Digital Tool For Motivation

jmte 11 (1) pp.
37–64 Intellect Limited 2018
Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Volume 11 Number 1
© 2018 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jmte.11.1.37_1
LYDIA A. WAN
Monash University
SUE GREGORY
University of New England
Digital tools to support

motivation of music students
for instrumental practice
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Instrumental practice is fundamental to the development of musical expertise, motivation
and motivation plays a vital role. Music practice can be challenging for many instrumental practice
children as it demands significant effort, resilience and perseverance. Motivation motivational design
is also essential in applying appropriate strategies necessary for effective practice ARCS
and musical attainment. Founded on multiple motivational theories, motivational digital tools
design models aim to provide a comprehensive framework to address motivational music learning
issues in learning environments. This case study analysed digital tools to deter-
mine their potential to facilitate motivational strategies to increase children’s
engagement and motivation for music practice. Five such categories of tools were
identified: practice logs, note feedback tools, portfolios, music stand software and
accompaniment tools. Using the attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction
(ARCS) motivational framework, this research found that most tools potentially
facilitated motivational strategies to a restricted extent and suggests that a limited
range of digital tools may currently be available to fully support children’s motiva-
tion for instrumental practice.
www.intellectbooks.com 37
Lydia A. Wan | Sue Gregory
Introduction
Instrumental practice is fundamental to the development of musical exper-
tise (Hallam et al. 2012). Music practice requires a great deal of autonomy.
It is often up to the student when and where to practice, as well as whether
and how they will tackle or avoid new or difficult repertoire (O’Neill and
McPherson 2002). The mental, emotional and physical effort required to
maintain long-term engagement, in particular when repertoire can take weeks
or months to fully master, demands much resilience and perseverance from
the music student (McPherson and McCormick 2006). Motivation is therefore
integral to music learning and practice. In light of technological developments
that are providing new ways to support music learning, one should reflect
on whether and how motivation is being facilitated in digital tools currently
available for instrumental practice. This case study endeavoured to clarify this
phenomenon.
Review of the literature

Research on motivation in music learning helps to understand how children
develop the desire to learn an instrument (O’Neill and McPherson 2002).
Key motivational theories and research evidence in instrumental practice and
music learning are discussed through six key theories: flow, attribution, self-
determination, goal, self-efficacy and expectancy-value theory.
Flow theory describes the experience of concentration, deep enjoyment,
alertness and effortless control when one is fully engaged in an activity
(Csikszentmihalyi 1990). In music learning, O’Neill (1999) found more ‘flow’
experiences when students have goals and challenges that are matched to
their skill levels.
However, attribution theory deals with how people account for success
and failure, which influences their affective reactions and how they approach
future challenges. McPherson and McCormick (2000) reported that music
students who attribute their exam results to ability tend to approach tasks
differently to those who attribute their results to effort. When students attrib-
ute their musical achievements and setbacks to controllable and internal
factors such as effort, they are more likely to approach their practice with a
motivated mindset (O’Neill and McPherson 2002).
Self-determination theory is an approach to motivation that seeks to
explain how social-contextual conditions lead some people to be proactive
and engaged and others passive and alienated (Ryan and Deci 2000). Music
students could be more intrinsically motivated to practise their instruments
if teachers support their need for autonomy and competence (Renwick and
Reeve 2012). In a single-subject case study, Renwick and McPherson (2000)
observed that choosing own repertoire led to higher intrinsic motivation and
an eleven-fold increase in practice amount.
Alternatively, goal theory concerns how one approaches, engages in and
responds to learning tasks (Ames 1992). Mastery goals are focused on the
intrinsic value of learning, effort utilization and developing competency and
understanding; performance goals are focused on ability, self-worth and how
ability is judged relative to others (Midgley et al. 2001). Studies conducted
by O’Neill (1997) and Yoon (1997) revealed that younger children are more
likely to sustain motivation and engagement in music when oriented towards
mastery goals, whereas some older children could adopt both mastery and
performance goals with success (Austin et al. 2006).
38 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Digital tools to support motivation…
Self-efficacy theory deals with the beliefs held about one’s abilities, which
provide the foundation for motivation and accomplishment (Schunk and
Pajares 2010). McPherson and McCormick (2000, 2006) and Nielsen (2004)
found positive correlations between self-efficacy, cognitive engagement and
musical achievement. That is, students are more likely to be engaged in
their instrumental practice when they are more confident in their abilities to
perform musical tasks.
Expectancy-value theory is a framework for studying why one chooses to
engage and persist in a chosen activity. In a model conceptualized by Eccles
(1983), expectancy for success is the belief in how well one does in upcoming
tasks, and task value is the belief about the importance and value of the tasks.
In a longitudinal study of young music students, McPherson (2000) suggested
that the interest and commitment of children towards their instrumental prac-
tice are shaped by their values and expectations. The children’s beliefs, in turn,
are influenced by interaction with their parents, teachers and peers (Hallam
2002; McPherson and Davidson 2006).
Motivation accounts for the goals one chooses to pursue and the levels of
activity and intensity in pursuing these goals (Keller 2010). Intrinsic motiva-
tion is the tendency to engage in tasks for the pleasure that the tasks bring
(Keller 2010). Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is the tendency to
perform tasks for consequent rewards and reinforcements (Sheldon 2007).
Motivation in music learning can be stimulated and sustained by scaffold-
ing and managing the learning environment in which students practice. There
appears to be an absence of an overarching theoretical framework for research
into how motivation can be integrated into instrumental practice. Keller
(2010) suggested, when we attempt to solve motivational problems using one
single theory, we could be restricted in the way we view and define problems
and solutions. Each theory has its own presuppositions, methods for conduct-
ing research and validity within specific domains. Motivational design models
aim to provide a more comprehensive and higher level framework founded on
multiple motivational theories.
The time and effort musicians spend practising their instruments to
develop skills between lessons is one of the most important aspects of music
learning (McPherson and Davidson 2006). There are many facets of instru-
mental practice that influence the development of musical expertise. The three
main factors considered are accumulated practice, use of cognitive strategies
and self-regulated learning (SRL).
Ericsson (2008) asserted that expert performance is traced to the accu-
mulation of deliberate practice (a highly structured and task-oriented form
of practice). Research by Sloboda et al. (1996) found a strong relationship
between musical achievement and amount of formal practice undertaken.
Ericsson et al. (1993) also concluded that highest achieving music students
accumulate significantly more practice than their peers, but Ericsson claimed
that considerable motivation is required for long-term commitment to delib-
erate practice, especially when it is not inherently enjoyable.
Research in music learning generally supports the view that higher
levels of motivation enable music students to benefit from increased quan-
tity and quality of practice. Austin and Berg (2006) observed that students
(aged 11–12) with higher motivation tended to report more practice. Another
study of junior-high band students also highlighted a positive relationship
between intrinsic motivation and practice (Miksza 2006). However, Hallam
et al. (2012) observed only a weak positive relationship between motivation
and practice amount, indicating that further investigation was required into
other contributing factors.
Cognitive strategies refer to the processes of encoding information when
learning and performing a task (Dignath and Büttner 2008). In music learn-
ing, cognitive strategies include determining what to practice, as well as learn-
ing strategies such as clapping the rhythm, identifying difficult sections and
gradually increasing the speed (Zhukov 2009). McPherson and McCormick
(2006) found that students who reported an increased use of cognitive strate-
gies were also more likely to undertake more formal practice.
Metacognitive strategies include efforts to become more aware of one’s
own abilities and strategic processes to plan, monitor and regulate one’s own
practice sessions (McPherson and Zimmerman 2011). Commonly known as
SRL, this could be conceptualized as a cyclical process with three phases: fore-
thought, performance and self-reflection (Zimmerman 2002). Expert musi-
cians tend to exhibit more self-regulatory behaviour, effort and concentration
during their practice compared to novice musicians. Nielsen (2001) observed
extensive SRL skills in a case study of two advanced conservatoire students. In
contrast, McPherson and Renwick (2001) found low levels of self-regulatory
skills in a study of young children commencing music learning. These young
children almost exclusively played pieces from start to finish, without stopping
to correct errors or adopting strategies to improve performance. McPherson
(2005) also concluded that children who apply musically appropriate cognitive
and metacognitive strategies during practice are more likely to succeed when
compared with their peers.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategies require a high degree of effort to
apply, and motivation provides the will to use these strategies (McCombs and
Marzano 1990). McPherson and McCormick (1999) observed that students
who were more intrinsically motivated tend to report greater practice amount
and cognitive engagement. Research on university music students indicated
those with higher motivation were more likely to use cognitive and metacog-
nitive strategies (Nielsen 2004). Austin and Berg (2006) also found that chil-
dren with higher motivation reported more SRL during their practice.
Parents play a fundamental role in their children’s music learning
(McPherson 2009). McPherson and Davidson (2002) found that most children
need regular practice reminders. Parents may also need to assist their child
to cope with difficulties during practice, scaffold SRL and help develop self-
competence beliefs (McPherson 2009). However, McPherson and Zimmerman
(2011) highlight that some parents may not have sufficient musical back-
ground to supervise instrumental practice. Therefore, practice could become
particularly challenging if parents do not have enough time or musical knowl-
edge to provide adequate support.
Motivational design refers to ‘the process of arranging resources and
procedures to bring about changes in motivation’ (Keller 2006: 3). It is used
in instructional design to identify and solve specific motivational problems
and refers to strategies, principles and processes to make instruction more
intrinsically interesting (Keller 2006). Attention, relevance, confidence and
satisfaction (ARCS) (Keller 1987) is a motivational design model to improve
the motivational appeal of instruction in learning environments such as in
classroom, online and distance education. ARCS consists of four categories
to characterize and enhance motivation, and a systematic design process to
integrate motivation into instruction.

The rapid growth of Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

has offered new ways to address some motivational issues in distance educa-
tion and self-directed learning. Furthermore, the use of motivational design,
when incorporated with ICT, has been shown to increase the engagement
of the learner and sustain their motivation. Winiecki et al. (1999) described
how interventions based on ARCS significantly reduced dropout rates in an
eLearning masters course. Research by ChanLin (2009) reported that ARCS
strategies in a university web-based course resulted in positive attitudes
towards learning. A blended distance-learning environment using motiva-
tional messages based on ARCS strategies showed positive effects on student
attitude and performance (Visser and Keller 1990). Oh (2006) found that
teachers (with minimal knowledge of ARCS) could effectively use digital reus-
able motivational objects to develop meaningful motivational objects. Finally,
Song and Keller (2001) described how motivationally adaptive computer-
assisted instruction using ARCS resulted in higher effectiveness, motivation
and attention compared to other types of interventions.
The application of ICT to music learning has resulted in a multitude of soft-
ware to facilitate different ways of developing musical understanding (Webster
2015). Kim (2013) described a study whereby music technology-mediated
learning enhanced the self-motivated engagement of primary school students.
Research by Gower and McDowall (2012) suggested that music video games
could potentially be used to informally engage children in music learning.
Morrison (2015) reported that a wiki-based technology environment was
effective in supporting reflection and collaboration of secondary school music
students. Finally, preliminary findings of an e-portfolio tool currently being
developed for the music studio context (Upitis et al. 2012) suggested some
positive changes to the self-regulated behaviour of students during music
practice (Mazuera 2014). Webster (2015) remarked that one should consider
how technology could effect, rather than merely support, the musical develop-
ment of students. To this end, this study sought to explore the current state of
digital tools to facilitate motivation for instrumental practice.
To summarize, motivation is essential to music learning. Instrumental prac-
tice can be very challenging, especially for young children. Students have to be
motivated in order to apply appropriate strategies for effective practice and
musical attainment. Much knowledge has been gained from research in music
learning and key theories of motivation. Motivational design models aim to
provide a comprehensive framework to systematically bring about changes in
motivation by making instruction more intrinsically interesting. Motivational
design and ICT have opened up new ways of teaching to facilitate motiva-
tion and active learner engagement. Research in music learning with tech-
nology suggests the potential to facilitate musical development through new
avenues. Therefore, there are greater opportunities now than ever before to
explore the century-old question to music teaching and learning: How can one
provide a learning environment to sustain and enhance children’s motivation to
practise their instruments, so as to give them the best chance of achieving their full
musical potential?
Research method
The current research (Wan 2015) is the reconnaissance phase of a larger
research project proposed to explore how motivational design strategies,
when integrated into a computer-based learning environment, could increase
the engagement of learners to enhance and sustain their motivation for music
practice. The purpose was to explore and review the state of currently avail-
able digital tools used to sustain and motivate children during instrumental
practice with the intention of establishing a baseline for the proposed larger
research.
The research questions that framed the current study were as follows:
1. What type of digital tools are available to support children’s practice of

their musical instruments, with the goal of enhancing and sustaining their
motivation for practice, for the purpose of musical achievement?
2. To what extent could motivational strategies be incorporated into these
tools?
3. In what ways could these motivational strategies be incorporated into these
tools?
A tool that facilitates extensive motivational strategies may actually

have very little value if it provides limited support for musical achievement.
Research question 2 therefore had the following supplementary question:
2.1. To what extent could these tools also support instrumental practice for
the purpose of musical achievement?
As this research sought to establish, describe and analyse the state of
digital tools to motivate instrumental practice, a ‘case study’ was considered
the most appropriate method. The first phase of the research conducted to
address research question 1 involved the identification and analysis of the case
study. The second phase, conducted to address research questions 2 and 3,
comprised identifying the research sample, data collection and analysis using
an ARCS-based measurement instrument.
The ARCS model (Keller 2010) states that, in every learning environment,
there are four major categories of motivation: attention, relevance, confidence
and satisfaction. Each category is supported by a set of strategies (or concepts)
founded on various motivational theories (Table 1). This research focused on
the analysis of digital tool functionality using this framework.
Phase 1
Phase 1 employed an interpretive and qualitative approach to establish and
describe the ‘types’ (or categories) of digital tools available (research question
1). As there currently does not exist adequate research within this context, a
major part of Phase 1 was the establishment of available tools by compiling a
cross-section of tools that potentially supported motivation for music practice.
This compilation (Figure 1) used the following data sources:
1. Academic literature published between January 2005 and February 2015

(inclusive); and
2. Web pages accessible during February 2015.
The Apple and Android app stores were considered as further data sources.
However, considering the transient nature and high turnover of apps and, in
particular, the limited information available, it was decided that these stores
did not provide a reliable, detailed and consistent source of data.

A learning environment ARCS ARCS

should: category strategy Explanation of strategy
Capture interest of students and Attention Perceptual Capture interest
stimulate their curiosity to learn arousal
Inquiry Stimulate attitude of inquiry
arousal
Variability Maintain attention
Meet personal needs and goals of Relevance Goal Structure goals to best meet
students to influence a positive orientation learner needs
attitude
Motive Provide appropriate choices,
matching responsibilities and influences
to match learning styles and
personal interests of learners
Familiarity Connect instruction to learners’
experiences
Help students believe that they will Confidence Learning Build a positive expectation for
succeed and can control their requirements success
success
Success Support or enhance students’
opportunities competence beliefs
Personal Learners to clearly know their
control success is based on effort and
ability
Reinforce accomplishment with Satisfaction Natural Encourage and support intrin-
internal and external rewards, so consequences sic enjoyment of learning
students will feel good about their experience
learning experience and want to
continue learning
Positive Provide rewarding conse-
consequences quences for success
Equity Build perceptions of fair
treatment
Table 1: ARCS model categories and strategies.
The tools in the compilation (Figure 1) were not downloaded and evalu-
ated for the purpose of this phase. For each tool within this compilation, the
content of its data source was used to collect data and to derive tool informa-
tion (Table 2).
Using data collected and information derived (Table 2), the boundary of
the case study (Figure 1) was defined to be all tools in the compilation that
satisfy criteria in Table 3.
Data collected on the functionality of each tool in the case study were
used to derive broad categories of tools. This analysis process was iterative
and inductive, whereby each unit of data was compared with other units, and
common patterns were derived and refined (Merriam 2010).
Tools for instrumental practice
Compilation of practice tools

(a cross-section)
Case
Study
(for RQ1)
Figure 1: First study phase.
Data collected Information derived

Technological platform Is tool predominantly ICT-based?
Motivational claims Is a goal of the tool to enhance and sustain
motivation for practice?
Functionality Does tool directly support (i.e. play an active
role during) instrumental practice?
Can tool support factors identified as
important to musical achievement (i.e.
practice amount and use of cognitive and SRL
strategies)?
Instrument compatibility Is tool developed specifically for one particular
instrument?
Table 2: Data collected and information derived for each tool.
Criterion1. The tool was predominantly ICT-based;

Criterion2. A goal of the tool was to enhance and sustain
motivation for practice;
Criterion3. The tool directly supported instrumental practice;
Criterion4. The tool was NOT specifically developed for one
particular instrument; and
Criterion5. The tool aimed to support factors important to
musical achievement.
Table 3: Boundary of case study.

Phase 2
As the case study consisted of numerous tools, a research sample was
extracted (Figure 2). Purposeful sampling was conducted by selecting one tool
from each ‘category’ derived from Phase 1. The tool selected from each cate-
gory had to be the most appropriate tool for the research context (i.e. primary
school-aged children), accessible from the Internet or downloadable from an
app store at the time of the research data collection phase and compatible
with the platforms available to the researcher (i.e. iPad, Mac and the piano as
the sample instrument).
To address research questions 2 and 3, in-depth analysis was conducted
on the study sample. For each tool, the app was installed onto the researcher’s
device or accessed via a web browser (if available as a web-enabled tool). The
functionality of each tool was explored and then analysed against a question-
naire-based instrument.
Existing ARCS-based measurement instruments (Course Interest Survey
and Instructional Materials Motivation Scale) and checklists (Motivational
Tactics and Motivational Delivery) (Keller 2010) were found to be unsuitable
for the analysis of digital tool functionality. An instrument based on the ARCS
model was adapted for this research context (Table 4).
The study involved the first author as researcher, who analysed each tool
through both perspectives of the student and teacher. This author is very
familiar with issues and challenges in music learning, a result of sixteen years
of instrumental studies and twelve years of music teaching. The participation
of other teachers and students was outside the scope of the current study.
The functionality of each tool was analysed to determine their perceived
potential to facilitate motivational strategies. The measurement instrument
employed a Likert-scale response (Table 5) to describe the perceived extent
of facilitation for ARCS motivational strategies (Part I) and musical achieve-
ment (Part II).
The responses provided by the researcher were then analysed to provide
a clarification to the current state of digital tools. Responses to Parts I and II
were used to address research questions 2 and 2.1 (respectively). Qualitative
responses to Part III were analysed using an inductive and iterative process to
provide justification for the research’s findings (research question 3).
Case Study
Study Sample
(for RQ2, RQ2.1 & RQ3)
Figure 2: Second study phase.
ARCS strategy
Part I: How adequately can the tool facilitate the following strategy:
Capture students’ interest Perceptual arousal
Increase students’ curiosity or stimulate an attitude of inquiry Inquiry arousal
Sustain students’ attention through variability Variability
Structure goals to best meet students’ needs Goal orientation
Provide students with appropriate choices, responsibilities and Motive matching
influences to match learning styles and personal interests of students
Connect instruction to students’ experiences Familiarity
Communicate learning objectives so students clearly know what is Learning requirements
expected of them
Provide success opportunities to support or increase students’ beliefs in Success opportunities
their competence
Facilitate awareness that success is due to students’ own efforts and Personal control
abilities
Encourage and support intrinsic enjoyment by providing meaningful Natural consequences
opportunities for students to use or demonstrate what they have learnt
Provide rewarding consequences for students’ successes Positive consequences
Ensure consistent standards and consequences so students perceive Equity
fair treatment and associate positive feelings about their achievements
Part II: How adequately can the tool facilitate:
Amount of practice (frequency/length)
Use of cognitive strategies
Use of SRL strategies
Part III: In what ways can the tool be used to implement each ARCS Strategy (in Part I)
Table 4: ARCS-based research instrument to analyse digital tools.
0 Not facilitated (tool contains no functionality to support strategy)

1 Partially or indirectly facilitated (tool contains functionality that could only partly support
strategy or bring about an incidental but incomplete support for strategy)
2 Satisfactorily and directly facilitated (tool contains functionality that could be incorporated to
reasonably support strategy)
3 Facilitated in an exemplary manner (tool contains functionality that could be incorporated in
multiple ways to considerably facilitate strategy)
Table 5: Values for Likert-scale response.
Results and discussion

Phase 1
The first phase involved the identification of the case study and analysis of
data collected. Fifteen tools were selected as they were found to be directly
relevant to the research purpose and context. From this, five broad categories
of digital tools were derived, representing a cross-section of tools currently

available to support motivation during instrumental practice. Following,

results of this research are summarized.
An iterative search was conducted on web pages and academic literature.
Digital tools found to be of relevance to the research purpose and context
were included in an initial compilation. This process continued until a satu-
ration level was reached, whereby the researcher was satisfied that further
searches would only uncover tools that were similar to those already found.
The compilation resulted in 28 tools. Based on data collected and derived for
each tool (Table 2), fifteen tools satisfied all criteria in Table 3 and hence were
included in the case (see Appendix).
Analysis of the case revealed five broad categories of tools, representing
the types of currently available digital tools designed to support motivation
in music practice (research question 1). Variations exist in the functionality of
tools within the same categories. These categories and main functionality are
described below:
• Practice log tools enable students to plan and enter a record of their
practice. PracticeBuddy was designed specifically for children, whereas
MusicPractice, MusicJournal, PracticeMusic were intended for a wider age
range. With PracticeBuddy, the parent or teacher sets practice goals and
rewards; students log their practice and achieve rewards when goals are
completed. The other three tools enable students to enter weekly goals
and log their practice against these goals.
• Note feedback tools detect and indicate whether the notes of a piece have
been played at the correct pitch and rhythm. Interactive Pyware Assessment
System (iPAS) provides summative feedback, whereas SmartMusic,
PlayPerfect and MusicProdigy provide immediate feedback. All four tools
are intended for practice and assessment. Student progress can be tracked,
and recordings and graded reports can be sent to the teacher. SmartMusic,
iPAS and MusicProdigy also provide accompaniment while students play
their individual parts.
• This research found iSCORE (Upitis et al. 2013, 2014) to be the only tool
of its kind currently available for music practice. Designed to scaffold SRL
during music practice, the portfolio tool also encourages communication
and collaboration between students, teacher and peers by facilitating feed-
back, interaction and sharing of recordings, ideas and resources.
• Music stand software tools, when used with a hardware device (e.g. iPad),
provide students with an interactive music stand and sheet music library.
Using Chromatik, AvidScorch or MusicReader, students can add their own
music to their personal library, listen to recordings of music they are learn-
ing and customize display or navigation of music scores. Chromatik and
MusicReader allow scores to be annotated (to capture ideas learnt during
lessons).
• The main function of accompaniment tools is to play other parts of the
music while the student plays their individual part. Meloflow and BandPad
provide accompaniment by utilizing note-detection technology to deter-
mine student’s current location on the score. iRealPro, however, does not
utilize note-detection technology and provides accompaniment by simu-
lating band sounds using chord charts.
All tools in the case were found to facilitate musical achievement in various
ways. The technological platforms for these tools include iOS, Android, OS X
and Windows.
Phase 2
In the second research phase, one tool from each category (derived in Phase
1) was selected into the research sample (see Appendix). The functionality of
each tool in the sample was analysed using an ARCS-based measurement
instrument (Table 4). Results and findings of this phase describe the extent
to which motivational strategies can potentially be facilitated (research ques-
tions 2 and 3), as perceived by the researcher. A summary and discussion of
research results and findings are presented below.
• PracticeBuddy (Practice Log) is an iPad tool developed specifically for chil-

dren. The parent/teacher sets a reward for the student on completion of a
practice goal. The student practises with the timer (Figure 3) and record-
ings of entire practice sessions can be e-mailed (e.g. to the teacher).
The tool is simple to use and its bright colours can appeal to children.
However, students will have to switch their attention between the tool and
their learning content (e.g. music score, teacher notes).
This study found PracticeBuddy to facilitate ARCS strategies to the small-

est extent of all sample tools (Figure 4). As learning content is not supported,
the tool does not facilitate relevance or confidence strategies. However,
Figure 3: PracticeBuddy – student practises with timer.

PracticeBuddy
3
Extent of facilitation
Motive matching
Natural consequences
Learning requirements
Goal orientation
Success opportunities
Inquiry arousal
Positive consequences
Perceptual arousal
Variability
Personal control
Familiarity
Equity
Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction
Figure 4: PracticeBuddy – ARCS facilitation.
PracticeBuddy can capture and sustain student attention through setting of

appropriate goals and rewards and generate satisfaction when rewards are
received as a result of goal accomplishment. In terms of musical achievement,
the tool does not appear to facilitate cognitive or SRL strategies (as learning
content is not supported), but students can be motivated to practice if they are
interested in rewards.
Figure 2 illustrates the perceived potential of PracticeBuddy to facilitate
ARCS motivational strategies. The vertical axes (‘Extent of facilitation’) in
Figures 4–14 refer to Likert-scale responses in Table 5, representing the analy-
sis of each tool’s functionality through the researcher’s perspective.
• MusicProdigy (Note Feedback) provides feedback on pitch and rhythmic

accuracy of notes played (Figure 5). Students can use MusicProdigy for
practice or assessment. Teachers can upload sheet music, create assign-
ments for students, track student progress and listen to assessment
recordings.
Note feedback tools in this case study help students with pitch and rhyth-
mic accuracy, but do not appear to address musicality and technique, which
are also considered important in practice and performance (Barry 1990). In
addition, MusicProdigy seems to be more suited to the stage of learning when
students can play their pieces from start to finish relatively fluently. From the
researcher’s experience, some students can stop and start frequently while
initially learning from the score. If students pause their playing, MusicProdigy
will keep assessing and mark the rest of the piece as incorrect unless the tool
is also paused. Inaccurate assessment scores resulting from this situation can
provoke frustration (instead of enhancing confidence) in some children.
This analysis found MusicProdigy to facilitate ARCS strategies to a limited
extent (Figure 6). This tool can initiate some attention by providing a new and
novel way to practise, and partially facilitate relevance by providing different
options for practice and assessment. MusicProdigy can enhance confidence
Figure 5: MusicProdigy – providing feedback on accuracy of notes played.
MusicProdigy
3
0
Motive matching
Goal orientation
Inquiry arousal
Variability
Perceptual arousal
Personal control
Familiarity
Equity
Figure 6: MusicProdigy – ARCS facilitation.
by providing clear objectives, coloured-note feedback, practice scaffolds

and assessment tracking. Students can experience satisfaction because their
assessments are equitable and their progress is demonstrable. By providing
clear feedback, MusicProdigy can prompt students to practice more, thereby
partially facilitating musical achievement. However, the tool appears to

Figure 7: iSCORE – prompts to support ‘planning’ phase of practice.
primarily support one particular stage and aspect (pitch and rhythmic accu-
racy) of instrumental learning.
• iSCORE (Portfolio) is a student-centric, web-based portfolio tool to support

the use of SRL strategies during instrumental practice. This research found
iSCORE to be unique in its support of SRL strategies and intention to
provide a collaborative and active learning environment between lessons.
The tool prompts students to think about how they will accomplish their
tasks (e.g. pieces), through SRL phases of ‘planning’ (Figure 7), ‘doing’
and ‘reflecting’. iSCORE also provides communication and collaboration

tools such as posts, feedback, e-mails and sharing of resources between
students, teachers and peers.
However, as with PracticeBuddy and MusicProdigy, students have to switch

their attention between the current version of iSCORE and their practice. Some
children may not be able to switch attention between tasks effectively, but gener-
ally this becomes easier with age (Gupta et al. 2009). Some children may not be
able to fully and independently handle the flexibility and wealth of options avail-
able in tools like iSCORE. These children may require interface, design and scaf-
folding that are more appropriate for their age group (Clark et al. 2006).
iSCORE was found to potentially facilitate ARCS strategies and musical
achievement to a greater extent than other sample tools (Figure 8). Its commu-
nication tools can be used to develop a stimulating environment to capture and
maintain attention. iSCORE facilitates relevance by providing flexible learning
choices and collaboration facilities and prompts students to connect goals to
tasks. The tool facilitates confidence through scaffolding of goal setting, form-
ative feedback and self-evaluation. Students can also experience satisfaction
and intrinsic motivation through sharing their own recordings and receiving
constructive feedback from their teachers and peers. Although positive results
have been shown for older students (Upitis et al. 2014), further research is still
to be undertaken on its suitability for primary school-aged children.
• MusicReader (Music Stand) stores, catalogues and displays music sheets for
practice and performance. It provides different ways of viewing, navigating
and turning pages. Scores can be annotated, to help students remember
learnt ideas (Figure 9). MusicReader also provides a tuner, metronome and
recorder. Recordings can be embedded to help students learn their pieces.
Having MusicReader on a portable device means students can have their
entire repertoire in one place and practise wherever their instruments are
available.
iSCORE
3
0
Motive matching
Goal orientation
Inquiry arousal
Perceptual arousal
Variability
Personal control
Familiarity
Equity

Figure 8: iSCORE – ARCS facilitation.

This research found MusicReader to facilitate ARCS strategies to a lesser

extent than iSCORE (Figure 10). The MusicReader tool can initiate some atten-
tion by providing new ways to practice. It partially facilitates relevance by
providing choices in how sheet music is navigated. Confidence can increase
when students use the tool to listen to model recordings to understand their
learning objectives. Students can enhance their satisfaction when using
MusicReader to record and listen to their own playing. Musical achievement
Figure 9: MusicReader – an annotated score.
MusicReader
3
0
Motive matching
Goal orientation
Inquiry arousal
Variability
Perceptual arousal
Personal control
Familiarity
Equity
Figure 10: MusicReader – ARCS facilitation.
Figure 11: Meloflow – student plays one part (e.g. Violin 2) while tool plays other parts.
is partially facilitated through its support for annotations and functionality to

store and display sheet music.
• Using Meloflow (Accompaniment), students can play one part of the

score while the tool synchronously plays the other parts using sounds of
intended instruments (Figure 11). Unlike MusicProdigy, Meloflow does not
provide feedback or assessment on note accuracy, but its accompaniment
will ‘wait’ during a pause until student resumes playing. A moving cursor
indicates the current position on the score and the accompaniment adapts
to the speed of the part being played.
Meloflow was found to potentially facilitate ARCS strategies to a limited

extent (Figure 12). The tool promotes some satisfaction and intrinsic moti-
vation by playing other parts of the score while the student plays their part.
Meloflow can initiate some attention by providing a new way to practice. Using
the tool to listen to model recordings can enhance relevance. Meloflow builds
some confidence by giving students personal control in deciding which parts
to practice. The tool can also assist students understand their individual part in
the whole context, thereby partially facilitating musical achievement.
The findings suggest that each ARCS strategy could be incorporated in
many different ways due to the wide range of tool functionality within the
research sample. Figure 13 provides an overview of each tool in terms of the
average extent of facilitation for each ARCS category, as analysed through the
researcher’s perspective. This figure does not imply that each strategy is equiv-
alent in value, but serves to indicate the extent of motivational strategies that
could potentially be facilitated.
This analysis also indicated that musical achievement could potentially be
facilitated to varying degrees in the sample tools. This is shown in Figure 14.
Implications
PracticeBuddy is a practice log tool designed to motivate children to practice
their instruments. However, this analysis found the tool to facilitate motivation

Meloflow
3
Motive matching
Goal orientation
Inquiry arousal
Perceptual arousal
Variability
Personal control
Familiarity
Equity
Figure 12: Meloflow – ARCS facilitation.
ARCS Motivational Strategies

3
Average extent of facilitation
0
PracticeBuddy MusicProdigy iSCORE MusicReader Meloflow
Figure 13: Facilitation for ARCS strategies.
and achievement to a lesser extent than the other sample tools, primarily due
to its lack of support for learning content, cognitive strategies and SRL. This
research suggests that use of tools like PracticeBuddy may not wholly sustain
children’s motivation to practice, nor significantly contribute to their musical
achievement.
Some factors for musical achievement

3
0
PracticeBuddy MusicProdigy iSCORE MusicReader Meloflow
Practice amount Cognitive strategies SRL strategies
Figure 14: Facilitation for musical achievement.
In contrast, this research found iSCORE to potentially facilitate moti-

vational strategies and musical achievement to a greater extent than other
sample tools. This portfolio tool supports learning content and objec-
tives; communication and collaboration between lessons; and scaffolds
goal setting and use of cognitive and SRL strategies. However, the use of
iSCORE will not guarantee motivation. Teachers need to understand the
learning profile and needs of students, and integrate motivational strategies
into iSCORE in a manner appropriate for each individual student. The ARCS
systematic design process (Keller 2010), comprising several tasks, including
analysing audience characteristics and designing applicable tactics, could
be employed in this context. This research suggests that further studies of
iSCORE could be conducted to determine its suitability for primary school-
aged children.
MusicProdigy (note feedback), MusicReader (music stand) and Meloflow
(accompaniment) were designed to target particular aspects of practice and
learning, with motivation as a secondary purpose. The analysis of these tools
indicates their potential to facilitate motivation and musical achievement to
varying but lesser extents than iSCORE. As for PracticeBuddy, the use of these
three tools may not sustain motivation in the long term.
In summary, this analysis through the researcher’s perspective indicates
that most sample tools did not potentially facilitate ARCS motivational strate-
gies in a comprehensive manner. The research suggests that a limited range
of digital tools may currently exist to fully support children’s motivation for
instrumental practice. This underscores the need to further investigate how
such a learning environment could best be provided.
Conclusion – findings, limitations and future research

The research identified five categories of digital tools currently available to
enhance and sustain children’s motivation for instrumental practice. To vary-
ing degrees, these tools also potentially facilitated some factors that contrib-
ute to musical achievement, namely accumulated practice amount, cognitive
strategies and SRL. The tool categories include practice logs, note feedback
tools, portfolios, music stand software and accompaniment tools. Through
the researcher’s perspective, the functionality of one tool from each category

was analysed using the ARCS framework. This research found that, although
there are many different ways to incorporate motivational strategies, most
tools in the sample potentially facilitated motivational strategies to varying but
restricted extents. The findings suggest that a limited range of digital tools may
currently exist to fully support children’s motivation for instrumental practice.
The scope of this research was limited by its resource constraints and the
nature of the case study approach. This research incorporated the perspec-
tives of one researcher, but in future studies, the credibility and trustwor-
thiness of the findings could be increased by incorporating the perspectives
of other students and teachers. These measures could also be strengthened
through peer consultation and other forms of triangulation (Baxter and Jack
2008), such as the use of different sample tools, other musical instruments and
alternative theoretical frameworks. These methods, together with a greater
sample size, could also increase the generalizability of the research findings.
Furthermore, the evaluation of these tools with students in their instrumen-
tal practice context could provide empirical evidence to augment this area of
research.
The case study approach relies on the integrity and personal interpreta-
tion of the researcher (as the primary research instrument) (Merriam 1998).
The researcher endeavoured to be mindful of the inherent subjectivity due to
researcher background and experience.
The findings have highlighted that, in addition to the ARCS framework,
further research should be underpinned by theories of child development and
learning. Digital tools such as iSCORE could then be evaluated against such
theoretical frameworks to determine their suitability for primary school-aged
children.
Most tools analysed in this research were auxiliary to the practice envi-
ronment. Some children may not be able to effectively switch their attention
between the tool and their instrumental practice. As motivation is essential
to instrumental practice, there is a need to explore how one could provide
a seamless and integrated learning environment that incorporates content,
addresses learning needs of children and facilitates motivational strategies and
musical achievement. In doing so, one should consider innovations in peda-
gogy and educational technology, such as the flipped classroom (Abeysekera
and Dawson 2015), gamification (Kiryakova et al. 2014) and virtual worlds
(Gregory et al. 2014).
Recent research has shown that instrumental practice can be very challeng-
ing for children, and adequate motivational resources are required to sustain
their commitment to music learning. Motivational design and advancements
in educational technology offer opportunities to further explore how mean-
ingful learning environments could be provided for children, to sustain their
motivation for instrumental practice and to help them achieve their full musi-
cal potential.
Appendix
The case study (Phase 1) consisted of the following tools. The tools in the
research sample (Phase 2) are highlighted.
Digital tool Web address/Literature Technological Derived category Reasons for selection into Version
name reference platform (Phase 1) research sample analysed
MusicJournal www.axe-monkey.com/musicjournal iOS Practice Log
PracticeMusic www.practicemusic.com/ iOS
TheiPhoneApp.html

MusicPractice www.essential-music-practice.com/ iOS
music-practice-app.html
PracticeBuddy www.ladeezfirstmedia.com/apps/ iOS All Practice log tools are a ccessible Pro V2.3
practicebuddy/ and compatible with research
platform. However, PracticeBuddy
is developed specifically for children
while the others are for ‘all ages’.
SmartMusic www.smartmusic.com; iOS (iPad only), Note Feedback
Heavner (2011) Windows, OS X
PlayPerfect www.nchsoftware.com/practice/ Windows
iPAS www.pyware.com/ipas/ Windows, OS X
MusicProdigy www.musicprodigy.com iOS, Android, OS PlayPerfect is not compatible with V2.0 (iOS,
X, Windows research platform. iPAS is not OS X)
accessible from its website.
SmartMusic is not compatible with
researcher’s sample instrument
(piano). MusicProdigy claims to be
compatible with all instruments.
iSCORE www.rcmusic.ca/iscore-home-page; Any desktop Portfolio Tool is accessible and compatible As avail-
Upitis et al. (2013, 2014) computer with with research platform. iSCORE able during
web browser, iOS, appears to be the only tool of its March 2015
Android kind.
Chromatik www.chromatik.com/static/about iOS, Android Music Stand
AvidScorch www.sibelius.com/products/ iOS (iPad only)
avid_scorch
MusicReader www.musicreader.net iOS (iPad only), Chromatic is only available in US V9.962
OS X, app stores. MusicReader was (iOS), V4
Windows chosen (in preference to Avid (OS X)
Scorch) because it supports
annotations, which could be more
useful for children (can help
remember ideas learnt during lessons).
iRealPro irealpro.com iOS, Android, Accompaniment
OS X
BandPad bandpad.co iOS, Android
Meloflow www.meloflow.com iOS (iPad only) iRealPro is specific to contemporary V1.032
chord-based music. BandPad (iOS)
only supports wind instruments,
while Meloflow is compatible with
researcher’s instrument – piano.
REFERENCES
Abeysekera, L. and Dawson, P. (2015), ‘Motivation and cognitive load in the
flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research’, Higher
Education Research & Development, 34:1, pp. 1–14.
Ames, C. (1992), ‘Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation’,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84:3, pp. 261–71.
Austin, J. R. and Berg, M. H. (2006), ‘Exploring music practice among sixth-
grade band and orchestra students’, Psychology of Music, 34:4, pp. 538–58.
Austin, J., Renwick, J. M. and McPherson, G. E. (2006), ‘Developing moti-
vation’, in G. E. McPherson (ed.), The Child as Musician: A Handbook of
Musical Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 213–38.
Barry, N. H. (1990), ‘The effects of different practice techniques upon techni-
cal accuracy and musicality in student instrumental music performance’,
Research Perspectives in Music Education, 44:1, pp. 4–8.
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008), ‘Qualitative case study methodology: Study
design and implementation for novice researchers’, The Qualitative Report,
13:4, pp. 544–59.
ChanLin, L. (2009), ‘Applying motivational analysis in a web-based course’,
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46:1, pp. 91–103.
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F. and Sweller, J. (2006), Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-
Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load, Chichester: Wiley.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, New
York: Harper & Row.
Dignath, C. and Büttner, G. (2008), ‘Components of fostering self-regula-
ted learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies
at primary and secondary school level’, Metacognition and Learning, 3:3,
pp. 231–64.
Eccles, J. (1983), ‘Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors’, in J. Spence
(ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motives, San Francisco, CA: Freeman,
pp. 75–146.
Ericsson, K. A. (2008), ‘Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert perfor-
mance: A general overview’, Academic Emergency Medicine, 15:11, pp. 988–94.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993), ‘The role of delibe-
rate practice in the acquisition of expert performance’, Psychological Review,
100:3, pp. 363–406.
Gower, L. and McDowall, J. (2012), ‘Interactive music video games and
children’s musical development’, British Journal of Music Education, 29:1,
pp. 91–105.
Gregory, S., Gregory, B., Wood, D., Butler, D., Pasfield-Neofitou, S., Hearns, M.,
de Freitas, S., Farley, H., Warren, I., Jacka, L., Stokes-Thompson, F., Cox,
R., Crowther, P., Atkins, C., McDonald, M., Reiners, T., Wood, L., Sim, J.,
Grant, S., Campbell, C., Hillier, M., Meredith, G., Steel, C., Jegathesan. J. J.,
Zagami, J., Sukunesan, S., Gaukrodger, B., Schutt, S., Le Rossignol, K., Hill,
M., Rive, P. and Wang, X. (2014), ‘Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspecti-
ves on education in a 3D virtual world’, in B. Hegarty, J. McDonald and
S.-K. Loke (eds), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical Perspectives on Educational
Technology, Proceedings of Ascilite 2014, Dunedin, New Zealand, 23–26
November, pp. 279–89, https://app.box.com/s/016cdyv8dq1pp0yhp
1vw/1/2704865198/23032570210/1. Accessed 10 May 2015.
Gupta, R., Kar, B. R. and Srinivasan, N. (2009), ‘Development of task switching
and post-error-slowing in children’, Behavioral and Brain Functions, 5:1, p. 38.

Hallam, S. (2002), ‘Musical motivation: Towards a model synthesising the

research’, Music Education Research, 4:2, pp. 225–44.
Hallam, S., Rinta, T., Varvarigou, M., Creech, A., Papageorgi, I., Gomes, T. and
Lanipekun, J. (2012), ‘The development of practising strategies in young
people’, Psychology of Music, 40:5, pp. 652–80.
Heavner, T. (2011), ‘Teaching instrumental music lessons via the internet’,
International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4:21, pp. 307–13.
Keller, J. M. (1987), ‘Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional
design’, Journal of Instructional Development, 10:3, pp. 2–10.
——— (2006), ‘What is motivational design?’, http://www.arcsmodel.com/
pdf/Motivational%20Design%20Rev%20060620.pdf. Accessed 17 August
2014.
——— (2010), Motivational Design for Learning and Performance, New York:
Springer.
Kim, E. (2013), ‘Music technology-mediated teaching and learning approach
for music education: A case study from an elementary school in South
Korea’, International Journal of Music Education, 31:4, pp. 413–27.
Kiryakova, G., Angelova, N. and Yordanova, L. (2014), ‘Gamification in educa-
tion’, Proceedings of 9th International Balkan Education and Science Congress,
Ederne, 16–18 October, Turkey: Trakya University.
Mazuera, I. M. A. (2014), ‘Implementing iSCORE in Piano studio teaching:
A teacher’s perspective’, MEd thesis, Montreal: Concordia University,
http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/979638/. Accessed 3 August 2015.
McCombs, B. L. and Marzano, R. J. (1990), ‘Putting the self in self-regula-
ted learning: The self as agent in integrating will and skill’, Educational
Psychologist, 25:1, pp. 51–69.
McPherson, G. E. (2000), ‘Commitment and practice: Key ingredients for
achievement during the early stages of learning a musical instrument’,
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 147, pp. 122–27.
——— (2005), ‘From child to musician: Skill development during the begin-
ning stages of learning an instrument’, Psychology of Music, 33:1, pp. 5–35.
——— (2009), ‘The role of parents in children’s musical development’,
Psychology of Music, 37:1, pp. 91–110.
McPherson, G. E. and Davidson, J. W. (2002), ‘Musical practice: Mother and
child interactions during the first year of learning an instrument’, Music
Education Research, 4:1, pp. 141–56.
——— (2006), ‘Playing an instrument’, in G. E. McPherson (ed.), The Child as
Musician: A Handbook of Musical Development, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 331–51.
McPherson, G. E. and McCormick, J. (1999), ‘Motivational and self-regula-
ted learning components of musical practice’, Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 141, pp. 98–102.
——— (2000), ‘The contribution of motivational factors to instrumental
performance in a music examination’, Research Studies in Music Education,
15:1, pp. 31–39.
——— (2006), ‘Self-efficacy and music performance’, Psychology of Music,
34:3, pp. 322–36.
McPherson, G. E. and Renwick, J. M. (2001), ‘A longitudinal study of self-regula-
tion in children’s musical practice’, Music Education Research, 3:2, pp. 169–86.
McPherson, G. E. and Zimmerman, B. J. (2011), ‘Self-regulation of musical lear-
ning: A social cognitive perspective on developing performance skills’, in R.
Colwell and P. Webster (eds), MENC Handbook of Research on Music Learning,
Volume 2: Applications, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 130–75.
Merriam, S. B. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in

Education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
——— (2010), ‘Qualitative case studies’, in P. Peterson, E. Baker and B.
McGaw (eds), International Encyclopedia of Education, San Diego, CA:
Elsevier Science, pp. 456–62.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A. and Middleton, M. (2001), ‘Performance-approach
goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what
cost?’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93:1, pp. 77–86.
Miksza, P. (2006), ‘Relationships among impulsiveness, locus of control, sex,
and music practice’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 54:4, pp. 308–23.
Morrison, S. J. F. (2015), ‘Engaging student singers: Developing reflection and
collaboration in a technology-enhanced learning environment’, Doctoral
thesis, Toronto: University of Toronto, https://tspace.library.utoronto.
ca/bitstream/1807/69756/3/Morrison_Sarah_J_201506_PhD_thesis.pdf.
Accessed 14 April 2016.
Nielsen, S. G. (2001), ‘Self-regulating learning strategies in instrumental
music practice’, Music Education Research, 3:2, pp. 155–67.
——— (2004), ‘Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal
individual practice: A study of students in higher music education’,
Psychology of Music, 32:4, pp. 418–31.
O’Neill, S. A. (1997), ‘The role of practice in children’s early musical perfor-
mance achievement’, in H. Jørgensen and A. C. Lehmann (eds), Does
Practice Make Perfect? Current Theory and Research on Instrumental Music
Practice, Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole, pp. 53–70.
——— (1999), ‘Flow theory and the development of musical performance
skills’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, pp. 129–34.
O’Neill, S. A. and McPherson, G. E. (2002), ‘Motivation’, in R. Parncutt and
G. E. McPherson (eds), The Science and Psychology of Musical Performance:
Creative Strategies for Music Teaching and Learning, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 31–46.
Oh, S. (2006), ‘The effects of reusable motivational objects in designing reusa-
ble learning object-based instruction’, Ph.D. dissertation, Tallahasee,
FL: Florida State University, http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/
fsu:180518/datastream/PDF/view. Accessed 18 November 2014.
Renwick, J. M. and McPherson, G. E. (2000), ‘“I’ve got to do my scale first!”: A
case study of a novice’s clarinet practice’, in C. Woods, G. Luck, R. Brochard,
F. Seddon and J. Sloboda (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Staffordshire, 5–10 August,
Keele: Keele University, http://www.escom.org/proceedings/ICMPC2000/
Sun/Renwick.htm. Accessed 31 August 2014.
Renwick, J. M. and Reeve, J. (2012), ‘Supporting motivation in music educa-
tion’, in G. E. McPherson and G. F. Welch (eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Music Education, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 143–62.
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000), ‘Self-determination theory and the facilita-
tion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American
Psychologist, 55:1, pp. 68–78.
Schunk, D. H. and Pajares, F. (2010), ‘Self-efficacy beliefs’, in P. Peterson, E.
Baker and B. McGaw (eds), International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd ed.,
Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 668–72.
Sheldon, K. M. (2007), ‘Extrinsic motivation’, in R. F. Baumeister and K. D.
Vohs (eds), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, pp. 336–38.

Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. and Moore, D. G. (1996), ‘The role
of practice in the development of performing musicians’, British Journal of
Psychology, 87:2, pp. 287–309.
Song, S. H. and Keller, J. M. (2001), ‘Effectiveness of motivationally adap-
tive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation’,
Educational Technology Research and Development, 49:2, pp. 5–22.
Upitis, R., Abrami, P. C., Brook, J., Troop, M. and Varela, W. (2012), ‘Learning
to play a musical instrument with a digital portfolio tool’, Journal of
Instructional Pedagogies, 9, pp. 1–15.
Upitis, R., Brook, J. and Abrami, P. C. (2014), ‘Enhancing music learning with
digital tools: A case study of a student using iSCORE’, Journal of Literature
and Art Studies, 4:6, pp. 489–97.
Upitis, R., Varela, W. and Abrami, P. C. (2013), ‘Enriching the time between
music lessons with a digital learning portfolio’, Canadian Music Educator,
54:4, pp. 22–28.
Visser, J. and Keller, J. M. (1990), ‘The clinical use of motivational messages:
An inquiry into the validity of the ARCS model of motivational design’,
Instructional science, 19:6, pp. 467–500.
Wan, L. A. (2015), ‘A case study of digital tools to support motivation of music
students for instrumental practice’, M.Ed. dissertation, Armidale: University
of New England, http://tinyurl.com/Wan2015MEd. Accessed 16 September
2015.
Webster, P. R. (2015), ‘Computer-based technology’, in G. E. McPherson (ed.),
The Child as Musician: A Handbook of Musical Development, 2nd ed., New
York: Oxford Scholarship Online, pp. 1–37.
Winiecki, D., Fenner, J. A. and Chyung, Y. (1999), ‘Evaluation of effective inter-
ventions to solve the drop out problem in adult distance education’, in
B. Collis and R. Oliver (eds), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 1999, Seattle, WA, 19–24
June. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE), pp. 51–55.
Yoon, K. S. (1997), ‘Exploring children’s motivation for instrumental music’,
Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Washington, DC, 3–6 April, http://education-webfiles.
s3.amazonaws.com/arp/garp/articles/yoon97.pdf. Accessed 31 August
2014.
Zhukov, K. (2009), ‘Effective practising: A research perspective’, Australian
Journal of Music Education, 2009:1, pp. 3–12.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002), ‘Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview’,
Theory into Practice, 41:2, pp. 64–70.
SUGGESTED CITATION
Wan, L. A. and Gregory, S. (2018), ‘Digital tools to support motivation of music
students for instrumental practice’, Journal of Music, Technology & Education,
11:1, pp. 37–64, doi: 10.1386/jmte.11.1.37_1
CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS
Lydia Wan graduated with M.Ed. (eLearning) from University of New
England and is a doctoral student at Monash University. She teaches music
and holds associate and licentiate diplomas in piano performance, awarded
by the Australian Music Examinations Board. Lydia also has a B.Sc.(Hons) in

computer science and worked in systems analysis, design and programming.
Her research interests include music learning and educational technology.
Contact: Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia.
E-mail: lydia.wan@monash.edu
Associate Professor Sue Gregory is the Interim Head of School, and a long-
term adult educator, in the School of Education at the University of New
England, Armidale, Australia. She holds a senior fellowship of the Higher
Education Academy. Sue teaches pre-service and post-graduate education
students how to incorporate technology into their teaching. She has been
involved with many national and university projects on creating and using
learning spaces in virtual worlds. Sue has over Au$1.9m in grants including
over 130 publications on the exploration of various tools for online teaching.
Contact: School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW
2351, Australia.
E-mail: sue.gregory@une.edu.au
Lydia A. Wan and Sue Gregory have asserted their right under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work in
the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

Copyright of Journal of Music, Technology & Education is the property of Intellect Ltd. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Digital Tool For Motivation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Digital Tool For Motivation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

jmte 11 (1) pp.

37–64 Intellect Limited 2018

Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Digital tools to support

Review of the literature

38 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

40 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

The rapid growth of Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

1. What type of digital tools are available to support children’s practice of

A tool that facilitates extensive motivational strategies may actually

1. Academic literature published between January 2005 and February 2015

42 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

A learning environment ARCS ARCS

Tools for instrumental practice

Compilation of practice tools

Figure 1: First study phase.

Data collected Information derived

Criterion1. The tool was predominantly ICT-based;

44 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Figure 2: Second study phase.

0 Not facilitated (tool contains no functionality to support strategy)

Results and discussion

46 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

available to support motivation during instrumental practice. Following,

• PracticeBuddy (Practice Log) is an iPad tool developed specifically for chil-

This study found PracticeBuddy to facilitate ARCS strategies to the small-

Figure 3: PracticeBuddy – student practises with timer.

48 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Figure 4: PracticeBuddy – ARCS facilitation.

PracticeBuddy can capture and sustain student attention through setting of

• MusicProdigy (Note Feedback) provides feedback on pitch and rhythmic

Figure 5: MusicProdigy – providing feedback on accuracy of notes played.

Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Figure 6: MusicProdigy – ARCS facilitation.

by providing clear objectives, coloured-note feedback, practice scaffolds

50 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Figure 7: iSCORE – prompts to support ‘planning’ phase of practice.

• iSCORE (Portfolio) is a student-centric, web-based portfolio tool to support

and ‘reflecting’. iSCORE also provides communication and collaboration

However, as with PracticeBuddy and MusicProdigy, students have to switch

Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

52 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

This research found MusicReader to facilitate ARCS strategies to a lesser

Figure 9: MusicReader – an annotated score.

Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Figure 10: MusicReader – ARCS facilitation.

is partially facilitated through its support for annotations and functionality to

• Using Meloflow (Accompaniment), students can play one part of the

Meloflow was found to potentially facilitate ARCS strategies to a limited

54 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Figure 12: Meloflow – ARCS facilitation.

ARCS Motivational Strategies

Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Figure 13: Facilitation for ARCS strategies.

Some factors for musical achievement

Practice amount Cognitive strategies SRL strategies

Figure 14: Facilitation for musical achievement.

In contrast, this research found iSCORE to potentially facilitate moti-

Conclusion – findings, limitations and future research

56 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

58 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

60 Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Hallam, S. (2002), ‘Musical motivation: Towards a model synthesising the

Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Aention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction