avoid dancing since I don't dance well.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

45- Music helps me to cope with stress.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

46- I go to music happenings in order to meet people.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

127

47- My intellectual understanding of music has changed from earlier in my life.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

48- To me, music is an expression of community more than it is to others.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

49- I easily move to the rhythm of the music.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

128

50- I would like to have more knowledge of the technical features in music.

o Fully disagre (1)


o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

51- I play music in order to communicate with other people.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

52- I am capable of achieving the musical goals that I have.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

129

53- I easily become a part of a musical ensemble.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

54- I am musically ambitious.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

55- I love the applause.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

130

56- Musical activity can alter my mood.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

57- I take advantage of any opportunity in order to advance my musical ability.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

58- When making music I have to be able to forget time and place.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

131

59- For me, music making is a special kind of prayer.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

60- I strive toward high musical achievement.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

61- I sense that the music I perform connects people.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

132

62- I usually play music for my self-satisfaction.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

63- I consider myself proficient in my instrument/my voice.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

64- The music in which I am involved impacts in my emotions.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

133

65- I make music in order to feel the divine.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

66- I am proud of my musical aptitude.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

67- I make music for the sake of expressing my emotions.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

134

68- To perform on stage is easy for me.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

69- I like to make music which promotes spiritual experience.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

70- I enjoy experiencing strong emotions in making music.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

135

71- With my music I can elicit change in people.



o Rather agree (3)

o Fully agree (4)

136

APPENDIX C

TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS

Research Questions Research Sub-questions Questionnaire

Item

Literature

1- Is there a difference

in the pre-college

musical experiences

of first-year music

majors from the

University of

Florida and the

Universidade de

Brasília?

a- What opportunities to

learn music did they have

in school?

5, 6, 7, 8. NAfME, 2019b

b- What were the music

education experiences in

which they participated

in school?

9, 10. Amato, 2008

Benedetti, & Kerr, 2010

Conway, 2015

Elliott, 1995

Reimer, 1970

Souza, 2014

c- What were the outside-

of-school musical

activities in which they

participated?

11, 12, 19, 20,

21, 22

Amato, 2008

Benedetti, & Kerr, 2010

Conway, 2015

Elliott, 1995

Reimer, 1970

Souza, 2014

d- What is the role of the

development of technical

skills, music reading

skills, expressive

performance, and use of

technology in students’

preparation?

13, 14, 15, 16,

17, 18

Bauer, 2014

Burnard et all, 2008

Boyle & Radocy, 1987

Conway, 2015

Del-Ben, 2005

Gruhn, 2006

Henry, 1958

Kertz-Wetzel, 2008

Reimer, 1970

e- Did family and friends

support the students’

participation in music?

23 Amato, 2008

Benedetti & Kerr, 2010

Burnard et all, 2008

Souza, 2014

2- Is there a difference

in the musical self-

concept between

first-year music

majors from the

University of

Florida and the

a. Does the Mood

Management dimension

of musical self-concept

differ between freshmen

music majors in the

United States and Brazil?

24, 25, 36, 40,

42, 45

- Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017

- Mullensiefen, Gingras,

Musil & Stewart, 2014

- Spychiger, Gruber, &

Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

137

Universidade de

Brasília?

b. Does the Community

dimension of musical

self-concept differ

between freshmen music

majors in the United

States and Brazil?

38, 46, 48 - Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017




Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

c. Does the Musical ability


self-concept differ



States and Brazil?

26, 28, 30, 37,

39





Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

d. Does the Movement &

Dance dimension of

musical self-concept


music majors in the


31, 35, 44,49 - Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017




Olbertz, 200

- Spychiger, 20109

e. Does the Ideal Musical

Self dimension of



music majors in the


29, 34, 41, 43,

50





Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

f. Does the Adaptive

Musical Self dimension

of musical self-concept


music majors in the


27, 32, 33, 47 - Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017




Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

g. Does the Communication


self-concept differ



States and Brazil?

51, 53, 55, 61,

62, 68





Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

138

h. Does the Ability &

Ambition dimension of



music majors in the


52, 54, 57, 60,

63, 68

Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017




Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

i. Does the Emotion


self-concept differ


majors Brazil?

56, 58, 64, 67,

70

Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017




Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

j. Does the Spirituality


self-concept differ



States and Brazil?

59, 65, 69. 71 Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017




Olbertz, 2009

- Spychiger, 2010

3- Is there a

correlation between

participants’ pre-

college musical

experiences and

musical self-

concept dimensions

139

APPENDIX D

STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION E-MAIL

Dear music student,

My name is Vadim Arsky and I am a PhD music education student at the University of

Florida. You have been identified as a first-year music major or minor student at University of

Florida/Universidade de Brasília. For that reason, I am sending this e-mail to ask you to

participate in a survey by answering a questionnaire about my research study “A Comparison of

Brazilian And U.S. First Year College Students’ Musical Self-Concept,” which the link is at the

end of this page.

Your participation is fundamental for the development of this study and the questionnaire

will take about 13 minutes to be completed. Before answering the survey, there is a letter of

consent that you must agree to have access to the questionnaire. Please read it through and press

agree if you feel comfortable on participating. Unfortunately, there is no monetary or any other

kind of compensation. However, your participation might help to the better development of high

educational music programs in the future.

Thank you for your cooperation,

Cordially,

Vadim da Costa Arsky Filho

PhD Music Education Candidate

University of Florida

140

APPENDIX E

CONSENT LETTER

UF School of Music

Music Education Department PO Box 117900

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611

Consent Letter

Dear Music Student:

I am a graduate student at the University of Florida. As part of my dissertation I am conducting a survey, the

purpose of which is to learn about Opportunity-to-Learn Music and Musical Self-concept. I am asking you to

participate in this interview because you have been identified as a first-year music major or minor student at

University of Florida or at University of Brasilia. Participant will be asked to participate in a survey lasting no

longer than 13 minutes. The questionnaire of the survey is a link of this e-mail. You will not have to answer any

question you do not wish to answer. Your survey will be conducted in your device after your electronic consent.

With your permission I would like have access to your answers of the survey. Only I will have access to the survey’s

answers, which will not have any identification from participants. The questionnaire will be kept in my private

archive during and after the study. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your

identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript.

There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this survey. You are

free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the survey at any time

without consequence.

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at [email protected] or my faculty

supervisor, Dr. William Bauer, at [email protected]. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research

participant rights may be directed to the IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611;

(352) 392-0433.

Please sign the electronic consent by clicking on the I AGRE button. By clicking on I AGREE button, you give me

permission to report your responses anonymously as data in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty

supervisor as part of my dissertation.

Vadim Arsky

I have read the procedure described above for the Opportunity-to-Learn Music and Musical Self-Concept study. I

voluntarily agree to participate in the survey by pressing the button I AGREE below.

I AGREE

141

LIST OF REFERENCES

Amato, R. C. F. (2008). Momento brasileiro: Reflexões sobre o nacionalismo, a educação

musical e o canto orfeônico em Villa-Lobos. Revista Electrónica Complutense de

Investigación en Educación Musical, 5, 1-18.

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and

responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.

Benedetti, K. S., & Kerr, D. M. (2010). A educação musical sob a perspectiva da pedagogia

histórico-crítica, Música Hodie 10(2), 71-90.

Birge, W. B. (1966). History of public school music programs in the United States. Washington

DC: Music Educators National Conference.

Boyle, J. D., & Radocy, R.E. (1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences. New

York, NY: Schirmer Books.

Burnard, P., Dillon, S. C., Rusinek, G. & Saether, E. (2008). Inclusive pedagogies in music

education: A comparative study of music teachers' perspectives from four countries.

International Journal of Music Education 26(2), 109-126.

doi:10.1177/0255761407088489

Campos, M. J. (2012). A obra para banda de música de Heitor Villa-Lobos: Uma obordagem

periférica ou um resgate de identidade? Anais do SIMPOM 2, 1587-1597. Retrieved from

http://www.seer.unirio.br/index.php/simpom/article/view/2586/1915

Canfield, J. & Wells, H. C. (1994). 100 ways to enhance self-concept in the classroom: A

handbook for teachers, counselors, and group leaders. Needhan Heights, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Census, (2018). United States census bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/

Coelho, J. M. (2015). Cem anos de música no Brasil: 1912- 2012. São Paulo: Andreato

Comunicação e Cultura. ISBN 978-85-60456-08-6.

Conway, C. (2015). Defining curriculum and assessment in music. In C. Conway (Ed.),

Musicianship-focused curriculum and assessment (pp.3-22). Chicago: GIA Publications.

Debellis, M. (2009). Perceptualism, not introspectionism: The interpretation of intuition-based

theories. Music Perception, 27(2), 121–130. doi:10.1525/MP.2009.27.2.131

Del-Bem, L. (2009). Sobre os sentidos do ensino de música na educação básica: Uma discussão a

partir da Lei no. 11.769/2008. Música em Perspectiva, 2(1), 110-134.

Demorest, S. M., Kelley, J. & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2017). Singing ability, musical self-concept,

and future music participation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(4), 405-420.

doi: 10.1177/0022429416680096

http://www.seer.unirio.br/index.php/simpom/article/view/2586/1915

http://search.proquest.com/iimp/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/85381/Revista+Electr$f3nica+Complutense+de+Investigaci$f3n+en+Educaci$f3n+Musical/02008Y01Y01$232008$3b++Vol.+5/5/$B?accountid=10920

http://search.proquest.com/iimp/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/22425/M$fasica+Hodie/02010Y01Y01$232010$3b++Vol.+10+$282$29/10/2?accountid=10920

142

Diehl, M. & Hay, E. L. (2011). Self-concept differentiation and self-concept clarity across

adulthood: Associations with age and psychological well-being. The Journal of Aging

and Human Development, 73(2), 125-152. doi: 10.2190/AG.73.2.b

Elliott, D. (1995) Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Elliott, D., Silverman, M. (2017) Identities and musics: Reclaiming personhood. In R.

Macdonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (Eds). Handbook of musical identities (pp. 27-

45). Oxford, UK: Oxford.

Elliott, G. C. (1984). Dimensions of the self-concept: A source of further distinctions in the

nature of self-consciousness. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13(4), 285-307. doi:

10.1007/BF02094866

Elpus, K., & Abril, C. (2018, March). High school music ensemble students in the United States:

A New National Profile. Keynote presentation at the 2018 NAfME Music Research and

Teacher Education National Conference, Georgia.

Esperidião, N. (2002). Educação profissional: Reflexões sobre o currículo e a prática pedagógica

dos conservatórios. Revista da ABEM 5(7), 69-74.

Evans, P., & McPherson, G. E. (2017) Processes of musical identity consolidation during

adolescence. In R. Macdonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (Eds). Handbook of musical

identities (pp 213-232). Oxford, UK: Oxford.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Fiedler, D., & Spychiger, M. (2017). Measuring “musical self-concept” throughout the years of

adolescence with MUSCI_youth: Validation and adjustment of the musical sel-f concept

inquiry (MUSCI) by investigating samples of students at secondary education schools.

Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 27(3), 167–179. doi: 10.1037/pmu0000180

Getao, F. N. (1996). International education systems: A textbook in comparative education.

Nairobi, Kenia: Acme Press (K) Ltd.

Gillespie, R., Russell, J. A., & Hamann, D. L. (2014). String music educators’ perception of the

impact of new string programs on student outcomes, school of music, and communities.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(2), 175-187. doi:

10.1177/0022429414531987

Gordon, E. (1990). A music learning theory for newborn and young children. Chicago: GIA.

Gruhn, W. (2006). Music learning in schools: Perspectives of a new foundation for music

teaching and learning. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 5(2), 1-27.

Retrieved from http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Gruhn5_2.pdf

https://dx.doi.org/10.2190%2FAG.73.2.b

http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Gruhn5_2.pdf

143

Hallam, S., & Price, V. (2003). Conception of musical ability. Research Studies in Music

Education, 20(1), 2-22.

Hallam, S. (2017) Musical identity, learning, and teaching. In R. Macdonald, D. J. Hargreaves, &

D. Miell (Eds). Handbook of musical identities (pp. 475-492). Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Harte, C. (2017). The historical development of music education in Brazil through the lens of

colégio Pedro II in Rio de Janeiro (1837–2011). Journal of Historical Research in Music

Education 39(1) 5-24. doi: 10.1177/1536600617697438

Henry, N. B. (1958). Basic concepts in music education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Higino, E. (2006). Um século de tradição: A banda de música do Colégio Salesiano Santa Rosa.

(Unpublished master’s thesis) Fundacão Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Ho, W. (2016). A comparative review of music education in mainland China and the United

States: From nationalism to multiculturalism. The International Education Journal:

Comparative Perspectives, 15(2), 38-57.

Howard, S. A. (2012). The effect of selected non music factors on adjudicators’ ratings of high

school solo vocal performances. Journal Research in Music Education, 60(2), 166-185.

doi: 10.1177/0022429412444610

International Society for Music Education. (2010). Community music activity (CMA). Retrieved

from https://www.isme.org/our-work/commissions-forum/community-music-activity-

commission-cma

Jørgensen, H. (2008). Instrumental practice: quality and quantity. The Finnish Journal for Music

Education 11(1/2), 8-18.

Kertz-Welzel, A. (2008). Music education in the twenty-first century: a cross-cultural

comparison of German and American music education towards a new concept of

international dialogue. Music Education Research 10(4), 439-449. doi:

10.1080/14613800802547672

Koskinen, H., Toppila, E., & Olkinura, P. S (2010). Facilities for music education and their

acoustical design. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE),

16(1), 93-104. doi:10.1080/14613800802547672

Lehman, A. C., Sloboda, J. A., & Woody, R. H. (2007). Psychology for musicians:

Undestandingand acquiring skills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leonhard, C., & House, R. W. (1972). Foundations and Principles of Music Education, New

York: McGraw-Hill.

https://www.isme.org/our-work/commissions-forum/community-music-activity-commission-cma

https://www.isme.org/our-work/commissions-forum/community-music-activity-commission-cma

144

Levitin, D. J. (2012). What Does It Mean to Be Musical? Neuron 73(4), 633-667.

doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.01.017.

Mark, M., & Madura, P. (2014). Contemporary Music Education. Boston, MA: Schirmer.

Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., Barnes, J., & Butler, S. (1983). Self-concept: Reliability, stability,

dimensionality, validity, and the measurement of change. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 75(5), 772-790. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.75.5.772

Martinoff, E. H. S. (2017). O ensino de música na escola pública brasileira no período de

vigência da lei 5.692/71 e seus reflexos na atualidade (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/11449/150153/3/martinoff_ehs_dr_ia.pdf

Mawang, L. L., Kigen, E. M., & Mutweleli, S. M. (2019). The relationship between musical self-

concept and musical creativity among secondary school music students. International

Journal of Music Education, 37(1) 78–90. doi: 10.1177/0255761418798402

Mertler, C.A. (2016). Introduction to educational research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Meyer, A. S. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mixon, K. (2005). Building your instrumental music program in an urban school. Music

Educators Journal, 91(3), 15-23. doi:10.2307/3400071

Monti, E. M. G. (2008). Canto orfeônico: Villa-Lobos e as representações sociais do trabalho na

era Vargas. TEIAS: Rio de Janeiro, 9(18), 78-90.

Moon, K., & Humphreys, J.T. (2010). The Manhattanville Music Curriculum program: 1966-

1970. Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, 31(2), 75-98.

doi:10.1177/153660061003100202

Morila, A. P. (2016). Métodos pioneiros de ensino musical no Brasil: Críticas, lutas e

rivalidades. Per Musi UFMG 34, 1‐34.

Morin, A. J. S., Scalas, L. F., & Vispoel, W. (2017). The music self-perception inventory:

Development of parallel forms A and B. Psychology of music, 45(5) 530-549.

doi:10.1177/0305735616669426

Mota, G, & Figueiredo, S. (2012) Estudo comparativo sobre a formação de professores de

música em Portugal e no Brasil. Educação, Santa Maria 37(2), 273-290.

Mullensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Musil, J. & Stewart, L. (2014). The musicality of non-musicians:

an index for assessing musical sophistication in the general population. PLOS/ONE 9(2):

e 0089642. Retrieved from

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089642

https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstream/11449/150153/3/martinoff_ehs_dr_ia.pdf

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089642

145

NAfME (2019). National association for music education: 2014 music standards. Retrieved from

https://nafme.org/my-classroom/standards/core-music-standards/

NAfME (2019b). National association for music education: Opportunity-to-Learn standards for

music instruction. Retrieved from https://nafme.org/wp-

content/files/2014/11/Opportunity-to-Learn-Standards_May2015.pdf

Nóbrega, M. L. C. (2015). A banda de música e o conservatório: Processos de legitimação dos

espaços musicais. Arteriais. Revista do Programa de Pós- Graduação em Artes da

Universidade Federal do Pará, 1(1), 109-123.

Nóvoa, A., Yariv-Mashal, T, (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance

or historical journey? Comparative Eduation, 39(4), 423-438. doi:

10.1080/0305006032000162002

Odena, O., & Welch, G. F. (2007). The influence of teachers’ backgrounds on their perceptions

of musical creativity: A qualitative study with secondary school music teachers. Research

Studies in Music Education, 28, 71-81.

Palmer, M. P., & Hibbard, S. H. (2015). Creative music-making. In C. Conway (Ed.),

Musicianship-focused curriculum and assessment (pp.215-238). Chicago: GIA

Publications.

Petersen S. and Camp M-A. (2016). The Musical Self-Concept of Chinese Music Students.

Frontiers in Psychology, 7(776) 1-13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00776

Purkey, W. W. (1988). An overview of self-concept theory for counselors. (Highlights: An

ERIC/CAPS digest). Ann Harbor, MI: Eric Clearinghouse on Counseling and Personal

Services. Eric Document ED304630.

Randles, C. (2010). The relationship of compositional experiences of high school

instrumentalists to music self-concept. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music

Education, 184, 9-20. doi: 10.2307/27861479

Regelski, T. A. (2005). Music and music education: Theory and praxis for ‘making a difference’.

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(1), 7-27. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00095

Reimer, B. (1970). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Requião, L. (2001) Escolas de música alternativas e aulas particulares: Uma opção para a

formação profissional do músico. Cadernos do Colóquio, 4(1), 98-108.

Rust, V. D., Soumaré, A., Pescador, O., & Shibuia, M. (1999). Research strategies in

comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 43(1), 86-109.

https://nafme.org/my-classroom/standards/core-music-standards/

https://nafme.org/wp-content/files/2014/11/Opportunity-to-Learn-Standards_May2015.pdf

https://nafme.org/wp-content/files/2014/11/Opportunity-to-Learn-Standards_May2015.pdf

146

Sasaki, M. (2004) Comparative research. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.)

The SAGE encyclopedia of social sciences research methods (pp. 152-153). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schnare, B., MacIntyre, P., & Doucette, J. (2011). Possible selves as source of motivation for

musicians. Psychology of Music 40(1), 94-111. DOI: 10.1177/0305735610391348

Shouldice, H. N. (2015). Helping students to develop music literacy. In C. Conway (Ed.),

Musicianship-focused curriculum and assessment (pp.265-297). Chicago: GIA

Publications.

Silva, A. F. M. (2015). Concepção de três professores sobre a criatividade no ensino de música.

Master’s tesis.

Sichivitsa, V. O. (2007). The influences of parents, teachers, peers and other factors on students’

motivation in music. Reseach Studies in Music Education, 29(1), 55-68. doi:

10.1177/1321103X07087568

Sloboda, J. A, & O'Neill, S. A. (2001). Emotions in everyday listening to music. In P. N. Juslin

and A. Sloboda (eds), Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 415-30). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Sobe, N. (2018). Problematizing comparison in a post-exploration age: Big data, educational

knowledge, and the art of criss-crossing. Comparative Education Review, 62(3), 325-343.

Souza, J. (2014) The various histories of music education in Brazil. Revista da Abem, 22(33),

109-120.

Spychiger, M., Gruber, L., & Olbertz, F. (2009). Musical self-concept. Presentation of a

multidimentional model and its empirical analysis. In: J. Louhivuori, T. Eerola, S.

Saarikallio, T. Himberg, & P.-S. Eerola (Eds.) Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference

of Europeian Society for the Cognition Sciences of Music (ESCOM 2009) Jyväskylä,

Finland (pp. 505-507). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Department of Music.

Spychiger, M. (2010). Das musikalische selbstkonzept. Konzeption des konstrukts als

mehrdimensionale domäne und entwicklung eines messverfahrens. [The musical self-

concept. Ideas of a multidimensional construct and development of a measuring

instrument]. Schlussbericht an Den Schweizerischen Nationalfonds zur Förderung der

Wissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Hochschule fur Musik und Darstellende

Kunst, Fachbereich 2 (unpublished).

Spychiger, M. (2017). Musical self-concept as a mediating psychological structure. From

musical experience to musical identity. In R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Miell

(Eds.), Handbook of musical identity (pp. 267–287). New York, NY: Oxford University

Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679485.003.0015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679485.003.0015

147

Thomas, R. M. (1990). The nature of comparative education: How and why are educational

systems compared. In R. M. Thomas (Ed.) International comparative education:

Practices, issues, & prospects (pp. 1-21). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Times Higher Education (2019). The world university rankings [Data file]. Retrieved from

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/university-florida

Times Higher Education (2019b). The world university rankings [Data file]. Retrieved from

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/university-brasilia.

Undergraduate Admissions. (n.d.). In UF College of Arts, School of Music webpage. Retrieved

from https://arts.ufl.edu/academics/music/undergraduate-admissions/audition-

requirements/

Uniepro-Diret-CNI (2018). Educação brasileira em números. Observatório de Educação –.

Brasilia DF: Sistema Indústria.

UF (2019). Enrollment [Data file]. Retrieved from https://ir.aa.ufl.edu/uffacts/enrollment-1/

Vieira, R. (2014). A criatividade como foco na educação musical: Um panorama das pesquisas

desenvolvidas no contexto brasileiro. Anais do III Simpom, 402-401. Retrieved from

www.seer.unirio.br/index.php/simpom/article/viewFile/4575/4097.

Willoughby, D. (1990). Comprehensive musicianship. The Quarterly Journal of music Teaching

and Learning, 1(3), 39-44. Retrieved from http://www-ˇusr.rider.edu/~vrme/

Zakharov, A., Tsheko, G., & Carnoy, M. (2016). Do “better” teachers and classroom resources

improve student achievement? A causal comparative approach in Kenya, South Africa,

and Swaziland. International Journal of Educational Development 50, 108–124.

https://arts.ufl.edu/academics/music/undergraduate-admissions/audition-requirements/

https://arts.ufl.edu/academics/music/undergraduate-admissions/audition-requirements/

http://www-ˇusr.rider.edu/~vrme/

148

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Vadim da Costa Arsky Filho was born in São Paulo, Brazil, where he started his music

education at the age of 9, studying the recorder and music theory through private lessons. In

1977, he moved to Brasília and joined the Escola de Música de Brasília, where he started to learn

the saxophone, had music theory and music history classes, and participated in the choir and

symphonic band of the institution. In 1987 was accepted as an undergraduate student at

Universidade de Brasília, where he graduated in saxophone in 1987. In 1990 acquired the MM

degree in saxophone performance from the University of Louisville, in Louisville, KY, and in

1991 was the winner of the Eldorado Prize, the highest-level classical performance competition

in Brazil. In 1994 became the saxophone professor at the University of Brasília, where he

graduated about 35 saxophone students, was undergraduate coordinator, and head of the

Department of Music, among other duties in high councils. From 2006 and 2013, besides his

duty as an UnB professor, he was band director of the American School of Brasília.

In 2020, concluded his Ph.D. program in Music Education at the University of Florida

and the area of interest was the development of music education and comparative studies of

music education between different countries. He had presented works at international, regional,

and national conferences such as the World Saxophone Congress, the Society for Music

Teachers Association (SMTE), North American Saxophone Alliance (NASA), and the Florida

Music Education Association (FMEA). As a saxophonist, he had performed in several cities in

Brazil, as well as four international tours, one in the United States, performing in several cities at

the states of Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, and three in the Europe, performing in

cities of Spain, France, Denmark, Austria, and Turkey.

A COMPARISON OF BRAZILIAN AND UNITED STATES FIRST …

Documents

Transcript of A COMPARISON OF BRAZILIAN AND UNITED STATES FIRST …